| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 88.1 | A Biblical example | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Mar 09 1988 08:10 | 27 |
| In writing to the Corinthians, Paul spoke of local customs concerning hair
and grooming.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered
dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be
a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(1 Corinthians 11:4-6)
Dummelow explains the local customs.
In Greek, as well as in Eastern cities, it was customary for women,
except those of bad character, to cover their heads in public. Some of
the female Corinthian converts had discontinued this practice in Christian
worship... (The One Volume Bible Commentary, p. 909)
Thus, we realize that Paul was counseling the Corinthians to observe the
existing customs concerning hair and grooming. That is, those verses teach
a policy not a principle. However, some Christian denominations consider Paul's
comments as principles and require the women to wear a covering of some type
when worshiping in the church.
It is not always easy to discern between principles and policies.
|
| 88.2 | Definitions: GOSPEL vs. DOCTRINE | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Wed Nov 22 1989 04:05 | 52 |
| I thought I'd beat Allen to the punch on this one . . . ;^)
I would like to gain a better understanding of reader's definitions of gospel
and doctrine. Over the past couple weeks, it is clear to me that these
terms have different meanings to different people.
================================================================================
Note 286.7 God's Doctrine Will Stand the Test of Time 7 of 10
NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte" 40 lines 18-NOV-1989 20:53
-< more later >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll say more about this later, now I've got to get some work done that
didn't get done during the week, but I'll say a few simple sentences.
"The Gospel according to Chad Leigh" ;-)
Gospel: The truth and teachings of God as pertains to his Work and Glory, ie,
the Immortality and Eternal Life of Man.
Doctrine: The Gospel as far as it has been revealed to man by God. That means
that Doctrine can't change either (with my definitions).
Statements by Church
Leaders that are not direct Revelations by the Prophet or the Apostles, are
therefore in my opinion, not Doctrine. Neither is the fact that one must hold
a Temple recommencd to visit the Temple, or what Bruce R. McConkie said in
"Mormon Doctrine". However, much of what the brethren say and write is in
harmony with the Doctrine of the Church and with the Gospel. If Orson Pratt
or Brother Brigham said things of their own, that was not Doctrine. Even
some Revelations are not Doctrine -- if they describe a procedure and not a
principle.
This "principles vs. policies" idea is very important. (Note 88 has a bit more
on this). Basically, the Truth behind everything doesn't change, though the
mechanism can. The "procedures" are very important however, as they are
often commandments of God for a particular time period.
Chad
more_than_a_few_sentences_along
By the way, _Websters_New_Collegiate_Dictionary_ says:
Gospel: 1. The message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation,
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of
knowledge or a system of belief.
The above Websters definitions are only a snippet of the whole printed and the
ones I thought closest to the topic here (religion, not my own definitions, ie,
we are not talking about "Gospel" Music here).
|
| 88.3 | My Understanding of These Terms | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Sun Dec 03 1989 11:20 | 96 |
| Good morning!
I have some questions regarding the need for a "restoration of the Gospel";
but before I pose my questions, I am going to outline my understanding of
the two terms 'gospel' and 'doctrine' in this note. My questions will follow
in the next note.
[The following two definitions are taken from New International Version
Disciple's Study Bible: Glossary of Theological Terms.]
GOSPEL: The good news of the redeeming work of God through the
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
DOCTRINE: (1) Carefully formulated statements of teachings on a
certain theme;
(2) Statements of an individual's or a group's beliefs
about the Christian gospel based on the teachings
of the Bible.
GOSPEL
~~~~~~
In I Corinthians 15:1-8, Paul has defined the gospel (or good news):
(1) Christ died for our sins.
(2) Christ was buried.
(3) Christ was raised from the dead.
The "good news" is that Christ died and was raised again for us so that
we, through faith in Him, might be delivered from eternal condemnation and
might live eternally in His presence.
DOCTRINE
~~~~~~~~
Doctrines are beliefs about God, humanity, creation, etc. stated in a formal
way. My study Bible outlines the major doctrines of the Bible as follows:
AREA OF FOCUS SPECIFIC DOCTRINE(S)
The Godhead God
Jesus
Holy Spirit
The World Creation
Miracle
Evil and Suffering
Humanity
Sin
Knowledge of God Holy Scripture
Revelation
History
God's Saving Purpose Election
Salvation
Discipleship
Christian Ethics
Stewardship
Last Things
God's People The Church
Ordinances
Worship
Proclamation
Prayer
Church Leaders
Education
Family
God's People & The World Evangelism
Missions
end_of_listing
I have posted this 'listing' of doctrines as an example of Biblical doctrines.
I am not suggesting that this 'listing' is the only way of categorizing
the doctrines and teachings found in the Bible - this is one way only.
