Is there a chance I am wrong? Of course -- but what does that have to do with the discussion? I Cor 8:1-3 makes "intellectual knowing" a touchy circumstance. All of my statements could be wrong. As is the case with all of yours, Correct? I hope we can allow for that while speaking or writing with a degree of assertiveness. And, if there is no chance you are wrong, would you consider the possibility you may be arrogant? (No offense intended on that one, John....just my way of thinking out loud.) This is not what I want to do, Dave ---------- have a Miller like discussion with anyone. His legalistic background forces him, apparently, to this kind of discussion, mixing personality evaluations and judgments -- rebuking under the pretense that he is a prophet. One Miller like discussion is enough for me. So you will allow me to skip the "arrogant" question.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/29/2005 10:00:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DAVEH: Is this a commonly accepted theory of Protestantism? LDS folks believe such thinking is flawed, John. IOW.....I believe Jesus founded the RIGHT CHURCH and a measured amount of legalism is important and necessary within that True Church.
What our Mormon friends do not understand and what you will not admit to, apparently, is that there was no time when the RIGHT CHURCH EXISTED except in the Mind of God and via the blood of Christ. The First Church was steeped in legalism.
Theory? Well, I wouldn't call the observation above (mine) a theory.
DAVEH: IF there is a chance you are wrong, then would you agree that it is a theory?
To me, it is simply a historical fact. And, yes, I would say that most biblical historians would agreeSo we agree. That's a start.
DAVEH: Interesting that you would qualify it by saying most biblical historians would agree....does that not suggest it is a theory? Actaully, what it means is that I have not read ALL HISTORIANS on this issue. I am not aware of any scholars who disagree. But more than that, Dave -- we have the biblical record. There is no question to me that the church was, in fact, steeped in legalism from the very beginning. If, on the Day of Pentecost, the first 3,000 were "babes" in Christ -- and how could we think otherwise, it is not a stretch to see my point. If all of them agreed with you, then you might have better support for your argument, I would think. What support are you talking about? Do you not see that the First Church practiced the traditional faith, continued sacrifices, attended Synagogue, and all that went with traditional Judaism? I do not think there was a Trinitarian in the house. Nearly all were legalistic in their view, bound to the law, and some were sectarian in their legalism. I am thinking this opinion is a slam dunk. Let's not move on until we can reach some conclusion, whether to agree or to agree to disagree. How do you explain the circumstance I see in the First Church?
---- if we are talking about the notion that the first church was steeped in legalism. And I would go even further than this ---- the First Church, beginning on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2, looked nothing like any of the churches of today, near as I can see. I mean, that is something you and I should be able to agree on. It is a matter of record.
DAVEH: Are you thinking in terms of the Primitive Church consisting of a foundation of apostles and prophets as mentioned in Eph 4:11? It does seem that many churches today seem to eschew the need for modern day A&Ps. In the past, I've chatted a bit with DavidM about this, and he has suggested that there are some churches today that claim apostles and prophets, yet it seems they are not widely accepted outside their own entities. Those who claim to be "apostles" and "prophets" as equal to those of biblical times have proven to be frauds in my personal experience. Could I be wrong -- not regarding my personal experience. I suppose it is for this reason that they are not accepted - even in the Pentecostal community (except for those who are the most radical (and "radical" could be a good thing). Eph 4 presents more than those two categories -- we have pastors, evangelists and teachers, as well and they were in place because the church was not "right." If there is legitimate claim to apostleship or "prophet" -- no problem for me.
When one reads through the book of Acts, a recorded history of that First Church (from it's beginnings to sometime after 62 or 63 AD), and the supporting documents of the first church (the Corinthian letters, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Phillippians, Romans, the letters of Peter, the Thessalonian letters, perhaps James ), all written during the history of the Acts account, one finds a profoundly simply Doctrine and a thoroughly gracious salvation "plan."
DAVEH: Do you suppose that might be a result of the Jewish people being so steeped in legalism that they could not recognize the grace of our Lord's atoning sacrifice in their behalf? As I see it, the early efforts to educate the Primitive Saints of the magnitude of Jesus' gift should not necessarily preclude the necessity of some attributes of legalism. (I hope that makes some sense, John.....If not, ask again and I'll try to explain it a bit differently.) I think I fully agree with this. :-)
You were born into Mormonism, I believe.
DAVEH: No, that is incorrect John. I attended a small community Bible Church in my younger years. At the age of 8, my family joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormon, as you probably know). Interesting.
