The faithful servant

[CrowCross]

lol. You beg to differ no one has assurance, or no Mormon has assurance ? As I just got done informing our fellow poster, I'm not really interested in telling Mormons how horrible they are because they are Mormons, or how screwed up their doctrines are.

This thread and all the ones that are related to it began over a month ago. It's hard to know that because the author keep changing the topic and creating new threads. Someone dropping into any of the newer threads would have no understanding he and I were discussing a fairly singular topic; the place of obedience (or works) in the context of grace. I don't need to be Mormon to discuss that and I don't have to hold Latter Day Saints in contempt to do so. That I do think The Church of Latter Day Saints is an apostate and heretical cult (I have been forthcoming about that, and it is the official position of this forum) does not prevent me from op-relevant, topical discoursed based on the one book we share in common as authoritative; the Bible.


But....

..... if I understood the intent of your post correctly, then, yes, it is possible to know one is saved, is being saved, and will be saved. That can be understood with a sound exegetical reading of scripture and I have already covered some of that (like Romans 1:8 or 1 Cor. 3:11-15) in these discussions. And, yes, there was dissent over the plain reading of those texts when I posted them.

The "P" in TULIP...explains a lot.

I know I'm saved....I don't need to "do" to merit salvation nor maintain salvation as the mormons teach.

The mormons who visit this forum can be freed from their false sense of salvation by accepting the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Aaron32]

Not sure where you got all that from,

D&C 76

but yes the disciples in Jesus' day were in the presence of the Lord and Savior, Gods eternal Son and not being basked in the glory of the Father nor the glory of the Son.....with the exception of those at the transfiguration...

Yes, exactly.

But, we recognize this world....terrestrial kingdom...as you call it is dying....

In mormonism this is actually the Telestial Kingdom, the Garden of Eden and the during the millenium the Earth we be in a Terrestial State.

and christians are not of this world but rather citizens of heaven and simply passing through so to speak.

Yes. that's why I believe non-Mormon Christians have a Terrestial Glory.

Waiting for our death or the very close rapture of the church. When the resurrection/rapture happens Christin believers will then be with Christ Jesus and like Christ Jesus in glorified bodies.

Yep, Just as I said.

As to what the mormons are expecting...I wouldn't put too much faith in it....as they will miss the resurrection/rapture and if living at that time they will find themselves in the tribulation.

To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Aaron32]

Yes, for the most part, but that is not the entirety of the matter because even in regeneration we remain "perishable," or "corruptible." We all act in some way shape or form that is disobedience even after having been brought to saving faith in Christ. No one is perfect on this side of the grave. It is only in resurrection that we are transformed, raised immortal and incorruptible, as Paul puts it in 1 Cor. 15..... and that "we" is only those who are the saints. All people are raised and all people are raised to judgment but some are raised to eternal life and others raised to eternal destruction. As one reaps so s/he sows is applicable to everyone, saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate BUT for those in Christ there is now no condemnation. That aspect has changed, but it has changed only for a specified group, those saints who "walk according to the Spirit." The Spirit works in us. We do not work the Spirit.

Yep. That's the "Doctrine of Christ" in the Book of Mormon. (2 Ne 31 & 32)

Meh

I'm not doing that with you in this thread. If you'd like to debate some singular aspect of Mormonism (like the place of works in salvation, or the nature of the human will and its faculties once a person has sinned) with me then start a separate thread and pm me. I'm not going to contribute to a digression in another's thread, especially if the change amounts to hijacking.

Fair enough. FYI - I'm less about "debating" and mainly concerned with "understanding".

I will say this as you contemplate the matter: in the end we may disagree amicably but to the degree that I present an orthodox view of historical Christianity and the position of Mormonism (as you present it) is different then one of the things that will have been accomplished is to show Mormonism different than historical orthodox Christianity. Both cannot simultaneously be correct and true. Either 20 centuries of Christianity is wrong or it's Mormonism that is wrong. Of course, since Mormonism arose out of the 19th century restoration movement it is understandable that Mormonism would be different and have a different perspective on the Bible and what qualifies as scripture.

Agreed. That's fair. Personally, I generally find Mormonism aligns in Christianity with exception of the Priesthood and personal revelation. If all Protestants focused on the basics, and could be aligned into one formalized Church - accepting the organized structure of Quorums (First Presidency, Twelve apostles, Seventies, etc.) then I could see and exact replica of the LDS Church as it is today.
The problem is that Mormonism needs to shed all of it's cultural beliefs (ie. Heavenly Mother/Talmage-ism) that started occurring in after the exodus in Missouri. It's getting close, but not yet.

