For more of Melito click here.

What more can I add here?

Components of the Mystery of the Passover (46-71)

1. The Passover (46-47a)

46. Now that you have heard the explanation of the type and of that which corresponds to it, hear also what goes into making up the mystery. What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–”to celebrate the passover” (to paschein) is derived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer.

47. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven[1].

2. The Creation and Fall of Man (47b-48)

In the beginning, when God made heaven and earth, and everything in them through his word, he himself formed man from the earth and shared with that form his own breath, he himself placed him in paradise, which was eastward in Eden, and there they lived most luxuriously.

Then by way of command God gave them this law: For your food you may eat from any tree, but you are not to eat from the tree of the one who knows good and evil. For on the day you eat from it, you most certainly will die.

48. But man, who is by nature capable of receiving good and evil as soil of the earth is capable of receiving seeds from both sides, welcomed the hostile and greedy counselor, and by having touched that tree transgressed the command, and disobeyed God. As a consequence, he was cast out into this world as a condemned man is cast into prison.

3. Consequences of the Fall (49-56)

49. And when he had fathered many children, and had grown very old, and had returned to the earth through having tasted of the tree, an inheritance was left behind by him for his children. Indeed, he left his children an inheritance–not of chastity but of unchastity, not of immortality but of corruptibility, not of honor but of dishonor, not of freedom but of slavery, not of sovereignty but of tyranny, not of life but of death, not of salvation but of destruction.

50. Extraordinary and terrifying indeed was the destruction of men upon the earth. For the following things happened to them: They were carried off as slaves by sin, the tyrant, and were led away into the regions of desire where they were totally engulfed by insatiable sensual pleasures–by adultery, by unchastity, by debauchery, by inordinate desires, by avarice, by murders, by bloodshed, by the tyranny of wickedness, by the tyranny of lawlessness.

51. For even a father of his own accord lifted up a dagger against his son; and a son used his hands against his father; and the impious person smote the breasts that nourished him; and brother murdered brother; and host wronged his guest; and friend assassinated friend; and one man cut the throat of another with his tyrannous right hand.

52. Therefore all men on the earth became either murderers, or parricides, or killers of their children. And yet a thing still more dreadful and extraordinary was to be found: A mother attacked the flesh which she gave birth to, a mother attacked those whom her breasts had nourished; and she buried in her belly the fruit of her belly. Indeed, the ill-starred mother became a dreadful tomb, when she devoured the child which she bore in her womb.

53. But in addition to this there were to be found among men many things still more monstrous and terrifying and brutal: father cohabits with his child, and son and with his mother, and brother with sister, and male with male, and each man lusting after the wife of his neighbor.

54. Because of these things sin exulted, which, because it was death’s collaborator, entered first into the souls of men, and prepared as food for him the bodies of the dead. In every soul sin left its mark, and those in whom it placed its mark were destined to die.

55. Therefore, all flesh fell under the power of sin, and every body under the dominion of death, for every soul was driven out from its house of flesh. Indeed, that which had been taken from the earth was dissolved again into earth, and that which had been given from God was locked up in Hades. And that beautiful ordered arrangement was dissolved, when the beautiful body was separated (from the soul).

56. Yes, man was divided up into parts by death. Yes, an extraordinary misfortune and captivity enveloped him: he was dragged away captive under the shadow of death, and the image of the Father remained there desolate. For this reason, therefore, the mystery of the passover has been completed in the body of the Lord.

Many of the readers of this blog know that I disagree with the idea that Doctrine has developed over time. My basis for this belief is that idea that many times the New Testament writers spoke about the Faith that was once for all delivered unto the Saints. In Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, we read that the new Christians continued steadfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles. If the Church is to continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles then that Doctrine must not change. You might call it Doctrinal Procession or Development, but I do not see a scriptural basis for it.

This week, while reading Early Christian Doctrines I came across a que to a thought by Gregory of Nazianzus. So, I went searching for it, in hopes of finding something biblical about it. This is the quote:

XXVI.  To this I may compare the case of Theology^37333733 Theology is here used in a restricted sense, as denoting simply the doctrine of the Deity of the Son or Logos.  It is very frequently used in this limited sense; examples of which may readily be found in Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Chrysostom, and others.  A similar use occurs in Orat. XXXVIII., c. 8, in which passage θεολογία is contrasted with οἰκονομία, the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity with that of the Incarnation. except that it proceeds the reverse way.  For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions.  For the matter stands thus.  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.  The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit.  Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself.  For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory,^37343734 Ps. lxxxiv. 7, and 2 Cor. iii. 18. the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.  For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues.  And indeed it is by little and little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully.  I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth.^37353735 John xiv. 16, 17. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority.  Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name.  He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send,^37363736 John xvi. 7. then again, I will send,—His own dignity.  Then shall come,^37373737 Ib. xvi. 8.the authority of the Spirit.

Theology, the translator tells us, is restrict to the Doctrine of the Deity of the Son. We can accept that. Gregory’s use of Father does not equal the use by the Jews, the Apostles, the Apostolic or the early Church Fathers. For them, Father was the principle, the source of Creation. The Son is proclaimed not as Son, but as Messiah, as the Hope of Israel.

