SeekHm1st,

I appreciate your reply. I honestly felt last night I had had enough trying to find out what Traditional Christians believe in. Last Monday, I had tentatively scheduled a meeting with a co-worker of mine for tomorrow to talk religion, but I called and canceled with him yesterday afternoon. If you are sincere about answering questions, I will try again.

I don't mind your bold speech, in fact I expect it, even need it to get satisfactory answers. I will apologize in advance, for I feel my questions may have a tendency to come across negatively, maybe even crafty. I assure you I am only seeking an answer. If I don't get a satisfactory one, I may point out what appears contradictory, or ask how your answer fits with such-and-such a verse. These will be for clarification, not to stump or condemn. I have been in many debates where I had only faith to guide me. I know from these experiences, one can be right even if he has nothing to back him at the time. For this reason, I can except "I don't know," or "I'll have to look that up and get back to you," as fair answers--even preferred answer to something made up or guessed. You may also let me know when you no longer wish to discuss any or all these questions. I will not claim you are running away. With this said, I require the same respect.

Audience is important to consider when answering questions or talking to people, especially when it is special topic like religion. Feel free to ask me any questions that may help you know how to respond.

If you are still up for them, I have many questions I would like to discuss one or two at a time, if you are okay with that. I will start with two that I have acquired since joining this chat site:

What make up the doctrines of what you term "Christianity"? I know the Bible is often alluded as the only "doctrine," yet the trinity seems to be essential component--which, I can respect there are scriptural "support" to the concept of the Holy Trinity--but it was detailed in a counsel of theologians. I am perplexed by this, for many reasons. If faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ, why is it so important to understand a self-proclaimed inconcieveable doctrine? Yet doctrines such as Baptism, Jesus' race (black/white), gifts of spirit exist or not, etc. can be disagreed upon among denominations yet still be concieved as Christians. In short, what is the Universal creed that determines Christianity.

From that mess, my two questions are: 1) what sources can be quoted as doctrines of any protestant(is that the same as evengelical?) Christianity? 2) What are the "requirements" to be considered Christian Church among the majority of Christian Churches?

Thanks for your time,
Whosoever

Hi whosoever,

I'm definitely still game, and I have no problem with how you would like to move forward. I may indeed need to tell you that I need to look something up. I am not a theologian. I am just a rank and file Christian dude, but I will speak my answers with confidence in the Word of God, the Bible. Let me go ahead and get started with my answers, and just to be confusing I will answer the second part of your first question(s)...first. (Giving myself a headache lol) Hopefully along the way, I will address some issues you raised before your questions, but it appears that there is much to talk about. Bear with me and I will do my best.

Now it's my turn to make a mess. lol You've really asked two questions in one there, so let's deal with the part in parenthesis. I need to be really careful here. The word "Protestant" these days is an especially wide verbal broom, and I will simplify history in my answer for the purpose of clarity and understanding. You will see the word "protest" in Protestant. Those who believed that the Catholic church practiced doctrines which contradicted the Bible's teachings decided to "protest" those beliefs and practices. It really broke out in earnest when Martin Luther published his letter containing ninety-five theses in 1517. He and others believed that the Catholic church had departed from what God's word really teaches about many things. His objections ranged from the Doctrine of Justification to the selling of indulgences. The "Protestant church" came out of this movement--this "Reformation", which historically ended, or was concluded in 1648 when the "Peace of Westphalia" was ushered in with the signing of a couple of peace treaties that ended many years of religious war over this whole thing in Europe. For a time, any Christian church which came out of this Reformation movement and which was not Catholic was rightfully called a "Protest-ant" church.

The reason I say that the word "Protestant" nowadays is a sweeping term is that there are now a great many non-Catholic "churches" that have crept into and are creeping still into Protestantism which are in fact neither Protestant nor Christian. There are great many churches these days that are professing to be Christian which do not believe in the exclusivity of the Jesus Christ of the Bible ( 1 Timothy 2:5 ) and have invited in false gods, universalism and other heresies. Yes, Evangelicalism is a movement within true Christianity that could be identified as a by-product of the Reformation, as it began in Great Britain in the first half of the 1700s.

