Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why was it even necessary? Who needs something that's "based off of the Bible" if you can go straight to the bible itself.
It's like a Cliff's Notes version. It's a summary of some of the basic, required beliefs.
Quote:
Really? Me too!
Unless they contradict with current LDS teaching, right?
Quote:
I hardly think my Church's teachings are garnering the the approval of men. On the contrary, it appears as if they are pretty much held in contempt by a lot of you "real Christians."
Really? We had a Republican Nominee for president that was LDS (I voted for him, btw). Everyone knew he was a Mormon. It's become pretty mainstream.
I'll reiterate, you started this thread. Not me. You invited the discussion about who you believe Jesus to be.
No. Just a simply statement of fact. Don't tell me it went over your head, too.
No, I got what you were saying. What you were dodging - or maybe it just went over YOUR head - is that less than 24 hours ago you stated very firmly that you never state that you KNOW anything regarding spiritual matters but today you claim to KNOW how the apostles would have answered the question.
Now if it's something you really do know because you discuss it with them when you get together for lunch I'll gladly take it back.
Last edited by duster1979; 06-20-2013 at 03:47 PM..
No, I got what you were saying. What you were dodging - or maybe it just went over YOUR head - is that less than 24 hours ago you stated very firmly that you never state that you KNOW anything regarding spiritual matters but today you claim to KNOW how the apostles would have answered the question.
I actually didn't use the word "know" in my post about the Apostles. I assumed one thing, just as Vizio assumed something entirely different. I think it can safely be concluded, though, that the Apostles didn't embrace a creed that was yet to be created. I mean that's a kind of a no-brainer. It doesn't require any kind of clairvoyance on my part. The most anybody can really say about them with any degree of certainty is that they believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and their Savior.
I actually didn't use the word "know" in my post about the Apostles.
True, but you said you answered "exactly as the apostles would have." I don't see a difference.
Quote:
I assumed one thing, just as Vizio assumed something entirely different.
I personally try not to ass/u/me?
Quote:
I think it can safely be concluded, though, that the Apostles didn't embrace a creed that was yet to be created. I mean that's a kind of a no-brainer. It doesn't require any kind of clairvoyance on my part.
I don't think the fact that the Nicene Creed didn't exist at the time has any bearing on whether or not the beliefs of the apostles reflect those of the Council of Nicea.
Quote:
The most anybody can really say about them with any degree of certainty is that they believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and their Savior.
I agree. But that much is part of the Nicene Creed anyway so it really doesn't prove anything.
Actually, I don't. The Bible works fine for me. I don't need any of the fancy-shmancy language of the neo-platonic philosophers to educate me about the nature of God.
Quote:
It's good to be able to sum up in a creed what we believe.
I bet it is. You can "sum it up" with all kinds of elaborate language and make it say pretty much anything you want to.
Quote:
Except where the Bible talks about the nature of god?
Especially where the Bible talks about the nature of God.
Quote:
You've demonstrated that attempting to pin you down on LDS doctrine is about like nailing jello to the wall.
And you've demonstrated that you're unable to comprehend a simple explanation about how doctrine is established. LDS doctrine is found in our four "Standard Works." It is not found in the miscellaneous publications you persist on quoting. It's only complicated to people who like to try to nail Jello to walls.
Quote:
You'll ignore what your own founding prophet and his contemporaries said and go with what your current president says.
Evidently you have not only failed to understand what I've repeatedly said about how LDS doctrine is established, but you also don't seem to get that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded on the principle that God will always reveal what He wishes us to know through our living prophet. Nowhere in any LDS writings is it ever implied that everything Joseph Smith ever said was to be considered "official doctrine" and that all other subsequent prophets were just to be figureheads. The whole idea of a current prophet is that God is continuing to reveal His will to us today -- not just 2000 years ago and not just 183 years ago. You scrutize everything you can find for comments Joseph Smith made 170+ years ago and take it upon yourself to criticize today's Mormons for accepting instead what fifteen later prophets said that actually has gone through the process of becoming official doctrine. It's just fortunate that people aren't doing the same thing with everything Martin Luther, for instance, ever said. If they were, I can assure you that this forum would be full of anti-Lutheran statements. If you don't believe me, do your homework and find out for yourself.
