LDS beliefs and the Bible

[Orontes]

Answer posts: 1438, 1439 and 1440

John 3 is concerned with being born again of water and the spirit. 1 Corinthians 1 is concerned with unity in the church and the wisdom or the world vs. the wisdom of God. Wisdom, as you no doubt know, refers to the practical application of knowledge. It therefore necessarily entails a moral element. 1 Corinthians 2 is concerned with the importance of revelation. None of these chapters embrace or advocate irrationality. Now, post 1438, 1439 and 1440 await.

Orontes,

I would call your posting glossing over the Scriptures. Do you want to try again, especially in relations to your insisting of human wisdom and logic with those who have not been born again?

You asked for my understanding. The simple explanatory demonstrates my understanding. I think in each case it captures the sense of the chapter. I see no need to give a more detailed response because when I have done so in the past, in this very thread, you simply ignored it. Further, I have three noted posts in the quote, you have not given answer to. There is also a list of 22 topics from this thread you have not dealt with. Below is the list. In each case, it refers to subject matter directly tied to claims you made or actions you've taken that you have been unable to support and have instead simply run away from the discussion/topic. The list:

1)The Apostasy
2) Determinism
3) The category mistake of apply an Evangelical litmus test to a requested Mormon explanation.
4) Exegesis of Romans 1:16-17
5) The notion "the scriptures as sufficient revelation from God"
6) The distinction between Apostolic Succession and Mormon claims.
7) The meaning of inter-faith
8) That Historical Christianity has been at enmity with itself
9) The claims of "different Christs" and "different Gospels" are themselves non sequiturs.
10) Exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:3
11) The Articles of Faith
12) The absurdity of sola gratia
13) The absurdity of sola scriptura
14) The notion that: a god that can save all but does not, is an evil god.
15) The notion that: a god that controls all is thereby responsible for all. If that all includes evil then such is an evil god.
16) Esoterism in Christian Thought via reference to Mathew 13 and Luke 10
17) Private interpretation of scripture vs. authority.
18) Exegesis of Romans 7:19-25 to Romans 8 1:2
19) The focus on and loyalty to scripture as opposed to the source of scripture
20) Why Calvinists appeal to a Bible compiled by non-Calvinists
21) Debating free will vs. determinism
22) Changing Bible verses to support anti-rationalist ideas.

The last post is interesting. It is an example of you actually changing Bible verse in attempt to bolster your own ideas. This is the post again:

I used to trust in logic, but I now trust in the Lord Almighty!

Some trust in logic and some in human wisdom,
but we trust in the name of the LORD our God - Psalm 20

That one who claims fealty to sola scriptura would do this is disturbing. In short, this history impacts your credibility. Finally, you have explicitly rejected reason itself. This means we have no common ground to discuss. So, I'm quite happy with simple, yet accurate explanatories.


As to any insistence: I have simply noted that there is nothing in the Bible that advocates irrationality.

I think you are saying that a natural man can understand the things from God without the new birth or the indwelling Spirit, correct?

No. That is not what I am saying, or what I said.

 

[*Paul*]

Yes they did, read Acts chaper 1 again.

Look a little closer as to the criteria:

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

A witness of the ressurection, with the other apsotles no less. which then begs the question, who is an Apostle?

Who is an apostle?​

1Cor 9v1: Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2Cor 12v12: Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds
Clearly two of the proofs of Paul’s authority as an apostle are that he has seen the Lord and that God worked through him signs and wonders and mighty deeds it was to these to signs that Paul appealed to and the fact that He had planted their churches and brought them to Christ. This is the person that is in my mind when the bible says apostle.
Eph 4v11-14: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
He gave some (to be) apostles, I don’t disagree with that, as I said before I still learn from the apostles when I read the bible and still use their teachings for my perfecting. Some prophets, I believe we have prophets today in the church not that they are foretellers of the future but that they have a message from God in their ministry specifically relevant for the day we live in, though these people do not call themselves prophets because they don’t think highly of themselves which is correct, we still have evangelists, Ray Comfort & Jacob Prasch are two mainstream ones that come to my mind though there are thousands of unknown ones doing a great work for the Lord abroad, pastors and teaches being two distinct offices in my opinion though many pastors are teachers too.He gave these for our perfecting, that is that by these ministries we may become more and more Christ like in our actions and pure in our doctrine. The work of the ministry, these are / were labourers for Jesus who do it all for the edifying or building up and strengthening of the body of Christ.This is to be until (v13) we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.When will this be? The fact that it involves all of us (saved) and the fact that we will be perfect in our knowledge of the Son of God must mean it is until this happens:
1Jn 3v2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he isPhil 3v21: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.1Cor 13v12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
This is the blessed hope of the church, for which we cry out, Come Lord Jesus, the rapture of the Church, the marriage of the Lamb to His bride. We shall then be made perfect, we shall then have perfect unity as there will be no tares or wolves in sheep’s clothing amongst us, and any misunderstandings will be cleared up, our fleshly nature will be swallowed up which is generally the cause of our misunderstandings, we shall be perfected, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.