Okay.....now for the first part of your first.....well....questions lol "what sources can be quoted as doctrines of any protestant" This gets complicated just a tad. I believe that the one true source for Christian doctrine is the Bible. This has been true for the greater part of what is considered Christian orthodoxy for two-thousand years. It is faithful in all matters of truth and doctrine ( 2 Timothy 3:16 ) and it is inerrant in the original writings. Extra-biblical sources like "Antiquities of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus or other ancient books may hold some historical value or even be seen as educational tools to gain a better understanding of biblical cultures and the like, but they are not regarded as spiritually reliable in any way.

Like I said though...it gets complicated. There are some churches whose pastors and congregations do not hold exclusively to the Bible as the one source that God gave us from which to draw and apply doctrine to their lives. There are also those who hold to some of the Bible as truth, but not all of it. This is a mistake with huge spiritual implications for the lives of these people. Much like you would consider my trust in the Bible to be misplaced without the aid of the Book of Mormon, I believe that these folks are missing something and do not have "all the counsel of God", and because of that fact there will be dire consequences for them. And while there are Christians among such churches, I believe that the larger part of those sitting in their pews are not actually Christians. I am not their judge though, and as St. Augustine put it many years ago, "In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity." That is still a very good and timely quote. At my own church for example, we are a non-denominational fellowship. It isn't that we are opposed to different denominations. We are only opposed to their overemphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to division with the Body of Christ.

Let me illustrate why in this way....Picture an archaeologist, digging away in a little one-thousand square-foot section of dirt on a hillside in Peru. For years and years, he continues to dig in only a couple of these small areas, and he finds very little under the soil. Sure, he finds some old shards of pottery, a few pieces of cooking implements and some stone tools, finds which please him---but when he tilts his head back to adjust his hat and looks up the hillside he only sees what looks like ancient rock formations and keeps digging---in his tiny little areas. Now picture another archaeologist who wants to dig in the same general place, but who flies overhead first in a helicopter. When he reaches the hill in question from his larger view, he does not see merely ancient rock formations. He sees an entire set of ruins now abandoned by and ancient civilization--one that extends up the hillside for half a mile. This "big picture" is something his fellow archaeologist will never see, because he has chosen only a small part of the reality to work in.

The Bible is like that too. It must be viewed as a complete message in order to understand it well, and it is meant to be a lifetime companion for us. There is another old saying attributed to Augustine about the Bible. It goes, "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed." That accurate little statement is so loaded. It begs one to dig deeper and deeper into the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of the Creator of all that is. It cries out for those who love God to desire even more to see the wholeness of what the Scriptures tell us, and what it tells us....from start to finish....is all about the holiness and the glory of God in Jesus Christ. That's why we study it so much. That's why we have it in our laps on Sundays. It is God's gracious love letter to sinful man.

Okay....onward lol Some of what I have said goes hand-in-hand with what I will say now, and mind you this is what I believe, though there are a great many who share my belief. There is only one defining characteristic ( what you call a requirement ) necessary to be truly a "Christian" church, and that is people who are "born again" as the Bible describes it and thereby through grace, having faith in Jesus Christ (the Jesus of the Bible) are filled with His life-giving Agape love. I believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we might possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians. That is what is necessary to be a "Christian" church. If one is truly in love with Jesus Christ, the essentials will follow, because one will want to know what the essentials not only are, but live them out as well. I suppose that essentials must be addressed too, because that is what you are really asking about.

As I see them laid out in that "big picture" that is the Bible, the essentials of the Christian faith are as follows: the Deity of Jesus Christ, salvation by Grace, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from death, the gospel, and monotheism. Yes, monotheism. You mentioned the Trinitarian doctrine in your last post and I assume it is the doctrine you referred to as "inconceivable." The Bible makes it clear there is only One God, and as we take that "helicopter ride", viewing the whole thing, that there is One God who is manifested to us in three persons. Did Abraham know that God would send His Son to us and that He would be born in Bethlehem? No. Did Daniel? I believe so. Did the magi know that God's Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? Absolutely. What were the shepherds in the fields told at Jesus' birth? These are examples of the way God revealed over time, the first-coming of His Son to this world.

