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.
|
