The Alma 32 Experiment

[Palerider]

Jungler

Are you not studying with the missionaries anymore ???

.??

[Jungler]

Jungler

Are you not studying with the missionaries anymore ???

We met for about six weeks straight. We discussed this topic a little after they asked me to read it and then moved to other topics. They said we couldn't meet anymore because they taught me as much as they know. I've read more of the Book of Mormon since then and Alma 32 again and decided to take a different approach to asking about the topic.

 

Good question, isn't it?  But... the restored gospel does not contradict the revelation that is already given...

Like I said in the other thread, the restored gospel includes the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, but the gospel in the Bible doesn't. Therefore, the restored gospel contradicts the revelation we already have.

 

Now, if the restored gospel would say - Jesus is NOT the Christ, the Son of God... then you are right to throw that gospel away.

 

So, you say you are a Protestant... somewhere along the line of Protestants - somebody prayed something fierce to figure out why Protest?  Why not stay Catholic? 

A gospel doesn't have to go to the extreme of denying Jesus is God to be a false gospel. It can be something less obvious, like a difference in what it says about how to follow God.

 

Protestants didn't protest because they prayed a prayer. I'm sure prayer was involved, but the bigger issue was the fact that the gospel the Catholic church was teaching didn't match the gospel taught in the Bible.

 

Simple fact is.. they don't...  People generally need to have some kind of spark or reason to change.  That is why the LDS missionaries begin with the Book of Mormon.  They ask people to Read it.  Why because reading it has the power to open peoples minds to the possibility that there is more out there.  Many don't read, more reject it out of hand because of what they already believe.

 

The Lord said his sheep will hear is voice.  Its the servants job to give everyone a chance to hear

So the key to gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon is to read it and let it open my mind. And I should avoid rejecting it based on what I believe.

 

What about the Protestant claim that the Gospel was preserved, never lost and never needed to be restored? Have you read the explanations of that doctrine along with the verses that support it? Have you let it open your mind to the power of the preserved Gospel? Or do you reject the claim because of what you already believe?

 

How is that not a double standard? It's bad for a non-Mormon to reject the Mormon gospel based on what they already believe. But it's perfectly fine for a Mormon to reject any other gospel because of what they already believe?

 

Why would God say learning about His gospel requires us to dismiss our current beliefs simply because someone else says they have the restored gospel? We both agree faith in God is required in this. But trusting the BoM would also require an extreme amount of faith in a man who taught doctrines not found in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about having such extreme faith in someone before they do anything that shows they deserve that kind of faith.

[estradling75]

 

 

Like I said in the other thread, the restored gospel includes the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, but the gospel in the Bible doesn't. Therefore, the restored gospel contradicts the revelation we already have.

 

 

 

You see contradiction because you wish to see contradiction.  Take everything the bible says about Heaven and you will find it really doesn't say a whole lot about how it is setup... LDS beliefs can't contradict what the bible says because the bible doesn't go into that kind of detail.  For the LDS it is Greater Light and Knowledge that the Lord as seen fit to reveal (or re-reveal) to us.   Its kind of like saying "Its a Car" and its "2014 Honda Accord"  They both talk about the same thing but one has more detail then the other

 

 

So the key to gaining a testimony of the Book of Mormon is to read it and let it open my mind. And I should avoid rejecting it based on what I believe.

 

What about the Protestant claim that the Gospel was preserved, never lost and never needed to be restored? Have you read the explanations of that doctrine along with the verses that support it? Have you let it open your mind to the power of the preserved Gospel? Or do you reject the claim because of what you already believe?

 

How is that not a double standard? It's bad for a non-Mormon to reject the Mormon gospel based on what they already believe. But it's perfectly fine for a Mormon to reject any other gospel because of what they already believe?

 

Why would God say learning about His gospel requires us to dismiss our current beliefs simply because someone else says they have the restored gospel? We both agree faith in God is required in this. But trusting the BoM would also require an extreme amount of faith in a man who taught doctrines not found in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about having such extreme faith in someone before they do anything that shows they deserve that kind of faith.

 

The key is to follow God... That is the full stop answer.   If you feel you are already doing what God wants of you then by all means continue to do so.