Those beliefs need to be present within any true Christian church. If one doesn't believe in the God of the Bible as He is....then one does not believe in the true God, and if any of these beliefs are not present within the church in question it isn't Christian and it will eventually fall like a spiritual house of cards. You asked what the majority of Christian churches believe, and I hope this helps a little. I am sure there will be more questions. Let 'em fly

Blessings,
seekHm1st

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

__________________
Thank you for supporting our sponsors!

I appreciated your thoughts on my questions. I am impressed with your way of organizing and expressing thoughts. You a writer? your style is easy to read, and get a lot of meaning packed in each sentence. Viewing it from an evangelical view point, I can understand where you are coming from, except on point:

I think this is my main hang up. First, there is no one within Evangelical Christianity with (or claims) authority to make this rule. Granted it is implied in the Bible, but again, there is no ONE way to interpret the bible--that is seen among all christian sects, and even among individual remembers. As I see christian principles, it is a contradiction to say there is no one true denomination, then to turn around and condemn another as not being christian. If Christ's church is "in the heart" as so many evangelicals have told me, then to be "christian"--that is, one who comes to Christ by following His teachings--must be judge solely by the individual; be they Catholic, Mormon, or JW.

This seems ironic to me. Evangelicals have no one way to interpret the bible--it is up to the individual; while Catholics, LDS, and JW believe there is only one true church [their church], and one true why to follow Christ for salvation. Yet it is the evangelicals say "Catholics, Mormons, and JW aren't following the true Christ [Our Christ]"--but they don't have a "true", one and only way; While I have never heard the Catholic, LDS, or JW churches (I mean official statement, not members), say evangelical Christians Can not claim the title of Christian, since they don't follow the true doctrines of Christ.

The above thoughts were not a question, but please share your insight on them if you want. I didn't know who to turn that thought into a question, but am interested in your opinion on it.

Next question: DO ALL EVANGELICALS ACCEPT THE BIBLE TO BE COMPLETE AND INFALLIBLE?

This was one of my original questions when I started on this chat. I had talked to my co-worker, and he is one who says the Bible is both complete and infallible. I spoke to his pastor and he stated 1) Historically the bible has been proven to be complete. 2) There is no time between the New testament and present day the bible had time to be corrupted. 3)and The New testament and early christian fathers quote enough of the Old Testament to recreate the old testament word for word I find completely the oppose:

1) I find Bible history to support LDS concept that it is true "as far as it is translated [and compiled] correctly." I have read, only 14 of the 39 The Old testaments books were written by "prophets," (I don't know if that counts David or not, I am finding the Bible refer to him as a prophet, which I would have not before considered him--I do now). The Bible was compiled by men of human understanding, unauthorized by God to compile. I find the reasons for the apocryphal books removal to be flimsy (LDS believe there are truth found in them, but not that they have been corrupted). I also find about 15 books of scripture mentioned by biblical writers which we do not have or know where they are. As for old testament quotes, I am nearly finished with a study of reading the New Testament and finding where they have quoted old testament scriptures. I find most are paraphrased, or even duel prophesies that fit both the time it was written, as well as Christ time (this is interesting to note for one of my upcoming questions on the need of modern prophets, to understand and see duel prophecies that scholars can only see as relating historically to the writers time).

2) I have found, not only has there been time between New testament writings and today, that the bible writing could have been corrupted or compiled differently, I find it a historical fact. The bible has been compiled in many forms.

3) Even the reformers disagreed with its arrangements. Martin Luther, for example, translated or compiled his own version of the bible and left out 4 books he did not consider scripture, the three I remember were: Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. Other reformers accepted these, yet denounced other books. Even presently, some denominations reject James, and a couple other books. When I lived in the south, there was a few "Christians" I met that thought the old testament was complete worthless since the time of Christ, and didn't even use it in their services. Does my conclusions appear accurate?

