LDS beliefs and the Bible

[Sententia]

I think that you're right that peopel will say things and convice themselves certaint hings have happened even though they haven't, it's human nature, and most will deny what has happened in the face of troubled times, or to get what they want. If you have ever seen "There will be blood" you will know what i'm talking about. the guyw ho claims to be a prophet and then denys it at the end for the propsect of money.

the difference is i could never deny what i know to be true. too many thing have indeed happened that testify of the truthfulness of it. you may not believe me but you don't have to believe something for it to be true.

There is no cause to believe. To do so would be dishonest with myself and anyone who was influenced by my belief.

I beleve 3x3 is 9 because there are 3 groups of 3 and I count them out there is 9. I can illustrate this, draw it, explain it and speak to it and prove it.

You believe god talked to you because why.... Millions of people think gods talk to them or that they have seen heaven or hell. Millions more still believe in ghosts, demons and other fairy tales. I could how a seminar on speaking with dead and discussing ghosts and demons and charge $50 a head and fill a stadium with people to see the show. (I believe people already do this on various levels) Does that make it true?

This gets back to the definition of true. I don't have to believe in god for god to be true. All the words are there and logically its correct. However God has never proven to be true. Thus whether I believe in him or not will not make him true. God speaking to people... not proven... ghosts... demons.... leprechauns.... Not proven. Not true.

You can believe it and it will make it true for you, your life and possible the decisions you make. You give the idea and notion power. You create and allow the influence it has. You subject yourself to the conditioning that will allow you to interpret other events based on your belief. Its just your truth and that is enough for most people. Entire congregations make it their truth. Truth for them. There are 1000s of various versions of truths for them out there. Lots of prophets with lots of supernatural ideas. Lots of different gods talking to lots of different people. You say some god you have met face to face. Another will say he has met a different god face to face and you both know your different gods and your different religions to be the one truth.

It doesn't bother me that you believe in god no more then it bothers me that my friend believes in the luck of the four leaf clover. I had a friend who told me she could go astral and she kicked her friends butt in the astral plane. I don't really talk to her anymore but hey... thats her thing. She believes in the astral plane complete with silver cord and all.

Religion existed before all these new age prophets and even before jesus. Much of the holidays attributed to christianity and adhered to in the US originally had nothing to do with it. The story of jesus to me is a witty rewrite of earlier stories and makes for some great quotes and light reading. Supernatural belief is just silly. Some lady paid 180k for a house which she believed was haunted. She took out a seperate mortgage to pay for ghost hunters which then needed a priest to get rid of the demon haunting it. Eventually they succeeded but she still felt the evil presence and sold the house for 150k.... No demons... No ghosts... but there are people who get paid to hunt these ideas of the mind. Bad Memes... hehe.

 

[*Paul*]

Where is the Pope doing these things? =/

Yes i totally agree, it was snide. and if i could delete that part i would

Just out of interest, you do realise that i'm not roman catholic don't you? I thought you're comment was a bit strange to me, an evangelical fundie.

 

[madhatter85]

Just out of interest, you do realise that i'm not roman catholic don't you? I thought you're comment was a bit strange to me, an evangelical fundie.

hmm, my mistake i thought u were Catholic for some reason..... unsure now where i got that idea.


okay, so now that my snide comment has nothing to do with you i will provide a snide comment that does apply to you.

so how was Jesus Camp this summer?:cover:

j/k

 

[madhatter85]

There is no cause to believe. To do so would be dishonest with myself and anyone who was influenced by my belief.

I beleve 3x3 is 9 because there are 3 groups of 3 and I count them out there is 9. I can illustrate this, draw it, explain it and speak to it and prove it.

You believe god talked to you because why.... Millions of people think gods talk to them or that they have seen heaven or hell. Millions more still believe in ghosts, demons and other fairy tales. I could how a seminar on speaking with dead and discussing ghosts and demons and charge $50 a head and fill a stadium with people to see the show. (I believe people already do this on various levels) Does that make it true?.

Just as you seek for truth in proovable formulas, so do we LDS members. that is the one thing we have in common with athiests is the need for proof.

the difference is what we consider proof. What we accept as proof you do not. we can only accept personal experienceas proof.

If someone said you to 3x3 = 10 unless you had learned the true formula before hand you would have no reason to doubt them.

only by your own personal experince do you know that 3x3 = 9 because you did the math yourself and came to the same conclusion. You had faith in your math teacher that she taught you to count properly.