True, but you said you answered "exactly as the apostles would have." I don't see a difference.
LOL. Okay... let me rephrase it then: "exactly as I believe the apostles would have."
Quote:
I personally try not to ass/u/me?
Me too, but unfortunately we all do sometimes.
Quote:
I don't think the fact that the Nicene Creed didn't exist at the time has any bearing on whether or not the beliefs of the apostles reflect those of the Council of Nicea.
I think it does, in that I've asked on numerous occasions (not on this thread) for someone to provide me with any first century statement from any of Jesus' Apostles or followers that would imply that their beliefs were in line with the Nicene Creed. No one has ever even attempted to do so, much less been successful. I could much easier prove that it was a later development in Christianity than Vizio or anybody else could prove that it was part of the original gospel Jesus Christ taught.
Quote:
I agree. But that much is part of the Nicene Creed anyway so it really doesn't prove anything.
According to what Vizio is saying, everything they believed about Jesus is really just summed up in the Nicene Creed. According to him, the Creed is just a handy summation of what was already believed and accepted and there is nothing there what they wouldn't have agreed with. And that's whole point is that this perspective is soooo flawed. If the creeds taught nothing that was not already contained in the Bible, why isn't it sufficient to just believe what the Bible says? Why must we believe something that the creeds add? And if the creeds really do add nothing to what the Bible has to say, what's the point of having them? They certainly don't appear to make God any easier to understand.
No, not as the term is defined in the Nicene Creed and later creeds.
Sorry, that's probably not a particularly helpful answer, but it is the Cliff's Notes version. If you need any additional clarification, please ask, and I'll try to keep my response as brief as possible.
At one time Southern Baptists practiced the Priesthood of the Believer. It basically means that every individual can read and interpret the Scriptures in the light that God gives to them. It is rarely taught and even more rarely practiced by any Protestant faith today.
Quote:
The priesthood of each believer in Baptist thought is tied closely to another concept, that of soul competency. Each person has a God-given competence to know and follow God’s will. A decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior is an individual decision; no one can make it for another. Being a believer priest is a gift from God, not a human achievement; it comes with salvation.
Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.
Believer priests are all equal to one another in Christ (Galatians 3:26-28). There is only one High Priest, that is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:23-8:13).
The Priesthood of The Believer or of Believers | Baptist Distinctives
And the Nicene Creed is something individual believers can accept or reject based on their own understanding and WITHOUT religious officials dictating to them. It is one part of traditional Baptist belief I will never abandon.
And in that respect, I may have some faith differences with LDS as well, since they appear to heavily rely on church clergy teachings. But, Vizio, you place yourself in the exact same position by trying to take away from Protestant Christians the opportunity to read and rely on their own understanding--by insisting the Nicene Creed is something they MUST believe in.
The priesthood of the believer is being heavily attacked today as church religious institutions attempt to "corral" their members and turn them into political action groups rather than encourage them to be ambassadors for Christ.
And in that respect, I may have some faith differences with LDS as well, since they appear to heavily rely on church clergy teachings.
You're right -- to some extent. We are told, however, that we are not to just blindly accept everything they tell us. Here are a few statements from our past and present leadership that emphasize this:
Joseph Smith, Jr.: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please."
President Joseph F. Smith: “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.”
Brigham Young: “I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in thesight of the Lord.
George Albert Smith: “Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church…”
Boyd K. Packer: “Because God wants his children to grow spiritually, he neither requires nor desires unwilling or begrudged compliance, nor "blind obedience." Every person has the right, and even the responsibility, to learn whether a commandment, prompting, or teaching comes from God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Priesthood of the Believer