But it cannot be so different that it rejects historical orthodox Christianity because the moment Mormonism does that it destroys its own foundation. If historical orthodox Christianity is wrong then there is no basis for thinking or believing Jesus ever lived, much less the premise faith in him has anything to do with anything.

First, I like to understand what is "Orthodox" in Protestantism, since the only primary authority is the Bible. In that vein, Mormons can use the authority of the Bible, just as any Protestant Christian Church does.
The foundation of Mormon doctrine is scripture (2 Tim 3:19), the Church [aka. priesthood authority] (Eph 4:11-13), and personal revelation. (John 14:26)

So.....

I think it best if we stick to the topic of this op and you endeavor to provide op-relevant commentary and inquiry couched solely in what we now call the Old and New Testaments and leave the use of the Book of Mormon to exchanges with your fellow Latter Day Saints.

I'd politely request you stop telling me what to do. You worry about you, I'll worry about me. Deal?
Anything you don't see op-relevant you can simply ignore and I'll understand. No problem.
This is the mormonism forum, and I can see how anyone can defend their religion without using their own authoritative texts.
Otherwise, I find beliefs stray into speculation with no grounding.

 

[Aaron32]

No, you do not. Neither the Doctrines and Covenants nor Mosiah are scripture.

This is the Mormonism forum. Can you define from the Bible what "scripture" is?

Yes, and if the four or five threads in which an attempt was made to engage this problem of "onlyism" with the many diverse things scripture found in the Old and New Testaments says in addition to works, like the desires of the heart (which is deceitful above all else), then open and willful refusal to acknowledge these many, many, many other criteria, the open and willful disdain for whole-scripture was observed.

I wouldn't get your hope up on anything changing. Been there, tried that. Some people just want controversy.
There's a point where continuing in doubtful disputations (Romans 14:1) is no longer fitting for a true Christian.

 

[brotherofJared]

You had your chance to discuss this with me cogently and proved either unwilling or unable to do so.

So, does that mean you can't answer the question? Do you even know what the question is?

Be different the next time we trade posts or the same thing will happen again.

No doubt. I'm pretty sure you'll continue to not answer questions.

Don't proof-text scripture.

Does that mean don't use scripture?

Practice basic precepts of sound exegesis.

Does that mean agree with you on all points?

Answer questions asked when asked.

Like the way you do? LOL

Acknowledge areas of agreement.

Not that that makes a difference. We certainly don't see our critics acknowledging areas of agreements.

Acknowledge errors as they arise and adjust posts accordingly.

Sure, when you do, we will.

Not particularly difficult but might take a little time to achieve prowess. Make a choice and persevere. Method and content both matter. Ignoring the monergism of covenant and starting an understanding of Abraham's belief 10+ chapters into his account is bad form. Insinuating "only" where none is stated and ignoring the axiomatic dichotomy of believers and non-believers are just some of the mistakes committed in this thread.

LOL

Pay attention to your own rules/guidelines and I think we'll be just fine.

 

[brotherofJared]

Spend less time imagining what others do or don't do and limit commentary to what you know.

You mean like this?

Genesis 26:4-5 is NOT the belief of Abraham.

How can you possibly know the belief of Abraham?

 

[Josheb]

At least you are man enough to admit you can't back up your accusation--and neither are you going to back up your numerous false accusations you make in this post.

So--lets get the cites for the following:

Cite, please. I have never argued against any such thing.

Cite, please. I have never argued against any such thing.

Cite, please. I have never made any such claim as all inherit eternal life.

Quotes from you were provided as evidence. That they are now denied makes things worse, not better.

 

[Josheb]

First, I like to understand what is "Orthodox" in Protestantism, since the only primary authority is the Bible. In that vein, Mormons can use the authority of the Bible, just as any Protestant Christian Church does.

Yep. And that is why I use scripture and not Protestant extra-biblical sources.

The foundation of Mormon doctrine is scripture (2 Tim 3:19), the Church [aka. priesthood authority] (Eph 4:11-13), and personal revelation. (John 14:26).

There is not verse 19 in 2 Timothy 3, and neither Ephesians 4 nor John 14 say anything about Mormonism. The CoLDS has misappropriated those texts as an apologetic to legitimate their existence.