Now what of modern day apostles, have they seen Christ? Do they work verifiable miracles like the true apostles? Those who claim to have seen Christ, (and there are some within evangelicalism) ought to be examples of holiness, self sacrifice and doctrinal purity but these things are always lacking, instead they make constant appeals for money, live deliciously at the expense of the naïve and often vulnerable people they fleece through their TV screens, they are no apostles but they are ministers of Satan, who make a merchandise out of their wresting of scripture. Now if there were to be a modern day apostle, He cannot preach or teach a gospel different to that of Paul (let him be anathema) and cannot overturn the foundations that have already been laid by the first apostles, else as any construction worker will tell you (or child) he would bring the whole building down. So any one claiming to be an apostle, needs to work mighty signs and wonders and have seen Christ, live lives of holiness and their doctrine must stand up to the scrutiny of the teachings of the apostles and prophets whose writings we know are inspired.

Rv 2v2: I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

 

[*Paul*]

Yes he was LOL, how else would he have the proper authority to baptize?

Because God told him to? Was he disobeyeing God by not working in the temple as a good levitical priest was supposed to?

Temples mentioned all throughout the New testament? look it up, too many refrences to post here.

Where is there a reference to the apostles working "the higher ordinances" in the temples in a historical context?

 

[madhatter85]

Look a little closer as to the criteria:

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

A witness of the ressurection, with the other apsotles no less. which then begs the question, who is an Apostle?

a Special witness of Christ. exactly what our apostles today are.

This is the blessed hope of the church, for which we cry out, Come Lord Jesus, the rapture of the Church, the marriage of the Lamb to His bride. We shall then be made perfect, we shall then have perfect unity as there will be no tares or wolves in sheep’s clothing amongst us, and any misunderstandings will be cleared up, our fleshly nature will be swallowed up which is generally the cause of our misunderstandings, we shall be perfected, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is.

How are the saints to be perfected if there is no continual revelation in an ever changing world with new evils around every corner. nipping at the heels of our children?

Now what of modern day apostles, have they seen Christ?

Yes, they have

Do they work verifiable miracles like the true apostles?

Yes, they do. those miracles are performed every Day, gifts of Tongues prophecy, revelation, interpitation of tongues, healing, and so forth.

Those who claim to have seen Christ, (and there are some within evangelicalism) ought to be examples of holiness, self sacrifice and doctrinal purity

Exactly, and True apostles are, and i know where to find them =) i've met 2 of them myself. shook thier hands, heard them speak.

but these things are always lacking, instead they make constant appeals for money, live deliciously at the expense of the naïve and often vulnerable people they fleece through their TV screens, they are no apostles but they are ministers of Satan, who make a merchandise out of their wresting of scripture.

I totally agree with this statement.

Now if there were to be a modern day apostle, He cannot preach or teach a gospel different to that of Paul (let him be anathema) and cannot overturn the foundations that have already been laid by the first apostles, else as any construction worker will tell you (or child) he would bring the whole building down.

And the Aposltes today do not overturn anything, the foundation has been laid, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. and upon that foundation has the kingdom of God been built upon the earth today, just as Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, Amos, and John the Revelator all prophesied.

So any one claiming to be an apostle, needs to work mighty signs and wonders and have seen Christ, live lives of holiness and their doctrine must stand up to the scrutiny of the teachings of the apostles and prophets whose writings we know are inspired.

And i know that the apostles that lead Christ's true church are shimmering shining examples of all the qualities you have stated, and I would love for you to try and prove otherwise.