Same with Faith In Jesus Christ. we have to figure it out forourselves to truely knwo what is right or wrong. you cannot take anyone else's word for it.

which is all we ever ask people to do, is to read, study, ponder, and exercise faith and prayer, asking God with a sincere heart, in the name of Christ, to know the truth.

i know for a fact that all those who have met the above criteria have come to the same conclusion.

you excersize faith every day when you flip a light switch, turn on the TV, before the TV is on you don't know what is being broadcast. even if you know what time your shows on you are excersizing faith that the show will be on at the appropriate time. and when things are consistently going the way you hoped, your faith is increased. that is the nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Orontes]

Part I

Hello,

I thought this thread died. I didn't see your replies. So, once more into the breach then?

So, based on the noted proviso, infallibility claims rest on an appeal to tradition?

Infallibillity claims rest on an appeal to God’s promise:
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God has promised to preserve His words and I do not doubt Him and I am convinced that He did not keep them hiding in a trash can or library for centuries hiding them from His church.

I don't understand your comment. I think you are taking the King James Translation of Psalm 12:6-7 to indicate God's words are pure and His words will be preserved. Is that right? This doesn't fit with the context of the Psalm. The context alone seems quite clear, the focus is on the rise of wickedness and the anguish of the weak: nothing really to do with text at all. This is the NIV translation of Psalm 121-7:

Help, LORD, for the godly are no more;
the faithful have vanished from among men. 2 Everyone lies to his neighbor;
their flattering lips speak with deception.
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips
and every boastful tongue
4 that says, "We will triumph with our tongues;
we own our lips —who is our master?"
5 "Because of the oppression of the weak
and the groaning of the needy,
I will now arise," says the LORD.
"I will protect them from those who malign them."
6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,
like silver refined in a furnace of clay,
purified seven times.
7 O LORD, you will keep us safe
and protect us from such people forever.

Note this is not the same as the King James. The thrust of verse seven is the Lord keeping the weak and the needy, not keeping His own words. This is different from your take of the King James isn't it. Which is right? The difference alone seems to undercut your larger claim about biblical infallibility as the two translation are mutually exclusive. Now, why did the NIV translators opt for the wording they did? Here is one explanatory of the Hebrew Grammar by Doug Kutilek:

"Grammar: The Pronoun “Them” of Verse 7

When we turn to the Hebrew text of Psalm 12, the ambiguity of the English disappears. Hebrew, like many non-English languages, has a feature that English lacks -- that of grammatical gender. In English, object words are classified according to natural gender: men, boys, and the male offspring of animals are classified as masculine and masculine pronouns he, him, etc., are used of them; women, girls, and the female offspring of animals, plus sometimes countries, boats, and until recently, hurricanes, are considered feminine, and feminine pronouns she, her, etc., are used of them. Just about everything else from forks, knives, and spoons to roofing nails and sheet rock is classified as neuter.
In English, we have only natural gender; many, if not most, other languages have, in addition to natural gender, grammatical gender. Some languages have two grammatical genders -- masculine and feminine (e.g., the Semitic languages); others add a third -- neuter (this is the situation in Greek, Latin, German, and others). Things naturally masculine and things naturally feminine are so treated, but very many things are grammatically treated as masculine, feminine, or neuter without any connection to natural gender at all. For example, the German word for spoon is masculine; for fork, feminine; and for knife, neuter.
In languages that have grammatical gender, it is usual and customary for pronouns to agree with their antecedents in gender and number. Hebrew here is like the rest. And also like the rest, there are occasional exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 135 o), but the Book of Psalms is exceptionally regular on the matter of gender agreement.
In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated them in verse 7 are both masculine -- the first them being plural in number, the second being singular (him, literally), particularizing every individual in the group (with slightly different vowel points in Hebrew, the second pronoun could be understood as the first person plural common, viz., us). So, the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number.

The word rendered words twice in verse 6 is a feminine plural noun in both cases; the words poor and needy in verse 5 are both masculine and plural in Hebrew. While the English translation is ambiguous and allows two different antecedents, the Hebrew is clear and plain -- the antecedent of them is the poor and needy ones of verse 5, not the words of verse 6. Gender agreement of pronoun and antecedent demonstrates this."

In simple terms: Hebrew grammar doesn't support the reading you would like, but actually moves in another direction entirely.