CONNECTION BETWEEN GOSPEL AND DOCTRINE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o The distinctive characteristic of Christian doctrine is good
news. Christianity is based on the gospel, or good news.
o The doctrines are individually and collectively centered in the
gospel.
end_of_definitions
Tamara
|
| 88.4 | Now the Questions . . . | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Sun Dec 03 1989 11:22 | 44 |
| Here are my questions and/or concerns:
(1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' unique claim to the
world is that they are a 'restored' church. Through Joseph Smith,
God restored the gospel to the earth.
In Note 293.1, I outlined the definition of gospel as follows:
> GOSPEL: The good news of the redeeming work of God through the
> life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
>In I Corinthians 15:1-8, Paul has defined the gospel (or good news):
>
> (1) Christ died for our sins.
>
> (2) Christ was buried.
>
> (3) Christ was raised from the dead.
>
>The "good news" is that Christ died and was raised again for us so that
>we, through faith in Him, might be delivered from eternal condemnation and
>might live eternally in His presence.
If the gospel is indeed this *good news* as outlined above, then what
exactly did the LDS Church restore to the earth?
The Church did *NOT* restore the objective fact that Christ died for
our sins. The Church did *NOT* restore the objective fact that Christ
was buried. The Church did *NOT* restore the objective fact that Christ
was raised from the dead.
These objective facts existed independent of man's acceptance of them.
In other words, let's suppose that in the early 1800's, no one on the face
of this world believed in the gospel, the good news, the objective facts.
Just because no one believed in the gospel does not mean that the gospel
didn't exist or that it wasn't true. God's truths always exist despite
man's inability (or non-desire) to acknowledge and accept them.
So, in *my* view, the LDS Church did not restore the gospel to the earth.
The gospel did not need to be restored because it was never gone - the
objective facts, the truths already existed.
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 88.5 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Dec 04 1989 11:06 | 23 |
| Tamara,
I would go even further in your assertion that the Gospel need not be restored.
I would go as far to say that there was little or no new information introduced
through restoration of the Church as claimed by Mormons. That is, nearly every
point of information has parallel if not duplication in other churches or
records. Thus, if the primary claim is that more information (truth) was
needed, then the need for a restoration is indeed weak. Couple this with the
belief held by most Mormons that truth can be discerned on a personal basis
through divine guidance, and it should be possible for any faithful person,
Mormon or not, to come to a knowledge of the points of the gospel with
information as found in other sources.
So why the need for a restoration? I think that restoration of the Priesthood
becomes the primary thrust of the assertion of the Church. Without it, one
cannot attain salvation, according to Mormons, in spite of a thorough
understanding of truth. I think it's a lot like the good news for thirsty
travelers that there is an oasis nearby. But, it does them no good unless
they drink from it.
Steve
|
| 88.6 | Pointers to other notes | CACHE::LEIGH | Christ is the way | Mon Dec 04 1989 11:45 | 22 |
| Hi Tamara,
Welcome back!
Several other notes are involved with a discussion of an apostasy and a
restoration, and I thought I would put pointers to them so this note won't
fragment (it was defined by Tamara as a note for definitions of concepts
rather than arguments for or against)
87 The Great Apostasy Note for arguments for/agains it
242 A House divided...
226 LDS Attitude toward other churches
Note 4 contains several replies that give a background for our claim of a
restoration.
4.8 The New Testament Church
4.9 New Testament Church guided by revelation
4.10 Authority from God
4.11 The Great Apostasy Begins
4.12 The Great Apostasy Continues
4.13 The Doctrine of the Trinity
|
| 88.7 | This is my gospel... | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Dec 04 1989 12:03 | 82 |
| What exactly is the gospel of Jesus Christ? At least to Latter-day
Saints, it is more than just the "good news" of Christ's birth,
atonement, and resurrection. It is also that which Christ taught
himself and through His prophets and apostles. It includes that which
he established as the requirements for taking full advantage of His
sacrifice. In other words, it is includes prerequisites for receiving
Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven.
What are these requirements? They include faith, repentance, baptism,
receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring in faithfulness to
the end. This is what the Savior taught when He appeared to the people
in the Book of Mormon about His gospel:
Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel
which I have given unto you -- that I came into the world to do
the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross;
and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might
draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so
should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be
judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be
evil--
And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to
the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may
be judged according to their works.
And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in
my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold,
him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I
shall stand to judge the world.
And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also
hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more
return, because of the justice of the Father.
And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men.
And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given,
and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.
And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing
entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their
garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance
of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.
Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and
come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified
by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless
before me at the last day.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the
things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have
seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me
do even that shall ye do.