 

There are lots of people who have lived and who are currently living who never got the chance to read the Book of Mormon and gain a testimony of it. It would be a gross distortion of the Justice and Mercy of God to presume that they never had a chance because of something they had no control over

[SpiritDragon]

 

What about the Protestant claim that the Gospel was preserved, never lost and never needed to be restored? Have you read the explanations of that doctrine along with the verses that support it? Have you let it open your mind to the power of the preserved Gospel? Or do you reject the claim because of what you already believe?

 

Hi Jungler,

 

How do protestants deal with the need for priesthood authority? If the church didn't fall away does it not rest with the Catholic church by necessity? The way I see it there would be no need to protest the Catholic church creating protestant groups if the church hadn't fallen away, If it has fallen away then no amount of good will and working to rectify the situation alone can correct the loss of authority, only a restoration of divine power can. The same applies within "mormonism" if Joseph Smith was a fraud than no break off group could possibly be right. 

 

This is why the whole concept of having continuing revelation is so fundamental to clearing up confusion in the first place. I've met so many Christians that claim the bible is the infallible word of God, yet every denomination seems to have their own take on it. 

[Jungler]

You see contradiction because you wish to see contradiction.  Take everything the bible says about Heaven and you will find it really doesn't say a whole lot about how it is setup... LDS beliefs can't contradict what the bible says because the bible doesn't go into that kind of detail.  For the LDS it is Greater Light and Knowledge that the Lord as seen fit to reveal (or re-reveal) to us.   Its kind of like saying "Its a Car" and its "2014 Honda Accord"  They both talk about the same thing but one has more detail then the other

Why would the New Testament authors go into so much detail about the Gospel but leave out a fundamental, core teaching? Plus, this goes beyond the Gospel. According to LDS theology, this life is a test, right? The whole purpose of this earthly existence is to prove our worthiness, overcome temptation and endure to the end so we can receive exaltation and become joint heirs with Christ in heaven. Surely they talked about the meaning of life itself, but it wouldn't have made sense if they didn't also include the doctrine of kingdoms in heaven.

 

The key is to follow God... That is the full stop answer.   If you feel you are already doing what God wants of you then by all means continue to do so.

 

There are lots of people who have lived and who are currently living who never got the chance to read the Book of Mormon and gain a testimony of it. It would be a gross distortion of the Justice and Mercy of God to presume that they never had a chance because of something they had no control over

That doesn't answer the question of why following God would include us ignoring our current beliefs to investigate someone who claims to be a prophet. With all the passages that warn us of false prophets, why would He ever want us to ignore what we already believe to test a prophet?

 

Shouldn't the Galatians have rejected the Judaizers based on the Gospel they already received? Didn't John tell his readers to reject a gnostic gospel based on what they already believe? But God wants me to ignore what I already believe about the Gospel, plus what Paul and John said about false teachers, so I can trust someone who claims to be a modern prophet? Why does this sound like a set up to fall for a false prophet?

 

Everyone who has ever lived had the chance to follow God's teachings. He knows everyone's heart and He knows if they will respond to His message. It would be a gross distortion of the all-knowing, all-powerful, sovereign nature of God to say He couldn't have made His teachings available to someone who would respond.

 

Hi Jungler,

 

How do protestants deal with the need for priesthood authority? If the church didn't fall away does it not rest with the Catholic church by necessity? The way I see it there would be no need to protest the Catholic church creating protestant groups if the church hadn't fallen away, If it has fallen away then no amount of good will and working to rectify the situation alone can correct the loss of authority, only a restoration of divine power can. The same applies within "mormonism" if Joseph Smith was a fraud than no break off group could possibly be right. 

 

This is why the whole concept of having continuing revelation is so fundamental to clearing up confusion in the first place. I've met so many Christians that claim the bible is the infallible word of God, yet every denomination seems to have their own take on it. 

We have no problem with it because we have priesthood authority. 1 Peter talks about how believers with a "living hope" in Jesus Christ are part of the holy, royal priesthood. Peter doesn't say anything about belonging to a specific church to be part of the priesthood. We may not have an official role of "Priest" in our churches, but that doesn't mean it's not part of our faith.

[bytebear]

 

Like I said in the other thread, the restored gospel includes the doctrine of 3 separate kingdoms in heaven, but the gospel in the Bible doesn't. Therefore, the restored gospel contradicts the revelation we already have.

Except that doctrine comes from the Bible.  1 Corinthians 15 to be exact. So, perhaphs the restored gospel is enlightening on already revealed truths that have been lost.

