The Gospel Once delivered

[Aaron32]

This is an open question.
This is a continuation of a discussion from the Mormonism forum. I can't challenge non-mormon topics in the mormonism forum, so I'm posting here.

Everything you have on the gospel (the Bible) came from a Church you, yourself, eventually broke off from.
How do you know you have THE True Gospel as originally delivered?

 

[docphin5]

This is an open question.
This is a continuation of a discussion from the Mormonism forum. I can't challenge non-mormon topics in the mormonism forum, so I'm posting here.

Everything you have on the gospel (the Bible) came from a Church you, yourself, eventually broke off from.
How do you know you have THE True Gospel as originally delivered?

Because I hold —physically hold in my hands—the original Gospel written in the Dead Sea Scrolls up to 200 B.C. by the community called “The Way”, who also practiced the christian sacraments of baptism and the earliest recorded Lord’s supper with bread and wine.

As a Mormon, how do you know that the “true Gospel” is now known? How does anyone arrive at the original Gospel unless we start where it began?

This is when you tell me whether you intend to defend Mormonism or defend the true Gospel.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Aaron32,

Everything you have on the gospel (the Bible) came from a Church you, yourself, eventually broke off from.
How do you know you have THE True Gospel as originally delivered?

First you equate "the gospel" with "(the Bible)", but I understand the Gospel to be a specific portion of the Bible, a theme, a specific teaching, and one definition of this is in Acts 8:5-6,12 as "the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ". These are a summary of the two major divisions of the Gospel. To understand some of the detail contained in these two categories, I recommend for starters a careful examination of the two speeches given by Paul in Acts 2 and 3. I consider these records as true, given and inspired by God and preserved by God, despite the fact that many of the copies have been preserved by the Apostate Catholic Church. In like manner many Scribes preserved the OT but not all of these were faithful. As a Mormon, do you reject the Bible or feel that it is not reliable?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Aaron32]

Because I hold —physically hold in my hands—the original Gospel written in the Dead Sea Scrolls up to 200 B.C. by the community called “The Way”, who also practiced the christian sacraments of baptism and the earliest recorded Lord’s supper with bread and wine.

As a Mormon, how do you know that the “true Gospel” is now known? How does anyone arrive at the original Gospel unless we start where it began?

Actually, for the most part, I do believe the gospel is known by Christians. It's not necessarily the gospel that needed to be restored, but rather the Priesthood to perform ordinances such as baptism and the sacrament.

I created this thread because a poster in the Mormonism forum claimed I did not have the true gospel, and when I asked them to define it (to identify the discrepancy) they refused to do so on the basis of it being "off topic" for the board. Thus, I came to this board so they can make a further clarification, and as of yet, they have not.

This is when you tell me whether you intend to defend Mormonism or defend the true Gospel.

I consider this an either/or fallacy.

 

[Aaron32]

Greetings Aaron32,

First you equate "the gospel" with "(the Bible)", but I understand the Gospel to be a specific portion of the Bible, a theme, a specific teaching, and one definition of this is in Acts 8:5-6,12 as "the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ". These are a summary of the two major divisions of the Gospel.

Agreed. To clarify, I believe the gospel is contained in the Bible.

To understand some of the detail contained in these two categories, I recommend for starters a careful examination of the two speeches given by Paul in Acts 2 and 3. I consider these records as true, given and inspired by God and preserved by God, despite the fact that many of the copies have been preserved by the Apostate Catholic Church. In like manner many Scribes preserved the OT but not all of these were faithful. As a Mormon, do you reject the Bible or feel that it is not reliable?

Thank you for this.
I believe the Bible is reliable. I also believe the Bible can be interpreted more than one way, and not every interpretation is reliable.

Thus, I believe in:
1. A necessity of a priesthood authority (Ephesians 4:11-13), for collective understanding, but not to the extent of dogma and appeal to authority to justify a belief.
2. The necessity of personal revelation (John 14:26), for individual understanding, but not to the extent of relativism.
3. The necessity of the alignment of scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

Between these 3 axes, a correct understanding can be found.

 

[Dizerner]

This is an open question.
This is a continuation of a discussion from the Mormonism forum. I can't challenge non-mormon topics in the mormonism forum, so I'm posting here.

Everything you have on the gospel (the Bible) came from a Church you, yourself, eventually broke off from.
How do you know you have THE True Gospel as originally delivered?