Therefore, if ye do these things blessed are ye, for ye shall be
lifted up at the last day. (3 Nephi 27:13-22)
In another sense, Latter-day Saints use the term gospel to refer to the
collective body of all truth. We believe that all truth can be
circumscribed into one great whole. All truth, whether it be of a
'religious' nature, or a 'scientific' nature, or a 'human' nature, is
included in the gospel. In this sense, the gospel includes all
doctrines that are true.
The restoration of the gospel to us also includes the restoration of
the priesthood, of Christ's Church as it was anciently, and of many
truths that have been lost or misunderstood over the centuries. By the
way, in this sense, we believe that the basic principles of the gospel
have been restored, but that the restoration is yet ongoing. That is,
there are yet many important things that God will reveal unto men.
Tamara, you have pointed out that the Christian world already has a
basic knowledge of many of the truths of the gospel. This I will not
dispute, and this is good. To them, there is no need to restore these
particular truths. However, there is much that did need to be restored,
in order for men to more fully understand the gospel, and, most
importantly, for them to be able to take full advantage of it.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 88.8 | 'GOSPEL' and 'DOCTRINE' are Two Separate Issues | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Mon Dec 11 1989 10:45 | 109 |
| Re: .2 by me [just reposting my original question]
> If the gospel is indeed this *good news* as outlined above, *then what
> exactly did the LDS Church restore to the earth?* [emphasis mine]
Re: .3 by Steve Sherman
>I would go even further in your assertion that the Gospel need not be restored.
>I would go as far to say that there was little or no new information introduced
>through restoration of the Church as claimed by Mormons.
>So why the need for a restoration? I think that restoration of the Priesthood
>becomes the primary thrust of the assertion of the Church. Without it, one
>cannot attain salvation, according to Mormons, in spite of a thorough
>understanding of truth.
Am I interpreting your comments right? The priesthood was restored to the
earth, not necessarily the gospel. [The restoration of the priesthood is
a whole other issue with me - I will express my views/beliefs about this
later on after I have reviewed the notes already written on the subject.]
So, if it was the priesthood that was restored, why does the Church put
such an emphasis that it has the restored *gospel* v. the restored priesthood?
I realize that they teach of a restored priesthood, but this teaching seems
to be a subset of the restored gospel.
Re: .4 by Allen Leigh
Thank you for the pointers. I've read some of the notes. Will continue
to read . . . you know, it takes a *long* time to read through all this
material . . .
Re: .5 by Rich Kotter
> What exactly is the gospel of Jesus Christ? At least to Latter-day
> Saints, it is *more* than just the "good news" of Christ's birth,
> atonement, and resurrection.
The Bible teaches that the gospel is the "good news" as defined in I
Corinthians. The Book of Mormon takes this definition and expands on it
by adding DOCTRINAL teachings and then announcing that *this* is the
gospel.
> It is also that which Christ taught
> himself and through His prophets and apostles. It includes that which
> he established as the requirements for taking full advantage of His
> sacrifice. In other words, it is includes prerequisites for receiving
> Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven.
What Christ *taught* is His DOCTRINE. What Christ *did* is His GOSPEL.
It is my assertion in reply .2 that gospel and doctrine are two separate
issues.
The passage quoted in 3 Nephi mixes some doctrine in with gospel. As I
stated earlier, the Church (or Book of Mormon) has taken the basic concept
of 'gospel', expanded on the definition by adding in doctrinal *truths*,
and then at the end of the 3 Nephi passage - claim that this is the gospel.
So, if you compare the definition of gospel from the Bible with the definition
from the Book of Mormon - you will find two different definitions. Which
one is correct?
> In another sense, Latter-day Saints use the term gospel to refer to the
> collective body of all truth. We believe that all truth can be
> circumscribed into one great whole. All truth, whether it be of a
> 'religious' nature, or a 'scientific' nature, or a 'human' nature, is
> included in the gospel. In this sense, the gospel includes all
> doctrines that are true.
I believe all doctrines support the objective facts of the gospel and that
the gospel is the foundation for all doctrine. I realize that these terms
are closely related. The point that I'm trying to make is this:
GOSPEL = GOSPEL (as defined in the Bible)
It appears that the LDS Church believes this:
GOSPEL = GOSPEL (as defined in the Bible)
+ DOCTRINE (as presented in the Book of Mormon)
> The restoration of the gospel to us also includes the restoration of
> the priesthood, of Christ's Church as it was anciently, and of many
> truths that have been lost or misunderstood over the centuries.
The *gospel* truths were never lost. The objective facts that Christ was
born, that He died for our sins, and that He was raised from the dead -
all so that we could return to our Heavenly Father - never left the earth.
So, these truths you are referring to must be *doctrinal* in nature.
I believe that the LDS Church restored doctrine to the earth, but I don't
believe the gospel was restored.