The problem with Gregory’s analysis of the Old and the New and the Now (Father, Son, Spirit) is that it only provides Inspiration for the two. We are the base our doctrine on the Scriptures. If this is the case, then we have no real scriptures pointing to the deity of the Spirit and thus, no justification of the third person of the Trinity.

There is of course problem with the ‘gradual’ indwelling of the Apostles by the Spirit. There is no scriptural evidence for that. Christ did not give the Spirit measured in John 20.

Well, I don’t want to disect him too much, but I would rather stick with Chrysostom

I have written several posts on Sirach, sections that I have found useful, interesting, and intriguing, and in doing so, I have come to a greater appreciation for the Inspiration of this book. Inspiration - the thought that the author penned it, but it was the Divine Author that actually wrote it. Surely, I am not the only one that has seen a measure of inspiration in the words of Sirach, as we know that the ancient Rabbi’s used it as well as many of the Church Fathers.

Beginning with this post, I am going to attempt a commentary on Sirach for examination and proof of Inspiration.

Below you will see the addition of several alternate verses which are found in a different Greek recension of Sirach that used by the KJV and RSV. I include these because they are highly valuable, and unfortunately, the level of Textual Criticism that is often applied to the rest of the Bible has not yet reached a sound scientific basis for many of the books of the Deuterocanon. I will discuss the alternate verse as a stand alone verse in the passage.

This is not designed as the final word on Sirach, but to open up doorways for thinking by Fundamentals on Sirach, and fellow Economists/Emanationists (oneness) believers on the Wisdom passages of the Old Testament and the Deuterocanon. I always encourage discussion on these posts, and indeed, all posts.

Sirach 1:1-8

(1)  All Wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him for ever.

Ben Sira uses Wisdom not to encompass pure knowledge, but his view is clearly religious in nature, as would be natural for him. By itself, this verse is hardly impressive, however, by undertaking the rest of the passage first, we see that this Wisdom is an emanation from the Lord. (Wisdom 1.26, Hebrews 1.3).

(2)  Who can count the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, and the days of eternity?
(3)  Who can search them out the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, the abyss, and wisdom?
(4)  Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity.

The verse is a prologue to John’s Logos passage, when in the beginning was the Word. It also looks back to Proverbs 8, the basis of understanding the Jewish view of Wisdom.

“I, Wisdom, dwell with prudence, And find out knowledge and discretion. The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverse mouth I hate. Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom; I am understanding, I have strength. By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, All the judges of the earth. I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me. Riches and honor are with me, Enduring riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yes, than fine gold, And my revenue than choice silver. I traverse the way of righteousness, In the midst of the paths of justice, That I may cause those who love me to inherit wealth, That I may fill their treasuries. “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.  (Proverbs 8:12-22 NKJV)

Sirach connects to the the Logos of John and the Wisdom of Proverbs as well as the Emanation of Wisdom 7.26. This is not difficult to justify from the Economist/Emanationist standpoint. The Divine is not without His Wisdom or His Word, and thus not alone; however, the Wisdom and Word are divine persons, but attributes and emanations. Wisdom is God Thinking whereas Word is God Active.

And alternate verse here, which is highly Christological, reads

(4a) Wisdom’s spring is God’s word in the highest, and her journeys are everlasting commandments.

This verse is attested to in the Syriac as well as the Latin,

Fons sapientiae verbum Dei in excelsis, et ingressus illius mandata aeterna. - Nova Vulgata

The Logos is seen here as the spring of Sophia, the source. In ancient times, Wisdom is associated with the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of God is seen as emanating from the Son. In John 14 and 16, we read of the spirit of Truth that will come from the Father as well as coming from the Son. This is God speaking His wisdom to dwell among flesh as the gift of the holy Spirit.

This verse is important to the Church, as we cannot fail to be reminded that the Apostle called Christ the Wisdom of God. (cf Luke 7.35 and 1st Corinthians 1.24)

(5) To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed? Who knows her great deeds?

The Greek word ‘Sophia’ is feminine, causing most translators to make the pronoun feminine as well; however, this should not the reader’s mind nor single Wisdom as female. Many would assume that Wisdom is the the Jewish version of Isis, the Egyptian goddess; however, even in Proverbs, Wisdom is usually translated as feminine.

(6)  There is One who is wise, greatly to be feared, sitting upon his throne.

This (6) verse is left out of some ancient MSS. One theory is that it was removed by the Jews sometime after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135. The Rabbi’s, seeking to save Judaism, began removing certain passages from the LXX (cf Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho) in hopes of reducing the Christology of the Old Testament.

(7)  The Lord himself created wisdom; he saw her and numbered her, he poured her out upon all his works.
(8)  She dwells in the midst of all flesh according to his gift, and he supplied her to those who love him.

This calls to mind John 3.16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 NKJV)

And alternate verse here reads,

(8a) Loving the Lord is esteemed wisdom, but to whomever He appears, He apportions her as a vision of Himself.

Again we turn to Paul’s writing, when he calls Christ the Image of God.

Whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 NKJV)

And to John,

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.  (John 14:7-11 NKJV)

Earliest Reference to Christ Found: Discovery News.

I am sure that we will soon see another documentary from those great folks who brought us the ‘Tomb of Jesus’. Seems that the one thing that the Discovery Channel has not yet discovered is decency.

