●Ultimately, I think you are right. Paul asks the Corinthians, “What do you have that you have not been given?” So, actually all that we do for the Lord is by His grace. On the other hand, we are the proximate cause of the good that we do in this life. Otherwise Paul would not have admonished the Galatians to not “grow weary in well-doing.” It is one of those fascinating synergistic relationships described in Scripture.

You had also written : Does it make a difference if the end result is perfect happiness regardless.

●Again, this is another fascinating thing to look at. On the one hand, whatever a person’s capacity for God is, it will be filled to its perfection. So in that sense it wouldn’t seem to matter. On the other hand, Paul strictly admonished the Corinthians about “building” upon the foundation that Christ has laid in their lives.

1 Corinthians 3: 11-15 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

●Paul seems to indicate that there will be a sense of loss for some who are saved.

You wrote: Is each capacity fixed or does it develop?

●Augustine and Aquinas advocated for immutability in the afterlife. This might interest you, John. Here is a statement from Gregory Koukl of the popular Evangelical apologetics website, Stand to Reason.

This observation reveals an interesting twist in this problem. If morality freely chosen can only happen in a world where evil is possible, then heaven will be a place where there will be no moral growth, where moral choices will not be possible because all the inhabitants of heaven will be immutably good. There is a type of soulish growth only available to inhabitants of a fallen world.

●Dr. Koukl’s article is on evil as privation and he is approvingly explaining Augustine’s approach to the problem.

Christ's mission was not to give eternal life to anyone He deems should recieve it. The verse reads as Christ spoke them, "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou (The Father) hast given him.". Christ's mission was to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to anyone. His Father identified to His Son whom because they are those "thou (the Father) hast given you (the Son).

●Hmmm...let's see what Jesus says about that in John...

John 1: 11-13 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 12: 47-48 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.
John 13: 19-20 Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He. 20 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
John 17:7-8 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

You wrote: (Quoting me) "They (Unlearned Christians) do not seem to see that this life is a “means” by which we prepare ourselves for the “end” (goal) of eternity—which is God."

(Your response) Not really. The true knowledge of Jesus Christ and His Father is but the gateway. If you can't get that right, then you can't even pass through the gateway. There is much required to gain eternal life.

●Well, of course, you are completely correct from an LDS perspective. From an LDS perspective—despite what the Holy Son of God said—eternal life is not to know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” I mean--from an LDS perspective--Jesus’ saying is purely “unlearned” gibberish equivalent to spiritual baby-talk. In the LDS view of things, knowing God and Jesus Christ is merely the “gateway” into an eternal progression to lofty godhood with one’s “goddess” by which one can procreate endlessly “worlds without end” and billions of “spirit children” so that one can be adorningly worshipped for the true deity that one has progressed into. On the other hand, from a Christian perspective these LDS notions are the height of man-centered pride and a blasphemy.

we are all called to be what God has created us to be doing and accepting God's will perfectly, no more and no less. If each of were to do this, we would be perfectly happy. Thinking you alter your own capacity is rather self centered view. A perfect man is perfectly humble not caring what his capacity is, only that he does God's will trusting his own fate to God.

●I agree that we are created to do and accept God’s will perfectly and if we all did this we would be imperfectly happy (perfect happiness being unattainable separate from the direct contemplation of God). However, I do not believe that perfect humility is not in opposition to the awareness that we can have effect on our own enjoyment of God by our acceptance or resistance to His grace. Otherwise all of Jesus’ parables about good stewardship and these words from Paul would be pointless.

1Cor 3:9-14 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

●If what you say is true, that it is self-centered to think a Christian can alter his own capacity for the afterlife, then Paul’s reference to himself as a “wise master builder” according “to the grace of God” that was given him was the height of self-centeredness. Paul was obviously referring to heavenly rewards that pass though the fire of God’s judgment—some work “endures” producing a reward while other work is “burned” causing a loss to those who yet are saved.