PLEASE realize, I believe the bible is scripture, as does my church. If there is any disagreement with the works today, it is Song of Solomon we do not believe is inspired of God, but all other books in the KJV is taken as scripture--but we have a prophet and the spirit of prophesy to ask God if it is true. Evangelicals, it appears to me, must rely solely on historical evidence, which, without revelation, my findings would probably have to conclude the bible false.

So that should provide you with ample background as to why I am asking if Evangelicals believe it to be "complete" or "largely true with potential of errors."

Thanks,
Whosoever

PS sorry these are so long, I always start writing with the expecation and hope to be only a couple short paragraphs.

There are better examples of missing scriptures, but this one really fascinates me. I thought I would post it as an example of what I was explaining in my last post, about the Bible being incomplete:

KJV Matt. 2: 23: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

Matthew’s reference to a prophecy that Jesus would be a Nazarene… is interesting when it is considered that our present O.T. seems to have no statement as such. There is a possibility, however, that Matthew alluded to Isaiah 11:1 which prophecies of the Messiah as a Branch from the root of Jesse, the father of David. The Hebrew word for Branch in this case is netzer, the source word for Nazarene and Nazareth. Additional references to Branch as the Savior and Messiah… use a synonymous Hebrew word for branch, tzemakh (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 726).

Hi whosoever,

I just wanted to skip to your most recent post before addressing the one before. There are some things going on here that I will address in my upcoming answer too. Suffice it to say that this is not really a matter of any insufficiency on the part of the Bible, God's Word. It is actually a matter of history, and the effort required to do a little research. Something of paramount importance when studying the Bible which simply cannot be overemphasized---is context. This is so important. You referenced only Matthew 2:23. That limits the information. Then you state that the Old Testament makes no such statement, but in order to take that "helicopter ride" over this verse, one really needs to start in verse 19.

Matthew 2:19"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."

If we take a good look at the verse--cradled in its context, information starts to come out. It's true--you won't be able to credit the statement to an Old Testament prophet on the face of it. What's more, verse 23 makes it look as though the statement should have been credited from the Lord to several OT prophets who had made very similar sounding statements. What do we do with that, since several prophets might mean several missing books?

For one thing, it's important to understand the Greek structural use of the plural, "through the prophets". The way it is structured, it isn't one prophet speaking for all, therefore--it is not referencing a missing book. No--the way this plural is used has to be referring to "the prophets" in one of two ways. Either it is speaking about the books of the different OT prophets in a general way, or it is referring to the whole of the Old Testament, because its prophetic purpose points out our need for a Savior, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus did this when He boiled the Commandments down to the greatest Commandment--and its second, in Matthew 22. It is also important to note that there is not a follow-up OT quote to specify a word or words that were given to several of the prophets. While not in the KJV, there may be a set of quote marks framing the statement in some translation versions, but due to the structure of the Greek language, they don't point directly to a single statement, or group of statements.

So what is Matthew talking about? It's fairly simple. Jesus lived in Nazareth as He fulfilled the prophecies of the OT. He didn't live there because the prophets pointed to that particular city, but instead....while fulfilling what the OT prophets said about Him, He would be called a Nazarene. That's all. This is certainly fitting, because the Lord told us through the prophet Isaiah that Jesus would be "despised and rejected of men" (Isaiah 53:3).

Nazareth was a fairly obscure setting in which to grow up, and it didn't have much of a reputation. Like you said, it isn't even mentioned in the OT. Its mention in connection with Jesus was probably even a synonymous way of saying that because Jesus came from there, He was likely to be despised in the way the prophet Isaiah foretold. Prophesying of Jesus, Isaiah 53:2 tells us that "he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Almost by definition, that outer appearance must apply to where He "came from".

If that's not enough, you might look at the prophecies in Psalm 22:6-8 and Isaiah 49:7. Prophecies like these are inclusive to the way the statement in Matthew is actually made.