[Jungler]

Except that doctrine comes from the Bible.  1 Corinthians 15 to be exact. So, perhaphs the restored gospel is enlightening on already revealed truths that have been lost.

The Greek words for ‘celestial’ and ‘terrestrial’ mean ‘heavenly’ and ‘earthly,’ which is how the more modern versions translate them. Why would Paul refer to a kingdom of heaven as ‘earthly’?

 

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (KJV).

Paul raises questions of how the dead will be raised and what kind of bodies they will have. His answer includes Paul referring to different kinds of bodies with various terms 18 times. But how many times does he mention kingdoms in heaven? Zero. He doesn't mention heaven itself or kingdoms at all. The focus of the passage is what heavenly bodies will be like, not different kingdoms in heaven. Our earthly bodies are corrupted, dishonorable, weak and natural. Heavenly bodies will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful and spiritual.

 

Plus, if the 3 kingdoms doctrine was really part of the true Gospel and the whole purpose of life, why would only one New Testament author vaguely refer to it in 2 verses? Galatians and Romans talk extensively about the Gospel, but don't mention anything about 3 kingdoms in heaven.

[bytebear]

Verse 41 talks of three glories (sun, moon, stars) and verse 42 talks about how the resurrection is formed from corruption to incorruption, but also in degrees of glory.  A point is also made that each glory is unique (like the stars), but that the distinction between the three major glories is extreme.  Although we use Heaven as a descriptor, it's actually the state of our resurrection, so you are arguing semantics at this point. I do see an equivalency in the term "Kingdom of God" and "Celestial Kingdom", so again, it becomes preferred terminology. 

The simple truth is, Paul does teach three distinct resurrected states.  Simply put, Joseph Smith's insight into this verse are beyond anything Protestantism has defined, and in fact, I have never heard another church even touch on the implications that Paul presents, and in fact, I find a very lack of emphasis on a physical resurrection at all. 

 

But, all this goes to your initial point, which was that the Bible had no such teaching as three heavens, when clearly this was the inspiration for Joseph Smith's revelations on the subject.  Now, going to Alma 32, how can you possibly expect the Holy Ghost to reveal this truth, if you are already closed to even the notion that it may be true.

I also recommend reading D&C 76 and D&C 88, and notice that the term "Kingdom" is always associated with glory, in fact Section 76 doesn't talk about specific kingdoms at all.

[Jungler]

Verse 41 talks of three glories (sun, moon, stars) and verse 42 talks about how the resurrection is formed from corruption to incorruption, but also in degrees of glory.  A point is also made that each glory is unique (like the stars), but that the distinction between the three major glories is extreme.  Although we use Heaven as a descriptor, it's actually the state of our resurrection, so you are arguing semantics at this point. I do see an equivalency in the term "Kingdom of God" and "Celestial Kingdom", so again, it becomes preferred terminology. 

The simple truth is, Paul does teach three distinct resurrected states.  Simply put, Joseph Smith's insight into this verse are beyond anything Protestantism has defined, and in fact, I have never heard another church even touch on the implications that Paul presents, and in fact, I find a very lack of emphasis on a physical resurrection at all. 

 

But, all this goes to your initial point, which was that the Bible had no such teaching as three heavens, when clearly this was the inspiration for Joseph Smith's revelations on the subject.  Now, going to Alma 32, how can you possibly expect the Holy Ghost to reveal this truth, if you are already closed to even the notion that it may be true.

I also recommend reading D&C 76 and D&C 88, and notice that the term "Kingdom" is always associated with glory, in fact Section 76 doesn't talk about specific kingdoms at all.

The greek word for 'terrestrial' means 'earthly.' Why would Paul refer to a kingdom of heaven as earthly?

 

I also see an equivalency in the term "Kingdom of God" and "Celestial Kingdom." But what does that have to do with this passage? The term "Kingdom" isn't used in the passage at all. Heaven itself isn't even mentioned. The passage talks about 'celestial bodies', not 'celestial kingdoms.'

 

Why do you start at verse 40 or 41? The passage is in response to a question Paul raises in verse 35. He continues to talk about bodies and flesh. There's nothing in the text to suggest he ever switches topics to start talking about kingdoms. A body is not a kingdom and a kingdom is not made of flesh.

