Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Realities

Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:38:42 -0800

Blaine:  >7) one must only show kindness to a fellow believer;

Perry:  Where did you get that idea? Aren't we to love our enemies?

Blaine:  I suppose this has come about from what has seemed to be a rather callous disregard of Mormon sensitivities on TT.  (:>)

Hello all,

   I've been just browsing for the last couple of days, watching the conversations back and forth.    First I wanted to comment on Blaine's comment above.  It does seem to me that conversations do get "rather callous" at times in TT, and unnecessarily so.  Blaine does seem to be on the "arrogant" (using your own words Blaine) side at times but if we are truly concerned with his salvation we could be more sensitive.  In debates sometimes I focus to much on winning the debate to the detriment of, as Peter says "...give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect".  "Truth in love" is easier said than done, I know. 

So now let me see If I can practice what I preach :).

Hello Blaine,

I agree with most, if not all, of what CPL has said (and has said in a pretty respectful way I might add), but wanted to ad my input.

>1)  the Bible is the whole and final word of God and we need no more Bible--in other words, new revelation is disallowed;
 
Christians believe that God speaks by the Holy Spirit through the Bible, prayer, circumstances, and the church to reveal Himself, His purposes, and His ways (quote from Henry Blackaby).  Every "new revelation" would be tested against the Bible, if it doesn't line up then it's not of God.  Even if it does line up we would use the other 4 methods as a sounding board to make sure that this "word" is from God or somewhere/someone else. 
 
As I said, it, (baptism), appears to be an option, as some do practice it, many have practiced it in the past, while many apparently, according to you,   do not practice it at all.  I was  merely pointing out the present inconsistencies.  Christianity is inconsistent on this point, at least, agreed?
 
I agree that while different people have different opinions on baptism, the Bible does not.  It is not needed to get into heaven (thief on the cross), but is the first step of obedience of the believer.  Jesus did this as an example for us.  Baptism in the Bible was done by immersion as soon as someone was converted (the Greek word for baptism means to dip or to dye).  I'm not aware of infant baptism being practiced in the Bible.  And since infants would be to young to make a profession of faith then it would be unnecessary to baptize them.  So I would say that a person that has real faith in the Jesus of the Bible will be more than eager to get baptized as a public profession of that faith.  The waters are not magic and do not impart any amount of grace, the act of baptism is only a symbol of what has been done in your life by the work of Christ.  An example would be a wedding ring.  If I put on a wedding ring but I am not married, it doesn't make me married.  And if I am married and I take off my ring - am I not still married?  It's a symbol.  There are passages in the scripture that may seem on the surface like baptism is part of the means of salvation but if looked at carefully and closely they can be explained.
 
one is saved by easy grace alone, no works are required, but one must at least pay lip service to show he accepts Jesus Christ 's atonement  (I like this one!!);
 
Grace by definition would be easy because it is undeserved.  I think what you meant to say was easy faith.  Most people think that just saying "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died to pay for my sins" is a one way ticket to heaven.  But we know from scripture that God looks at the heart and not at the external (words).  Most people look at the equation like FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION.  The Bible tells us that the equation is better represented FAITH = SALVATION + WORKS.  In other words FAITH without WORKS is dead.
 
Either way, I am OK.
Not if you are, as cpl says, dead in your sins.
 
 "We are saved by grace after all we can do (for ourselves)."  BoM
 
Dealing with the quote above, I have a few honest questions about the Mormon faith and would like to see how you would answer them. 
1.  What if you don't do all that you can?  Does God just apply more grace to fill in the gap?
2.  Can a person do everything to the point that they do not need any grace?
3.  On a more personal level:  Where do you think that you stand in the works and grace equation?

I'm going to stop my email now and get back to work.  Which is what I should have been doing the whole time. :|

thanks,

CB
Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Realities

>From: "Blaine Borrowman"

 
>To Kevin:  Sometimes I even called it the TCBS, for brevity's sake.  Either way, it sends the much needed message that all is not well in Modern Christianity.   I keep getting hints that I should change my religion and adopt Christian beliefs.  If I were to do that, here is what I have learned from TT that I would be accepting--
>
>1)  the Bible is the whole and final word of God and we need no more Bible--in other words, new revelation is disallowed;

cpl: Revelation is not disallowed.  Many experience personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. We Christians admit that God can give new revelation if and when he pleases. But, we have no reasion to believe that he has, because of the many "revealed", "channeled", "inspired" works that have been produced in the last 2000 years, and especially in the last 200 years, none of them stand in light of the Bible, and especailly not the BoM. They are all contradictory and evilly inspired counterfeits. Plus, Jude 3 says the canon of scripture is closed.  Jude 3?  There is only one chapter in Jude, it has 25 verses.  I found no verse saying the scripture was closed.  Are you aware that the books of the NT, starting with Acts, are arranged according to length, longest first and shortest (Jude) last?  They are not sequenced according to time of writing. 

>2)  infant baptism is needed for children to be saved, or it is not needed (this appears to be optional);

cpl: Infant baptism is not practiced in most Christian churchs. In fact, since Baptists make up the largest Christian denomination, and there are many other denominations that do not practice infant baptism, it can be argued that infant baptism is not the norm in Christian. So, why do you dwell on this?  I was not really dwelling on it.  As I said, it appears to be an option, as some do practice it, many have practiced it in the past, while many apparently, acccording to you,   do not practice it at all.  I was  merely pointing out the present inconsistencies.  Christianity is inconsistent on this point, at least, agreed?

