post #179 (What I actually believe -- sharing love of Christ) was more of a response to what @amadeus said in post #178 (What I actually believe -- sharing love of Christ).
What I actually believe -- sharing love of Christ
- Thread starter Jane_Doe22
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Those posts acknowledge that the words of an infinite God don't fit into a single human book or a single human language.
THat's very different than saying "the path is broad".
There's only one path to God, and it's narrow. But the words of rejoicing therein and the Truths therein are many and great.
I don't think you have understood my reasoning in the post that you were responding to, which I repeat below:
[QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 477694, member: 7886"~]Can you show that the Book of Mormon and its companions will not divert a man from the path that he would walk if he were just to continue on with the Bible?
If it would not, then I might consider it to be holy scripture; while I would also consider that the Bible is sufficient and therefore the Book of Mormon isn't needed.
If it would, then I would be wary of it; and if it cannot be shown that it wouldn't, then I would be wary of it.[~/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Perhaps an important thing for all of us to understand is that God does not only fit into any of our little or our big boxes. Even when we do know Him how limited is our knowledge? The limitation of our knowledge is not dependent on Him, but on us. We are the only real limitation according to what I see...
The Book that speaks of the narrow path warns of the eternal barbecue that is coming.
When you add books, you can lose sight of certain facts that serve as a deterrent against sinning against the Lord.
The reasoning behind your question is flawed. You presume that because God speaks one word He cannot speak another or another is not needed. By that logic, the books of Mark, Luke, and John should be discarded because we already have Matthew.
I do not think that the books of Mark, Luke, and John are redundant and unnecessary or any other book of scripture (and I include the Book of Mormon therein). Rather I cherish every word God gives. It's not blind acceptance or charity-- there's a lot of discernment, prayer and study that goes on first.
Help me understand you logic here: if God speaks more that serves as a deterrent against sinning against the Lord, in your mind?
It would be, that it seems that in accepting more words as being from God, you have rejected certain words that are established by the Lord; and that the words that you have rejected, in that you have received an added revelation that contradicts them, are the words that would serve as a deterrent against sinning.
I still don't think you have seen my reasoning clearly enough. Above, you have not shown that it is flawed as you think you have.
The reasoning I give below:
Can you show that the Book of Mormon and its companions will not divert a man from the path that he would walk if he were just to continue on with the Bible?
If it would not, then I might consider it to be holy scripture; while I would also consider that the Bible is sufficient and therefore the Book of Mormon isn't needed.
If it would, then I would be wary of it; and if it cannot be shown that it wouldn't, then I would be wary of it.
Last edited:
I can't change your interpretations of some verses / perspective on things, and I don't have any interest in doing so.
As to my perspective: after decades of study/prayer/asking I do not find this to be the case.
The Book of Mormon teaches about Jesus Christ, the Son of God & Savior of the world. Yes, this message is found in the Bible too. Like different books of the Bible, the Book of Mormon teaches that same message, sometimes with different focuses on different parts of the one Gospel message (again, like the different books of the Bible itself).
Sometimes there are certain parts which are more precisely in one book than another. For an example of the this in the Book of Mormon, we have the subject of infant baptism. As you well know, infant vs believers baptism is one of those subjects forever debated in Christendom with people flinging this interpretation of this verse vs that interpretation of that verse, and it goes no where. Heck, there's even disagreement on what baptism is for. The Book of Mormon directly addresses the subject:
"And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins."
There's actually a whole big section on the matter, see here: Moroni 8
I felt like The Book of Mormon had a lot of the words of the Bible except with key teachings changed to reflect the truth differently. While the Gospels do not add or take away from each other, more like different parts of the story, when I was reading The Book of Mormon, I felt differently.
God's word on the subjects given in Moroni 8 is found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 and Psalms 51:5. I'm sure there is more in the Bible about it, also; but it is sufficient to show that all are conceived in sin and are in need of redemption; something that Moroni 8 appears to deny.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, I honestly enjoy hearing it.
For my perspective: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all tell the same story, but with emphasis different places, and the net result is a more fuller picture. For example, Luke gives us details about Christ's birth simply not in the other three books. John highlights Christology different than the other three. Etc. It's not men taking or giving away. Rather, it's God providing us with more testimonies of the same Gospel. To me, other books of scripture are no different.
Honestly, I don't find to 1 Corinthians 7:14 and Psalms 51:5 alone to concretely put this issue bed, and find that using the Bible alone, the pro-infant baptism standpoint has just as valid of an argument. Using the Bible alone it really comes down to one man's interpretation versus another and nothing is settled in this regard.
Why are you adding to or changing what I said? The limitation is and always has been the frailty of men. We all are frail in the eyes of God even if we won't admit it. This why it is necessary to go down or lower ourselves so that He may lift us up. Our pride may be what stops us from humbling ourselves as we should. What has that to do with receiving lies?
People receive lies because they depend on themselves and even lose their love for truth. They end up being deluded. Being deluded of course means a person does not realize he going the wrong way. Going back to the bottom allows God to bring back up to the love we lost... if we will.
"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thess 2:10-12
Prompted by an earlier conversation with GG (recapped in post 588 MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?), I decided to add some to my old thread here.