 

Verse 41 may be teaching that some people will have resurrected bodies that are more glorious than others. But that doesn't mean those bodies will be in separate kingdoms. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the passage is focused on bodies, not kingdoms.

 

What text in verse 42 talks about "degrees of glory?"

[SpiritDragon]

The greek word for 'terrestrial' means 'earthly.' Why would Paul refer to a kingdom of heaven as earthly?

 

I also see an equivalency in the term "Kingdom of God" and "Celestial Kingdom." But what does that have to do with this passage? The term "Kingdom" isn't used in the passage at all. Heaven itself isn't even mentioned. The passage talks about 'celestial bodies', not 'celestial kingdoms.'

 

Why do you start at verse 40 or 41? The passage is in response to a question Paul raises in verse 35. He continues to talk about bodies and flesh. There's nothing in the text to suggest he ever switches topics to start talking about kingdoms. A body is not a kingdom and a kingdom is not made of flesh.

 

Verse 41 may be teaching that some people will have resurrected bodies that are more glorious than others. But that doesn't mean those bodies will be in separate kingdoms. It certainly doesn't change the fact that the passage is focused on bodies, not kingdoms.

 

What text in verse 42 talks about "degrees of glory?"

 

Jungler,

 

good questions. These verses alone don't paint a complete picture it's true. Using more of the whole chapter as you suggest is useful. Verse 26 talks about death being conquered, this is not a conditional statement it has been overcome for all through Christ. He builds on this idea of the dead rising by asking why they bother with doing baptisms for the dead in verse 29. Then as you correctly assert Paul goes on to explain that there are different kinds of bodies making reference to different animals as well as celestial and terrestrial bodies. This is followed up with saying in vs 42 so also is the resurrection of the dead. So the only conclusions that can be drawn strictly from this passage is that the dead will be raised and that not all bodies are alike in the resurrection. Verse 53 gives continued support to the notion that "all" are saved from death through resurrection by stating "this mortal MUST put on immortality".

 

No where in the Bible does it specifically say there are three kingdoms of glory, or it wouldn't be a unique LDS doctrine. But it also doesn't explicitly say there is only one. To the contrary Paul himself is the one to go on to mention a third heaven in 2 corinthians 12:2. While Jesus expresses the idea of many mansions in His Father's kingdom (john 14:2) that He's going to prepare. While clearly these don't PROVE Joseph Smith's revelations concerning the resurrection, they do show that it is not a sure contradiction to what was taught in the early church.

 

These verses could certainly raise the questions of why there would be different bodies in the resurrection and what is the third Heaven that Paul is referencing? Joseph Smith's revelations help answer these questions.

[Jungler]

No where in the Bible does it specifically say there are three kingdoms of glory, or it wouldn't be a unique LDS doctrine. But it also doesn't explicitly say there is only one.

Lets say the Bible says the Gospel is A and B. Then someone else comes along and says they have new revelation the Gospel is actually A, B and C. The C doctrine isn't in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't deny C either. Should we trust that new revelation?

 

If the Gospel really is A, B and C, why don't any of the New Testament authors say that? Wouldn't they have been teaching an incomplete Gospel with only A and B? Why can't we just trust the New Testament when it says the Gospel is A and B? Paul taught the A and B Gospel. If C is added, then it's a different Gospel than the one Paul taught, which means the person preaching A, B and C is accursed. That's the burden Paul lays down for teachers. A Gospel doesn't have to contradict the Bible to be a false Gospel. It just has to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible teaches.

 

If C is allowed to be added to the Gospel, then what about D, E and F? Should the New Testament authors have preempted every false teaching for the next 2000 years? Wouldn't it have been simpler for them to just say 'The Gospel is A and B. If anyone says anything different, they're wrong'?

[Just_A_Guy]

By that logic, why would any Protestant, Catholic, etc. ever pray about the Mormon church? We already have revelation. Why should we deliberately request revelation that would contradict the revelation we already have?

Depends on what, precisely, the original revelation said; and the specific question it was meant to address.

[Jungler]

Depends on what, precisely, the original revelation said; and the specific question it was meant to address.

The original revelation was the Gospel, how people are saved and what it means to follow Christ. Since Joseph Smith claimed to restore the Gospel, then it's not the same Gospel that was revealed to us. Why should we deliberately request revelation that would contradict the Gospel already revealed to us?

