Mormon and Jehovah's witness

We have a joke in our church that there's exegesis, eisegesis, and aye-aye-aye-xegeis, which is exegesis that's so bad, it makes you slap your forehead and say "ay-aye-aye!"

 

I stated your conclusion as to what Keating and the catechism meant in using that term was faulty. Thinkingstuff took great pains to show you how faulty your claim is and you called him a FOOL. I may not be a Bible scholar but I know that the bible tells us not to call someone a fool.

 

The problem with that flimsy excuse is that I never offered any conclusion or commentary about what Keating said. I just quoted him verbatem.

And the problem, again, is that I never offered any commentary or conclusions about what Keating said. I just quoted Keating's own words.

Really? That's funny, because I see people being called fools and foolish all throughout the scriptures.

But then again, maybe you're reading that Catholic Douay-Rheims "Bible". You know, the one who takes Jesus out of the Gospel presentation in Genesis and inserts Mary in His place?

And, for the record, I never said "And you took it all out of context. Refused to look at anything before or after what was written. You saw what you wanted to see and when ANOTHER Baptist pointed out just how wrong you were you called them a Fool."

 

JDF didn't say Raka to me so he's ok. How did this thread become about Catholics? I thought it was about those Arian loving JW and those Islamic Copy cats the Mormons.

Just an interesting side note. I was working part time for HR Block doing taxes one year and two Mormon Missionaries came up to me while on my break and I was eating a sandwich. They asked if I went to church and I said yes and named the SBC I went to. Then they asked if I had heard of the book of Mormon. And I said Yes. And they asked me what I thought about the book and mormonism. I told them they really didn't want to know. They assured me they did. I told them that as far as mormons go many I met are nice except it was a shame they followed a charlatan named Joseph Smith who lied to them and misled them. I said the book of Mormon was the most boring book I have ever read and after reading it I didn't get a burning in my bussom. I ask them what they thought about being born again. They quickly left.
Too bad.

 

Your right Thinkingstuff, Johndeerfan called Matt Black a fool.

 

Yep. I sure did.

 

Doesn't take much more than a Catholic posting ANYTHING about anything and a thread turns into a debate on Catholic theology.

I have had Morman missionaries in my home recently. My spouse asked them to give some evidence that the early Church held some of the distinctive Morman beliefs since supposedly Joseph Smith was to bring about the restoration of the True Church. We also pointed out false prophecy's of Joseph Smith in Doctrines and Covenants. We keep a copy in the library for these opportunities to witness to Mormon missionaries.

They really seemed to become flustered when distracted from their rehearsed spill. They asked if they could 'check some of the stuff out we brought up and then return' and of course we encouraged them to do so. They haven't returned.

 

Lori how do you deal with the consept of being born again? What does that mean to you?

 

You must be born again.”' (John 3:5-7).

I believe that Jesus says that we must be “born again” or “born from above” and that it is the same as being “born of water and the Spirit.” If this is true and the early Church taught this, then being “born of water and the Spirit” speaks of baptism.

I know most of you disagree with this but I believe this reference clearly refers to baptism. John says that after talking to Nicodemus. Jesus led his disciples out where they baptized. Don't we also find that water is closely linked to the Spirit in this gospel such as Jesus and the Samaritan women at the well?

I am well aware of the Baptist rejection of this passage as referring to baptism. To me, it seems the most reasonable explanation for “born of water and the Spirit,” is that it is baptism. The New Testament and Early Church Fathers consistently link baptism, the Holy Spirit, and regeneration.

Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,

 

Lets say that an element of this statement by Jesus is referrencing baptism note the two elements that go into his view. You must be born of Water and Spirit. For the sake of argument lets say the "water" aspect is baptism. But the next part is what I find key. Spirit. In otherwords a new spirit must be given to you. New life. Now application. As a Catholic I was baptised as an infant. However, as I grew up a "new spirit" is not in evidence? Why not? I can only say that I had not received one. It wasn't until I received the spirit that I understood my relationship with God to begin with. So is water about baptism or about being humanly born? I can see a correlation between ancient Jewish thought about new born children being born from water (placenta) in the mother's womb. That's just a personal thought. But when I apply what I know that it was the spirit that led me to Christ and not the water so I wonder if it really is baptism or human birth. In otherwords you must be born human and given life (spirit). What do you think?

 

That's a good explaination and reasoning. I like it. I notice that some false teaching over-literalizes things, and is not able to discern the text of Scripture. The Roman Catholics do this with John 6 also. It seems like carnal reasoning to me. Earthy.

 

'So is water about baptism or about being humanly born?'

Mark Brumley makes this point:

'A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit. It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other.'

'However, as I grew up a "new spirit" is not in evidence? Why not?'
I know Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. who exhibit the fruits of the Spirit who were baptized as infants and I know plenty that unless they told you they were baptized you would never know it. You probably do too.

The word of God seems to suggest that accepting the gospel message and being baptized are interconnected and that living out our baptismal commitment (or ones made on our behalf) is a covenant that we can accept or reject.

Jesus says:“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. Isn't part of responding to the gospel message being obedient and being baptized?

 

For the Watchtower decieved....John 8:24 That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins "Pretty cut and dry". I will always tell a Mormon that Joseph Smith was a false prophet up front. Matthew 24:24 For FALSE CHRISTS and FALSE PROPHETS will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible..........26 do not believe it!