Subject: Continuing Revelation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
I believe that God never changes and always leads His people. He personally spoke and lead His people before Christ's mortal birth, during Christ's mortal life, and afterwards. That doesn't change. Majority of the New Testament was actually written after Christ's Ascension, a lot of it by Paul. Paul didn't know Christ until after His mortal ministry, but God led Paul all the same.
God gives revelation and leads His people—which includes today. I do indeed that God still gives revelation today, both individually and to the world. Individually thorough a person asking Him in prayer, and to the world through prophets/apostles.
Global-scale revelation:
A prophet/apostle is a servant of the Lord, and can be His mouthpiece when He so chooses, just like in ancient times. This doesn’t mean the servant was/is automatically perfect. A man of God is still a man and hence a flawed sinner. Only Christ alone was perfect always.
Today, I believe that God has such prophet/apostle servant on the earth name Russell Nelson (Russell M. Nelson - Wikipedia). I believe that God speaks through him. A believe that before him it was Thomas Monson, going back through Joseph Smith to Peter, James, & John.
Now, should you just take my word for this? NO!! Never just believe anything because anyone told you to. Rather, if a person truly wants to know something, they should seek personal revelation.
Personal revelation:
Personal revelation is a person getting down on their knees and talking to their Father. Not fake talking atHim, but real talking with Him- listen to what He has to say. He guides His children and will answer you. I have, and celebrate with my many brothers & sisters in Christ that do likewise.
God is wonderful.
Subject: Continuing Revelation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
I believe that God never changes and always leads His people. He personally spoke and lead His people before Christ's mortal birth, during Christ's mortal life, and afterwards. That doesn't change. Majority of the New Testament was actually written after Christ's Ascension, a lot of it by Paul. Paul didn't know Christ until after His mortal ministry, but God led Paul all the same.
God gives revelation and leads His people—which includes today. I do indeed that God still gives revelation today, both individually and to the world. Individually thorough a person asking Him in prayer, and to the world through prophets/apostles.
Global-scale revelation:
A prophet/apostle is a servant of the Lord, and can be His mouthpiece when He so chooses, just like in ancient times. This doesn’t mean the servant was/is automatically perfect. A man of God is still a man and hence a flawed sinner. Only Christ alone was perfect always.
Today, I believe that God has such prophet/apostle servant on the earth name Russell Nelson (Russell M. Nelson - Wikipedia). I believe that God speaks through him. A believe that before him it was Thomas Monson, going back through Joseph Smith to Peter, James, & John.
Now, should you just take my word for this? NO!! Never just believe anything because anyone told you to. Rather, if a person truly wants to know something, they should seek personal revelation.
Personal revelation:
Personal revelation is a person getting down on their knees and talking to their Father. Not fake talking atHim, but real talking with Him- listen to what He has to say. He guides His children and will answer you. I have, and celebrate with my many brothers & sisters in Christ that do likewise.
God is wonderful.
I absolutely agree in personal revelation.
I've often spoke to this and have also said that personal revelation is for the person ALONE and should not even be shared...of course some aspect of it can, but it's meant for that person alone.
I can't agree to the rest.
That would mean that anyone could be the mouthpiece of God,,,
and if the revelation is NEW...HOW would we ever be able to check it against anything...for instance the bible,
Acts 17:11
Anyone could say anything....this is like the JWs and I don't even believe they're Christian since they don't believe Jesus is God.
Now, I'd love to be able to speak to you more about this,,but I know nothing about the LDS. I just know that if there is NEW REVELATION, I would not accept it.
Jonestown comes to mind. Just an example.
Christian Science comes to mind. Modern day slavery.
A person with a lot of charisma could convince most people of anything...
don't you think we need protection against this?
What about Revelation 22:18 ?
@Jane_Doe22
I have to leave...
I looked quickly through Wikepedia under Mormonism...LDS.
So far I haven't seen anything alarming.
The Trinity is different....
Instead of 3 in 1
It becomes 1 in 3
Some Christians think like this...it's not easy to understand the Trinity.
I'd find it interesting to really understand the differences.
I like that you're not calvinist.
Maybe tomorrow?
I'll be following along.
I have to leave...
I looked quickly through Wikepedia under Mormonism...LDS.
So far I haven't seen anything alarming.
The Trinity is different....
Instead of 3 in 1
It becomes 1 in 3
Some Christians think like this...it's not easy to understand the Trinity.
I'd find it interesting to really understand the differences.
I like that you're not calvinist.
Maybe tomorrow?
I'll be following along.
*thumbs up*
(just explaining my views for the rest of this)
Any person God selects can be His servant. Just like in ancient times, in which God picked people like un-educated fishermen, sheep-herders that were on the run for murder, and people that had aided in persecution of God's people. As well as picking educated people too.
Ask God for yourself.
Ok. I likewise personally can't accept the idea that revelation stops, because to me that would be God changing by suddenly stop talking to his people.
Believing that revelation today does exist doesn't mean that you should automatically believe everyone claiming it. Not at all! Again, stressing the part where every person should get on their knees and ask God themselves. There are false teachers out there, but also good ones.
Applies to the Book of Revelation. Just like the nearly identical verse in Dueteronmy applies to Dueteronmy. It doesn't mean God changes and stops talking. Many scholars actually think that some of the books in the Bible might have been written after the Book of Revelation too.
Similar threads
