DaveH wrote: > But yet the prophets seem to suggest that those who > believe in Christ will learn the answers to those mysteries. > As the gospel has developed (been revealed) since Adam, > the mysteries melt away as more knowledge is received.
Yes, and Jesus specifically taught us that it would be through the Holy Spirit that more knowledge would be revealed, through personal revelation. Nothing was said about more Scripture, so I think you put undue emphasis on the need for more Scripture. DaveH wrote: > But where we part company, is where we believe the Lord > has revealed things that are not now known. IF he revealed > things that were lost (or removed), then I think it is difficult, > if not impossible, for "men to accept what information we > are already given". You seem to ignore the work of the Holy Spirit and his ability to reveal those things to us. DaveH wrote: > You have assumed that the "information we are already given" > is wholly contained in the Bible. No, I think that enough information is contained in the Bible for us to believe upon Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. The rest of the knowledge, or any missing knowledge, is revealed to believers through the Holy Spirit. I believe in personal revelation, but time and time again it seems like the Mormons do not. They believe in revelation for Joseph Smith, and for your present day Prophet and apostles, but apparently not for the believer. DaveH wrote: > Yet, I think you made some statements contrary to that, > in which you said there is a lot revealed that is not in the > Bible. (I'm not taking time to search out your comments > .....that's just as I remember them.) You remember correctly. The Bible is a subset of God's revealed will. Not all that God has ever spoken to man is contained in the Bible. Even John made it clear that his gospel was a subset of the ministry of Jesus when he said that the world could not contain the books to be written if everything that Jesus did were written down. DaveH wrote: > Anyway......do you see where we diverge on this matter? > IMHO, it isn't that we necessarily need MORE than the > Lord has revealed, but rather that we just need ALL that > he has revealed. We do NOT need ALL that he has revealed. Sometimes even in Scriptures we read about revelations where the person is specifically commanded not to write what they heard. I myself have had visions where an angel of the Lord said not to tell others what was said to me. What we need is a relationship with Jesus whereby we can come to know all things by the Spirit of God. The Spirit will reveal to us all that we need to know. David Miller wrote: >> I believe that when men embrace fully all the information >> already given by the Spirit or by the Bible, and they believe >> and trust in the Christ as presented in the Bible, then they will >> receive the Holy Spirit and receive whatever additional >> knowledge they need through the Holy Spirit. DAVEH: > That is the way it SHOULD work, but obviously it doesn't..... > witness the baptism of infants doctrinal differences. If infant baptism were a wicked practice, as the Book of Mormon indicates, then I would say that those individuals who practiced it did not truly believe upon Jesus. Jesus would not lead them into wicked practices. However, if infant baptism is not a wicked practice, which is my present position, then what "SHOULD" work is the way that it is working. DaveH wrote: > IMO, if the Bible stated what the BofM states regarding > baptism of children, there wouldn't be much room for > dispute or question. Perhaps not, but if the Bible contained the statements that the Book of Mormon contains about baptism, then I would probably reject the Bible as God's Word. Such statements would represent a kind of God who was too much like man in his thinking. I would not want to serve such an abominable God. DAVEH: >> Now they might be sincere about it, but they are sincerely wrong. >> I do not believe that they sincerely allow the Bible to speak without >> the influence of other doctrines outside of the Bible, or without their >> own motivations to believe certain things. For example, although the >> Bible condemns drinking of wine DAVEH: > Yet how many Christian churches use wine as part of their communion? Not that many Protestants use wine in communion. Even the Jewish priesthood understood the Hebrew Scriptures well enough not to allow their priests to drink wine. Note that Joseph Smith's involvment with drinking was much more than using it in communion. David Miller wrote: >> and the practice of polygamy among spiritual leaders such as >> priests, elders, and kings, there will continue to be men like >> Joseph Smith who do these things and then find a way >> to rationalize it and make it appear allowable. DAVEH: > In JS's case, IF the Lord commanded polygamy, then it > wasn't a matter of rationalization. And IF the Lord did not command Joseph Smith to commit polygamy, then it is possible he was rationalizing himself and falsely calling it "God's Word" and "God's Commandment." Have you read some of the letters that he wrote to married women? It seems to me that you romanticize an image of Joseph Smith that does not match up with what history has revealed about him. If history depicted Jesus Christ in the same way as it does Joseph