A team of scientists led by renowned French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio recently announced that they have found a bowl, dating to between the late 2nd century B.C. and the early 1st century A.D., that, according to an expert epigrapher, could be engraved with the world’s first known reference to Christ.

If the word “Christ” refers to the Biblical Jesus Christ, as is speculated, then the discovery may provide evidence that Christianity and paganism at times intertwined in the ancient world.

The full engraving on the bowl reads, “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS,” which has been interpreted by French epigrapher and professor emeritus Andre Bernand as meaning either, “by Christ the magician” or “the magician by Christ.”

“It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic,” Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology, said.

Here is the main problem - THIS IS NOT THE EARLIEST REFERENCE TO JESUS CHRIST. The Earliest reference is found in the Gospels. This is not a reference to Jesus Christ, not of the bible. Well, I guess I put the Discovery Channel up there with FoxNews now, on the do not watch list.

via The ultimate conspiracy theory « woman on the edge of reality.

Let’s see if we can bring this nice lady back from the edge, shall we? She writes,

The conversation began with a question about how much of the bible is true and of course I replied that the Christian bible as we know it, was ‘created’ (for want of a better term) by the council of Rome in AD 382, when it was determined which of the available books of the Jewish Old Testament and those of the possible New Testament were to be included as the final version of the ‘written word of God’ …. see what I mean by conspiracy?  Remember the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Although the Council of Rome did set out a canonical list, those lists have been long established and modified since at least the late 2nd Century, at least in writing. We know that the early Christian writers employed a set core of books, even back to Ignatius. 1st Clement will give you an essential canonical usage list if you are willing to look. As a matter of fact the Pauline Corpus provides us a pretty firm hold on the OT canon that he would have used.

The idea that at some point the Catholic Church ‘invented’ the bible is absurd and far from reality. Granted, Ignatius and blessed Polycarp did not have the fine editions that we have now, but they had the core books, including some of the the Deuterocanon.  (Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom come to mind). This is the problem with conspiracy theories - rarely are they based on complete facts.

She comments,

We then moved onto why Christianity …. and of course, I had yet another answer!  Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire when Constantine decided that a good way to unify a disparate grouping of people would be to have a single religion that all were to believe in.  At the time, another potential rival to Christianity for this honour was Mithraism, a cult that was widespread throughout the Roman empire because of it’s links to the legions.

From Wikipedia,

Evaluation of the relationship of early Christianity with Mithraism has traditionally been based on the polemical testimonies of the 2nd century Church fathers, such as Justin’s accusations that the Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians. This led to a picture of rivalry between the two religions, which Ernest Renan set forth in his 1882 The Origins of Christianity by saying “if the growth of Christianity had been arrested by some mortal malady, the world would have been Mithraic,” Although as remarked above, little was actually known about Mithras in 1882.

The Prophet Haggai speaks to us from across the centuries when he calls Christ the ‘desire of the nations’.

And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.  (Haggai 2:7 KJVA)

There is no need to dismiss the constant similarities between Christianity and Paganism, as we know that from time memorial, the adversary has used a little Truth and leavened it to great poison. Mithraism does bare some similiar traits to Christianity because, as Justin Martyr said, they borrowed and abused the Faith. Only the mind that sees tok destroy Christianity would first assume that Christianity is the ‘borrowed’ religion.

Concerning Constantine, the author is correct. He did institutionalize Christianity, but by then it had grown across the Empire. Of course, I would rather debate whether or not the Christianity that he put in place was the Christianity of the Bible.

She then comments,

Of course, the easiest way to spread a religious doctrine is to incorporate the ‘local traditions’ and so we end up with such things as 25th December being the date of birth of Jesus Christ - when it was originally the date of ‘birth’ of Mithras, close to the winter solstice (a powerful time in the pagan calendar), and also close to the Saturnalia and the date of the Deus Sol Invictus - both ancient Roman/pagan celebrations.

She should first discover the controversy over Nisen 14. The idea that Christianity as a whole set this date (December 25th) as the date of celebration is misguided at best, intellectually dishonest at worse. She mentions these grand conspiracy theories and yet is herself a product of one. Sin is the greatest conspiracy to darken the mind.

This is the last of the series of posts on Mormonism for this week. (It does not mean that I will not revisit the topic from time to time.) The Mormon religion was founded by a con man with very little on his mind but money, power, and control over women. He and his disciples essentially created ritualized adultery and corrupted the traditional view of marriage. If the roots are corrupt, how can the tree not be poisonous? I have not included all of the quotes, as some of them are more lewd that I would want on this blog. I advise you that although these sayings are the Truth of Mormonism, they are not easy to digest. They are filled with  allowances of incest, pedophilia, adultery, and polygamy.

