|
Hugs and kisses -- from Bill, not
me.
Jd
That's not funny.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:33
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apostasy
Dave Hansen, good to hear from
you. Welcome back. We are just cleaning up he old
battlefield -- removing the dead bodies, the blood, the mud and
the ------ well, I just had a red
one. I have to get to the shop by 6 am -- so I
am going to wait on this reply. Perhaps other posts are addessed to our
discussion, as well. Talk to you sometime tomorrow. Hugs and
kisses -- from Bill, not me. .
Jd
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? 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.)
To me, it is simply a historical fact. And, yes, I
would say that most biblical historians would
agree
DAVEH: Interesting that you would qualify it by
saying most biblical historians would agree....does that not suggest
it is a theory? If all of them agreed with you, then you might have
better support for your argument, I would think.
---- 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.
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.)
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).
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!?!?!?!?! :-)
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
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?
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?
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
|