●Additionally, if it is self-centered to think a Christian can alter his own capacity for the afterlife, then these words from Jesus seem strikingly strange.

Matthew 25:26-30 “But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. 27 So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents. 29 ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

●It seems to me that Jesus demanded (not just recommended) that his disciples be highly aware of their own actions—very self-conscious of their responsibility to use what God supplies for His purposes. The “wicked and lazy” servant just played it safe and didn’t think strategically about how to use his master’s resources. As I see it, true biblical humility is manifested as an active submission to God’s will demonstrated by voluntarily using one’s time, talent and treasure for God’s purposes. Additionally, I believe both Paul and Jesus made it abundantly clear that it is a fearful thing to use these things for oneself and, therefore, a Christian should be very aware of the eternal consequences of one’s actions. This is not being self-centered but, rather, self-consciously God-directed.

You quoted I Corinthians 3:11-15 which suggests (to me) that there are levels of reward according to behavior.

●I think that Paul is more than suggesting that there are differing “levels” of reward. I think he is unmistakably declaring it to be so. I think is silly to think otherwise. However, I see no contradiction in this and the evangelical doctrine of salvation by grace without any merit of our own.

●Augustine stated the following principle:

There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth (De vera relig., xiv, 27).

●If this is true then the converse must also be true—there can be no moral merit that is not voluntary. Therefore, in order to attain heavenly rewards—which is often spoken of in the Bible—a Christian must voluntarily choose to use the grace that God supplies for that purpose.

It should read:

“However, I believe that perfect humility is not in opposition to the awareness that we can have an effect on our own enjoyment of God by our acceptance or resistance to His grace.”

John wrote:

Each of us are builders to the plans given us by God, i.e. doing His will. If you do anything less, you either get scrap and rework or an eternally unfinished and unsatisfactory product. As adopted sons of God, doing His will is expected at all times.

●Agreed.

You wrote: Isn't this what Paul was saying, "if anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss" = scrap and "but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire" = rework. The later sounds a lot like Purgatory.

●John, you’ll notice that Paul says in 1Cor. 3:13 that each person’s work will be revealed on the “Day.” Typically when Paul speaks of the Day he is referring to the “revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” as can be seen here:

1Cor 1: 7-9 so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

●The “fire” referred to in 1Cor 3:13 used in this way generally refers to judgment. Here is a passage that includes both the coming of the Lord and the “fire” of God’s judgment:

1Thess 1: 6-9 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

2 Thess 2:1-3 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

●In short, based upon Paul’s consistent word usage and imagery, 1 Cor 3:12-14 must be referring to the judgment of God at Christ’s final coming.

2 Tim 4:1 and 8 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:… 8 Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Ron wrote:

Thom, Interestingly, I see that we are using Catholic theology (or at least Catholic interpretation) to support the positions spoken here. I hear evangelicals accuse Catholics of supporting a 'salvation by works' doctrine on an almost daily basis. So I must conclude that either evangelicals are misinterpreting Catholic doctrine or that we here at your blog are probably going to be accused of teaching 'salvation by works'.

●My post is about “rewards” and not salvation. I do think I have been defending my position primarily using Scripture with one quote from Augustine and another from the Calvinist apologist Greg Koukl. What I thought was interesting about Koukl’s quote (from his article on evil as a privation) is that he seemed to approvingly hold to the immutability of the Christian in the afterlife. I don’t think this is a well-known idea amongst Evangelicals.
●Additionally, I am firmly opposed to “salvation by works.” However, the real differences between Catholic theology and contemporary Evangelical theology regarding salvation—in my view—are very small. The difference might be stated as follows:

Catholic: Real saving faith entails good works.

Evangelical: Real saving faith brings forth good works.

You affirm clearly that you can find one stance and then completely another through your own personal interpretation of it.

●You must be referring to the quotes from the Gospel of John that show that your position is incorrect. Here are some more:

John 17: 2-4 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth.
John 17: 20-23 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

●Additionally, the fact that Jesus first sent His disciples to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” makes no difference in relationship to the fact that Jesus Himself defined eternal life as knowing “the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” Your point is a non sequitur.