So, the truth value of the text depends on the indwelling spirit of God?

No, the truth value of the text does not change regardless of who understands it, the simple gospel is there for anyone to understand but the deeper things of God are for His children only.

My question was on where the truth value of the text is derived from. Earlier you mentioned the "(one) sees the complete authenticity of God's word because the Spirit confirms it to his mind" Is the Spirit the text or separate from the text? If the text is the actual Spirit, we can explore that notion. If the Spirit is distinct from the text then, per your statement, the truth value is derived via the Spirit which would be a second element, it would seem

The message is the same in each language, the same verses are appealed to to support the same doctrines, I simply say along with the KJV translators:

[An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God...

Actually if the words are different and the words have their own meaning, then the message is different. You can see this in the difference between the KJV and NIV translations of Psalm 12 already noted. I'll illustrate the notion further. This is from a point I made in another thread: take the following Japanese phrase: 神様の心 how does one translate this? There are two obvious choices: "the mind of God" or the "heart of God". Now heart and mind are quite distinct in English. The "Mind of God" does not mean the same thing as the "Heart of God". Therefore translations opting for one over the other are actually expressing a different notion. Now we can add to the difficulty: 心 isn't simply "mind" or "heart" as per English, but its own concept. Any translation of either heart or mind is going to lack something of the original. 心 contains both a cognitive and an emotional component. Do you see the issue? "神様の心" has its meaning. The "Mind of God" has a different meaning and the "Heart of God" has yet another. Were one to claim each of these is the same message is absurd. This same issue plays out across the linguistic spectrum and is compounded when one adds in grammar. Therefore, to claim: Biblical infallibility for each translation of a text, is undercut by the very translation process itself. There is nothing in your King James Translators' statement against Roman Catholics that responds to this basic issue.

 

[Orontes]

Part II

This dichotomy between orthodox Judaism and Hellenized Judaism is flawed. "orthodox" begs the question and the term Hellenized Judaism is only meaningful if "Hellenized" is applied to the Septuagint which was written in Greek.

We appeal to the Hebrew scriptures as that is the language of the people to whom it was delivered. And besides the apocryphal books were not part literature but Jewish therefore it was for the Jews to decide if they were canonical for:

Epistle to Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Your comment doesn't respond to my post. Even so, if you take Romans 3:2 to mean the Jews are able to set what is canon then you must reject the New Testament as it is not considered canonical by Jewry. If you do not accept Jewish authority in rejecting the New Testament, then you have no grounds for accepting any Jewish authority in rejecting the deuterocanon. Moreover, you face another dilemma: Jews did take the deuterocanon as scripture. The Septuagint is a Jewish product and contains the deuterocanon. The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain the deuterocanon (these are in Hebrew). Therefore any appeal to Jews to settle Christian accepted holy texts is problematic, not only because of the appeal to a different religion (a rather odd idea), but also because there is no uniform position within that religion to appealed to.

They were not quoted as authoritative by Jesus or the apostles, they are never appealed to by them, what was canonical for the Jews or “to be read” in the temples was decided by the men of the great assembly”, this was never challenged by any Christian authority. Philo (20bc-40ad) quotes from every old testament book but not from the apocrypha. And Josephus wrote:..

This comment is not correct. There is explicit reference to deuterocanonical work in the New Testament i.e.Jude 14:

"Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints' -Jude 14

The above is a quote from the Book of 1 Enoch. Further, the entire New Testament milieu is seeped in an understanding and reference to deuterocanonical works. This can be seen throughout. I'll illustrate:


Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

These are just a few examples.

Note: Josephus wasn't a Christian. Philo wasn't a Christian.

Of course, by that standard Christianity is likewise "Hellenized Christianity"

It would not matter for Christianity is for all nations, Judaism was specifically for a chosen nation.

This is red herring. You made a linguistic point, that Hebrew was a purer stream than Greek as to the things of God. To then claim Greek is acceptable undercuts the first assertion.

Moreover, the various canonical claims within Jewry are of no consequence unless you are arguing from a Jewish perspective.

They are of much consequence to us as theirs is the foundation of Christianity.

This doesn't address the fundamental problem. If you claim a Jewish authority over Christian authority to determine Christian canon, then you have eviscerated there being any Christian authority at all. You have effectively killed any Christian claims contra Jewry.