[bytor2112]

Oh my...it is a grim reminder of my life before the Holy Spirit. I could not comprehend anything beyond what i was taught the Bible declared and even that was speculative at best.

 

I am so grateful for the gift of the Holy Spirit by which the things of God can be understood....and in no other way can they be understood.

 

God is either revealed to us by revelation or remains forever unknown. HE cannot be understood or comprehended without the Holy Spirit by which revelation comes.

[bytor2112]

The original revelation was the Gospel, how people are saved and what it means to follow Christ. Since Joseph Smith claimed to restore the Gospel, then it's not the same Gospel that was revealed to us. Why should we deliberately request revelation that would contradict the Gospel already revealed to us?

If you really believed that...then why aren't you a Catholic? Or do you just accept that God is the author of confusion? Surely, you know that the various denominations interpret the Bible differently and teach for doctrine the wisdom of men and much of it has very little in common with what Christ established while HE was on earth.

[bytor2112]

Protestants didn't protest because they prayed a prayer. I'm sure prayer was involved, but the bigger issue was the fact that the gospel the Catholic church was teaching didn't match the gospel taught in the Bible.

 

So you deny any direct authority from God and instead choose for doctrine the wisdom of Man. The Catholic church claims direct Apostolic succession from Peter and the Latter Day Saints claim that the authority was lost and then restored through Joseph Smith, but you and millions of Protestants all choose to only follow the Bible as you understand it and as the multitude of varying denominations teach what it means.

 

Why, would Christ give the keys and authority to Peter if he did not intend for that to be the pattern of how HIS Gospel is administered? Why do the myriad of Bible believing Protestant Christians differ in so many ways as to their doctrinal beliefs?

[bytor2112]

Jungler...it would be great if you could share the specific denomination with which you affiliate and also a brief explanation of your views regarding salvation. As in....are you "saved"? A 'born again" Christian? Were you baptized...your conversion story.

 

As this is an LDS site you at least have a fundamental understanding of our beliefs, though, I doubt you really understand much of our doctrine at all. No disrespect intended, but, it;s pretty obvious.

 

Knowing where your belief system originates would put us on a more equal footing for discussion as many of us are converts from other faiths.

[Just_A_Guy]

The original revelation was the Gospel, how people are saved and what it means to follow Christ. Since Joseph Smith claimed to restore the Gospel, then it's not the same Gospel that was revealed to us. Why should we deliberately request revelation that would contradict the Gospel already revealed to us?

If your analysis is that Mormon teaching contradicts--not supplements, but contradicts--an actual revelation you received directly from God via the Holy Spirit (not just a biblical passage whose interpretation you learned in church, via theological training, or via your own logical interpolations)--

--by all means, stay away.

(My experience is that most people who claim to have had divine revelations--both within and without Mormonism--haven't really parsed their revelations as finely as they think they have; and thus sometimes misread the implications of those revelations. But ultimately, no one can interpret and apply your own revelations, but you. I would be a colossal hypocrite to ask you to disregard what you believe God has said to you; just as you--who claim to have engaged that same revelatory process that I claim to have--would similarly be a hypocrite for asking me to disregard what I believe God has said to me.)

[Jungler]

If your analysis is that Mormon teaching contradicts--not supplements, but contradicts--an actual revelation you received directly from God via the Holy Spirit (not just a biblical passage whose interpretation you learned in church, via theological training, or via your own logical interpolations)--

--by all means, stay away.

Why can't scripture be our revelation? All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. So can't we rely on careful study of that scripture for teaching, correction and training?

 

In some cases, a supplement can be a contradiction. The Gospel the apostles taught was completely sufficient for salvation. No one can come along and add anything to the Gospel and say it's just a "supplement" because that would contradict the previous teaching that the Gospel was completely sufficient. Either the Gospel in the Bible is incomplete and needs supplements or it is complete and any supplements would be contradictions.

 

Didn't Paul deal with Gospel supplements in Galatians? The Judaizers weren't contradicting teachings about faith in Christ. They just wanted to supplement the faith with following the Mosaic Law. But Paul considered that supplement a contradiction.

 

Jungler...it would be great if you could share the specific denomination with which you affiliate and also a brief explanation of your views regarding salvation. As in....are you "saved"? A 'born again" Christian? Were you baptized...your conversion story.

 

As this is an LDS site you at least have a fundamental understanding of our beliefs, though, I doubt you really understand much of our doctrine at all. No disrespect intended, but, it;s pretty obvious.