> Tamara, you have pointed out that the Christian world already has a
> basic knowledge of many of the truths of the gospel. This I will not
> dispute, and this is good. To them, there is no need to restore these
> particular truths. However, there is much that did need to be restored,
> in order for men to more fully understand the gospel, and, most
> importantly, for them to be able to take full advantage of it.
Again, it is my assertion that the gospel need not be restored. The Church
restored certain doctrines and practices to the earth that may have been
practiced in earlier years.
Rich, you use the word "truths" a lot. Can you further define this term
for me? It will help *me* understand your remarks better.
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 88.9 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Dec 11 1989 15:23 | 12 |
| The Gospel came with the Priesthood during the restoration. It is described
as the fulness of the Gospel, not because all that was to be known was there,
but because the complete form of it necessary for salvation was found in one
place and one time. Previously, the information had been scattered through
dispensations and places. Being in one place was important because, although
much of the information could be found elsewhere, it was seldom not found
without being mixed with the doctrines of men, for example. The main thrust
is the Priesthood, not the information. Little was revealed that had not
been previously revealed at some other time and place. This is, in fact,
a common theme in the latter-day scriptures.
Steve
|
| 88.10 | Restoration of the Gospel | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Dec 11 1989 15:55 | 160 |
| Re: Note 293.6 by NWD002::DULL_TA
Hi Tamara,
I'm afraid we might get bogged down in the semantics of the term
"gospel", but I think it is worthwhile at least to explore it a bit
further. If nothing else, it will illustrate a bit about the LDS
perspective when the term "gospel" is used.
To sum up my understanding of the discussion on this issue so far:
You say that the term "gospel" refers specifically to the "good news"
of the redeeming work of God through the life, death, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, and that all other teachings of Christ and of his
apostles are not the "gospel", but rather are "doctrines". You base
this on definition provided by the Glossary of Theological Terms found
in the New International Version Disciple's Study Bible, and upon the
Paul's description of the gospel, as found in I Cor. 15:1-8.
On the other hand, I maintain that, while the term "gospel" includes
the "good news" as stated above, it also includes the other doctrines
taught by Christ and his duly authorized disciples.
In fact, this may boil down to multiple definitions of the word
"gospel", each used in a slightly different context. Certainly, I
acknowledge that the central core of the gospel, and that which gives
it any meaning at all, is the atonement and resurrection of our Lord,
Jesus Christ.
When Latter-day Saints say that the "gospel was restored", what exactly
do we say was restored? This is from the mentioned Bible Dictionary, in
the back of the LDS edition of the Holy Bible:
Restitution; Restoration. These terms denote a return of something
once present, but which has been taken away or lost. It involves,
for example, the renewal of the earth to its paradisiacal glory as
it was before the fall of Adam (A of F 10; cf. D&C 133:23-24 with
Gen. 10:25). In terms of the soul of man it means a return of the
individual to the presence of God, and includes the reuniting of
the physical body wit the spirit (see Resurrection). It means a
reestablishment of the gospel of Jesus Christ on the earth in the
last days, with the powers, ordinances, doctrines, offices, and
all things as they have existed in former ages. It means a
gathering together of the house of Israel from its scattered
condition. Thus it is frequently spoken of as the restitution (or
restoration) of all things, as in Acts 3:19-21. The time in which
all these things are accomplished is called the dispensation of
the fullness of times (Eph 1:10; D&C 27:6,13). (Bible Dictionary,
p. 761)
From this perspective, the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ
includes the re-establishment of the "powers, ordinances, doctrines,
offices, and all things as they have existed in former ages".
According to American Heritage Dictionary, "gospel" includes the
following meanings:
gospel 1. Often Gospel. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
2. Gospel. Any of the first four books of the New Testament. 3.
Something accepted as unquestionably true...
I have gone through all the references I could find in the New
Testament referring to the term 'gospel', and after reading all of the
verses, I remain convinced that the term gospel includes the teachings
of Christ and of his disciples. Here are a few of the verses that I
found to be of interest.
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Mark 1:14)
Note that Christ preached the gospel, which implies that it consisted
of teachings. Note also that this passage refers to a time prior to his
disciples understanding the atonement and redemption of Christ.
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at
hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:15)
Repentance is apparently part of the gospel, as is belief.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark
16:15-16)
Again, the gospel is something that is preached, and belief and baptism
are apparently essential elements of the gospel.
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed,
ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 1:13)
The gospel is the 'word of truth'.
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and
that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (II
Thessalonians 1:8)
The gospel is not just some 'good news' to hear, but it also includes
something that is to be obeyed, which I believe includes the doctrines
taught by Jesus and his disciples.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In
thee shall all nations be blessed. (Galatians 3:8)
The gospel apparently includes faith, and it was preached to Abraham.
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the
word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
them that heard it. (Hebrews 4:2)
The gospel was preached to them (ancient Israel). Again, faith is
part of the gospel.