 

[Orontes]

Part III

That is a very mis-informed opinion. E.g the orthodox church omitted the deutro canon from the larger catechism (1839) because it was not included in the Hebrew bible (b.t.w Augustine himself knew that the Jewish community did not accept them as part of the canon Augustine, 19.36–38.) Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius had the same canon as us prtoestants.

Alas, I am not mis-informed.

Per the Orthodox Church: both the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) declared the deuterocanon as "genuine parts of Scripture". These have never been repudiated. This is why the deuterocanon is a part of all Orthodox Bibles. The Orthodox Study Bible published in 2008 is one simple example.

Per Augustine: Augustine was an attendee and a participant in both the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). Both of these councils affirmed the deuterocanon as scripture. Here are citations from each:

-"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books." Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393)."


-"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees." Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

Per Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius: I'll give some examples, I'll throw in a reference from Augustine as well. Of course the number of Patristic Fathers that took the deuterocanon as authoritative is quite large. :

Origen:

'It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.' Farther on he says: 'The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, 'In the beginning'; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'These are the names'; Leviticus, Wikra, 'And he called'; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ' These are the words'; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, 'The called of God'; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'The kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'Records of days'; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, 'An assistant'; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Me-loth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremiah[Baruch 6]; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel." -Origen, Canon of the Hebrews, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 6:25 (A.D. 244).

"[A]s is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God'[Tobit 12:7],--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19 (A.D. 248). "But he ought tp know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense'[Sirach 21:18], and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us'[1 Pt 3:15]." -Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248).

 

[Orontes]

Part IV

A continuation of Patristic and Church Father citations from III:

That is a very mis-informed opinion...

Cyril of Jerusalem:


"Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch [1-5] and Lamentations and the Epistle[of Jeremiah-Baruch 6]; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).


"[L]earn from this instance the mightiness of God: for 'He hath numbered the drops of rain'[Job 26:27], which have been poured down on all the earth, not only now but in all time. The sun is a work of God, which, great though it be, is but a spot in comparison with the whole heaven; first gaze steadfastly upon the sun, and then curiously scan the Lord of the sun. 'Seek not the things that are too deep for thee, neither search out the things that are above thy strength: what is commanded thee, think thereupon'[Sirach 3:20,21]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 6:4 (A.D. 350).


"Hear the Prophet saying, 'This is our God, none other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him. He hath found out every way of knowledge, and given it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved. Afterwards He[she] was seen on earth, and conversed among men'[Baruch 3:36-38]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 9:15 (A.D. 350).

"He says to Daniel; young though thou be, convict old men infected with the sins of youth; for it is written, 'God raised up the Holy Spirit upon a young stripling'[Daniel 13:45-Susanna]." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16:31 (A.D. 350)."


Athanasius


"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;'[Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;'[Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides lsrael, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom'[Baruch 3:12]; and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters'[Jer 2:13]." Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Faith, 2:12 (A.D. 351).

"[F]or it is written of the other, 'The foolish person will speak foolishness' [Is 32:6 LXX]; but of these, 'Ask counsel of all that are wise'[Tobit 4:18]." Athanasius, Defense before Constantius, 17 (A.D. 357).


"And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,'[Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth '[Is 40:28]; and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God'[Daniel 13:42-Susanna]; and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One'[Baruch 4:20,22;]." Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362).


"t is written that 'all things were made through the Word,' and 'without Him was not made one thing,'[John 1:3] and again, 'One Lord Jesus, through whom are all things'[1 Cor 8:9], and 'in Him all things consist'[Col 1:17], it is very plain that the Son cannot be a work, but He is the Hand of God and the Wisdom. This knowing, the martyrs in Babylon, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, arraign the Arian irreligion. For when they say, 'O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord'[Daniel 3:57-Three Youths]." Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 2:71 (A.D. 362).

"Daniel said to Astyages, 'I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh;'[Daniel 14:5-Bel & the Dragon]." Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians, 3:30 (A.D. 362)."

Augustine:

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:--Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra,(ie. Ezra & Nehemiah) which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:--Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books." Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II:8 (A.D. 426).

Now I put in a few citations that note the Hebrew 22 books. This is the Old Testament you hold to. This narrow canon was chosen to correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, a rather ad hoc reason, but fitting with Jewish numerology. Even so, you will note the number sometimes includes deuterocanonical writings and the deuterocanonical writings were still held as authoritative even by those you cited as detractors. The point remains: The Christian Tradition's stance has been to the deuterocanon. As a final illustration. Here is a reference from the Seventh Ecumenical Council where citation from the deuterocanon is given:

"o that in them was fulfilled that which is written, 'The service of God is abominable to the sinner'[Sirach 1:22]." 7th Ecumenical Council, Nicea II, Canon 6 (A.D. 787).

