|
Saving the appearance: Does each
socio-political-theological-epistemological grouping have representatives who
are capable of making a case for that which is and, that which is not? It does!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 07, 2005 02:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apostasy
DAVEH: My current comments are
GREEN.......
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/4/2005 8:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
[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? Is there a chance I am
wrong? Of course -- but what does that have
to do with the discussion?
DAVEH: If you acknowledge there is a chance you are wrong,
then does that not qualify your position as being theoretical?
I Cor 8:1-3 makes
"intellectual knowing" a touchy circumstance. All of my
statements could be wrong.
DAVEH: Then why would you have a problem with me thinking
that your statements are theories, John? Do you expect me to accept as
truth that which you admit may be wrong???
As is the case with all
of yours, Correct? DAVEH: Did I say I might be wrong? So far (in our
exchanges), you have been the only one who has made that
admission.
Now before you get your nose all
bent out of shape, John....I have in previous times, numerously admitted that
I may be wrong in the things I have said and believe. I've even had to
apologize for making inaccurate comments on TT. So....yes, I have
been....and will probably be in the future.....wrong in some of what I
post. Now...do you feel better that I didn't leave you hanging out on
that theoretical limb alone? :-)
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.
DAVEH: Nor do I want to have one, John. I was just
thinking out loud and being very frank without any thought of trying to offend
you. If you are uncomfortable with that style of discussion, I will
refrain from being quite so open with my thoughts in the future.
Instead, I will be a bit more circumspect and careful about how I present
ideas to you. It is not my intent to offend, and I apologize if you took
it that way.
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.
DAVEH: Yes John, of course. I just thought it was an
appropriate possibility to consider. I would have framed it in a third
person situation had I realized you would be sensitive to discussing such in a
personal way. Again...my apologies.
To me, it is simply
a historical fact. And, yes, I would say that most biblical
historians would agree So 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.
DAVEH: Thank you for clarifying that, John. I
totally misunderstood what you were saying. As you might realize by now,
I assumed that since you said most, that meant that a
minority believed otherwise.
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.
DAVEH: I agree, John. From my perspective,
that would be an indication that mainstream modern Christian theology has gone
astray from what the Primitive Church believed.
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? DAVEH: At the same time, they were mixing in theology that
modern Christians view as not of the traditional
faith, such as baptism for the remission
of sins.
I do not think
there was a Trinitarian in the house.
DAVEH: Agreed. So....how did the majority of modern
Christians come to believe such, if it was not a part of the Primitive
Church?
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?
DAVEH: Hey John, if I am understanding you
correctly, I agree. I assume you agree with me, that there is a vast
difference in the theology of modern Christianity (I'm trying to refrain from
saying Protestantism...but it is hard!) and that of the Primitive
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 DAVEH: That the A&Ps of today are seen as frauds by
those who've met them like yourself, does not mean that they (true A&Ps)
should not be a part of modern Christianity.
- 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. :-)
DAVEH: Yikes! Be careful not to agree
with this old Mormon boy too often, John. You are likely to draw some
criticism from other TTers who might see such harmony as
sinful.... :-)
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.
DAVEH: OK......Thanx for sharing your
perspective. We definitely have opposing views on that.
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'."
DAVEH: OK......again thanx for your
explanation. That Peter's reference predates
the church does not seem problematic to
me. If you were to reject theological concepts based on chronology, you
might run into some major problem in the way some of the OT prophets referred
to Jesus before he was even born.
As for the Lord's comment
that the Church would never
fail, that does not preclude a total
apostacy. Many battles can be lost while the war will ultimately be
won.
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
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|