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are
dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but
live according to God in the spirit. (I Peter 4:6)
The gospel was preached to the dead, so that they could be judged.
Apparently, judgment is part of the gospel.
And I saw 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.
(Revelation 14:6)
John saw a vision of an angel having the gospel to preach in the
last days. Why was such a messenger necessary, if the gospel were
already on the earth?
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, 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. (Acts
3:19-21)
If there is to be a "restitution of all things" prior to Christ's
coming, then wouldn't "all things" also include the gospel?
>What Christ *taught* is His DOCTRINE. What Christ *did* is His GOSPEL.
The New Testament refers several times to the fact that Christ PREACHED
the gospel. I believe that it includes both what he did AND what
he taught.
>Rich, you use the word "truths" a lot. Can you further define this term
>for me? It will help *me* understand your remarks better.
I use the term 'truths' as defined in the Doctrine and Covenants:
And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were,
and as they are to come. (D&C 93:24)
Truth, then, is "just the facts". It is things as they really are,
and not just as they may be perceived to be.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 88.11 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Dec 11 1989 22:22 | 3 |
| Good note, Rich!
Steve
|
| 88.12 | Yes, But . . . ;^) | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Tue Dec 12 1989 19:41 | 60 |
| Re: .8 by Rich Kotter
I will have to agree with Steve (reply .9) that your note was well-written
and thought out.
It is my assertion that the definition of the gospel is as described in
I Corinthians 15:1-8. I have also stated that the relationship between
the terms 'gospel' and 'doctrine' is closely integrated; however, they
are separate.
In note 293.2, I defined the gospel to be the "good news" of Jesus Christ.
"Good news" is the Greek translation for the word 'gospel.' I also listed
the major doctrines in the Bible.
To summarize what you stated, Rich - you say that the gospel refers to:
o "Good news"
o Core: Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ
o Repentance (Mark 1:15)
o Belief (Mark 1:15, Mark 16:15-16)
o Baptism (Mark 16:15-16)
o Obedience (II Thessalonians 1:8)
o Faith (Galatians 3:8, Hebrews 4:2)
o Judgment (I Peter 4:6)
I believe the gospel is the first two bullet items. The rest of the list I
believe to be Biblical doctrines. However, for the sake of getting an answer
to my question, I will accept that the entire list above is the 'gospel.'
My question again:
If the 'gospel' is as stated above, what did the LDS Church
restore to the earth through the restoration of the gospel?
It is my assertion that the gospel (and doctrines) stated above were never
lost or taken from the earth.
Rich, you provided this explanation from the LDS Bible dictionary:
> From this perspective, the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ
> includes the re-establishment of the "powers, ordinances, doctrines,
> offices, and all things as they have existed in former ages".
What powers? What ordinances? What doctrines? What offices? From this
definition you've provided, it looks like much of the restoration effort
is based on the restoration of the priesthood (as Steve has been saying).
If this is the case, then perhaps we should begin a new note or continue
this discussion in a note established to discuss the restoration of the
priesthood.
Rich, you brought up some other points on your note - but I am not going
to respond to them at this time. I think it would detract from the purpose
of this particular note.
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 88.13 | Restoration | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Dec 13 1989 10:13 | 109 |
| Re: Note 293.10 by NWD002::DULL_TA
Hi Tamara,
>It is my assertion that the definition of the gospel is as described in
>I Corinthians 15:1-8. I have also stated that the relationship between
>the terms 'gospel' and 'doctrine' is closely integrated; however, they
>are separate.
I understand your point on this issue, and I realize that you've
accepted the partial list of doctrines that I mentioned as included in
the gospel, for the sake of getting an answer to your question.
However, since you have also reasserted your position on this point, I
would ask you to show from the Holy Bible that Paul or any of the other
writers of the New Testament considered Paul's definition in I Cor.
15:1-8 to be the complete definition of the gospel, rather than just a
statement of it's core principles, or to show from the Holy Bible how
the 'gospel' preached by Christ and his disciples was not the same as
the 'doctrines' preached by Christ and his disciples. Even the
explanation in the dictionary that I gave agrees with this usage.
Certainly, in my own review of all of the New Testament passages I
could find referring to the term 'gospel', the context indicates that
the 'gospel' that Christ and his disciples taught is the same as the
'doctrines' that Christ and his disciples taught.
To refer to the passage in I Corinthians and say that it is the only
New Testament reference we should take into account when defining the
term 'gospel' and what it includes is not justified. We should take
into account the *entire* context of how this term is used throughout
the New Testament. If I have erred in my understanding of its usage
throughout the New Testament, then please show me how I have erred.
>My question again:
>
> If the 'gospel' is as stated above, what did the LDS Church
> restore to the earth through the restoration of the gospel?