●This, too, is another non sequitur. Your first non sequitur (meaning “it does not follow”) is that if Jesus’ mission was first to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” that, therefore, this denies Christ’s statement that eternal life is to know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” Your second non sequitur is that if I am wrong about the mission of Christ I must be wrong about His direct statement that eternal life is to know “the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” If this was true than any mistake made by anyone would mean that everything they know or claim is wrong. If, for example, Einstein mistakenly thought he put on black socks but actually put on brown socks, then—according to your logic—he must also be wrong about his Theory of Relativity. Your thinking, of course, is absurd.

You wrote: The Bible reads and you quoted “As thou (the Father) hast given him (Jesus Christ, His Son) power over all flesh, that he (Jesus) should give eternal life to as many as thou (The Eternal Father) hast given him.” And of course nobody else, personally.

●Your last sentence, of course, is your own insight and is wrong. Again, even if Christ’s mission had only been to save Jews—which it wasn’t because even in the Gospel of John there are non-Jews who are saved—it would not follow that eternal life is something other than what Christ stated it to be. Your absurd point seems to be the following:

1) Jesus stated categorically that His mission was only to the Jews that were given to Him by the Father (the disciples); 2) Therefore, what Jesus stated categorically about eternal life is wrong. Welcome to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

You wrote: That was the Apostles' mission Thom, not Christ. That mission, and His true Church would not outlive those Apostles on this Earth. It would be taken from the Earth where they did not ordain other Apostles in their stead. Christ’s mission on Earth was complete before Paul spoke those words. You got things happening without timeline. That is symptomatic of a fellow that Knows no plan.

●This is simply Mormon poppycock topped with balderdash that was invented by Joseph Smith and belongs with other Mormon teachings like Kolob and Quaker-garbed people living on the Sun. It has nothing to do with anything that Christ stated and cannot be substantiated by either Scripture or church history.

You wrote: The Great Apostasy. Many Orthodox Christian denominations believe it. The gifts of the Spirit are lost where obedience is not to be found. They are maintained in a measure consistant with obedience.

●Duh…yes, many Christians believe that a great apostasy will happen in the last day—just before Christ’s return. Why do they believe this? Well, it is probably because it is taught in the Bible by Jesus and Paul. Additionally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not dependent upon human obedience. The work of the Holy Spirit in man brings about sanctification to obedience. By the way, you may want to read First and Second Corinthians. They will show you a church that had huge sin problems while—at the same time—demonstrating a wide plethora of spiritual gifts. Paul never tells the Corinthians that their giftedness was not from God.

●The Mormon notion of the work of the Holy Spirit is as follows:

If you do X, Y and Z; then you will receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit.”

●Such a notion is absurd as worded. It should be worded as follows:

If you do X, Y and Z; then you will earn the Holy Spirit.

●The corrected version more accurately communicates the mendacious teaching of the LDS on the Holy Spirit. However, no matter which way it is worded, the LDS teaching is totally man-centered and diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity.

Whose Church history and limited to what particular Scripture? Your answer is circular. "It is the limited scripture approved for the particular church history I subscribe to, as opposed to other scriptures and histories which other Christians see as true.

●Not one legitimate NT scholar—even those who are secularists—would posit that the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline corpus are anything other than the oldest and most authentic Christian texts.
●You claim that I am offering a circular argument. No, I am merely saying that your assertion that the Bible (namely the Gospel of John and Acts) propagates an immediate apostasy following the Apostles cannot be substantiated by what is actually written John and Acts. Additionally, church history proves your assertion to be wrong. What is going on here is equivalent to Gecko asserting that a certain footprint proves that “Big Foot” exists with me countering by saying that it is a human footprint and CSI confirms it. Gecko responds by saying, “That’s a circular argument—you haven’t looked at other footprints over there!” Back to Wonderland.