From Rethinking Mormonism:

The Restoration Means God Leads the Mormon Church

“Through living prophets, Christ is leading this church today. The greatest security of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes from learning to listen to and obey the words and commandments that the Lord has given through living prophets. I would hope that the world would understand the importance of having a living prophet on earth today… Their purpose is to bring us the will of the Lord for our times.“

” I give my testimony that the prophets of this day have the qualities of the prophets of old and the other prophets of this dispensation. Each of these prophets has humbly and prayerfully sought to know and follow God’s will in his personal ministry. We declare with soberness, and yet with the authority of God in us vested, we have a prophet today. The President of the Church, as a prophet, is God’s representative on earth and is appointed to lead His church. Christ is the head of his Church today, just as he was in ancient times. The Lord has said that this is ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased‘ (D&C 1:30).”
-Apostle Robert D. Hales, “Hear the Prophet’s Voice and Obey,” Ensign, May 1995, Page 15

Now look what those leaders have done over the last 150 years…

The following historical events regarding sex and marriage in the church have been compiled from the extensive historical church chronology from D. Michael Quinn’s book “The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power” For references, refer to the book.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Bob McCue

My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, wash, and be clean?
2 Kings 5:10

Introduction

This essay is written as part of my ongoing attempt to understand my religious experience as a faithful member of the Mormon Church, and in the hope that it will shorten the learning curve of others who will come behind me along the same path.

The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”, the “Mormon Church” or the “LDS Church”) are aware of a great deal of persuasive evidence that is relevant to the evaluation of the Church’s foundational claims. The questions to which this evidence relates include things like whether Joseph Smith translated, as that term is ordinarily understood, physical golden plates into the Book of Mormon, or did he have some kind of mystic experience that gave rise to that book? And what was the nature of the experience Mormons know as the “First Vision”? Did Joseph see God the Father and the Jesus Christ and receive a certain clearly defined mandate from them, as he indicated in an account given near the end of his life, or did any of the other various conflicting things he said about that experience occur instead of, or in addition to, what is now contained in the official account?

And how about the chapters in Mormon history euphemistically labelled “Lying for the Lord”? These chronicle the fact that Joseph Smith lied for almost ten years over the pulpit, in private, in the news papers etc. by saying that he did not participate in polygamy and the fact that for close to 15 years between 1890 and 1905 many other Church leaders did the same thing while pretending to obey U.S. federal authority respecting the requirement that Mormons not practise polygamy while almost all of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency were authorizing or participating in polygamous marriage sealings.

Read the rest of this entry »

From Rethinking Mormonsim:

“Jesus ’so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God.’ Indeed, the Father and the Son are one-in purpose and love.“

“Divine love is also conditional. While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us-and certain divine blessings stemming from that love-are conditional.“

“Understanding that divine love and blessings are not truly ‘unconditional’ can defend us against common fallacies such as these: ‘Since God’s love is unconditional, He will love me regardless …’; or ‘Since ‘God is love,’ He will love me unconditionally, regardless …’ These arguments are used by anti-Christs to woo people with deception.“

Read the rest of this entry »

Tip to the hat to Jessica for posting this video first.

This might not be CSI, but if you have no DNA evidence, then you don’t have a case for Mormonism.

I work in the Coal Industry, in the safety aspect of it, and I have seen instances of those in a position of authority who through inaction or misaction cause the death of someone, even several someones. The grief that they experience will generally lead them to suicide. Somewhere along the way, they cannot find the ability to seek forgiveness from either those that they harm, themselves, or even from God. I think about the women who have abortions, and the trauma that their body goes through, incomparable to the trauma of their mind and heart.

What of the sinner? Or the Christian who sins and instead of turning to God, continues to live unforgived because he deems himself unforgivable.

In the story below, we read of a police officer who committed a grave error - if the taking of a human life can be called an error - and forgetting that their may be forgiveness, decided to end his own life.

In college, I had a Religion and Sociology class. The topic of sin came up - specifically whether sin was instinct or results of community pressure (figuratively). The conversation soon centered around the idea that humanity had no instincts instilled in it, but adapted to life as each individual progressed. One of my fellow students spoke up saying that we have the instinct of survival. The professor countered with suicide. The student countered with the idea that too many times, the person who contemplates suicide (and/or goes through with it), is under so much pressure that the only avenue of survival is take his or her own life in hopes that the pain that is so often associated with life will cease.

Fortunately for us, we have a hope that is stronger than any sin we may have committed before salvation. Our Hope is in the redeeming Cross of Christ and His faithfulness in obedience. We must continue to pray and to seek out those that are hurting, forgetting not that the love of Christ is timeless and often times, just in time.

Police Lieutenant in Taser Case Commits Suicide - NYTimes.com.

Read the rest of this entry »

We have recently read of the ‘coming out’ of ‘Christians’ - Ray Boltz and Clay Aiken. They both essentially said the same thing, that they felt that God made them that way, and that they had come to except themselves, feeling that any battle waged against sin was a war against themselves. We read of those that purport Christianity, yet live the life of sinners, blaming this one or that on. Were the parents alcoholics? Well, then it is a genetic disorder or a mental condition that requires an excuse? Marriage? Who needs it? Afterall, everyone is living together nowadays anyway. Isn’t Christianity really about doing good? Wasn’t Christ just a really good man and teacher anyway?