>
>It is my assertion that the gospel (and doctrines) stated above were never
>lost or taken from the earth.
Please understand that my list of doctrines included in the gospel was
not all inclusive. I believe that the gospel includes *all* doctrines
taught by Christ and his disciples. I assert that some doctrines were
lost and some remained, but were changed or were mingled with teachings
of men. The restoration came to restore the doctrines to their pure
form, as they were originally given by Christ and his disciples. It
came to correct incorrect beliefs.
Let's take one example: baptism. The New Testament clearly teaches that
everyone must be baptized as Christ was to enter the kingdom of heaven.
However, this aspect of the gospel has been changed and interpreted in
a myriad of ways.
Some sprinkle, some pour and some immerse. Some baptize infants, some
do not. Some teach that it is not necessary at all, others teach that
those not baptized in this life have no hope of salvation. Paul
mentions baptism for the dead, but most reject this as a reference to a
heretical practice, while others do not.
The New Testament clearly teaches that a man must have authority to
baptize, but most cannot show that they have authority from God, but
rather derive their authority from men, or claim that reading the Bible
gives them authority from God to baptize. Yet in the Bible men got
authority by being ordained by one who had it.
If you say the doctrine of baptism had no need to be restored, then I
would ask which doctrine of baptism? Which of all of these conflicting
understandings of this essential part of the gospel is correct? Are
they all correct? If so, why would God be the author of such confusion?
>> From this perspective, the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ
>> includes the re-establishment of the "powers, ordinances, doctrines,
>> offices, and all things as they have existed in former ages".
>
>What powers? What ordinances? What doctrines? What offices?
Simple answer: all of them, as taught and established by Christ and his
disciples.
More complete answer (but not all inclusive): the sealing powers, as
given to Peter; power to baptize; power to lead the church by direct
revelation from god; power to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost; power
to add to the canon of scripture, as did the ancient apostles; power to
perform miracles; power to ordain others; the offices of apostle and
prophet; etc.
>From this
>definition you've provided, it looks like much of the restoration effort
>is based on the restoration of the priesthood (as Steve has been saying).
>If this is the case, then perhaps we should begin a new note or continue
>this discussion in a note established to discuss the restoration of the
>priesthood.
This brings us back to my main assertion, which is that the gospel
includes all doctrines taught by Christ and his disciples, which
include the priesthood. One cannot say that the gospel was restored
without saying that the priesthood was restored. It is an integral
and necessary part of the gospel. Just as Christ ordained his apostles
and gave them power to preach his gospel and to perform the ordinances
of the gospel, so must this power yet be integral to the gospel.
I testify that Jesus Christ has restored his gospel, including the
powers of the priesthood, as they were anciently.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 88.14 | Each is part of the whole. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Dec 13 1989 11:58 | 35 |
|
RE: Note 293.10 NWD002::DULL_TA
> o "Good news"
> o Core: Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ
>
> o Repentance (Mark 1:15)
> o Belief (Mark 1:15, Mark 16:15-16)
> o Baptism (Mark 16:15-16)
> o Obedience (II Thessalonians 1:8)
> o Faith (Galatians 3:8, Hebrews 4:2)
> o Judgment (I Peter 4:6)
>
>I believe the gospel is the first two bullet items. The rest of the list I
>believe to be Biblical doctrines.
I like these items. Yes, one could say that the first two are the
"gospel." But what is one to do with it? I feel that the items
after are what really makes the gospel come alive. They are an
integral part. I wonder why it is so important to separate the two
terms - gospel and doctrine. The way I see it, you can not have one
without the other.
Even though the atonement is there, one can only take advantage of it
through the principles of faith, repentance and baptism. Otherwise
it doesn't do anyone any good. Why have something if it can do no
good?
The gospel is made up of all these things because you can not have
them stand as separate entities. Taken together they make a whole.
This then is the gospel, the good news, the power of God for the
salvation of mankind.
Charles
|
| 88.15 | Restoration of a *Method* | NWD002::DULL_TA | You gotta love it! | Wed Dec 13 1989 12:49 | 49 |
| First, I agree that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrines
of Jesus Christ go hand-in-hand. I will agree with you, Charles,
to a certain extent that the doctrines make the *facts* of the gospel
come alive.
I also maintain that the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ.
That is what the term 'gospel' means. It has not been my intention
to downplay the importance of Christ's doctrines because they are
a *very integral* part of God's plan for us.
My question has been all along: What has the LDS Church restored?
[Perhaps the title of this note should be changed to reflect my
question. Allen - you decide.]
My point has been that I don't believe the LDS Church restored the
gospel nor did it restore any of Christ's teachings (or doctrines).
Rich, you use the example of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is
definitely taught in the Bible, and I personally believe in its
necessity in a Christian's life. However, in the Bible, the *method*
to baptize folks is not clear - thus we have many churches today using
different methods to baptize.