>3) either the mode of baptism doesn't matter (sprinkling, immersion, whatever), or baptism itself is not needed at all, this also appears to be optional;

cpl: It matters to many denominations. Baptists typically immerse, evangelicals typically immerse. Some do, however, sprinkle. Again, I do not find sprinkling to be the norm, so why do you dwell on this as well?  Again, I was not dwelling on the practice, but the inconsistency of what is and what is not practiced.  (:>)>

4) one is saved by easy grace alone, no works are required, but one must at least pay lip service to show he accepts Jesus Christ 's atonement  (I like this one!!);

You casually throw the word "easy" in there to make it sound like some hokey doctrine, when it is indeed Biblical...unless you want to ignore Paul. You know the references. You have this right:  No works are required for salvation. Works, of course, are evidence of your faith, but not the effector of it. The fruits of the spirit, you mean?  This seems reasonable, it just seems to reject the idea of making a conscious, concientious effort to help the fruits of the spirit along--that may be the main difference, huh? 

Only God can do that. Salvation is a free gift of god...you cannot earn a free gift. It is God's grace that makes us undeserving sinners savable. To say that you have to do ANY works at all to earn salvation is to rob God of His glory and refuse His free gift (how arrogant and insulting!) and indicate that you do not trust that he can save you in and of Himself.    This is where I feel the doctrines of Protestantism are the most consistent, and yet the farthest from LDS Doctrine.   I just don't feel that we can enter into a covenant with God to be a disciple, then sit back and let him do it all.  None of the Apostles did that.  They all worked their buns off, they showed their faith by their works.  They made great sacrifices, and achieved the victory through their works.  It seems that Protestants generally select certain verses to support the grace-only doctrine, and ignore the rest of the Bible.  Remember the rich young man whom Jesus loved?  His works showed--he kept the commandments strictly.  Unfortunately, he was not able to take the final step of giving up his riches.  That was the works part, however, and he never made it.  Aside from that, he was apparently in every other respect willing to follow Jesus.

>5) Hell is a place where wicked people are literally burned with literal fire (scary, but to me, not so much as having to account for a bad conscience might be);

Again, not all Christians believe in a physical fiery eternal punishment...many believe that Hell is strictly a separation from God (which will be quite tormenting in and of itself!)  I think we may not be as far apart as I thought, since separation from God is basically what we also teach.--we teach that  hell is when the spirit of God is completely withdrawn, which creates the same burning within that Jesus experienced  in the Garden of Gethsemane, which suffering caused him to sweat blood.

>6) marriage is "until death do us part," so family units and relationships do not continue after death (If this is true, then loyalty to one's spouse has little  importance);

Loyalty is of GREAT importance in our marraiges. We take an oath before God to "have and to hold..." our spouses, "until death do us part". Christians do not take that lightly. We do not forsake the marriage bed (one flesh) or spread it across several adulterous relationships.The LDS Church tries to emphasize the eternal nature of marriage.    Marriage outside the Priesthood authority of the Church, however,  is not believed  to continue beyond the grave.  We do recognize civil authority, for this life only, however.   We believe all things that are not of our God and his Christ will be thrown down after the resurrection. (As Jesus said to Pilate, "my kingdom is not of this world.")  Otherwise, our vows, etc, are apparently similar to yours. 

 We do proxy marriages for our dead ancestors, and others (nonmembers) we have records of,  to insure their marriages will be reinstated in eternity, if they so choose.  But we believe they may, if they choose, reject the proxy ordinance and remain single on the other side.  Some people probably would not want their marriage relationship to continue, I suppose, huh?  (:>)

>7) one must only show kindness to a fellow believer;

Where did you get that idea? Aren't we to love our enemies?  I suppose this has come about from what has seemed to be a rather callous disregard of Mormon sensitivities on TT.  (:>)

>8)  I should listen to the spirit, but not report it if I hear anything for fear of being ridiculed;  and finally,

You are sure coming up with some laughable ones yourself at this point...scraping the bottom og the barrel, eh?  I have had a few experiences of this type--I have been told my revelations are all of the devil, JS was under the influence of some demon, that my own perceptions via the spirit have demon sources--I did not think it was at all humorous.  But then, I did to some extent understand that some probably wished to perceive it that way.  How else could they explain it?

>9) God is just a spirit, and I suppose that is all I will be too, after I die.  The experiences of this brief sojourn in learning to deal with the pains and sorrows of mortality will mean nothing.

Yes, god is a spirit. The Bible states such. When Christians die, they will live in the presence of God in a resurrected body. A body of flesh, or a spirit body--a ghost?

I am not sure what the "learning to deal with the pains and sorrows of mortality" will mean after we are dead, but boy am I excited about learning!  God is a spirit, but Jesus has a tangible body.  hmmm, It seems you are ignoring some passages of scripture, and assuming that the part that says he is a spirit can be taken out of the context of the entire Bible.  I think we are obviously far apart on this one.  But, thanks for the rational discussion.  (:>)

Blaine, here is the bottom line...If the LDS are right, I get a second chance...but if Christians are right, you are dead in your sins. Either way, I am OK.  But as an LDS, I will have to work harder than I would otherwise.  (:>)  "We are saved by grace after all we can do (for ourselves)."  BoM

Perry

 


Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. ---------- "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.


 

 

Life has many choices, eternity has two.

 

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

Reply via email to