We find many such excuses for sin given by people

• Didn’t know any better
• Makes me feel good and if it feels good, it cannot be bad
• God made me this way
• Home life

And we answer them this way,

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. (James 4:17 NKJV)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 NKJV)

But, according to the stubbornness of your unrepentant heart, you are treasuring up for yourself punishment for the Day of Wrath when the righteous judgment of God is revealed; He will render to every man according to his deeds. While to those who with a cheerful and steadfast good work, seek out glory, honor, and immortality God will render eternal life, Yet, to those who are self-seekers, disobeying the truth and yet obeying unrighteousness, he will render rage and punishment, Tribulation and anguish — upon every soul of man that works evil. It will come first to the Jew and then it will come to the Gentile;
(Romans 2:5-9 CTV-NT / W)

MANIFESTATIONS OF EXCUSING SIN

1. Mal 2:17; The calling of bad men good.

2. Mal 3:13-15; Calling the proud happy.

3. Isa 5:20; Describing sin as good.

4. Isa 5:23; Justification of the wicked.

5. Ps 73:3-15; Envy of the wicked.

6. Ps 10:11-13; Supposing God cannot see sin.

7. Zeph 1:12; Considering God to be indifferent to sin.

8. Job 34:5-36; Ignoring reproof.

9. Matt 11:18-19; Misjudging people.

10. Ezek 20:49; Questioning God’s Word.

EXCUSING SIN IS THE CAUSE OF:

1. Matt 6:23; Moral darkness.

2. Matt 16:3-6; Man made concepts.

3. Matt 23:16-23; Hypocrisy.

4. Luke 16:15; An evil heart.

5. 2^nd Pet 2:1-19; False teachings.

Sin will lead you further than you want to go, darkening your mind, corrupting your soul, and alienating you from the Body of Christ. There is no more excuse for sin, since we now have Christ. Don’t be misguided into excusing sin, either for yourself or for another.

If Mormons Are Christians, Then Am I A Mormon? « i love mormons.

Love the quote…

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” -J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24.

INVESTIGATING MORMONISM.

If you are investigating Mormonism (the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “LDS Church”), you are probably studying it in private meetings in your home with missionaries from that church. Here are some of the key things that they are probably telling you:

Read the rest of this entry »

From Rethinking Mormonism:

“It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.“
(D&C 131:6)

How many Mormons are ignorant about their own faith?

How many Mormons know these critical truths about Mormonism:

• The official First Vision story was not written by Joseph Smith and was produced decades after the event supposedly occurred. Details

• Smith did not use the “Urim and Thumim” to dictate any part of the Book of Mormon text we have today. Details

• Mormon leaders, including Smith, described the Moroni visit as a “dream” until 1831, the year after the church was organized. Details

• Almost 20 years before Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon, his father coincidentally had a dream nearly identical to the narrative of “Lehi’s Dream” in the Book of Mormon. Details

• Smith practiced polygamy while he was alive, secretly marrying teenagers and women who were already married. Details

• Smith testified many times that he was coerced into secret polygamous marriages by an “angel with a sword.” Details

• Smith removed his garments before he went to Carthage Jail and told all of the other polygamists to do the same. Details

• There have been major alterations in the temple endowment and to the temple covenants. Death-oath covenants and whole doctrinal sections were changed as recently as 1990. Details

• The scrolls Joseph Smith “translated” into the Book of Abraham have been identified by Egyptologists — including LDS scholars — as common, pagan Egyptian burial documents, that do not mention Abraham and have no connection to the contents of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Details

• Early Mormon African-Americans were ordained to the Priesthood until Brigham Young became prophet. Details

• Soon after the first printing, Joseph Smith tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon. Details

• Mormon teachings regarding a “Celestial Kingdom” and “three degrees of glory” come from a 17th-century Christian author. Details

• The overwhelming DNA evidence shows that all pre-Columbian native Americans are descendants from Asia and have no connection to Jews or the middle east. Details

• The Mormon Church has a legacy of bashing Christians and Christianity. Details
• Joseph Smith did not give his life as an innocent martyr. A recent church film depicting Smith’s death leaves out the fact that he shot three men and used a Masonic distress call moments before he died. Details

Granted, none of these are “testimony killers” nor are they meant to be. There are some people, especially the Mormon apologists and historians, who know these facts. But the point is, the vast majority of Mormons do not learn these things from the church.

But aren’t these facts relevant to the truthfulness of the church’s other claims?

Is the average Mormon informed enough to make an intelligent decision about the church, or are they kept in ignorance?

Does the church really think “it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance?”

Continuing our series on Mormonism, we examine some of their fundamental beliefs.

From here.

1. Is There More Than One True God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that there is only one True and Living God and apart from Him there are no other Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10,11; 44:6,8; 45:21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:29-34).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).

2. Was God Once a Man Like Us?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577).

3. Are Jesus and Satan Spirit Brothers?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

4. Is the Godhead a plurality?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost are not separate Gods or separate beings. Throughout the New Testament the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are separately identified as and act as God (Son: Mark 2:5-12; John 20:28; Philippians 2:10,11; Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3,4; 2 Corinthians 3:17,18; 13:14).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).

5. Was The Sin Of Adam and Eve a Great Evil Or a Great Blessing?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the disobedience of our first parents Adam and Eve was a great evil. Through their fall sin entered the world, bringing all human beings under condemnation and death. Thus we are born with a sinful nature, and will be judged for the sins we commit as individuals. (Ezekiel 18:1-20; Romans 5:12-21).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Adam’s sin was “a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us” (Gospel Principles, p. 33; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 2:25; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 114-115).

