DaveH: >>> It is "these things which are taken out of the Gospel" >>> that cause people stumble.
David Miller wrote: >> If there were things taken out of the Gospel, they were >> good things, not bad things. So how could these good >> things of God cause people to stumble? >> Your reasoning is not logical. DAVEH: > Take away the NT from the Bible, and what do you > have left.....Jews. It is not that the OT is bad, but it is > incomplete. That may be an extreme example, but > to suggest that lacking any of the Word of the Lord > would not cause people to stumble seems a bit dicey > to me. An important distinction here is that I would NEVER say that the OT Scriptures caused people to stumble and an exceedingly great number of people to come under the power of Satan. NEVER! The New Testament Scriptures certainly are helpful in bringing many into the Kingdom of God, but the OT Scriptures likewise are helpful and reveal God to people. It does not bring people under Satan's power because of "missing parts" even if those missing parts were the entire New Testament. DaveH wrote: > Simpler examples might be doctrines surrounding the > baptism of children. If Jesus had said not to baptize > them, and that was either removed or not recorded..... > then it seems obvious that the disparity of beliefs we > have now regarding that matter is the result. The Bible tells us all we need to know about water baptism. The Scriptures lead us to the Holy Spirit who gives us further truth and revelation on the matter. There is no reason for any sincere and faithful follower of Christ not to understand the truth about baptism, and about its relationship to children. DaveH wrote: >>> IOW, it is not the things that are left IN the >>> Bible that are the problem. David Miller wrote: >> Is it or is it not the alledged altered Bible that brings >> people under Satan's power, DAVEH: > I don't read it that way at all. The problem is > the lack of information. A lack of information does not lead anyone anywhere. Are you led to something by what I don't say? Of course not. You are led to ideas by what I do say, not by what I don't say. The only possible meaning here is that the Bible in its present form is misleading people and bringing them under the power of Satan. You can certainly alledge that this is because somebody removed important parts of it, but you must agree that it is the Bible, not the removed parts, which is supposedly leading people in a way such that they are brought under Satan's power. I think the reason you don't read the passage for what it says is because you feel compelled to make it truth even when it is not. You approach it with the preconceived notion that it is God's Word, so you do whatever it takes to make it work. The passage blatantly accuses Scripture of being altered to the point of being used to bring an exceedingly great many people under Satan's power. In contrast, Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..." (Mat 5:18) DaveH wrote: > As I explained in the baptism of children example above, > that the Bible does not clarify that particular doctrine does > not mean it's God's fault. I understand that you do not put blame upon God for the "altered Bible." However, your sage, Joseph Smith, said that this Bible brings people under the power of Satan. I think he was wrong. He was only setting the stage so he could sell his own "Word of God." DaveH wrote: > But rather, it is the fault of men who may have > removed such material. Or ADDED such material... DaveH wrote: > That is why there a couple of books of the Bible that warn > not to add/remove things that they had written. It must have > been a foreseen possibility, or the Lord would not have felt > it necessary to add those warnings. Of course it is a possibility. The New International Version has parts missing that the King James Version includes. We've already discussed these things. Nevertheless, saying that parts are missing and saying that because of those missing parts the Bible brings an exceedingly great number of people under the power of Satan are grossly different things. I would never say that the NIV brings an exceedingly great many under Satan's power. I have no problem with the idea that the Bible does not contain all things spoken by God to men. What I have a problem with is saying that the Bible is so corrupted that it brings people under the power of Satan. If the Bible brings people under the power of Satan, then I don't want anyone reading it. I would not preach as I do on college campuses that the students need to read the Bible. If that passage of Nephi were written in the Bible itself, I would no longer consider the Bible as Holy Scripture. What you seem to be overlooking is that the Bible warns against ADDING to the Bible, just as it warns about taking things away from it. Joseph Smith added to the Bible, and some of what he added is very bad. DaveH wrote: > He could easily have just prevented such from happening > and not even bothered with the warnings. The only reason > to give the warning is because of the possibility that it would > happen. Do you see the logic of that? Yes, I understand your logic on this. I have no problem with your perspective that there is the possibility that people might try to add or remove things from the Bible. However, this does not mean that God cannot still preserve his Word for future generations despite the actions of evil men. He makes it clear to those of us who have his Holy Spirit that those who try to remove parts from the Bible (like the Samaritans) are wrong, and He likewise makes it clear to those of us who have his Holy Spirit that those who try to add to the Bible (like Mohammed and Joseph Smith) are wrong. In the midst of it all, the Word of God is still preserved and men continue to press into the Kingdom of God because of it. David Miller wrote: >> according to the Book of Mormon? The problem >> IS the Bible in its alledged ALTERED state. DAVEH: > Due to the nature of the various translations and transcriptions > .........EVERY Bible is in an altered state. While that may lead > to confusion depending on the quality of the translations/transcriptions, > I do not blame God or the Bible for that. I agree. I do not blame God for it either. However, I do blame Joseph Smith for saying that these problems are so great that it has led an exceedingly great number of people under the power of Satan. The Bible is one of the few books that is a light to the world. It is a book that I can encourage people to read with confidence, that they will see God if they seriously read it and study it and follow its teachings. DaveH wrote: > I assume that many of the men who worked with/on > the Bible did the best they could under the circumstances. > If the Gospel could have been revealed and conveyed in > one single book, don't you think it would have been much > easier for the Lord to do it that way? But no......the Gospel > was 'dribbled' out over time through many different prophets. > And it was subject to translational variations and 'errors' > (hold the anger, please) and perhaps more serious----- > tampering by exclusion. Is there evidence that what we > Biblically have today is lacking books that were written by > prophets of old and accepted as Scripture? IOW, the > Bible