Now, here is my point:
I do not believe the LDS Church restored the gospel.
I do not believe the LDS Church restored Christ's doctrines.
They did not need to be restored. They were already
present.
I do believe that Joseph Smith saw the *confusion* in the churches
of his day and thus provided black-and-white *methods* to live
the doctrines.
Therefore, it is my assertion that the LDS Church has restored
yet-another-method of living the gospel - claiming that their
methods were methods used in the early Church.
The claim that the LDS Church makes to the world is that they have
the restored gospel (which includes all the doctrines - for the
sake of this discussion). This claim is very misleading.
Rich, you asked me to provide you with some scriptural references,
etc. I'll have to look into it tonight at home.
Regards,
Tamara
|
| 88.16 | Ask God! | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Dec 13 1989 14:44 | 57 |
| Re: Note 293.13 by NWD002::DULL_TA
Hi Tamara,
> -< Restoration of a *Method* >-
If you like the term "method", then that's fine. There's only one
"method" ("ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism") to get into the kingdom
of heaven, and that is the method that Christ taught, not hundreds of
differing methods taught by men. We claim that Jesus Christ restored
this ONE method, which consists of his gospel, doctrines, ordinances,
authority, etc.
> Rich, you use the example of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is
> definitely taught in the Bible, and I personally believe in its
> necessity in a Christian's life. However, in the Bible, the *method*
> to baptize folks is not clear - thus we have many churches today using
> different methods to baptize.
Exactly my point! Men introduced their own doctrines and practices and
mingled them with those found in the scriptures. The result was
doctrines that were contaminated. They needed to be restored to their
pure state.
> Now, here is my point:
>
> I do not believe the LDS Church restored the gospel.
> I do not believe the LDS Church restored Christ's doctrines.
>
> They did not need to be restored. They were already
> present.
>
> I do believe that Joseph Smith saw the *confusion* in the churches
> of his day and thus provided black-and-white *methods* to live
> the doctrines.
Many of the doctrines of Christ were present in Joseph Smith's day, but
they had been contaminated by the teachings of men. Some had been
completely lost from the understanding of men. The purity of the gospel
had been lost.
Joseph Smith doesn't get off quite so easily as you suggest, if you say
that the restoration wasn't necessary and didn't happen. He claimed no
less than that God sent heavenly messengers to restore the gospel,
including the priesthood. He claimed to have seen God Himself, and
Jesus Christ, as well. He didn't just teach a few new "methods". Either
the restoration happened as Joseph Smith said, or it didn't.
It doesn't really matter whether you or I think that a restoration was
necessary or not. What matters is whether God did it or not. We could
debate the need for it for a lifetime, and it would not change the
truth of whether it happened or didn't happen. So how can one know the
truth of what Joseph Smith said about the restoration? Ask God. That is
what I have done, and I know it is true.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 88.17 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed Dec 13 1989 19:22 | 15 |
| My wife and I have a problem. When we moved, my shaving supplies got
stored with all the piles of (what I call) garbage that came with us.
Now, we can't throw away all of that garbage because my shaving
supplies, as well as a few other valuable things, are mixed in with a
lot of trash. One of these days, we'll sort through it all, but there
is an awful lot to sort and I need shaving supplies very soon. So,
even though we know we have shaving supplies in there somewhere, it
doesn't make sense to try going through all the garbage to get to my
shaving supplies. It makes much more sense for me to buy an identical
set of shaving supplies to use now.
Now, how could this little situation and the lesson learned apply to
the need for a restoration of the information of the Gospel?
Steve
|
| 88.18 | Disposable Gospel? | ARCHER::PRESTON | Mega-Dottos... | Fri Dec 15 1989 13:41 | 8 |
| If one valued the gospel no more highly than shaving supplies
and household flotsam then there might be a lesson there, but I'm
sure that you and your wife treated your most treasured possessions
with utmost care to make sure that they wouldn't be lost, or damaged
in any way.
Ed
|
| 88.19 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Dec 15 1989 13:50 | 3 |
| Obviously, you have missed the lesson.
Steve
|
| 88.20 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Christ is the way | Fri Dec 15 1989 14:32 | 19 |
| Steve's point was that rather than try and recover the Gospel from all of
the distortations and false doctrine in the *creeds* of 19th Century
Christianity, God would choose to restore it anew.
Ed's point was that God would value the Gospel so highly, that he wouldn't
allow it to become corrupted beyond repair.
I think both points are interesting and worth our consideration.
Ed, one thing that needs to be considered is the principle of free agency. I
agree that God values His Gospel very highly, but he has given man freedom
to choose, and He will not force man to treat His Gospel in a "proper" way. He
gave man His Gospel and allowed him to choose to change it to suit his fancy.