●Inconsistent wording has to do with the translations of the original languages into modern vernacular. As modern languages change, the translations have to be updated from the original Greek. There is a general consensus on the received Greek text of the NT shared by Catholic and Protestant. Therefore, the reason orthodox Christians embrace different translations is because they trust the work of the translators. I, for instance, have no problem whatsoever referring to the Catholic Jerusalem Bible which is a direct translation from the Hebrew and Greek.

●If you would like to compare the textual evidence for the ancient age of the NT you can refer to these sites:

Overview of NT manuscripts, http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/features/new_testament_manuscripts.htm

Complete List of Greek NT Papyri, http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html

Listing of NT Manuscripts and Papyri http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html

Regarding the Nag Hammadi Library Gnostic texts that are so revered by Mormons: the earliest dating given to any of its writings is to the original Greek composition of Gospel of Thomas which ranges from mid to late 1st century (for some of the sayings) to 2nd century for the full composition. The other writings are primarily compositions from the 3-4 centuries. They are clearly Gnostic and fanciful and no one disputes this.

●Of course, contrary to the reams of NT manuscripts, papyri, and fragments from the ancient era, there is also the JST—Joseph Smith Translation. Smith didn’t need the original language texts to do his work. Here is an example of a “scripture” that does not appear in any ancient manuscript that Joseph Smith gave to the world:

And it came to pass that Jesus grew up with his brethren, and waxed strong, and waited upon the Lord for the time of his ministry to come. And he served under his father, and he spake not as other men, neither could he be taught; for he needed not that any man should teach him. And after many years, the hour of his ministry drew nigh. [JST Matt. 3:24-26].

●Protestants and Catholics need not refer to their Bibles to find this passage since the original texts and our translations end with Matthew 3:17.

2 Thess 2:1-4 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

●Notice that Paul assures the Thessalonians that there will be two clear signs of Christ’s parousia. One is the general turning away from Christian faith and the advent of the “lawless one.” He adds that the “lawless one” will be destroyed by at Christ’s parousia (v. 8).

●Somehow out of this self-evident teaching by Paul, Joseph Smith conjured up the idea that immediately after the Apostles the true gospel would disappear and be completely dormant for nearly 1800 years until it would become suddenly restored by a 20-something in upstate New York using “seer stones.” Think about it folks.

Matthew 24:3-14 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming (the sign of your parousia), and of the end of the age?”
4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for allthese things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

●Notice at this point that Jesus has said that all “these things” will be the normal occurrences of things throughout time and only represent the “beginning of sorrows.”

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

●Here Jesus indicates that those who endure “to the end” will see the rise of many false prophets (those who speak for God…hmmm) deceiving many; a spike in persecution (called “tribulation”) against the faithful, and a rise in general “lawlessness.” Lawlessness refers to rebellion against God’s law and not necessarily crime, though they are often concurrent. Biblical lawlessness is often associated with sexual promiscuity as seen in the typological example of Sodom and Gomorrah.
●The clearest indicator of Christ’s parousia given in vv. 9-13, of course, is that the “gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations” (people groups).

15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.

●The key to understanding this section of Matthew 24 is the nomenclature “abomination of desolation.” This is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes who in a failed attempt to Hellenize the Jewish people in 168 BC, dared to occupy Jerusalem and desecrate the temple by offering a pagan sacrifice in the Temple. The terms “abomination of desolation” came to refer to the earthly political-religious power that would oppose God and claim deity for himself. Most commentators believe that Jesus’ reference here is to the “Lawless One” (Paul’s terminology) or the Antichrist (John’s terminology).
●In summary, the clear signs of Christ’s parousia are a spike in persecution, the gospel going to all peoples, a general spread of lawlessness, and the unveiling of the Lawless One. In 2Thess 2, Paul emphasizes the “falling away” of people from God’s truth and the rise of the Lawless One. Obviously, the two passages are remarkably similar.
●In both passages the parousia is directly connected to a falling away from God’s truth and His law. According to Paul and Jesus there is absolutely not even a hint that there would be a sudden “Great Apostasy” immediately after the end of the apostolic age. In fact, Matt. 24:4-8 indicates that there would be a whole period of wars, etc. and that many false Christ’s would arise to deceive people before there would even begin to be a general falling into lawlessness.

