Posted on 03/01/2012 10:57:22 AM PST by Colofornian
That is what is contained in the 2 Nephi 26-30, the section of the Book of Mormon that will be studied this Sunday in the LDS Church. This critique is set in the context of its supposed prophecy of Joseph Smith finding and translating the Book of Mormon.
These chapters contain quite a few condemnations of Christian churches. One that is emphasized and the one that I will be focusing on is its condemnation of the position held today by millions of Christians that the Bible alone is God’s revealed Word. Following are a couple of quotes from these chapters in the Book of Mormon that give a flavor for its position.
2 Nephi 28:29: Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!
2 Nephi 29: 3-6 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
As I said, that is just one of numerous condemnations of Christians and Christian churches in those chapters. As I reread those chapters this week, the thought that kept coming to mind was why would any Mormon today want to try to identify themselves, in any way, with the Christian church? These chapters draw a bold and distinct line between Mormonism and Christian churches. In fact, these chapters connect the actions and beliefs of Christian churches with Satan himself! That is even brought out in the conclusion of the teacher’s guide for this lesson. Its conclusion: “Explain that through studying the Book of Mormon and living the gospel, we will gain the power to avoid Satan’s deceptive illusions and be guided as we strive to stay on the strait and narrow path.”
In his book, Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, faithfully reflects the flavor of these chapters from 2 Nephi in his definition of Christendom. “The term also applies to the whole body of supposed Christian believers; as now constituted this body is properly termed apostate Christendom.” Again, I ask, why would any Mormon want to, in any way, identify themselves with apostates?
Did I give you some reason to be rude with me?
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors
"Gave" - past tense
And yet, there were prophets in the New Testament. In fact, St Peter says in Acts 2:17-18 that God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh in the last days and sons and daughters shall prophesy. Named prophets of the New Testament include the Prophets of Antioch (Acts 13:1,8), Agabus, the daughters of the Evangelist Philip (Acts 21:9), Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32). Let's also not forget St John, the author of the Revelation who foretold what must come to pass.
The difference between the OT & NT is "title" vs. "gift."
With how many exceptions? Those mentioned above (except perhaps for the daughters of Philip who are only said to "prophesy" not be prophets and St John who fulfills the role of prophet without specifically claiming the title) certainly were given the title by Scripture.
The Holy Spirit gives gifts; and He may dismiss gifts. Nobody necessarily has any ongoing title any longer as "prophet" -- lest He be in competition with THE Living Prophet -- THE Living Revelation -- Jesus Christ. That is the plain meaning of Heb. 1:1-2.
Really? Hebrews simply said that God spoke to the fathers through the prophets but to them, He spoke through His Son, Jesus Christ. I would consider that a note of the obvious for setting up what follows, not some new revelation that Christ is currently speaking in their ears. Christ came in the flesh and sent them into the world to teach, preach and baptize. If you went on to verse 3, you would note that Christ is now sitting on the right hand of God in Heaven.
The beginning of the Book of Hebrews is setting up the superiority of the revelation they have been given personally by Christ over the second-hand revelation of the Old Testament through the prophets. It makes special emphasis in showing the incompleteness and weakness of the Old Covenant in contrast with the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant.
Btw, the Holy Spirit speaks at times thru all believers -- not just those with a "prophetic" gift.
Since you've come into a discussion of Sola Scriptura with this side argument, I would like a Scripture citation, please.
Oh, and btw, Roman Catholicism also tries to prop up special men as "priests" ... when the Bible makes it clear that there is now a "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:4-9; Rev. 1:6).
Our priesthood is through our membership in the Body of Christ. We share in His Priesthood as we share in His inheritance. And yet, in the Body, we still have our separate callings. Would you say there is a difference between an Apostle and the person to whom he preaches? Do they have different functions in this Body? The priesthood is a fatherhood and I exercise my sacrificial fatherhood in my own household. The Church teaches that our homes are domestic churches. We are a royal priesthood offering "spiritual sacrifices"... our prayers. Frankly, this part of the discussion will have to come to the question of authority... and that will take us right back to our discussion of Sola Scriptura.
The conversation took a decided turn for the worse with your attitude.
Yes, we are reborn into the Family of God through the adoption of the New Covenant Sacrifice (Rom 8:15). You stretch it too far to take it to mean general authority. Again, in the Protestant world, if all have the same authority in regards to Scriptural revelation and interpretation, then there is no authority at all. Scripture means just what individuals say it means and the 20,000+ denominations are just a front for the 500 million or so churches of one.
Hmmm...I guess you must stay out of the book of Revelation then, eh? (Who made the rounds to those seven churches? See Revelation 3)
Silly interpretation. These are warnings to the churches regarding the Spirit they received--and what they did with It. This doesn't say that Christ came to them in the flesh and gave them the Word that they could live a righteous life. This is end times fulfillment on what the churches have done with the faith given them by the Apostles. Nice try... big stretch.