From the Vulgate forward this was uniform among Oriental, Greek and Latin Christian Traditions.

As was infant baptism, persecution of unbelievers / heretics. It is of very little relevance to me.

This is a non sequitur. If you reject the tradition that complied the Bible, which included the deuterocanon, then you have no reason to take the Bible as authoritative.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

How much of Luther's understanding below would be accepted or rejected by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Justification by faith

Main article: Sola fide
From 1510 to 1520, Luther lectured on the Psalms, the books of Hebrews, Romans, and Galatians. As he studied these portions of the Bible, he came to view the use of terms such as penance and righteousness by the Roman Catholic Church in new ways. He became convinced that the church was corrupt in their ways and had lost sight of what he saw as several of the central truths of Christianity, the most important of which, for Luther, was the doctrine of justification — God's act of declaring a sinner righteous — by faith alone through God's grace. He began to teach that salvation or redemption is a gift of God's grace, attainable only through faith in Jesus as the messiah.[41]

This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification," he wrote, "is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness.[42]
​

Luther came to understand justification as entirely the work of God. Against the teaching of his day that the righteous acts of believers are performed in cooperation with God, Luther wrote that Christians receive such righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ but actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to Christians (rather than infused into them) through faith.[43] "That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law," he wrote. "Faith is that which brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ."[44] Faith, for Luther, was a gift from God. He explained his concept of "justification" in the Smalcald Articles:

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us ... Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).[45]

Martin Luther - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Wandered Off]

"That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law," he wrote. "Faith is that which brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ."

A question about Sola fide in the Calvinist context: If faith is given to us as a 'gift' (that is, we aren't capable of having it otherwise), how is it just to condemn the faithless for their lack of faith, when they could not possibly have had faith because it was never 'given' to them?

 

[SoyLeche]

A question about Sola fide in the Calvinist context: If faith is given to us as a 'gift' (that is, we aren't capable of having it otherwise), how is it just to condemn the faithless for their lack of faith, when they could not possibly have had faith because it was never 'given' to them?

I'm more curious about why he would open a thread that had been dead for 2 months that was specifically started to compare/contrast LDS beliefs with what the Bible says, and then instead of using the Bible tried to compare/contrast LDS beliefs with what Martin Luther taught.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

A question about Sola fide in the Calvinist context: If faith is given to us as a 'gift' (that is, we aren't capable of having it otherwise), how is it just to condemn the faithless for their lack of faith, when they could not possibly have had faith because it was never 'given' to them?

You always seem to bring up the relevant issues. Therefore, thank you so much. We first have to understand Romans chapter 5, and John 3 to answer your questions. Did Adam's disobedience cause all mankind to be condemned and seperated from God before each one of us are born? Are all mankind condemned in Adam prior to their personal birth? Did Christ come to remove the universal condemnation, or rescue sinners from their condemned condition? Please read Romans chapter 5 and John 3 and let me know what you think the Bible reveals in regards to your questions. This thread is still under the bible debate section, therefore we are going to the Bible for answers.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

I'm more curious about why he would open a thread that had been dead for 2 months that was specifically started to compare/contrast LDS beliefs with what the Bible says, and then instead of using the Bible tried to compare/contrast LDS beliefs with what Martin Luther taught.

I was on a long unplanned vacation. Therefore, I was not able to participate on this fun thread. I don't think there is a lack of interest on this thread, considering the high number of postings and views. I believe Martin Luther's position on justification is what God reveals in the Holy Bible. It is the issue that divided Roman Catholicism with historical biblical Christianity (Protestantism). I believe it is the same issue which makes Mormoninsm to be unbiblical. Therefore, this seems to be the main issue of the defined thread. There is a battle for the gospel which saves sinners. Did God restore the gospel through the LDS Church? Or, does the LDS Church proclaim another Gospel that is different than what the Apostle Paul proclaimed (Gal 1)?

 

[McBell]

Um...
God reveals Martin Luther's position?

What a rather revealing way to phrase it... :yes:

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Um...
God reveals Martin Luther's position?

