I believe it was Ahab who said 'Thou art NOT the
man.'
----- Original Message -----
Sent: April 07, 2005 03:26
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apostasy
DAVEH: Ah yes.....I see what you mean.
But....I'll let John answer you on that one, Lance!!! :-D
Lance Muir wrote:
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.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|