I was born into the Restoration Movement Theology. Each of the two traditions have a number of similarities. They are equally legalistic in tone while giving Christ a place in its teachings. They, the two church movements, are strictly supervised. Any serious departure suffers excommunication. Independent thinking and personally held beliefs are never publicly denied, per se ----------- but, if this thinking leads to a departure from the party line, BAM, you have problems. And I emphasize that this is not a Mormon issue -- rather it has it's place in most of the Christian churches and in the Mormon Church as well (is the Mormon Church a "Christian" church, by the way.? -- and I am asking David H bec. I really do not know his view on that).
DAVEH: Yowee John........Are you nuts!!! What are you trying to do....stir up the hornets' nest in TT again!?!?!?!?! :-) Me ?? !! Cause trouble ?? !! Seriously, I was serious.
To answer your question at the risk of bringing the wrath of some TTers who believe to the contrary....YES, the Mormon Church is a Christian church, which is evidenced by its proper name....The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who belong to it have accepted Jesus as their Savior, and through the ordinance of a water baptism (legal action, in a theological sense) have taken upon themselves Christ's name (Christian) and have covenanted to live a Christian life. However, if your mother-in-law is LDS, I would be surprised if you don't already know this.
Anyway -- I do not want to get started if you are not interested in this thread. I am.
DAVEH: Then let us continue.
One of the assignments I have given to myself, is an integrated study of the Acts of the Apostles and the teachings of its period literature (the books or letters listed above) I would suggest the same assignment to you.
DAVEH: A worthy goal, I am sure. But as it is (thanx to you in part), I hardly have enough time to read the TT posts every night. :-) I noticed that hardly anybody took my advice and only posted once per day while I was gone last week!!! Whew....am I ever tired from reading all that drivel..... :-P Sorry bout dat.
What you will have, at the end of that study, is a 30 year old First Church complete with the teachings of record. I think each of us would find a circumstance that is very difference from the traditions of the day. And that record would be the Mind of God in terms of His initial intentions and desires. No one that I know of, including your fellowship, really teaches a departure from the "truth" within the first 30 years of the Assemblies' beginnings.
DAVEH: ??? You are losing me on this one, John. LDS theology teaches there was an apostasy after the death of Jesus. As the hierarchy (apostles) of the Primitive Church was killed off, the PC fell victim to grievous wolves entering the flock. Paul noted this in GA 1:6-8 and TI 1:10.
Furthermore, it was prophesied by Paul (2Th 2:3) that there would be a falling away (apostasy). I believe it happened soon after it was spoken. Do you think it (an apostasy) happened, John, and when? The church continued to get more and more legalistic in it's moral and liturgical considerations - an extension of the Jewish traditions of the First Church. II Thess. 2:6 tells me that the seeds of this departure were present in the church, even as Paul wrote. And that is my point.The "apostasy" was a prophecy based on observation, not revelation, IMO.
So, it seems logical that we should go there for the Revelation of Church Politic and Teaching. It makes sense to me.
The assumptions by the Mormon church that the First Church was somehow the Right Church, that the purity of religion was lost along the way, is simply not an illustrated fact in my feeble little mind and as I read the historical document (Acts) along with the recorded didache of that same church.
DAVEH: If that is correct, then how do you view the falling away mentioned above, and its subsequent restoration (restitution of all things) as prophesied by Peter in Acts 3:21? I do not connect the two passages. Peter's reference predates the church and his comments concerning the prophets of old would seem to verify that opinion. Paul's comments have to do with issues within the church culminating in a virtual "falling away." We should not forget Christ's pronouncement that the Church would never fail and so I write "virtual 'falling away'."
By the way, if you came to agree, I would not suggest that you leave the Mormon church. There is be no advantage in that -- from a "ministry of reconciliation" point of view unless you are forced out. I was. Max Lucado is a fellow Church of Christ pastor in Texas. How he remains in that fellowship is beyond me -- but he does.
You have your assignment, brother Dave, from the Bishop of Caleefornia. If you want to pursue aspects of this thread -- we can do that.
DAVEH: As time permits, I'd be happy to share a few exchanges with you, John. I'll change the subject line to more appropriately reflect the nature of this thread though.
BTW......I thought we would be talking more about legalism than apostasy, but somehow this thread has taken a tangential turn (so to speak). If you want to get back to more of a legal discussion, that would be OK with me.
JD