 

Knowing where your belief system originates would put us on a more equal footing for discussion as many of us are converts from other faiths.

I'm Historical Protestant. Yes, I've been baptized and saved. Here's an article that gives a good outline of what I believe about salvation: https://bible.org/seriespage/saved-grace

 

I've heard many Mormons explain your beliefs about grace, salvation, enduring to the end, the atonement, the plan of eternal progression, etc. But I've never heard anyone clearly explain why God would want anyone at any time to dismiss their current beliefs while they investigate someone who claims to be a prophet. John and Paul describe quite the opposite approach when dealing with prophets and teachers.

[bytor2112]

I'm Historical Protestant. Yes, I've been baptized and saved. Here's an article that gives a good outline of what I believe about salvation: https://bible.org/se...age/saved-grace

 

 

So...no church affiliation basically? You derive your doctrines from your own understanding of biblical teachings? Baptized by and how? Saved by what means...special prayer? Please detail your beliefs so that we are able to know how and why you believe as you do and see if they really line up with biblical teachings. If you can't do this, then this conversation is really pointless.

 

I've heard many Mormons explain your beliefs about grace, salvation, enduring to the end, the atonement, the plan of eternal progression, etc. But I've never heard anyone clearly explain why God would want anyone at any time to dismiss their current beliefs while they investigate someone who claims to be a prophet.

 

The simple answer is that God loves us. He is perfect and man is not and lest we forget we are in a spiritual warfare with an adversary that has managed to corrupt Christ's teachings and the Gospel for centuries as evidenced by the varied teachings of the various off-shoots of the Catholic fold known as the Protestants. 

 

One faith and one baptism....

[SpiritDragon]

Lets say the Bible says the Gospel is A and B. Then someone else comes along and says they have new revelation the Gospel is actually A, B and C. The C doctrine isn't in the Bible, but the Bible doesn't deny C either. Should we trust that new revelation?

 

If the Gospel really is A, B and C, why don't any of the New Testament authors say that? Wouldn't they have been teaching an incomplete Gospel with only A and B? Why can't we just trust the New Testament when it says the Gospel is A and B? Paul taught the A and B Gospel. If C is added, then it's a different Gospel than the one Paul taught, which means the person preaching A, B and C is accursed. That's the burden Paul lays down for teachers. A Gospel doesn't have to contradict the Bible to be a false Gospel. It just has to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible teaches.

 

If C is allowed to be added to the Gospel, then what about D, E and F? Should the New Testament authors have preempted every false teaching for the next 2000 years? Wouldn't it have been simpler for them to just say 'The Gospel is A and B. If anyone says anything different, they're wrong'?

 

Good questions. Should we trust the new revelation? John 14:26-27 supports the idea that the Holy Ghost will teach us all things and bring all things to our remembrance. I'd suggest studying out any new revelation carefully and praying about it.

 

Why don't the NT authors already say A, B, and C? Wouldn't it be incomplete? This is largely because we do not have complete records of everything that was taught. We have the four gospels explaining aspects of Christ's ministry and fortunately so, because any given one misses aspect covered in another. Does this make them invalid? No, it merely suggests that different authors had different hi-lites or priorities they felt impressed to recount in more or less detail or simply missed. Aside from the acts of the apostles and the revelation of John, the rest of the NT is essentially comprised of letters to differing people and congregations. Again they obviously weren't meant to cover every possible moral and doctrinal issue, but each had specific areas of emphasis needed by those they were addressed to. For instance the opening verses of 1 corinthians begin with greetings, followed by the introduction that Paul is writing to them to help clear up confusions (a common theme... perhaps apostles are useful for clearing up confusion and contention) that have arisen among them. With that preface it makes perfect sense that he is not planning to break-down every detail of the gospel ad infinitum, but to address the concerns (or points of doctrine) which they are struggling with. I don't recall any of Paul's, John's, James', Judes or Peter's letters beginning with something to the effect, "Behold this letter contains the fullness of the gospel and doctrine of Christ, once having read it you will understand all the mysteries of God and His covenants with mankind".

 

A Gospel doesn't have to contradict the Bible to be a false Gospel. It just has to be a different Gospel than the one the Bible teaches.