 

[madhatter85]

Because God told him to? Was he disobeyeing God by not working in the temple as a good levitical priest was supposed to?

Exactly, not even Christ was exempt from being baptised by proper authority.

Where is there a reference to the apostles working "the higher ordinances" in the temples in a historical context?

Ancient Evidence of Baptism for the Dead
Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity

 

[*Paul*]

Exactly,

then you agree? Your response did not adress my question


http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id72.htm

Ancient Evidence of Baptism for the DeadBaptism for the Dead in Early Christianity

Thanks for the links, I read them have you read Chrysostom on the subject?

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? if the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?
He takes in hand again another topic, establishing what he said at one time from what God does , and at another from the very things which they practice . And this also is no small plea for the defence of any cause when a man brings forward the gainsayers themselves as witnessing by their own actions what he affirms. What then is that which he means? Or will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression?

Do read the full article though:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 40 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)

 

[madhatter85]

then you agree? Your response did not adress my question

sorry, i meant to say that Christ is not a levitical priest, he is the great high priest. the only one with the inherited Authority being he is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. his authority he delegated to the apostles. this, this higher priesthood talked about in psalms:
Psalms 110:

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

and it is explained farther in Hebrews Chapter 7 about the Melchisedec priesthood being superior to the Lesser priesthood of Aaron (levitical)
Hebrews 7

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Thanks for the links, I read them have you read Chrysostom on the subject?


Do read the full article though:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 40 on First Corinthians (Chrysostom)

yes i have heard that, but that explanation does not fit with the writing style of Paul. he did not speak down upon it like he did all of the other things the churches were practicing at the time that were not in accordance with the gospel. Also Paul would not have appealed to a heretical view to persuade people to believe in the resurrection. this is expressed by scholars here in the first link

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow]Despite the clear implications of Paul's questions in 1 Corinthians 15:29, some commentators deny that Paul is referring to[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow] an approved Christian practice of proxy baptism for the dead. Rather, they claim he is citing a heretical rite to persuade his[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow] readers to believe in the resurrection. But it would have been very poor logic for Paul to have appealed to a heretical [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow]practice as an example of why the doubting Corinthians should accept the resurrection. [/FONT]​

[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,adobe-helvetica,Arial Narrow][/FONT]

 

[Orontes]

Hi Paul,

This post responds to sola scriptura.

This post is in answer to your question on the Book of Romans verses.

 

[*Paul*]

Part One
Sola scriptura is indeed an appeal to scripture as the authority, but it is not simply that: the claim has traditionally entailed that scripture is self authenticating, sufficient and infallible. Without these later elements the claim lacks any weight and simply appears as a bald assertion. So, for one like yourself the question then is: do you believe the Bible is infallible, self authenticating etc.?

Infallible and God authenticates it to the the sincere humble seeker. I don't think that someone relying on there intelligence alone can see the deeper things that God has put in there and they certainly won't speak to His heart.

If so, then we can ask about which Bible?

Any literal translation of the traditional text is fine, it is the word of God in the English tongue, after all there are many different ways of saying the same thing.

You mentioned the King James is the version you use. Is this the original 1611 King James Version which included the deuterocanon or is it the versions seen today which no longer include the deuterocanon?

I personally use one without the apocryphal books in but i owuldn't object to having the 1611 version either, I wouldn't need to regard those apocryphal books as scripture just because they are between the leather binding, in fact they may be useful for historical purposes.

Another issue to consider is you mentioned your group/church agreed upon the King James Version. Rhetorically, this is interesting: the claim is the text is the sole authority and yet that sole authority is itself dependant on your church's approval.

Just because you choose to submit to God doesn't mean God lacks authority until you submit to Him, it's the same with His word. It did not need our approval, we are not qualified to approve it, we accept the bible as the word of God, we sought for a literal translation of it and the King James Version, having been used by many of our forefathers was decided upon. Not to exclude other literal translations as being the word of God.

 

[*Paul*]

Hi Paul,

This post responds to sola scriptura.

This post is in answer to your question on the Book of Romans verses.

Try to be patient with me, I don't get much time on here much less to analyse lengthy posts.

 

[Katzpur]

Look a little closer as to the criteria:

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

A witness of the ressurection, with the other apsotles no less. which then begs the question, who is an Apostle?