Revelation 3 shows warnings to the Churches on how they have used or abused the Spirit given to them. Unless your particular translation shows Christ sitting in the pews at these churches, I will take it as written that He knows whereof He speaks. Nowhere in Rev 3, does it say, "I have been among you." Revelation 3 shows Christ sitting on His Throne of judgement over the churches.
No one denies that Christ is active in His Church. We don't teach that He's sitting on His Throne watching the clock and waiting to be unleashed. He is with us... in the body of the Church as one flesh, in His Holy Word, In the Spirit and physically in the Eucharistic offering of the Mass. However, it's a very erroneous teaching to say that He didn't send the Apostles to bring His salvation to the world.
Hence, we see a constant "roller derby" approach to elbowing God/Jesus/Holy Spirit out of the way and substituting Him with men.
"Few Americans hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they think is the Catholic Church". -- Bishop Fulton Sheen
Regarding 1 John 2:27... this particular verse, and entire passage for that matter, has to do with the anointing of the Holy Spirit, which gives us the gift of sensus fidei, i.e. the ability to spot false teachers (which was a major problem at the time), even if we don't quite know exactly WHY they're wrong. Besides, St John was teaching them plenty of other things throughout his letter--he didn't write this single passage and send it over to them. St John wrote the letter, and he is a man. If your interpretation is correct, why should they listen to his teachings then? For that matter, why should we then listen to anything written in the Bible, because all those things were written down by men at the time? It's a logical fallacy.
Since you've come into a discussion of Sola Scriptura with this side argument, I would like a Scripture citation, please. (You)
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)
Cultural context: It 'twas a time when there was no "easy Christianity"; to confess Christ almost guaranteed either oppression or persecution.
Context men AND women praying together: After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were ALL filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. (Acts 4:31)
Some also speak in tongues full of the Holy Spirit (several passages there); other disciples speak situationally as led by the Spirit (Matt. 10:20).
(Yes...please show us your titled prophetesses running around today, please...who are they?)
The book of Acts reflects a time period less than 30 years after the death of Christ. It's entirely possible that each prophet or prophetess was both alive & set apart as one before Jesus' death.
My read of the NT is that there's five types of authority [you're welcome to provide scriptures for a 6th]:
(1) Civil authority (Romans 13; 1 Pet. 2:13; 1 Tim. 2:2)
(2) Heirship authority as children of God (John 1:12-13)
(3) Apostolic authority (1 Thess. 2:6) -- that which the apostles had [It's up to you to prove that this was "transferable"]...
To be authoritatively apostolic, "one had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:5-8), which clearly disqualifies anyone after the first century." (Rhodes & Geisler, When Cultists Ask, p. 206) Apostles had certain signs (2 Cor. 12:12). The apostles "were given certain unmistakable 'signs of a true apostle' (2 Cor. 12:12). These sign-gifts included the ability to raise the dead on command (Matt. 10:8; [cf. Acts 20:7-11]), heal diseases immediately that were naturlaly incurable (Matt. 10:8; John 9:1-7), perform immediately successful exorcisms (Matt 10:8; Acts 16:16-18), speak messages in languages they had never studied (Acts 2:1-8; cf. 10:44-46); and pass on supernatural gifts to others so that they could assist them in their apostolic mission of founding the church (Acts 6:6; cf. 8:5-6; 2 Tim. 1:6)." (Geisler, Rhodes, When Cultists Ask, pp. 113-114)...I don't believe these things "died out" with the apostles; I just don't believe any single "titled" apostles have this same gift-set as what was given. Btw, ALL of that power was given to ALL the apostles (Matt. 18:18) -- not just Peter.
(4) Derived authority -- the disciples' keys to bind & loose, for example (Matt. 16:19)...a "trust" that the leaders of Israel had failed in (Luke 11:52; Acts 9:14; Acts 26:10-12)...In fact,, when Christ rebuked the Jewish leaders it wasn't because they didn't follow the leadership traditions but because they did not "understand the Scriptures" (Matt. 22:29) [sola scriptura]
NOTE: Other examples of derived authority:
--Derived authority to take on demonic spirits (Luke 10:19; Mk 3:15; 6:7)
--For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. (1 Thess. 4:2) [Derived Authority to teach]
--Derived Authority to encourage & rebuke (Titus 2:15)
--Derived Authority to edify (build up the body) (2 Cor. 10:8; 2 Cor. 13:10)
--Derived Authority to make disciples by teaching & baptizing (Matt. 28:19-20)
(5) Absolute Authority of Jesus Christ ["ALL authority has been given unto me..." (Matt. 28:18); cf. Jude 25; Rev. 12:10; 2:27]
I don't see anywhere where Christ has 90% authority...and given men have 10%. I don't see from Matt. 28:20 ("lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age") -- where His omnipresence leaves Him stuck at the right Hand of God...as you imply.
And derived authority is distinct to a degree re: delegated authority. Since the Lord is the Boss; and the Boss is still present; and the Boss is the "Head" of the Body, He didn't simply delegate authority to men & then go on vacation for 2,000 years!