6. Can We Make Ourselves Worthy Before God? The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross we are spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1,5) and are powerless to save ourselves. By grace alone, apart from self-righteous works, God forgives our sins and makes us worthy to live in His presence (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6). Our part is only to cling to Christ in heartfelt faith. (However, it is certainly true that without the evidence of changed conduct, a person’s testimony of faith in Christ must be questioned; salvation by grace alone through faith, does not mean we can live as we please — Romans 6:1-4).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms “exaltation in the celestial kingdom”) must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the “celestial kingdom”) — Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price — Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon — 2 Nephi 25:23).

7. Does Christ’s Atoning Death Benefit Those Who Reject Him?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the purpose of the atoning work of Christ on the cross was to provide the complete solution for humankind’s sin problem. However, those who reject God’s grace in this life will have no part in this salvation but are under the judgment of God for eternity (John 3:36; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 5:11-12).

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ’s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).

8. Is The Bible The Unique and Final Word of God?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the Bible is the unique, final and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Peter 1:21) and that it will stand forever (1 Peter 1:23-25). God’s providential preservation of the text of the Bible was marvelously illustrated in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been corrupted, is missing many “plain and precious parts” and does not contain the fullness of the Gospel (Book of Mormon — 1 Nephi 13:26-29; Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 190-191).

9. Did The Early Church Fall Into Total Apostasy?

The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that the true Church was divinely established by Jesus and could never and will never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18; John 15:16; 17:11). Christians acknowledge that there have been times of corruption and apostasy within the Church, but believe there has always been a remnant that held fast to the biblical essentials.

By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that there was a great and total apostasy of the Church as established by Jesus Christ; this state of apostasy “still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel” of the Mormon Church (Gospel Principles, pp. 105-106; Mormon Doctrine, p. 44).

hyperekperissou: Hunting Heresies in the Fathers.

I am a biblical fundamentalist; I am an Economist, believing that Jesus Christ is God, according to the Economy of God. I do not believe in doctrinal development past the point of the Apostles. I do not believe in new revelations, historical Tradition, or the that tradition defines and develops Doctrine. I stand with Marcellus of Ancyra in appreciating the early Church Fathers, but finding the sole source of Doctrine as the Scriptures from the Apostles and Prophets. I do not give any doctrinal significance to the Councils, nor will I call anyone a Saint, except for the broader body of the Church. I see no greatness in Rome or the so-called Apostolic Church which she leads.

To be honest, I relish the thought of being a heretic hunter, of stamping out false doctrines where they arise, with a steady word and a heavy hand. The Church has no room to allow these cancers to grow. I have no problem, as many would read this blog, of stating that this one or that one is a false prophet and a heretic.

However, in my study of the Church Fathers, I have come to a deep appreciation of their writings and their tribute to biblical studies and would rarely use the word ‘heretic’ (except for maybe Origen). I have been criticized for my use of them, however, I will continue to use them and their quotes in my own development and maturity as a Christian.

John Chrysostom has become a favorite of mine, as has Irenaeus, Tertullian, and even Cyprian. Most of these men I would have disagree with in nearly every way, yet, they have measures of Truth. I fully recognize

“So, we see Justin Martyr accused of ditheism and/or subordinationism. Or, we see Gregory Nazianzus accused of proto-Nestorianism.”

However, in doing so, I also recognize that there was not a sudden shift from what I would consider orthodox doctrine (except maybe Origen), and these men still have a measure of contribution to every self-proclaimed theologian - or otherwise - not in refuting any doctrine, or building any doctrine, but in tracing what theological development took place and when and in understanding the Christian community in a historical viewpoint.

Let me say quickly that if you believe that Christianity suddenly ceased after Peter and Paul and that Rome immediately appeared, then you have no faith in Christ or His Church. If Christianity ceased after the Apostles, then Gamaliel was right, and we have all been wrong for nearly 2000 years.

I find that Irenaeus, who is roundly despised by biblical fundamentalists, must be understood as the defender of the faith against well-learned Gnostics, versed and steeped in the Bible. He defended the Faith as one would in these circumstances, and more often than not, stayed within the pattern established by Ignatius and Polycarp. We have Justin, who I find in error as a ditheist, who has great strength in defending the Church against the Jews and further in defending the Septuagint. Tertullian provides us with a rigorous approach to Christian living while Cyprian fought for Church unity against the rising power in Rome. This is not to say that I judge them Christian, as that is in God’s hands, but even the most radical anti-Catholic (which rarely makes any sense) can see that some measure of Truth existed in this learned men.

Personally, I agree that

“Tertullian’s extreme temperament led him to rigid views about asceticism and prophecy which drove him from the orthodox church.”

Except for the part about the prophecy and his Montanist days, I find little wrong in Tertullian’s rigidness. I do however, find a great deal wrong with Origen and the entire school from Alexandria. I find it a break from Orthodoxy, no matter the century and cannot rightly see him in any positive light.

Returning to the others, however, I realize that many of them do not share the doctrines that I might hold, in total; however, it does not erase their value. We have to remember that History is rarely kind to even Inspired Writings, much less the writings and thoughts of men, albeit inspired men. (Look at the war that history as waged on the epistles from Ignatius) Interpretation of these writings is the same way. Do not take them in the light of theologians 1800 years removed from them, but attempt to understand them in the world in which they wrote. Unlike the Bible, their words are not timeless, and must be understood against the world that they fought.