For these reasons, I don't believe that there is a missing book here, but let's say that there was. How does that make the Bible incomplete or insufficient? A pragmatic view just doesn't work here. It gets down to a matter of trusting God to know what is needed. He does.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

Hi whosoever,

Thanks, but you are too kind in your assessment of my writing skills. As I mentioned, I am just a rank-and-file Christian. I just share an enthusiasm for the Word of God that other Christians have. I did mention that I had to be careful about some things though, and apparently I was not careful enough. I made an effort to label my post as my opinion. I said that I would speak with confidence in God's holy Word, but I am just a man. Having said that, I would like to return to the quote from me which you highlighted, and some of your background statements before I attempt to answer your third question. I may have to do this in two parts. My apologies.

Okay, this is a hang-up for you because:

Quote:

I think this is my main hang up. First, there is no one within Evangelical Christianity with (or claims) authority to make this rule. Granted it is implied in the Bible, but again, there is no ONE way to interpret the bible--that is seen among all christian sects, and even among individual remembers. As I see christian principles, it is a contradiction to say there is no one true denomination, then to turn around and condemn another as not being christian. If Christ's church is "in the heart" as so many evangelicals have told me, then to be "christian"--that is, one who comes to Christ by following His teachings--must be judge solely by the individual; be they Catholic, Mormon, or JW

.

Let's look for a moment at authority. First, the Bible is pretty much self-interpreting. The best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself. Why is that? It is because it is obvious that there is a spiritual component involved with it. Let's look at that where interpretive capabilities are involved.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Take a close look at what that passage says, and then look at what these following verses say:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

A picture starts to take shape, and there are many other verses which apply and add to the picture. The steadfastness of His Word. His Word is right and pure. His Word is "tried", the Bible tells us. It is tested, and it passes the test. Are there things in the Bible that are untrue? Yes. Job's "friends" for example spouted things about God that were not true. God corrected these things. That is a thing of great beauty about God's Word. God preserved the record of the people involved down to the last wart and blemish. He didn't gloss anything over. That works toward our rich benefit. Why? Back to my statement, and those beliefs I mentioned.

"the Deity of Jesus Christ, salvation by Grace, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from death, the gospel, and monotheism. Yes, monotheism." You said that "First, there is no one within Evangelical Christianity with (or claims) authority to make this rule. Granted it is implied in the Bible, but again, there is no ONE way to interpret the bible"

Look again at what I mentioned. The Deity of Jesus isn't implied in the Bible whosoever, it is shouted. It is about Him from start to finish. The gospel of John is all about His Deity. Take that doctrine and set it aside from the Bible and you have men following just a man, not God. A Christian is someone who believes, (pisteuó in the Greek)meaning someone who trusts in, clings to and relies on Jesus Christ not just for eternal life, but for everything that they are. He is first and last and everything in-between for them. Christians depend on Him totally for the forgiveness of their sins--past, present and future. If He is not God, then they-----are not saved. Paul said as much. "a spiritual house of cards". Paul said that among men, we would be the most pitiable, and he is right.

The same thing is true of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone. It isn't just Romans, Galatians and James that testify that man cannot add to the blood of Christ by their own works. The entire Bible declares this. Man has no goodness of any lasting value that he can claim. Any goodness he does lay claim to comes from a sin-corrupted source if he is not saved. If he is saved, his righteousness comes from Jesus Christ and the work that He accomplished when He walked of His own accord to the Cross in obedience to the Father and surrendered His sinless, perfect life as a ransom for our sins. Set that aside from the Bible, and no one is saved. They are deceived and of people like that Jesus prophesied, "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:23

For the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, again I revisit the words of Paul who said, "16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15) More cards, tumbling down.

The gospel. Without it...well.....think of it. It encompasses the rest of these things. If a church neither believes in or teaches the gospel, they are not trusting Jesus and the truth He proclaimed. They are in absolute disobedience. This is a no-brainer.