What a rather revealing way to phrase it... :yes:

I think you like to argue for argument sakes, but I could be wrong. God has spoken through written revelation called the Holy Bible. It is by the Spirit of God that someone understands biblical revelation on various doctrines. I would say God the Holy Spirit illuminated Martin Luther's mind to receive the biblical doctrine of justification. The truth of justification has nothing to do with Martin Luther. What do you think God revealed in regards to the doctrine of justification in the Bible? A good place to start looking would be Romans chapters 3 and 4, and the book of Galatians. Please feel free to consider James chapter 2 too. I'm looking forward in reading your understanding of biblical justification. As a reminder, this thread is under the biblical debate thread, and not speculative personal opinions.

 

[McBell]

I think you like to argue for argument sakes, but I could be wrong. God has spoken through written revelation called the Holy Bible. It is by the Spirit of God that someone understands biblical revelation on various doctrines. I would say God the Holy Spirit illuminated Martin Luther's mind to receive the biblical doctrine of justification. The truth of justification has nothing to do with Martin Luther. What do you think God revealed in regards to the doctrine of justification in the Bible? A good place to start looking would be Romans chapters 3 and 4, and the book of Galatians. Please feel free to consider James chapter 2 too. I'm looking forward in reading your understanding of biblical justification. As a reminder, this thread is under the biblical debate thread, and not speculative personal opinions.

The problem here is that you have left a seriously bad taste in the mouths of many, if not most, of those who attempted to engage in actual discussion with you before your sabbatical.

Ironic is not that you would attempt to use this line:

this thread is under the biblical debate thread, and not speculative personal opinions.
​

as a fail safe net to dismiss anything you dislike.

Shall I start with the dismissing of personal opinion?
Broken down by sentence:

Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Question
Advice/suggestion
Advice/suggestion
Opinion
​

Interesting how two thirds of your post is the exact speculative opinion you you speak of in your last sentence.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

The problem here is that you have left a seriously bad taste in the mouths of many, if not most, of those who attempted to engage in actual discussion with you before your sabbatical.

Ironic is not that you would attempt to use this line:

this thread is under the biblical debate thread, and not speculative personal opinions.
​

as a fail safe net to dismiss anything you dislike.

Shall I start with the dismissing of personal opinion?
Broken down by sentence:

Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Question
Advice/suggestion
Advice/suggestion
Opinion
​

Interesting how two thirds of your post is the exact speculative opinion you you speak of in your last sentence.

When you are willing and able to discuss the actual contents of Scripture, please let me know. We all need to read, study, and interpert the Scriptures before we can have an honest opinion or view on what God reveals in the Holy Bible. Give it a try, and we might just agree. Please consider Romans chapters 3 and 4 on the topic of justification.

 

[McBell]

When you are willing and able to discuss the actual contents of Scripture, please let me know. We all need to read, study, and interpert the Scriptures before we can have an honest opinion or view on what God reveals in the Holy Bible. Give it a try, and we might just agree. Please consider Romans chapters 3 and 4 on the topic of justification.

Wow, you are like a drug dealer pushing his product.

Sorry, but you have already left a bad taste in mouth with your out in left field interpretations.

Though i do find it interesting how you ignore the point of my post.

 

[Wandered Off]

We first have to understand Romans chapter 5, and John 3 to answer your questions.

I reread them, and just as I suspected, neither addresses my question about how it could be just to condemn the faithless for their lack of faith, when the only way they could've gotten faith (according to Calvinists) is by divine gift they never received.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

I reread them, and just as I suspected, neither addresses my question about how it could be just to condemn the faithless for their lack of faith, when the only way they could've gotten faith (according to Calvinists) is by divine gift they never received.

Romans 5 teaches that all humanity is condemned in Adam. Therefore, we are born into this world already in enmity and condemation with God, since Adam is our representative. John 3 teaches that Christ came to remove the condemnation that we already had before we were born. All sinners are born without faith and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore, God had to become man to save His chosen ones. Christ came to rescue sinners from their condition of condemnation. The work of Christ is a rescue mission, and not a condemnation mission since all are already condemned. I think the issue that you may have is in regards to the actual numbers the God will save through Christ. You probably are saying that it's not fair is God predetermines to save some and not all sinners. God answers that obejecion in Romans chapter 9. Within biblical theology, we need to make a distinciton between God's justice and His mercy and grace. Do you want to be a vessel of His justice or His mercy and grace?