He has [present tense] ALL authority [see verses above]. I encourage you to stop playing down what authority is in His current hands -- and stop playing up what authority is in a single man who automatically has to live in the same place in Europe!
Even with authority verses re: church leaders like Heb. 13:17...Rhodes & Geisler do a good job explaining that:
"Proper submission to a church leader is voluntary, not compulsory. It involves a free choice to join or leave...It is done out of love and respect (cf. Heb. 13)...While the Bible speaks of voluntary submission from the bottom up, it nowhere enjoins compulsory obedience from the top down." (When Cultists Ask, p. 229-230) -- unless, of course, that "top" is our Lord.
Sorry...your model of human SuperAuthority coming thru a single-succession line of one man fails.
Here are other Scriptural reasons why:
* What then do you do with the apostle Paul? "I was in no way inferior to these [so-called] 'superapostles'" (2 Cor. 12:11); Paul rebuked Peter (Gal. 2:11-21); he claimed to be on the same level as Peter (Gal. 2:8); he wrote half of the NT -- compared to Peter's two epistles
* BOTH Peter & John were sent by the apostles on a mission (Acts 8:4-13)
* Peter wasn't "THE pastor of the church but only a 'fellow presbyter [elder]' (1 Peter 5:1-2)." (Rhodes & Geisler, p. 113)
* "In view of the New Testament titles used of Peter, it is clear that he would never have accepted the terms used of the Roman Catholic Pope today: 'Holy Father' (cf. Matt. 23:9) or 'Supreme Pontiff' and "Vicar of Christ.'" (Rhodes & Geisler, p. 193)
The Holy Spirit is our Vicar (John 14:16,26; 16:13-14).
Why would the Bereans need to have a baseline (the Old Testament) to check to see if what Paul said was so?
Why? Because of this idea of Sola Scriptura. Acts 17:ll -- coupled with the reality of knowing how much Paul was used of God to give us most of the NT books
No "sola" necessarily implied by what the Bereans were doing - and if it were it would be sola Old Testament, as it was Paul being examined. They would hardly examine him against his own writings.
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Hebrews 1:1-2
So what's Matthew 16:19 about? "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
No, it's up to you to prove that apostolic authority is necessarily accompanied by the signs and gifts you list, and that it is mutually exclusive with "derived" authority as you seem to imply. And as for Acts 1:22: I can find no translation that supports the idea that either candidate physically witnessed the risen Christ - on the contrary, they all seem clear that this witness-ship was imparted to Matthias as part of his appointment as apostle; a number render it as "become" or "be made" a witness.
That wasn't your challenge. Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors "Gave" - past tense
You broke into a discussion of Sola Scriptura and have taken the conversation so far off base as to be unrecognizable. I'll read your next post out of curiosity... I'll have to see whether it will be worth my time to continue this inane aside. Good day and God bless you.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that Christ is seated on His Throne and immovable. I haven't suggested this and even pointedly denied it here. Christ is seated on His Throne in power and majesty AND active in His Church as He promised He would be forever. These things are not mutually exclusive. However, He did actually put His Apostles to work and did actually give them His Authority (Matt 10:1 & 40). It is not by their own authority that they do these things, but by the authority of Him Who sent them. It's been a long time since Christ did this... can you please show me where the authority initially given the Church is no longer allowed to the Church? I can show you where Christ said that "he who receives anyone I send, receives Me (John 13:20).
In the Binding and Loosing discussions (Matt 16:19 & Matt 18:18), Jesus tells the Apostles that they don't just have authority on Earth in earthly matters, they have authority in Heaven also! That's REAL authority. Why is this necessary? Simply because having authority in one but not the other would lead to chaos in the Church. The Catholic (universal) Church is not just the visible Church in this world but also includes our communion with the Saints in the next. Just as Christ says He does nothing of His own authority, so do the Apostles (John 8:28)... all authority comes from God.
In Luke 22:29, you can see clearly that Christ has given to the Apostles what was given to Him... the Kingdom and thrones of judgement. And this authority must exist today or there is no Church today. In Acts 1:20, a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office is respected (notwithstanding his egregious sin--it's not about the man himself). The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own." Even St Paul, though He was struck down by Christ on the road, wasn't consecrated for his mission until hands were laid on him by Ananias (Acts 9:17). Such was the authority given the Church and respected by Christ. Surely, Christ could have done more for St Paul on His own... but He allowed His Church to fulfill Her purpose in confirming St Paul's apostleship.
Indeed, St Paul calls his position not a gift to him alone but a divine "office" (Col 1:23-25) and an office has successors. One of his final acts is to confirm Timothy in his office (2 Tim 4).
I had written a bunch of other stuff but it somehow got deleted. I'm not going to waste more time on it. God bless you.
Had time yet?
“Had time yet?”
No I haven’t - slammed at work.
And I just checked the thread and was feeling very bad about not having responded yet.
I will ASAP.
Where are your priorities? ;^D
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.