No, the Bible is just a bunch of written documents.

It's not from any "church."

And what it says came to me by direct revelation (Galatians 1) as God made it real and alive to my heart.

 

[Slyzr]

Agreed. To clarify, I believe the gospel is contained in the Bible.

Thank you for this.
I believe the Bible is reliable. I also believe the Bible can be interpreted more than one way, and not every interpretation is reliable.

Thus, I believe in:
1. A necessity of a priesthood authority (Ephesians 4:11-13), for collective understanding, but not to the extent of dogma and appeal to authority to justify a belief.
2. The necessity of personal revelation (John 14:26), for individual understanding, but not to the extent of relativism.
3. The necessity of the alignment of scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

Between these 3 axes, a correct understanding can be found.

Priority .....

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Aaron32,

I believe the Bible is reliable. I also believe the Bible can be interpreted more than one way, and not every interpretation is reliable.

I agree, but I suggest that the correct interpretation will be found among the true servants of God. Also the word "interpretation" may not be the correct word, as the meaning of the Gospel is simple and clear to those who have an ear to hear.

Thus, I believe in:
1. A necessity of a priesthood authority (Ephesians 4:11-13), for collective understanding, but not to the extent of dogma and appeal to authority to justify a belief.
2. The necessity of personal revelation (John 14:26), for individual understanding, but not to the extent of relativism.
3. The necessity of the alignment of scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

I am interested in your use of the word "priesthood" as it could reflect the claim that various members of the Mormon movement appoint priests after the order of Aaron and Melchizedek, which I find strange based upon what the Bible reveals. I do not believe in the present direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in individuals, and what we have is the completed Bible, only 66 Books. The Book of Mormon teaches wrong doctrine and a wrong "gospel".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[docphin5]

Actually, for the most part, I do believe the gospel is known by Christians. It's not necessarily the gospel that needed to be restored, but rather the Priesthood to perform ordinances such as baptism and the sacrament.

I created this thread because a poster in the Mormonism forum claimed I did not have the true gospel, and when I asked them to define it (to identify the discrepancy) they refused to do so on the basis of it being "off topic" for the board. Thus, I came to this board so they can make a further clarification, and as of yet, they have not.


I consider this an either/or fallacy.

Interesting, because the Melchizedek priesthood was the only point I could concede as possibly being “restored” by Mormonism. The Maccabean priests in second temple Judaism (arguably associated with the Qumran community) held the Melchizedek priesthood. Not sure how much of a practical impact that makes since outward rituals are for the most part symbolic anyway.

 

[Aaron32]

Greetings again Aaron32,

I agree, but I suggest that the correct interpretation will be found among the true servants of God.

Agreed. But how are true servants of God identified and circular reasoning avoided?

Also the word "interpretation" may not be the correct word, as the meaning of the Gospel is simple and clear to those who have an ear to hear.

Well, I'm sorry for being a knit-pick for asking this, but can you define that clear and simple Gospel? Specifically, does it require the acceptance of the Trinity? Because IMO this is the singular topic what generally divides Christians from Mormons.

I am interested in your use of the word "priesthood" as it could reflect the claim that various members of the Mormon movement appoint priests after the order of Aaron and Melchizedek, which I find strange based upon what the Bible reveals. I do not believe in the present direct guidance of the Holy Spirit in individuals, and what we have is the completed Bible, only 66 Books.

There is a singular body of Christ (aka. the Church") (Eph 4:5) Baptism is the gate to enter the Church. Confirmation is given by the laying on of hands and authoritative admonition to "Receive the Holy Ghost". (Acts 8:14-17). This provides the general priesthood of church members spoken of in 2 Peter 2:9.
There is also a ministerial priesthood of various offices spoken of in Ephesians 4:11-12. To oversee the church (Phil. 1:1), speak in authority of Christ to forgive sins or excommunicate (Matt 18:15-18), and teach (Eph 4:13).

The Book of Mormon teaches wrong doctrine and a wrong "gospel".

I would be interested to know why you think this, probably most appropriate on the Mormonism forum.

 

[Aaron32]

Interesting, because the Melchizedek priesthood was the only point I could concede as possibly being “restored” by Mormonism.

In practice, I would agree. I think there's an underlying belief in a "formal" church that goes into this as well.