Smith, I would reject Jesus Christ as a false prophet. What other man in all of the history of the world was COMMANDED by God to commit polygamy? Solomon was a polygamist, but God had warned him against it. Abraham was a polygamist, but God told him to send his second wife away. The New Tesament says that elders and overseers should be the husband of ONE WIFE. The Hebrew Scriptures speak about the priests taking *A* wife, and this single wife must be a virgin. Joseph Smith violated many passages of Scripture with his supposed revelation of polygamy and celestial marriage. I have talked with you enough that I truly think that if Joseph Smith were alive in our day, you would not believe him to be God's prophet. You would look at him more like a religiously inclined Bill Clinton. I might be wrong about your reaction to him, but again and again the Joseph Smith that you depict is not the Joseph Smith that I read about in history. Take his gold digging, for example. This is very well documented, that Joseph Smith earned a living by what is known among con artists as a confidence scheme. He would convince people that he had the ability to use a peepstone placed in his hat to see things buried under ground that other people could not see. He would get a crew working on someone's property, and have them dig for buried treasure in the places where he directed. We have many statements from people who had hired him and from people that had worked with him. The report is that the evil spirits would always whisk away the buried treasure just as they were about to get to it. There is so much documentation from many different sources that substantiate that Joseph Smith did these things. Court documents even show that he was arrested and convicted on this charge. We know what his testimony in court was about it, we know how much he was fined, and the name of the judge and the dates when all this happened. We know how much he was paid for some of these jobs, and we know how much he was charged for room and board when he was doing this activity away from home (one bill in particular comes to mind that he never paid). There is no doubt about this at all, but people like Blaine (and I assume you too), seem to be unconcerned about this information and dismiss it as "anti-Mormon" without even looking at it. DaveH wrote: > I suspect there are numerous Christian preachers who have taught > the same, but have strayed from the path of truth. Take my previous > example of baptizing infants....I don't think that all those who do such > fail to have a clear meaning of "what it means to love and obey Jesus". That's because baptizing infants, in my opinion, is not a wicked practice. DaveH wrote: > But many times they simply have no choice IF that is the procedure > their dogma dictates. To go to the extreme, can you imagine a > Catholic Priest refusing to baptize an infant that is brought to him > by parents who religiously try to practice their religion out of love > of the Lord? Even if that priest were to suspect the fallacy of the > infant baptism doctrine, I'm sure he'd go ahead with the rite. Not > doing so would quickly bring about his expulsion from a position > where he might perceive God has called him to serve. I'm getting > wordy again.....but, do you see my point? The underlying assumption in all of this is that the priest does not have the Holy Spirit living and abiding inside of him and directing him in the ways of righteousness. If infant baptism were a wicked practice, and the priest did not stop doing it because of the reasons you state, then that priest is most wicked, and he would be suffer eternal damnation for his unrighteousness in this situation. I have seen people receive Jesus Christ in many different careers, and if that career involved wickedness, they would leave that career. Jesus said that if we are not willing to leave things like this, then you are not worthy to be his disciple. David Miller wrote: >> For example, you have mentioned in the past that you >> still sin at times. That tells me that you have not really >> embraced Jesus in fullness. DaveH wrote: > Seriously......are you saying that ALL believers who > continue to sin "have not really embraced Jesus in fullness"? Right. Read the epistle of 1 John. It is pretty clear, but people who love their sin continue to twist and rationalize the passages in ways that justify their sinful ways. David Miller wrote: >> I think when men walk in holiness, and truly believe >> in Jesus, they will receive his Spirit and come into >> that clear knowledge of the truth. DAVEH: > I agree with you on that. However, that doesn't mean that > they will never again commit a transgression. Why not? Is there sin in Jesus Christ? If Christ lives in you and through you, and it is found that you sin, wouldn't that mean that Christ is the minister of sin? If a Christian sins, it is because he is not believing and trusting in Jesus Christ, and walking in holiness by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit leads us into righteousness, not into sin. How can a man possibly pretend to be led by the Holy Spirit and then continue to sin? That is not logical. Those who sin are the children of Satan, and those who walk in righteousness are the children of God. 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.