I agree with the writer of the above post when he says,

A second less innocent motive is heresy hunting in the context of inter-denominational apologetics and polemics. In this kind of heresy hunt, we see writers (often, but not always Protestant) search the Fathers in order to find something wrong in what they are saying. What they are doing in reading the Fathers isn’t reading them to understand them or to take insight from them, but rather they are reading them the way that a lawyer reads a hostile brief–they are looking for dirt and evidence to beat the other side with.

There a few things that I no longer like to see, and that is anyone on my ’side’ calling the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd century, Roman Catholic. Most them would have rebelled against the idea of the Roman Church as we know it now. Instead, we must look at these as cousins, rather distant, and stop the labeling, often times done in error. We must not succumb to the ‘violence’ of apologetics, but instead place these people in their respective places, learning and valuing their input.

Finally, even Paul used non-Christians to highlight Christianity, and if we dismiss the entire corpus of post-Apostle’s writing simply because they might not agree with us in every way, then we do a great deservice to the Church.

A mere thought, leading to a larger one…

“The LORD our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: “You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers–to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–to give to them and their descendants after them.’ (Deuteronomy 1:6-8 NKJV)

The Israelites were camped at Mt. Sinai, which held a significance for the Jews, as this was the mountain of the Lord, where the Law had been delivered. (Exodus 19.1) It was here that what we call Judaism began with the handing down of the Torah. Jewish Tradition has it that the power of the delivery was felt the world over, with the entire world going dark. It would have been pleasant to stay there, to remember the days of the first love; however, this was not God’s intention. The Lord had commanded Israel to move, to continue their journey, as He had given a Promise of Rest. They were on their way to the Promised Land of Canaan, and to mount Zion, which is Jerusalem, to a homeland of their own, where they could worship the living God. This was the first promise made to Abraham (Genesis 12.1)

During the Shalosh Regalim, the Jews celebrated three holy festivals - Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost), and Sukkot (Tabernacles). We can see these feasts celebrated in the Church. Judaism provides us our example, and knowing that God changes not, we find in the life of physical Israel, the hope for the spiritual, i.e., the Church. Christ is our Passover; the Day of Pentecost was the birth of the Church with the Spirit given just as the Law was, while Tabernacles will be celebrated when Christ calls His Church home. Melito of Sardis provide us with enough exegetical thoughts to last us a life time on the Christ as our Passover, and with very little that can be added to our Bishop, friend and brother, let us focus on Pentecost.

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)

The Day of Pentecost is the Church’s Mt. Sinai. It is here that the Church received her Torah (the Spirit) which unites the Church to this day. The writer of Hebrews indentifies the comparison between Zion (the Church) and Judaism (Sinai) this way,

For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. (For they could not endure what was commanded: “And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow.” And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.”) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (Hebrews 12:18-24 NKJV)

The day which brought the Spirit of God has been recognized as significance by some of the early Church Fathers, including Irenaeus and Tertullian. The former compared it in quality to the Lord’s Day while the latter believed that it was a day of exaltation. We must not dismiss the importance of the Day of Pentecost to the Christian Faith, nor to the individual. With each Saint who experiences the charisma of the holy Spirit, stands with the Apostles, and with the entire Church, as united, saved, clean, a new creature, part of a new race. They experience the power of the Spirit of God as it moved upon the waters (Genesis 1.3) which produces a new creation. It is for them as it was for Peter and the Eleven. It is a day of joyful remembrance that we are able to celebrate with a birth of a new Saint; however, it is a day, and a time in history, but neither our journey nor our destination.

Pentecost was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the Passover with the celebration of the first fruits. It remembers the day which God gave the Torah to the children of Israel, fifty days after the first Passover. In the Bible, Shavuot is called the Feast of Weeks (Hebrew: חג השבועות, Ḥag ha-Shavuot, Exodus 34:22, Deuteronomy 16:10); Feast of Reaping (Hebrew: חג הקציר, Ḥag ha-Katsir, Exodus 23:16), and Day of the First Fruits (Hebrew יום הבכורים, Yom ha-Bikkurim, Numbers 28:26). The Mishnah and Talmud refer to Shavuot as Atzeret (Hebrew: עצרת, a solemn assembly), as it provides closure for the festival activities during and following the holiday of Passover. It marks the conclusion of the Counting of the Omer which is a preparation for the Jews to receive the Torah.

With the Death of Christ, Passover was no longer relevant; with the Resurrection of Christ, the Year of the Lord began again. We have to remember that the Jews were told to gather for a solemn assembly during this time of year for a remembrance of the handing of the Torah to Moses from the Lord. With Christ fulfilling the Law by His atoning sacrifice, there would have to be another Mt. Sinai. It was at this Mt. Sinai, the spiritual mountain, which Christ handed down the Spirit, which breathed new life into the Church.