The Maccabean priests in second temple Judaism (arguably associated with the Qumran community) held the Melchizedek priesthood.

Thank you for sharing. I didn't know this. Very interesting.

Not sure how much of a practical impact that makes since outward rituals are for the most part symbolic anyway.

I believe all ordinances, including those in OT, are/were symbolic, and are expression of faith.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

 

[shnarkle]

Everything you have on the gospel (the Bible) came from a Church you, yourself, eventually broke off from.

The gospel is not synonymous with the bible. The bible contains an anthology of witnesses to the gospel, but once the good news of the kingdom of God has been transmitted to, and transforms a sinner into a child of God, there is nothing inhibiting them from spreading the good news as well. The church does not limit the spread of the gospel, nor can the church contain the good news.

How do you know you have THE True Gospel as originally delivered?

Because the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. In other words, lives are radically transformed. People are liberated from a life in bondage to sin to become the shining light of the world. The Church is the body and bride of Christ which is the way. This is how the Church is identified along with the fruit produced.

 

[Aaron32]

The gospel is not synonymous with the bible. The bible contains an anthology of witnesses to the gospel, but once the good news of the kingdom of God has been transmitted to, and transforms a sinner into a child of God, there is nothing inhibiting them from spreading the good news as well. The church does not limit the spread of the gospel, nor can the church contain the good news.

Very much agree. We probably disagree on what "the church" is, which I'll discuss below.

Because the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. In other words, lives are radically transformed. People are liberated from a life in bondage to sin to become the shining light of the world. The Church is the body and bride of Christ which is the way. This is how the Church is identified along with the fruit produced.

While I do agree the gospel blesses everyone, including radical transformation, I do believe there is also a formal church. (Eph 4:4-5)
Many are able to use Christ's name, though they are not technically disciples. (Mark 9:38-40) Yet, Jesus said that the thing to rejoice in is not having access to God's power, but rather rejoice that your name is written in heaven. (Luke 10:19-20)

 

[shnarkle]

Very much agree. We probably disagree on what "the church" is, which I'll discuss below.

While I do agree the gospel blesses everyone, including radical transformation, I do believe there is also a formal church. (Eph 4:4-5)

Not sure what you mean by formal. This citation from Paul doesn't explain much either.

Many are able to use Christ's name, though they are not technically disciples. (Mark 9:38-40)

This is a misapplication of that quote. The principle holds true regardless of what they're doing. There is nothing to suggest that discipleship is excluded.

Yet, Jesus said that the thing to rejoice in is not having access to God's power, but rather rejoice that your name is written in heaven. (Luke 10:19-20)

Agreed, yet beside the point which is how one knows they've got the true gospel. They needn't even be known or approved of by those Christ chose himself, yet the truth is always self-evident to those who have access to God's power. Demons have no power over them, etc. etc. etc.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Aaron32,

Agreed. But how are true servants of God identified and circular reasoning avoided?

An interesting question, and my suggestion that it is by mainly personal seeking and comparing like the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. We may individually have been brought up in one or another group, and I personally have spent much time and effort to compare my beliefs that I was directly taught with the Bible, and carefully compared my views with other groups. Part of this has been by participating in forums for the past 18 years, but also with personal contact since my age of 16, over 60 years ago. This was initially comparing JWs and SDAs, then Baptists and then any other group that I briefly encountered.

Well, I'm sorry for being a knit-pick for asking this, but can you define that clear and simple Gospel?

I would start with Acts 8:5-6,12 and then discuss some of the details of the speeches in Acts 2 and 3 where the Gospel was preached. If we agree on these details, then we could progress to more aspects of the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name.

Specifically, does it require the acceptance of the Trinity? Because IMO this is the singular topic what generally divides Christians from Mormons.

The assessment by this Forum is that we both belong to the classification "Cults/Groups". I belong to the first in their list. I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Although we may agree here on this definition, my assessment of these terms may differ as I believe that Jesus was a man and did not pre-exist. and I am uncertain of how you view God the Father.

I would be interested to know why you think this,

The last time that I have had a visit by two Mormon Elders was about 30 years ago. They taught that man has an immortal soul and that each person pre-existed before their present conception and birth. I believe that man is mortal Genesis 3:19.

probably most appropriate on the Mormonism forum.

Not sure that I want to get that deeply involved.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Aaron32]

Not sure what you mean by formal.

Meaning the church is not spiritual, but a physical place located.