is incomplete as far as revealing all that God has revealed. I have never disagreed with you on the idea that God has revealed to men more than what is contained in the Bible. Nevertheless, the Bible is what God has designed to preserve as Scripture. It is one thing to say that the Bible is a subset of God's revealed knowledge, and quite another thing to say that the Bible brings an exceedingly great number of people under Satan's power. With regard to the gospel, we need no other books than the Bible to reveal the good news of Jesus Christ. This is not to say that other books cannot also illuminate and show forth the gospel, but rather it simply means that the revelation of the gospel is not incomplete in the Bible. Can more be shown to a person about the gospel than what is shown forth directly in the Bible? Of course, but the Bible leads a person even to that by testifying about the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit is our teacher and guide in these matters. In summary, I think you gloss over a grave passage in the Book of Mormon when you down play what it says about the Bible bringing an exceedingly great number of people under Satan's power. DaveH wrote: > That those 66 books may not contain all that the Lord has > revealed is not all that serious, IF one believes the Lord can > continue to reveal as needed. Of course. You know that I believe in continued revelation and I receive such revelation myself. To deny continued revelation would be to deny myself and my relationship and covenant with Jesus. The problem is not with the idea that the Lord has spoken more than what is contained in the Bible, but rather the problem is with the idea that the Bible in its present form brings an exceedingly great many under the power of Satan. DaveH wrote: > And.....would not the missing doctrinal information explain > why there are doctrinal differences today? Absolutely not. Doctrinal differences today are because men have different agendas and motivations. It is a work of the flesh which seeks to work doctrinal division. The Mormons have plenty of extra doctrine that supposedly explains things not explained in the Bible, but it does nothing to resolve doctrinal differences today. Mormonism has only created even more doctrinal division and more denominations with its alledged revelations, as you well know. David Miller wrote: >> Jesus said to let the little children come unto him. >> That is enough, isn't it? DAVEH wrote: > Be serious, DavidM. If it were enough, then why do > some churches baptize children? Obviously, there are > some folks stumbling over this doctrine!!! No doubt that people have varied ideas about this. You have to understand that I was forbidden baptism as a child because I was a child. This is contrary to the teachings of Jesus on this matter. Jesus said to let the little children come unto him. When the children are old enough to come, then let them be baptized. Later, as a child nearing my 9th year, I was baptized. I consider that baptism being done years too late. By then I did it "to fulfill all righteousness." You say that Jesus could have clarified the truth on this matter, but in my opinion, he said enough for people to understand that children should be baptized. By the way, have your children been baptized? At what age do you allow baptism for your children? DAVEH wrote: > Do you think there is a reasonable chance that one of the > Lord's disciples asked him if they should baptize the children, > and he told them "no"? But.....that "no" didn't make it into the > Bible.....or if it did, it was later removed by somebody who > found it profitable to baptize children? No, I don't think it is reasonable because Jesus rebuked the disciples for not allowing the children to come unto him. DAVEH wrote: > I accept Jesus' words........ > "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved > ....." Mk 16:16 I accept these words too. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. I preach this often. DaveH wrote: > ........If you or any other Christian wishes to believe baptism > is not a requirement of salvation, then your argument is with > our Saviour who went to the trouble to show us in both words > and deed that baptism is necessary. The BofM is merely a > second witness to what Jesus said in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is a false witness when it says that the Bible leads an exceedingly great many under the power of Satan. I'm glad that Blaine brought this passage to my attention. With regard to baptism, the Book of Mormon has mixed you guys all up. You think baptism is some kind of magic ritual such that a person lacking such can never be accepted by God. You carry this magic ritual view so far that you baptize people in proxy for dead people who were never baptized while they were alive. So the Book of Mormon has led you into superstitious practices, just like the Corinthians, and then you call it God's Holy Word so that by it you can deceive others as well. Baptism saves a person, not by the act of washing the body with water, but by its effect upon the conscience of a person who does it in faith. David Miller wrote: >> The earliest Christians had doctrinal disputations, just as the Jews >> before the Christians had them. I would say that if there is evidence >> in a religious sect of the end of doctrinal disputations then that group >> is outside God's will. DAVEH wrote: > Yes....and when they had those disputations, did the Lord just > throw up his hands and suggest that confusion amongst his people > was OK? Or did he send them prophets to set them straight and > to reveal more of his Gospel! Did the Lord intend for the Bible > to be confusing and hard to understand so that there would be > a lot of Christians disputing doctrines? Is God the author of > confusion? It gives God good pleasure to see his children search out a matter and resolve it peacefully among themselves. God does not desire us to be like the horse or mule, that when he pulls the reigns one direction, we follow. God desires us to be living, breathing, thinking disciples. If you read Acts 15, you will find heated discussion among the apostles and elders in the church of Jerusalem. Visit a yeshiva and see how emotional Jews get when they discuss matters. Many people in our culture look at such with disdain, but I definitely think God has a different perspective. Yes, the Lord did intend the Bible to be somewhat mysterious with regard to its deeper knowledge, but plain enough also on the surface so that those simple men who are called to eternal life will see the Truth of the gospel. No, God is not the author of confusion, but he does speak truth in a mystery and he hides his knowledge from those who consider themselves wise. God clearly forsaw that men would argue and fight over the meaning of his Words, and he considered that in the end, this would be a good thing. God designed it this way that those who are approved of him would be made manifest by it. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (1Co 11:18-19) Look at it this way. If God had wanted to settle all matters with dogma spoken by a prophet, it was certainly within his power to do that. God obviously chose a different path. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