 

Here is the real crux of the matter. How many divisions of the Catholic church are there? How many protestant groups? How many other Christian churches? How many non-denominational non-organized study-it-yourself groups? They all dispute just what it is that the bible teaches. The Nicean creed is not biblical... so surely any one who accepts it is following another gospel. What about the age and mode of baptism? The bible does not say specifically it should only be done for adults or babies, by sprinkling or immersion. It gives evidence of how it was done, but it doesn't lay out exact rules, so how can you know if a particular baptism meets the criteria of this gospel? What about marriage? I don't recall the bible stating a specific marriage ritual, but we know marriage is important for procreation otherwise we are under condemnation of fornication or adultery. How do you know if the way you're married is biblical enough to be of this gospel? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 

Going back to the idea of one kingdom verses multiple; how can you be so sure that the multiple is not what was taught? I cited scriptures that would support the idea. The bible makes it just as likely as not that there are multiple kingdoms, it is just that the single Heaven and Hell idea is the prevalent one in Christianity outside of Mormonism. 

[Jungler]

So...no church affiliation basically? You derive your doctrines from your own understanding of biblical teachings? Baptized by and how? Saved by what means...special prayer? Please detail your beliefs so that we are able to know how and why you believe as you do and see if they really line up with biblical teachings. If you can't do this, then this conversation is really pointless.

Are you familiar with the terms 'exegesis' and 'eisegesis'? Eisegesis is reading our own interpretation into a text. Exegesis is looking at the Hebrew/Greek language, historical and literary context to understand what the author was saying. When I say 'terrestrial' in 1 Cor. 15 means 'earthly' and not a 'heavenly kingdom,' that's not my understanding of biblical terms. It's what the greek actually meant.

 

I was Baptized by someone how had a living faith in Christ. So according to 1 Peter, I was baptized by a priest.

 

Did you read the link? It outlines what I believe about salvation. I could write more, but I have to leave for work.

 

The simple answer is that God loves us. He is perfect and man is not and lest we forget we are in a spiritual warfare with an adversary that has managed to corrupt Christ's teachings and the Gospel for centuries as evidenced by the varied teachings of the various off-shoots of the Catholic fold known as the Protestants. 

 

One faith and one baptism....

Part of that spiritual warfare is false teachers. What does the Bible say about how we recognize those false teachers?

[bytor2112]

The Nicean creed is not biblical... so surely any one who accepts it is following another gospel. 

 

Bingo....and it is surely a belief of Protestants.

[bytor2112]

Jungler...I am a former Protestant, I don't need your link. As a Protestant, I was a member of a Baptist congregation. My Protestant views were based on the views of the teachings of the Baptist Church. Yours are based on.....an internet site? Your own interpretations or do you affiliate with a particular denomination?

 

Are you a Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelical, Pentacostal....????? ???? How did you come to hear about Christ? Family? Friend? Did they take you to church? Did someone give you a bible and you decided that you believed and would follow? If so, follow what teachings? Did you first read the Bible cover to cover and decide to believe? Or did you accept Christ on the words of a friend and a few scriptures and then read the bible? Did you pray to know if it was true? Why Protestant? Why didn't you go to the Catholics first? Why would you choose to align with something that has so many beliefs and different interpretations that it is dizzying? How can you be sure of anything ....if Protestants can't even agree with one another? 

[bytebear]

Why can't scripture be our revelation? All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. So can't we rely on careful study of that scripture for teaching, correction and training?

 

 

What I find fascinating is that this verse is about the Old Testament, and that all that was "added" to the scripture was new to the Jews at the time.  The New Testament was all new.  In fact, the apostles pretty much declared a whole new set of Gospel principles introduced by Jesus Christ.   Now, were all of them recorded in the Bible?  Probably not.  We have many, and clearly the main ones are there (Faith, Repentence, Baptism and the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost), but details about temple worship, salvation for the dead, the nature of the glory of the ressurection, are there in bits and pieces.  I am sure that the apostles knew all the exact workings of these things, or at least were continuing to receive revelation from God as to how His church should be run.  Paul was continually correcting church leaders and members on doctrine and practice.  And at some point, an apostacy occured where God no longer had the apostles to reveal corrections through.  So, things got corrupt.   The reformation was an attempt to correct the corruption, but without apostles, and direct revelation, it was still just an interpretation of the incomplete writings.  This is why a restoration and direct revelation were required, and it is why Mormons believe their interpretations are correct.