Finally, monotheism. The Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, being One God who manifests Himself to us in this way. I mentioned that the Bible declares that there is One God only. The Jews declared this in the Shema, the prayer of Deuteronomy 6:4. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" and the Doctrine of the Trinity changes nothing about this. Finite man simply cannot understand the Word of God or Him rightly, without the spiritual enablement of the Holy Spirit:

"17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (Ephesians 4)

If we do not understand Him rightly, we do not have Him. If we do not have Him, we are in darkness and are alienated from Him. The cards fall.....one by one. A church that claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three gods, a church that teaches that God the Father is Divine, but that Jesus is not, a church that teaches that the Holy Spirit is not God----these are denying the God of the Bible by teaching and worshipping an aberration of Christianity. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am not another person's judge. That office is fulfilled capably and rightfully only by Almighty God. This I do know though----His judgment is true, and He is infinitely just. His gospel is made easily understood, and as the Doctrine of the Trinity is gradually revealed over time and throughout the Bible's pages, so people come to understand it in time. The gospel of Jesus Christ is such that a small child can understand it. It is such that a mentally handicapped person can come to understand it. If anyone says otherwise, they are selling something.

There is no irony there in my view. Joseph Smith (the LDS church) declared in his first vision of 'God the Father and Jesus Christ', "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." The man claimed to have had a face-to-face vision of them. That seems like an official enough statement to me.The Jehovah's witnesses may not have intended their belief to be made to the general public at large, but is no secret that they believe that they are the one true church.

Here is the difference, and where the irony comes in....a Christian trusts in the grace of God through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, as promised in His Word---for their eternal salvation. They trust in the God of the Bible. They do not trust in their own works---not even in part. They REST from their own works....their own past feeble ATTEMPTS to work their way to heaven by "being good"-----they rest in Jesus Christ because He atoned for all of our sins and took all the WORK out of the whole deal. Christians do not depend on a church, even though they happily belong to one. Walking into a church doesn't make one a Christian---any more than walking into a McDonald's makes one a Big Mac.

Blessings,

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

Okay whosoever, pressing onward lol

True Evangelicals, yes. Time for caveats and clarification. First clarification--not all Christians are Evangelicals, but all Evangelicals (true Evangelicals) are Christians. Let me explain. Most of those within the Evangelical Christian movement have always had a belief that as Jesus plainly said, we must be born again. This is a personal conversion by the grace of God. They believe that when one lives out their faith that an effort for the gospel will grow out of their love for God. They have a very high regard for the authority of Scripture, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to their faith. I am one of these.

Next caveat---not all "Evangelicals" are Christians. In this last century, and in the last twenty years or so especially, non-Christian entities (who claim to be Christians) have hijacked the term "Evangelical" and claimed it for themselves and their own movements. There is one growing movement over the last twenty years that hardly adheres to any Biblical concept without wavering on it. They are universalists, meaning that they believe everyone will go to heaven whether they repent of their sins or not. This means that they believe Adolph Hitler for example, will be in heaven along with every serial child molester, rapist and murderer who ever lived. This life in their opinion is just where the beauty of God is demonstrated to us. They believe that the kingdom of heaven exists right now on this planet, and that it is our job to set it up. Because they believe that, they don't make an effort to spread the true gospel of Jesus Christ as we are commissioned to do. Their chief concern is social justice, and they get caught up placing their affections in this world instead of the world to come. There are other groups who have crept into Evangelical Christianity too. Very liberal groups. It gets worse every year. To me it is like girls moving into the Boy Scouts and wanting to be called Boy Scouts.

It isn't just Evangelical Christians who believe in the sufficiency and infallibility of the Bible. There are Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians who believe in it too and have differences about it with branches of their own denominations. The deal is, I feel that believing otherwise is just another form of man's trust in himself, and his disobedience to God. Don't get me wrong. I believe that there are true Christians who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. I just don't believe that they will stay that way. I believe that if they love God, they will come to see the truth about God's Word.

I agree with your co-worker and his pastor. There may have been two-thousand years between now and the resurrection of Jesus, but the idea that the Bible had time to be corrupted doesn't fit in any scheme of reality. Let's just look at the New Testament. Did you know that there are close to 25,000 extant copies of the New Testament alone, either in whole or in part? So.....did somebody go around all over the world, collect all of those copies and alter them? They would have had to for it to be corrupted, because they all match. There are variants in the writings, but they are minor to the point where they do not change in any way the meaning of the text.