So Paul wasn't really an Apostle?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by *Paul*
Look a little closer as to the criteria:

Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

A witness of the ressurection, with the other apsotles no less. which then begs the question, who is an Apostle?

So Paul wasn't really an Apostle?

Are you saying Paul did not see the risen Christ? Well, technically Saul saw the risen Christ. Saul changed to the Apostle Paul.

Acts 9

So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

The Resurrection of Christ - 1Cor 15

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you saying Paul did not see the risen Christ?

He definitely was not "a witness of the resurrection" even though he ultimately saw the risen Christ.

Well, technically Saul saw the risen Christ.

Yeah, well, so did Joseph Smith. :yes:

 

[Fish-Hunter]

He definitely was not "a witness of the resurrection" even though he ultimately saw the risen Christ.

Yeah, well, so did Joseph Smith. :yes:

I will try to give you a break on this thread if you consider joining me at

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/66978-bible-revelation.html

 

[Katzpur]

I will try to give you a break on this thread if you consider joining me at

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/66978-bible-revelation.html

You already said you were going to give us all a break. It lasted, what, maybe 36 hours? Like I need you to give me a break. Don't flatter yourself.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

You already said you were going to give us all a break. It lasted, what, maybe 36 hours? Like I need you to give me a break. Don't flatter yourself.

I will only respond to you on the Bible Revelation thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/66978-bible-revelation.html

 

[Katzpur]

I will only respond to you on the Bible Revelation thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/66978-bible-revelation.html

Suit yourself. I couldn't care less if you ever respond to me again at all.

 

[Orontes]

Infallible and God authenticates it to the the sincere humble seeker. I don't think that someone relying on there intelligence alone can see the deeper things that God has put in there and they certainly won't speak to His heart.[/size][/font][/size][/font]

Any literal translation of the traditional text is fine, it is the word of God in the English tongue, after all there are many different ways of saying the same thing.

I personally use one without the apocryphal books in but i owuldn't object to having the 1611 version either, I wouldn't need to regard those apocryphal books as scripture just because they are between the leather binding, in fact they may be useful for historical purposes.

Just because you choose to submit to God doesn't mean God lacks authority until you submit to Him, it's the same with His word. It did not need our approval, we are not qualified to approve it, we accept the bible as the word of God, we sought for a literal translation of it and the King James Version, having been used by many of our forefathers was decided upon. Not to exclude other literal translations as being the word of God.

Let me make sure I understand your position: you hold to sola scriptura and include in that understanding the text is infallible. Any literal translation is acceptable in your church and your church doesn't make any claim as to which Bible is the correct version. Is this correct? You also stated God authenticates the Bible. What does this mean? Does this mean the truth value of the text comes from outside the text i.e. from God?

Another sola scriptura question: do you consider all translations of the Bible infallible or only English translations? If you have differing translations, what is the resolution?

How do you justify claiming loyalty to sola scriptura if you reject a traditional portion of the Bible i.e. the deuterocanon?

 

[Orontes]

Hi Paul,

This post responds to sola scriptura.

This post is in answer to your question on the Book of Romans verses.

Try to be patient with me, I don't get much time on here much less to analyse lengthy posts.

No worries.

 

[*Paul*]

Let me make sure I understand your position: you hold to sola scriptura and include in that understanding the text is infallible. Any literal translation is acceptable in your church and your church doesn't make any claim as to which Bible is the correct version. Is this correct?

We view any literal translation as a good translation of scripture provided they are drawn from the traditional / recieved and majority text.

You also stated God authenticates the Bible. What does this mean? Does this mean the truth value of the text comes from outside the text i.e. from God?

What I mean is the deeper spiritual truths are hidden from the unregenerate mind and are shown to man when the Spirit of God indwells him and he grows from feeding on the word and sees the complete authenticity of God's word because the Spirit confirms it to his mind.

Another sola scriptura question: do you consider all translations of the Bible infallible or only English translations? If you have differing translations, what is the resolution?

Any literal translation of scripture into any language is the word of God in that language, On Christ's cross His accusation was written in different languages, all said the same thing to the people who could read the languages.

How do you justify claiming loyalty to sola scriptura if you reject a traditional portion of the Bible i.e. the deuterocanon?

It is only traditional to some. It was not in the palestinian canon and I think orthodox judaism is a cleaner stream than hellenised judaism.