●Well, there you have it, the Jesus-view as opposed to the Joseph Smith-view. Take your pick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

●Oh, really, so there is “absolutely no content in the Bible concerning what must have been a great learning period for the apostles.” Well, well, well, then someone forgot to tell Luke about that. Here is what he says the apostles learned directly from Jesus between His resurrection and the ascension.

Luke 24:25-45 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. 28 Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would have gone farther. 29 But they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them. 30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight. 32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread. 36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” 40 Then He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence. 44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

●Hey, notice what is missing? There is nothing said about “what was going to happen as the Apostles were murdered” or “how the Church would become a political tool,” or “how it would soon find itself in a Greek soup of celebrating pagan events as Christian.” Funny, the Gospel of Luke says that He specifically opened their minds about what the “Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms” said concerning Him!!! Yikes, that is way different than what Joseph Smith taught. What do you know, we are back to having to choose between Jesus and Joseph Smith. Shucks, things just keep turning out that way.

How many of you want to go with Jesus on this one?

How many of you want to go with Joseph Smith on this one?

●Sorry, Gecko.

●I have to admit--hopefully without being uncharitable myself--that this thought has crossed my mind. Allow me to give a few reasons for my concerns.

First, as an evangelical I’ve heard lots of theories about the antichrist that run the gamut from the head of the European Union to a New Age guru. In my mind most of this falls into the category of a disputable matter or fodder for a fun discussion with friends.

What gives me pause in regard to the LDS is: 1) its insistence on prophetic declarations (Matt. 24:11); 2) its subtle reinterpretation of critically important Christian doctrines (false teaching); and most importantly, 3) its shocking doctrine of human divinity. Read Paul again:

2 Thess. 2: 3-4 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

●Holy smoke! When I read these words again this week as I prepared a comment for this thread, I literally had chills go down my spine. I thought, there is one person I know of who fits the description of exalting “himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”

●No, the point is that you asserted that the Bible has no content that reveals what Jesus told His disciples between the resurrection and his ascension. Your assertion is wrong on the face of it. Luke provides the better part of a whole chapter describing what Jesus did to instruct his disciples during this period. My first point is that you are wrong. Secondly, because Luke sets out his goal of providing the reader with a precise account of all that Jesus did which is significant to the believer, we must assume that Luke, therefore, would not leave out anything as vital as Jesus’ instructions about a so-called “Great Apostasy.” Here is what Luke said he was doing in his gospel:

Luke 1: 1-4 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

●So, in order to reject Luke’s description of his purpose and accept Joseph Smith’s, then we must believe that Luke did not think it was important to teach a “Great Apostasy” that was yet supposedly taught in the ancient church by Jesus but didn’t make it into Luke’s recounting of “those things in which you were instructed.” Hey, Jesus taught this “privileged” stuff about an immediate apostasy, Theophilus; and you were instructed in it, but, I’m not going to mention even a hint of it. Ahhhh…yeah…right.

Gecko wrote: Please note out of interest that He didn't go to any world philosophies or antiquated sciences of the day, or Plato or any other pagans for inspiration. Notice also, Bozo, that He didn't go to the BIBLE. He went to the scriptures. There were quite a few back then. Much to teach and much to learn by the Spirit. Less than 400 years later, most of those scriptures He taught from would be destroyed at the hands of another church, not His.

●I like Bozo.
●Secondly, you left off Luke 24:44 which describes exactly what Luke meant by “the Scriptures.” Here it is again:

Luke 24:44-45 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

●Additionally, it would be absolutely impossible for Luke to have been referring to the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library because those writings weren’t even composed until three to four hundred years later. Do you think about what you write?