LDS: I still don't get it (Jesus Christ, priest, Latter-Day Saints, moral)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by deelo505

"...I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matthew 16:18). Since Jesus promised to protect His Church, how could the Christian church have apostatized to the point of needing a new religion to be developed in order to restore it to the earth?

I probably ought to begin by asking you what you think Jesus meant when He used the phrase, “the gates of Hell,” but I’m relatively certain I already know. Most Christians today believe “the gates of Hell” to have been a symbolic reference to the forces of evil, and that Jesus was saying, “Nothing, no evil power, not Satan or his followers will ever destroy my Church.” That’s not what he was saying at all, and that’s not how Peter and the other Apostles would have interpreted His remarks. To a first-century Jew, “the gates of Hell” would have had no such sinister connotations. It would have meant nothing more than the entrance to hades, or the world of the dead. Jesus Christ preached to the spirits of the dead during the three days His body lay in the tomb after His crucifixion. Those who had lived and died without hearing His gospel were given the opportunity to do so even after their deaths. Many accepted the truths they were taught and, as a result, were recipients of His grace. His gospel continues to be taught in the Spirit World today. Hence, “the gates of Hell” never have and never will prevail against His Church. Not even death will prevent the pure in heart from hearing and receiving the gospel.

Jesus was not saying that the institutional Church He established would always continue to teach the fulness of His gospel. It was prophesied that the early Church would fall into apostasy. Throughout the New Testament, the Apostles warned that this was to happen. Paul seemed particularly concerned about it. Among his statements to Christ's followers, are these:

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears…

Paul made it absolutely clear that (1)the flock would not only be attacked, it would not be spared, (2) Christ would not return to the earth until this universal "falling away" or "apostasy" had taken place, (3) these things were already beginning to take place as he spoke, and (4) the doctrines taught by the Savior would, in time, cease to endure.

The Apostles also spoke of a restoration of that which had been lost. As recorded in Acts 3:19-21, Peter prophesied of this restitution or “apokatastasis” (also translated as reconstitution, restoration or re-establishment) "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”

He did not specifically state when it would take place. However, he did say that Christ will not return until “the restitution of all things” had occurred. In other words, the second coming will take place after “all things” have been restored. The two events will not take place simultaneously. The Greek word for “until”, as used in this instance, is “achri.” It denotes completion of an act or event as in the statement, “You can’t go to the movies until you’ve cleaned your room.” Other examples of this usage are found in Luke 1:20, Romans 8:22 and Revelation 17:17.

In Revelation 14:6, John too spoke of the Restoration, when he described seeing "another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people…"

What reason could there be for an angel to have to bring the gospel to earth if it had never been taken away?

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by deelo505

"...I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matthew 16:18). Since Jesus promised to protect His Church, how could the Christian church have apostatized to the point of needing a new religion to be developed in order to restore it to the earth?

The scripture says he will build his church upon this rock. What is this rock? Back up a verse or two, and see what he's talking about. Revelation. He will build his church upon the rock of revelation.
God's true religion has been started time and time again, throughout the Old Testament. The Lord's people have been continually killed off or destroyed and a new prophet is called to teach and rebuild God's kingdom. Just like in the flood. This is nothing new.

The gates of hell did not prevail. ULTIMATELY (and I can't overstress that word) his church will prevail. In the final days of this earth and this world draws to a close, his church will prevail. And it is. It has always appeared to lose battles throughout history, but it will win the war just as he promised.

[3.14]

easy explaination: they have different opinions then other religions so they start a new religion

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Would you mind telling me where Paul implies that he rejected Peter's authority. I'm definitely not familiar with that.

Galatians 2:11-13
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when he arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."

Clearly Peter was not considered infallible by Paul, nor beyond his authority to criticize him. His use of the metaphor of the "body of Christ" used in both Romans and Ephesians (which you quoted) melds well with his idea of a "priesthood of all believers" that every part is vital and that while their may be a hierarchy of authority, accountability is necessary.

In many Protestant churches, Deacons can sometimes have more authority than pastors, making sure that authority is not abused and ensuring the primary goals of the overall body of believers. These deacons are democratically elected and are limited to terms, similar to the relationship between the legislative and executive branch of US government.

The circumcision question was a divisive question within the early church, because many had trouble reconciling the "old law" with the "new law". This is why Paul's epistles were so important, because he excellently reconciled the two for early Christians. So, yes, there were conflicts in the early church, but they were eventually sorted out as Paul and Peter's relationship improved. Of course, Christianity has been continuously plagued by offshoots and reinterpretations of scripture ever since its inception.

Here, I think Paul makes an excellent argument for the need for "one true Church," operating under the same organization as the Church founded by the Savior. It is to retain the foundation of Prophets and Apostles He called to direct it in His absence. Without this pattern, we will be as children, not knowing where to find the truth, but confused by varying interpretations of doctrine. That, to me, is why there is a need, not only for "one Lord," but for "one faith [and] one baptism" as well.

I agree. A body divided against itself cannot succeed. And when Jesus returns to earth to establish his kingdom, we will finally have one true church. It is frustrating that there are so many denominations. Absolutely. Contradictory beliefs are not compatible, but perhaps the word "invalidate" was not the best word. What I meant was that in no way was salvation "invalidated" by trivial differences between denominations. Grace is sufficient, I believe.

But in the midst of the frustration of denominations, is making a human effort to actually achieve a "one true church" really a Christ-like solution? Human authority will always, inevitably, become corrupt. Remember when Israel asked Samuel for a king? God's response was that there would be horrible consequences for putting faith in a man instead of God alone. Sure, having a human authority figure is nice for security. It makes you feel safe. But it gives you less reason to rely on God.

The same way with religious authority figures. The burden of faith falls upon them instead of the individual, decreasing the reliance on God. Instead, when you put authority SOLELY in scripture and it becomes OK to challenge a religious authority if it appears that he is wrong, there is freedom in it! I mean, imagine if the President's veto power could not be broken. Imagine the corruption that would be possible. What reason do we have to believe that a church led also by men to be impervious to corruption?