This citation from Paul doesn't explain much either.

That the church have various priesthood offices.

This is a misapplication of that quote. The principle holds true regardless of what they're doing. There is nothing to suggest that discipleship is excluded.

Agreed.

Agreed, yet beside the point which is how one knows they've got the true gospel. They needn't even be known or approved of by those Christ chose himself, yet the truth is always self-evident to those who have access to God's power. Demons have no power over them, etc. etc. etc.

I disagree. The anti-christ will use signs and wonders that will deceive many. Those seeking for signs and find them, will have a "self-evident" truth, which will be a lie.

 

[Aaron32]

Greetings again Aaron32,

An interesting question, and my suggestion that it is by mainly personal seeking and comparing like the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. We may individually have been brought up in one or another group, and I personally have spent much time and effort to compare my beliefs that I was directly taught with the Bible, and carefully compared my views with other groups. Part of this has been by participating in forums for the past 18 years, but also with personal contact since my age of 16, over 60 years ago. This was initially comparing JWs and SDAs, then Baptists and then any other group that I briefly encountered.

I dare say we share the same methodology. When you've seen enough groups a golden thread emerges.

I would start with Acts 8:5-6,12 and then discuss some of the details of the speeches in Acts 2 and 3 where the Gospel was preached. If we agree on these details, then we could progress to more aspects of the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name.

I'm going to assume we agree on the basics. It's primarily the characterization of God I was concerned about.

The assessment by this Forum is that we both belong to the classification "Cults/Groups".

It's nice to know we have something in common.

I belong to the first in their list. I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Although we may agree here on this definition, my assessment of these terms may differ as I believe that Jesus was a man and did not pre-exist. and I am uncertain of how you view God the Father.

That's a great clarification. Is that different from Unitarianism?
Identifying God the Father in my religion is rather complex. I actually have a different view than many in my own Church.

The last time that I have had a visit by two Mormon Elders was about 30 years ago. They taught that man has an immortal soul and that each person pre-existed before their present conception and birth. I believe that man is mortal Genesis 3:19.

Yep. That sounds probably the root of our differences. I apologize for creating a tangent, but how do you interpret Jeremiah 1:5?

Not sure that I want to get that deeply involved.

No worries.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Aaron32,

That's a great clarification. Is that different from Unitarianism?

I think there is a range of views included in Unitarianism and widespread in some parts of the USA and the most common is probably different to my beliefs. As stated I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and this is by birth, character and resurrection.

Yep. That sounds probably the root of our differences. I apologize for creating a tangent, but how do you interpret Jeremiah 1:5?

This shows the wide range of God's foreknowledge. I also believe that God speaks in the past tense when describing the future status and work of Jesus in Psalm 8:4-6, Psalm 110:1, but all of this is in anticipation, and the language depicts God's complete foreknowledge. As far as the human body I believe that it is the brain that thinks, and when deprived of oxygen ceases to function and all consciousness is soon lost. We are mortal and apart from the resurrection when Christ returns, the faithful would also perish Daniel 12:2-3.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Aaron32]

Greetings again Aaron32,

I think there is a range of views included in Unitarianism and widespread in some parts of the USA and the most common is probably different to my beliefs. As stated I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and this is by birth, character and resurrection.

This shows the wide range of God's foreknowledge. I also believe that God speaks in the past tense when describing the future status and work of Jesus in Psalm 8:4-6, Psalm 110:1, but all of this is in anticipation, and the language depicts God's complete foreknowledge. As far as the human body I believe that it is the brain that thinks, and when deprived of oxygen ceases to function and all consciousness is soon lost. We are mortal and apart from the resurrection when Christ returns, the faithful would also perish Daniel 12:2-3.

Kind regards
Trevor

Thank you!

 

[shnarkle]

Meaning the church is not spiritual, but a physical place located.

Where? In a building? You're right. I don't agree.

That the church have various priesthood offices.

Perhaps in the aforementioned building?

Agreed.

I disagree. The anti-christ will use signs and wonders that will deceive many.

So what? The anti-Christ cannot deceive the elect. Christ usefully observed that would be impossible.

Those seeking for signs and find them, will have a "self-evident" truth, which will be a lie.

By definition, self-evident truths are not lies. Those seeking signs and wonders are not seeking the truth. Again, by definition, signs are a substitution, and there is no substitution for the truth.