 

It's true that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but the objection I have to arguing against Mormonism is that it puts the missionary on the defensive and gets the focus off the Gospel.

 

I keep a file of Smith's false prophecies ready for the Morman missionaries at the door. They, of course, are much more interested in me hearing their well rehearsed message than they are answering the hard questions about their 'prophet'. I give them ample opportunity to explain why they are 'visiting' and then ask if they are willing to consider my concerns about their prophet that their religion is based upon.

They don't seem to mind when I open the bible to Duet.
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him," (Deut. 18:20-22)

Mormans do not want to even consider that Joseph Smith might be a false prophet. They are instructed to never doubt his credentials. However, you can certainly bring up more than a couple of his false prophesies to get them thinking. However, when I start reading the failed prophesies from my file the responses are varied, sometimes pretty comical.

(Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.) This is the prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri during Smith's generation.

(Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3) This prophecy of Smith asserts that ALL nations would become involved in the American Civil War.

(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40) Smith's prophecy that Isaiah 11 was 'about to be fulfilled'.

Here is another one: David W. Patten to go on a mission

'Verily, thus saith the Lord: It is wisdom in my servant David W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform a mission unto me next spring, in company with others, even twelve including himself, to testify of my name and bear glad tidings unto the world.' (Doctrine & Covenants 114:1)

David W. Patten died in October of 1838 and never went on a mission that coming
spring.

There are bizarre prophesies in Doctrines and Covenants about treasures to be found in Salem, Mass. for the purpose of bailing out the then badly in debt LDS. (Doctrine & Covenants Section 111) This prophecy is at the beginning of this section.

The challenge is to get the Morman missionary willing to listen to this evidence. So far, the ones I have witnessed to have never heard it and I have never had one take notes when quoting these false prophesies. It has always been 'we will have to check that out'. I hand them a copy of the 'prophesies' as they quickly depart.

 

TS, there are a lot of people on both sides of this debate who reject the idea of “water” referring to natural birth. One such evangelical commentator is Thomas Constable, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Just like Brumley, cited by Lori supra, Constable believes the syntax is wrong for John 3:5 to have any reference to physical birth. He also notes that if this verse is equating water to physical birth, this use is unique in all of scripture. Here is what he says:

Dr. Constable has placed his entire commentary of the Bible, consisting of thousands of pages, on line and I find it to be one of the most useful reference works anywhere. You can find his commentary on John here: http://www.soniclight.com/constable/notes/pdf/john.pdf Incidentally, he concludes that “water” in this verse is a metaphor for spiritual cleansing and renewal.

Unlike Brumley as cited by Lori, Constable rejects the concept of “water” as a reference to baptism. Personally, I think John 3:5 is about baptism and I base this opinion mostly on the fact that it was always recognized as such from the 1st Century until after the Reformation. I don’t think they could have got it wrong for 1600 years and suddenly today we have been enlightened by insight not made available to our forefathers. That sounds a bit like Mormonism.

 

In all seriousness, can you explain how you would approach a Mormon missionary with the gospel message without getting them defensive.
We share a lot of Biblical beliefs: I suspect you and I agree on the inerrancy of the Bible, the Trinitarian nature of God, the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ, as well as His crucifixion and resurrection, etc. Mormans claim there are some sins that even Jesus blood can not atone for. It's a doctrine called 'blood atonement'. They also believe in 'progressive revelation' which, I believe, claims the teachings of their prophets (present Morman president included) takes precedent over everything (Bible included) except for the prophecies and teachings of Joseph Smith. Could be wrong on this last one. I had a Morman missionary recently try to explain it and he seemed a little 'wet behind the ears'.

Do you present a 'Romans road to Salvation'? Where would you start? What would you avoid?

 

Kind of like the way Catholics believe in Purgatory.

Not unlike the way Catholics view the "Magsterium" or the various appearances of the demon posing as Mary.

No, I just share the Gospel with them and keep hammering away at justification by faith alone.

I would start with, "If you were to die today and stand before God to be judged, would God allow you into Heaven or would He sentence you to Hell? Why?"

Any secondary issues like the failed prophecies of Joseph Smith and peripheral issues like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, etc. I'm not there to debunk Mormonism, but to deliver the Gospel to them.

Once the Holy Spirit convicts them and they become born again, they'll see the errors of Mormonism on their own.

 

And that's the crux of it, isn't it? The Holy Spirit must do His convicting work and the scripture just hammers away at the error. If one doesn't know or understand the beliefs of the cult, the deceived may succeed in deceiving.

Apologists have it tough, they will speak truth where others can't or won't because truth is difficult to swallow. Sometimes, your worst critics are other Christians who don't want to "rock the boat." I say, keep the sword of truth swinging.

I want to commend you for your knowledge of the cults - it's obvious.

 

I am not sure why you are so convinced there is "denominational bias." For one thing, there are people of many denominations posting here. I think maybe you are projecting from your own experience. It is biased to assume that all of us here have a "denominational bias."

Why would you read Shelby Spong or Matthew Fox? Spong denies every essential of the Christian faith. The man is apostate. And Matthew Fox is a New Ager who says we can all be "christs."