You said; "1) I find Bible history to support LDS concept that it is true "as far as it is translated [and compiled] correctly." Ezra Taft Benson is quoted as saying The Bible has; “passed through generations of copyists, translators and corrupt religionists who have tampered with it” (Ensign Jan 92, p.5) This is just not an accurate reflection of the facts. Even many liberal historians who disregard the message of the Bible will attest to its accurate preservation as an ancient document. The Bible has not been compiled in many forms. I think if you studied the history of the manuscripts, and read about the requirements and the faithfulness of the Scribes as regards the efforts of the copyists, you might gain a new appreciation for the transmission of the copies.

You said; Again, let's use the NT as an example, just for ease of explanation. There are some very valid reasons for choosing the books that were selected for the NT canon. How about just one really good one? All of the books of the NT were written either by a person who personally witnessed the life and ministry and the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, or were closely associated by Christian fellowship with someone who did. Not one of the Apocryphal books can make this claim. There are other reasons, but this one is good enough for me. I commend you for making a study of intertestamental quotes. There is a solid demonstration of harmony in God's Word to be found there. Plus, it is just plain fascinating.

It is true that the reformers had disagreements about the Catholic canon. The fourth book you couldn't remember was the one he objected to the most--James. He called it---"an epistle of straw". With all due respect to Martin Luther, he didn't grasp it. This might be explained by the fact that he did understand the concept of the Doctrine of God's Grace, but that he quite possibly was having a knee-jerk reaction to the works-righteousness element of the church he was working to reform. I don't really know. I only know that when we are given faith by God, that our works will grow out of our love for Him. The works that grow out of faith are evidence that we are saved. If we have no real love for God, we won't want to do anything to further His kingdom, and that would seem to be evidence that we are not in fact, saved. The works though, do not provide salvation. Their presence or absence are just evidence to salvation's presence or absence. As far as those churches you encountered who did not value the OT.......I feel very sorry for them. The OT and NT go hand-in-hand. The Bible is great. I love it, but it's not Jesus. The church is not Jesus. JESUS is Jesus. It is the person of Jesus Christ who matters most in the life of a Christian. He's the one we follow, and knowing your Bible better helps one know HIM better.

I appreciate you telling me this about the Song of Solomon. You are the first Mormon I have talked to who has ever bothered to mention this to me. I would be curious to know why, in your own words.

As for your assessment of how and why Evangelical Christians come to the conclusion that the Bible is sufficient and inerrant, I'd say you have missed some things. One big thing is that we are not without revelation from God. I don't really know how to explain this to you, but I will try. God speaks to us through His Word. As we go to Him in prayer, and the more of ourselves we reveal to Him, the more of Himself He reveals to us. When we read His Word we pray about what we read. This is not to say that God does not speak to our hearts, because He does, but to be honest, I really don't know how to convey that to you. I could tell you a lot of experiences from my own life, but though they have immense personal meaning for me, they would be largely anecdotal and I don't think I could do an explanation any real justice.

Lastly, I don't believe the Bible to be I don't believe that there are any errors in it at all. I believe it is the Lord's Word.

Sall for now. Hope this wasn't all too long.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

p.s. Sorry, had to edit this for minor clarity. Must have been more sleepy than I thought when I wrote it.

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

SeekHm1st,

Two things: First, I almost didn't post my example scripture, but glad I did. It opens up a point of mine--In giving your "interpretation" of the scriptures it comes a cross so "matter-of-fact." This goes with our previous discussion. You accept that other Christians may have different interpretations, yet I see dramatic differences in viewpoints among sects, which I have yet to find one point of doctrine that it is okay to "agree to disagree."

Second, you stated:

I do believe there are missing books, yet I agree it does not make the Bible insufficient. That is one reason I am so interested in finding out protestants views. The ones I've talked to see so opposed to the concept, yet there is no reason too be. God works still stands true.

Your line is also of interest:
This is also where I agree, but our share belief apparently sends us in different directions (I am, of course, prejudging you based on previous conversations with other evangelicals). To me, trusting God means to ask Him and trust His answer (either way). To you (or those I've talked to) it is to trust the assumption God wouldn't let man lose or change parts.