We can debate the Apostasy and Restoration for years to come and never agree
with each other. I believe the bottom line is to fast and pray and ask God
about it.
Allen
|
| 88.21 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Dec 15 1989 14:48 | 3 |
| Blessesd are the peacemakers. Thanks, Allen.
Steve
|
| 88.22 | ... and blessed are the pure in heart | ARCHER::PRESTON | Mega-Dittos... | Sun Dec 17 1989 21:06 | 21 |
| Do we really need a "peacemaker" here? I merely said what I thought of
This parable of the LDS idea of the need for "restoring" the
gospel, and Steve said he was less than impressed with my ability to
take the lesson. Please don't create the impression of contention where
none exists.
Yes, Steve, I got the "lesson", I just don't buy the idea that the
gospel of Christ can get "lost" as easily as one misplaces household
stuff in a move. Jesus Himself said "heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my word shall not pass away."
Yes, I know someone will try to quibble with me and say that "pass
away" does not necessarily prevent loss, obfuscation or corruption, to
which I would say, the gospel as presented in the New Testament is
plain enough, and seemed to be more than sufficient enough for the
early church, so unless someone can convince us that the New
Testament is inadequate and/or corrupted, then you cannot make a
convincing argument for the need for "restoration."
Ed
|
| 88.23 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Mon Dec 18 1989 12:00 | 9 |
| Of course, one might also say that the gospel as presented in the Old
Testament is plain enough, that it was sufficient for the Lord's people
and that there is no need for the New Testament. How does one convince
the Jew that there is need for the New Testament using only Old Testament
sources? Certainly there is enough controversy to keep an argument going.
To the Jew, you may not be able to make an argument good enough to convince
him of the need for new law.
Steve
|
| 88.24 | Fact vs. Belief | SLSTRN::RONDINA | | Thu Dec 28 1989 10:23 | 44 |
| What an interesting discussion! Yes, discussion, not contention.
Thank you, Tamara, for your point of view. thanks for Ed for his
research, and thanks to Steve for the "parable of the shaving
equipment". I thought of Christ's teachings about "new wine in old
bottles".
Whether we choose to accept it or not, Christ's Church was lost
definitely by the 3rd Century. I have read some historians who say as
early as 100 AD it was gone. What was lost? Well certainly the
structure and offices. If nothing else, the LDS have restored the
structure and offices of Christ's Church. Then there are the doctrines
that have been restored (which Ed has stated as being part of the
Gospel).
But then again people are free to accept what they will. They may
believe as they want, but "facts are facts".
I think that we are all, however, in agreement, that the LDS restored
something that was lost. I suggest that minimally it was the structure
of Christ's Church, at the maximum teachings, powers, ordinances,
priesthood, etc.
I like Steve's question about the need for the New Testament, if the
Old Testament contained the Gospel. In that case Christ's mission,
besides the atonement, was to refocus everyone away from the Law and
towards Faith. I, too, have wondered if First Century Christians had
the same kinds of discussions with non-believers (namely Jews) as do
the LDS today.
In any case, thanks to all for a very interesting discussion. I guess
the bottom line is how you view the history of the Christian Church,
i.e. do you accept its history, or believe that somehow it survived
2000 years of political, ecclesiastical, social and cultural pressures
and today's version is as good/accurate as when Christ set it all up.
As for me, even before I knew of Mormonism had come to the conclusion
that Christ's Church had taken a detour and had lost something that
Christ had established.
Happy New Year to all in this note
Paul
|
| 88.25 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Christ is the way | Thu Dec 28 1989 11:07 | 30 |
| During the Reformation, the reformers recognized that the Catholic
church was apostate. John Wesley wrote
It does not appear that those extraordinary gifts of the Holy
Spirit were common in the Church for more than two or three
centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when
the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian....The cause of
this was not, as has been supposed, because there was no more
occasion for them, because all the world was become Christians.
This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then
nominally Christian. The real cause of it was that the love of
many, almost all Christians, so-called, was waxed cold. The
Christians had no more of the spirit of Christ than the other
heathens. (John Wesley's Works, Vol. VII, 89; 26-27, as quoted
in "Ready References, p. 73)
I think we all agree that the Christian Church was changed during the
middle ages, but I'm sure we will never all agree on the impact and
degree of those changes. My thoughts are that the significance of the
changes was (1) the Priesthood being lost, and (2) the doctrines were
changed. When Jesus spoke with Joseph Smith in 1820, he indicated those
two aspects of his Church had been lost.
As I compare the nature of the New Testament Church (see notes 4.8 thru 4.10)
with present-day Christianity, it is clear to me that the Apostasy did
occur. However, I understand that others disagree, and that is fine. We
each have to develop our own attitudes and perspectives about our relationship
with God.
Allen
|