Why is OK to harrass mormons?

[Sigurd]

Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.

Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...

You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.

So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).

You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.

So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.

Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.

[Sigurd]

Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?

Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.

Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).

That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.

I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.

Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.

You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?

Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?

Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.

I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.

Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.

You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.

Well, I suppose. I've wondered a bit about Sola Scriptura recently.

The things is, even if there were other sources of authority, they would have to be consistent with scripture, but the scripture itself condemns pretty much anything and everything we associate with organised religion. It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.

[Sigurd]

Last reply today...

Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?

Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.

Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.

Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.

It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?

I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.

It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.

I don't follow...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.

It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?

Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.

I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.

IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).

I don't follow...

The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).

Even the existence of God is self-evident and something all people know by nature, although they rebel against it. See the appropriate bit from Romans 1:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

As a side note, in the next bit, our ordained gender roles!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Sigurd]

No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.

And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?

I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.

I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.

Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.

Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.

IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).

That part is no better than the Scandinavian origins. No I am not talking about the BoM story.
I am talking about the Godhead visiting Joseph Smith as a boy of 14. Then the additional heavenly visitations by John the baptist (the Levite priesthood), Peter James and John (the higher priesthood) restoring their authorities back to the earth. Then successively the ancient prophets came and restored their authorities: Moses, "Elias", Elijah came with their keys and powers. In addition to a host of angels including Moroni - the last Christian of ancient America.
Now that is some claim for origin.

The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).

By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.