Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sundc!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: MATH1H3@jetson.uh.edu (David H. Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormons against the Bible! Message-ID: Date: 14 Dec 90 09:33:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 316 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >>In article farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: [please direct any e-mail for wagner to wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu] > Much of the text has been delated to reduce the size of the transmission. > Also, please don't confuse foreordination and foreknowledge with > predestination. A person who is foreordined has a will, and can decide > to do something or not. A person who is predestined has no such choise > at all. I share your concern about determinism. However, I am not teaching determinism. I am simply trying to teach what the Scriptures say. What they say, as I have already shown from the Scriptures, is that our faith is a consequence of God's choosing us. That is explicit scripture, see Eph. 1:4, Eph 2:8,9. Perhaps the main point of this is that was cannot take credit for even our faith, i.e., our faith is not a work that we can be proud of. I don't think 'foreordination' is in the Scriptures. I am willing to discuss anything you can show me in the Scriptures about foreordination with regard to salvation. > If we really believe that we are predestined, then we need to ask the > question, how does this reflect on the charactor of God? Is he still a God, > or is he more like the devil? Are we to worship the God who created us, and who does in fact show love and grace even to unbelievers who hate him, or the kind of God we create according to our liking? >>So I believe that Pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his own >>heart. God foreknew that he would not believe, but Pharaoh hardened his >>own heart agaist God, and then God confirmed the hardening. > This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells > us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and > say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the > Bible itself, what it teaches about God. I think I can see how you might say this, because the translators who produced the King James Version that you read *were* into double predestination. There are traces of this even in the NIV, (maybe the New Evangelical Translation (NET) is better this way but I haven't read it yet). But in Ex 8:15 we read very clearly: "But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said." In Ex. 8:32 we read: "But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go." In Ex. 9:34,35 we read: "When Pharaoh saw that the rain had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh's heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had said through Moses." The other verses I cited do not say explicitly that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, but they simply say that his heart became hard, or was hardened. They do not attribute this to God, so I think it is only fair that we give God the benefit of the doubt, don't you? You accuse me of rationalization, when I am simply reading the Scriptures to you. Yet you want to take predestination right out of the Bible by saying the text is corrupted. As far as I know you have no hard evidence for this; you simply reject the text because its teaching is unacceptable to you. >>Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. > You got to be kidding! Read the Bible, starting with the decision which > Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden. This shows the degree to which you misunderstand the Bible. Yes, God created Adam and Eve with free will. But they became slaves of Satan when they disobeyed God. Since then no man has been able to do anything good that pleases God. As Isaiah said: "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" See also John 8:34: "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." Simlarly Paul said in Romans 7:14: "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin." Here Paul, a believer, speaks about his sinful nature, still present in him, and still a slave to sin and Satan. And, once again, Paul in Ephesians 2 wrote that as unbelievers, the Ephesians were "dead in your transgressions and sins." All of this says that the unbeliever is spiritually dead, and a slave to sin. I maintain there is not a word of Scripture that says an unbeliever has 'free agency'. I am still waiting for an informed response. >>>The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: >>> >>> 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. >>> 2. Second, repentance. >>> 3. Third, baptism with water. >>> 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. >>> >>>The order is important. [deletions] >> >>Can you document the order of this from Scripture? And where did Christ >>command the laying on of hands? > > I sure can. > > Acts 2:37-38 > "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto > Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in > the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the > gift of the Holy Ghost." I don't see any infants asking Peter what they should do here. Nor do I see here a clear setting forth of the order of things. > The laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was administered > after baptism. Read Acts 8:12-17 and 19:3-6. I don't claim expertise regarding the laying on of hands, but I don't believe it is stated in Scripture as a requirement for salvation. It seems to be a means by which the special gifts of the Spirit were bestowed on an individual, These gifts were granted for the special purpose of helping the Christian church to grow and be spread among the Gentiles, who otherwise had no particular reason to take an interest in Jewish Messianic prophecies. > Now, let me ask two questions: > 1. Does it make since to be baptized without faith and repentance? The important question is not so much whether or not it makes sense to minds clouded by sin. The important question is what do the Scriptures teach about Baptism, sinful human nature, our need for forgiveness and salvation, and our inability to obtain forgiveness and salvation on our own. Since in Baptism Christ works the miracle of washing away our