The Apostles were not told to go to Jerusalem to celebrate the Day of Pentecost as they longer stood in the Jewish religion of their contemporaries, and indeed had they been Pentecostals, they would have been in the streets; instead, they were in Jerusalem to ‘wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” Christ said, “you have heard from Me;’ (Acts 1.4). They gathered in the upper room while those that celebrated Pentecost where massed in the streets. Both groups, the 120 disciples and the Jewish celebrants, were in Jerusalem, the former group waiting on a Promise while the latter was for a memorial. The Pentecostals were in the Streets, celebrating the deliverance of the Torah; the Church was in the upper room, gathered together, praying and waiting for the Promise of the Father. When the promise fell (the Spirit), and truly according to God’s Plan it had to happen on the Feast of Weeks, it did not fall on the Pentecostals, but it fell on the Church built by Jesus Christ.

The Church did not stay in the upper room, but dispersed, heeding the commands of Christ Who said,

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8 NKJV)

The Pentecostals, as they traditionally did, dispersed as well, but only to meet again, every year, until the Messiah came. Whereas Pentecost harkened to the past while looking to the future Messiah, the Church had received the promises of Israel, the Law of Grace, and had accepted the Messiah. For the Church, there were only one event to celebrate – the Eucharist – and this was to be until Christ returned, and that happened some fifty days before Pentecost.

No place in the Scriptures do we read of a remembrance of that Day by the Church, nor of the term ‘Pentecost(al)’ except in Acts 20.16 and 1^st Corinthians 16.8. Luke tells us that it was Paul’s intention to waste no time in getting to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost (Paul echoes these sentiments, albeit, not as strongly as Luke, in 1^st Corinthians 16.8). We must be reminded that Pentecost was a very large Jewish celebration. It was not Paul’s intention to keep the Day, but to be there to witness to the Pentecostals concerning Jesus Christ. This was an opportunity to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It should be remembered as well that Paul was taking with him gifts and offerings from other congregations to the saints at Jerusalem (Romans 15.25-26; 1^st Corinthians 16.1).

Scripture has no focus on the ‘pentecostal experience’ beyond that of the first Day, but always on maturity and growth of the Saint after such an experience. We are commanded in Hebrews 6.1-2 to grow past those first words of Christ. The Apostle Peter tells us,

But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. (2nd Peter 1:5-7 NKJV)

Christ no more intended a pentecostal Church than the Apostles an Apostolic one, but this moment in time is one that too many desire to live in, refreshing themselves with an experience and being called by a name that was unknown to the Apostles. No place in scripture do we see the adjective ‘pentecostal’ applied to the Church, like wise the adjective ‘apostolic’, yet many would assume them as equal to ‘Christian’ or an appropriate name for the Body and Bride of Christ. Those that do, often find themselves focused on the experience rather than the exercise of doctrine. Moses, led by God, understood the precept of growth, and speaking the very words of the Lord, ordered those that were going to the Promised Land to move, for they have been camped at the mountain for far too long, and would have ceased soon enough.

Do not relish the term ‘pentecostal.’ It is a recent term in use as applied to segments of Christianity dating back to roughly 1867. The Church, historically, did not use it, nor did they historically use it to describe experiencing the holy Spirit of God. The pentecostal experience movement became prominent in the Holiness movement, which was the first to begin making numerous references to the term “Pentecostal”, such as in 1867 when the movement established The National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Christian Holiness with a notice that said: “[We are summoning,] irrespective of denominational tie…those who feel themselves comparatively isolated in their profession of holiness…that all would realize together a Pentecostal baptism of the Holy Ghost.”[1] The Catholic Apostolic Church of Edward Irving did not consider itself Pentecostal as many would today. How can anyone rightly apply this term to the Church, the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ? The Nazarenes have used it; charismatic Trinitarians still use it. The one group that we have to be concerned with, the Apostles, never used it.

Across the United States there are congregations that have the catch phrase, ‘Apostolic in doctrine; Pentecostal in experience’. A quick and rude analysis of this slogan reveals that the congregation has a doctrine similar to the Apostles, and always focused on the first experience of the holy Spirit. Is this really what the Church was supposed to be? Did the Apostles all have similar doctrines, or one Doctrine? Did they always seek the pentecostal experience, or as some might say, ‘Holy Ghost experience’ (as if it is some thrill ride at an amusement park)? Or did they see it as the birth of the Church?

These terms – Apostolic and Pentecostal – have become so engrained in the minds of some Christians without any thought of their origin. People hold to them as cherished emblems. ‘I am Pentecostal!’, one says while the other says ‘I am Apostolic’, not questioning what Peter or Paul would have said and all the while promising to hold to nothing but what is written in the bible.

So, who are the Pentecostals? They were the Jews, celebrating a holiday that was no longer needed. They are people celebrating an experience instead of growing in the Church.

Bible and Book of Mormon Contradictions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Contradictions in LDS Scriptures

Read the rest of this entry »

I have posted on Melito some before, and find myself returning to him for a bit especially his homily on the Passover. He provides us with an accurate manner in using the Old Testament, and it is an example that is well served for the past few millenia. He does not create something that is not there, no drench the Prophets with our Hope, but stands in the good Tradition of using the New Testament to read the Old. For a New Testament example of this, we need to turn no further, dig no deeper than the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Note, if you will, the powerful images that Melito presents us with.

39. Therefore, if it was like this with models of perishable objects, so indeed will it also be with those of imp