Anyway, I just noticed you replied to my first post, so I better read that too... probably won't be for another day or two (sorry).

Whosoever

Hi whosoever,

Take your time, not a problem. One can probably always do a better job of explaining one's self.

If what I said about Scriptural interpretation sounds matter-of-fact and systematic to you, it probably has more to do with the limitations of print than anything else. I think (hope) you will gain a somewhat better understanding of what I meant when you read the posts I made to attempt to answer your question.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

SeekHm1st,

Well, I got to your posts way sooner than I thought--even sooner than I should have (I'm neglecting some things). I hope I remember all I wanted to comment on:

1) Your step by step evaluation of the scriptures was good. Your comparison of evangelicals and LDS at the end concerning faith and works was nice touch, but I had a few comments. Though I recognize few Mormons would verbalize (maybe even agree with) this as I am about to, I do not believe I am going against doctrine--still I speak my own opinion on this.

What you described as Christ saving, and works showing, is very similar and plausibly the same as LDS doctrines on works. I'm sure you already disagree, and this is a whole other topic, so I will not address it fully, but Latter-day Saints have never taught (as a church) we can be saved by our works--quite the contrary. For LDS, works become important "saving" elements by making mind and body a more holy tabernacle for the Spirit which in turn, inspires more works. And most importantly, as you stated, without Jesus there can be no good works. In fact, one man may give to the poor, but unless it is done in Christ's name, it is done unto himself and not for God's glory. This is my understanding of Mormon's belief on Faith and Works--I believe the confusion is largely due to the fact LDS focuses on our agency to act in Christ name, while evangelicals (as I precise) take it on faith that God will lead them to do good. Also, where evangelicals believe they are "saved," LDS believe themselves saved if they endure in the faith--which to them includes obedience/works.

Still, I recognize there are slight differences in beliefs. Your quote: "Walking into a church doesn't make one a Christian---any more than walking into a McDonald's makes one a Big Mac" is very true, but "Christian" means "follower of Christ." Faith, like Love, requires action--it requires work to follow. Simeon Peter was not brought across the Sea of Galilee (?) by a heavenly tractor beam--but with Christ's assurance, he exercised faith with each step. After all he could do, when his faith wavered, Christ reached down to take his hand.

2) I have read the history of the bible how it was compiled, etc. (both from LDS angle and evangelical--as supplied by my co-worker) and they do not differ. Yet, this was my point The bible (which had not been "decided on" at this point) does not contain instructions on how to decipher true scripture. Now that it is complied, we can choose principles that partain, but there is no verse that says: "And thus shall thou weed through ancient writing..." Man decided. As a believer in the books they have picked, I don't necessarily say they did a bad job of it, what I am trying to point out is that it was done by human wisdom.

3) to answer your question, I do not know much about "why" Songs of Solomon are not considered revelation, other than Joseph Smith said it wasn't. As you know, or Nova would be willing to tell you, Joseph Smith translated (use translated loosely--received Revelation concerning passages) the Bible, and that's when he made that statement--I would assume he was told that by revelation. The only reference I know of to confer this is in our Bible footnotes it reads: "Note: the JST [Joseph Smith Translation] manuscript states that 'The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.'

Now to clarify a myth about Latter-day Saints, we use the KJV of the Bible, though the LDS published Bible has SOME of the JST printed in the footnotes. The RLDS (reorganized LDS) holds the copyrights to the JST. Now that I've typed that "clarification" and read it, I think it may bring up more questions than it answers. If that is the case, feel free to ask.

4) My understanding was Martin Luther was in favor of "saved by grace, not by works." Did you say the opposite, or was that what you were saying?

5) I think I mostly see your view point concerning the Bible. Though I still disagree, I believe I understand your perspective (mostly, there is much I could still learn of it, but I think it is sufficient for the time)

6) lastly, I was thinking today, I could probably sum up all my questions (including those I still have with the last questions) in just one question. I will wait to ask it until we both are though commenting on what has already been said. I'd like to stay focused on as few things as possible.

Thanks again for your time,

Whosoever