sins, of regenerating us, of 'making us alive in Christ', (Titus 3:5, Ephesians 5:26, 1 Peter 3:21), and since infants desparately need this, and since Scripture does not forbid our giving it to them, we baptize infants. > 2. I am not sure what you mean that Jesus didn't taught the > laying on of the hands. Do you mean that if it is not recorded > it means that he didn't teach it? Tell me, what did he teach > for 40 days to his desciples? Show me where is it recorded? If *you* can give *me* a reference from Scripture that shows Jesus teaching the laying on of hands, I will be happy to discuss it. Luke explains some of what Jesus taught his disciples after his resurrection in Luke 24:45: "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what was written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of wsins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." I think he spent a fair amount of time explaining the OT Messianic Prophecies to them. Their understanding of these prophecies is recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. But you want to assert that Jesus taught them many things which they did not record, yet are important for our salvation. I suppose the only way that we can receive this 'oral tradition' is by reading the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price? The 'tradition' of which I am now a part (Lutheranism) takes a rather dim view of 'oral tradition' as a source of divine truth. Our motto is 'Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura' (By Grace alone, By Faith alone, By Scripture alone). Certainly Luther and friends saw 'oral tradition' as a huge loophole by which all sorts of errors had crept into the church of their day. Be that as it may, the ultimate test of Joseph Smith's 'revelations' is not just whether he prayed to ask God whether it was true. He should also have compared the revelation with Scripture. For as John wrote in 1 John 4:1-4: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist." Here John addresses a specific heresy. Some in the church were actually denying that Christ had really come in the flesh. Galatians 1:6-10: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if *we* or *an angel from heaven* should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As I have already said, so now I say again: If *anybody* is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." I sincerely wish Joseph Smith had heeded this warning before producing the Book of Mormon, etc. Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness *and examined the Scriptures every day* to see if what Paul had said was true." The ultimate test of 'the spirits' is that they must not contradict what is already revealed to us in the Scriptures. But you want to test the scriptures to see if they are compatible with Smith's 'revelations'. I also sincerely wish more of Smith's followers had followed the example of the Bereans. If they had, or if they had had a good Christian education, they might have rejected him, much to their benefit. Unfortunately, Smith came along in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, which had roused the nation emotionally, but failed to teach much of substance. When the emotions died down, the nation was left in a state of spiritual poverty. >>Does Paul, Christ, or anyone else *command* baptism for the dead? > The Bible is not a manual of descipline. "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be *thoroughly* equipped for every good work." --2 Tim 3:16,17. > Besides, you are missing the point > I am trying to make. That is that Paul don't find it that it is a problem. > Let me give you another passage: > Hebrews 11:39-40 > ================ > "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not > the promise:" > "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should > not be made perfect." It is very hard to know what point you are trying to make when you quote Scriptures that I unerstand very well, yet you do not describe the point you are making. Here the author of Hebrews says that 'Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets' were commended for their faith, and I suppose he means that this is recorded in the OT, but did not receive the fulfillment of the prophecies of Christ, that is, they did not see him come. That this is the correct meaning of the text is made very, very clear, in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Perhaps, and I'm only guessing because you do not explain yourself, perhaps you interpret 11:40 to mean that we are to do something to make the believers of old 'perfect'. I suppose this to mean that we are to make them perfect by baptizing them. But this completely misconstrues the text. You might understand the modern English a little better: "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." We don't make ourselves perfect, God does. Similarly we don't make the OT believers perfect, God does. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of Greek can help us out here? >>Christ did not give the keys only to Peter. He gave them to the disciples, >>e.g., the church, 'wherever two of you on earth agree about anything you >>ask for'. Matthew 18:18,19. > Correction, he gave them to the other elevel Apostles, not to all of his > disciples. Can you support this from Scripture? Matt. 18:1 seems to set this straight: "At that time *his disciples* came to him and asked him...' David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Comfort, comfort, ye my people, Speak ye peace, thus saith our God; Comfort those who sit in darkness, Mourning 'neath their sorrows load. Speak ye to Jerusalem Of the peace that waits for them; Tell her that her sins I cover And her warfare now is over." "Make ye straight what long was crooked, Make the rougher places plain; Let your hearts be true and humble, As befits His holy reign. For the glory of the Lord Now o'er earth is shed abroad, And all flesh shall see the token That His Word is never broken" --"Troestet, troestet meine Lieben" v. 1,4 an Advent hymn by Johann Olearius, 1671 from "The Lutheran Hymnal", #61. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I would rather keep this discussion focused on the issue of predestination and not restart the issue of the special LDS revelations. We had a fairly long discussion about LDS beliefs not too long ago. --clh]