And the comment is off-topic.

I'd politely request you stop telling me what to do............

Got anything op-relevant to post?

This is the Mormonism forum. Can you define from the Bible what "scripture" is?

I wouldn't get your hope up on anything changing. Been there, tried that. Some people just want controversy.
There's a point where continuing in doubtful disputations (Romans 14:1) is no longer fitting for a true Christian.

Got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[CrowCross]

Yes. that's why I believe non-Mormon Christians have a Terrestial Glory.

And what do the mormons only have?

 

[Aaron32]

Yep. And that is why I use scripture and not Protestant extra-biblical sources.

Good.

There is not verse 19 in 2 Timothy 3

Typo 2 Tim 3:16

and neither Ephesians 4 nor John 14 say anything about Mormonism. The CoLDS has misappropriated those texts as an apologetic to legitimate their existence.

Huh? Mormons can't derive their beliefs from the Bible or something? It's in our articles of faith! How in the world can you possibly justify that?
How is the CoJCoLDS misappropriating those texts? Please explain.

 

[Aaron32]

And what do the mormons only have?

The Keys of Elijah

 

[Josheb]

Good.

Typo 2 Tim 3:16

Huh? Mormons can't derive their beliefs from the Bible or something? It's in our articles of faith! How in the world can you possibly justify that?
How is the CoLDS misappropriating those texts? Please explain.

No, it is not an "article of faith," because putting faith in abuses of scripture is unscriptural. The fact is those verses do not say anything about the CoLDS. Yes, they can be made to legitimize anything but that makes them meaningless. 2 Timothy 3:16 was written about the Tanakh, or what we now call the "Old Testament." Those were the only "scriptures" the first century Church had at the time Paul wrote Timothy. Paul's letters were considered equal to scripture, according to 2 Peter 3:16, but otherwise the scriptures referenced in the verse you cited were the Old Testament.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul's writings were compared by the inspired apostle Peter to the scriptures. That proves germane to this op because both the Old Testament and Paul's words were abused to support this op. On any occasion where Joseph Smith or any of the LDS teachers add to or deviate from what was written they prove themselves false teachers. Applying 2 Timothy 3:16 to the CoLDS would be an example of the problem to be solved, NOT evidence of their prowess with God's word or the veracity of a new revelation.


Now, you got anything op-relevant to post? Otherwise, I'm moving on. Nice chatting with you and I appreciate your manners, respect, and ability for the most part to address the op. I hope it serves as an example to your LDS peers.

 

[Aaron32]

No, it is not an "article of faith,"

Not op-relevant.
I beg to differ:
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (Source: Articles of Faith)

because putting faith in abuses of scripture is unscriptural. The fact is those verses do not say anything about the CoLDS. Yes, they can be made to legitimize anything but that makes them meaningless. 2 Timothy 3:16 was written about the Tanakh, or what we now call the "Old Testament." Those were the only "scriptures" the first century Church had at the time Paul wrote Timothy. Paul's letters were considered equal to scripture, according to 2 Peter 3:16, but otherwise the scriptures referenced in the verse you cited were the Old Testament.

Not op-relevant.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

All I can say is "What measure ye mete..."

Paul's writings were compared by the inspired apostle Peter to the scriptures. That proves germane to this op because both the Old Testament and Paul's words were abused to support this op.

If abused occurred it was by Dberrie, the author of the OP, I don't that believe I have.

On any occasion where Joseph Smith or any of the LDS teachers add to or deviate from what was written they prove themselves false teachers. Applying 2 Timothy 3:16 to the CoLDS would be an example of the problem to be solved, NOT evidence of their prowess with God's word or the veracity of a new revelation.

I believe you overlook this principle:
2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

I'm moving on.

Please do.

Nice chatting with you and I appreciate your manners, respect, and ability for the most part to address the op. I hope it serves as an example to your LDS peers.

Thank you!

 

[dberrie2020]

I attempted to edit my previous post but did not make it within the 30 minute limit.

At least you are man enough to admit you can't back up your accusation--and neither are you going to back up your numerous false accusations you make in this post.

So--lets get the cites for the following:

you've been actively arguing against the premise of faith first,

Cite, please. I have never argued against any such thing.

and actively arguing against grace is a gift.

Cite, please. I have never argued against any such thing.

Everyone is saved.

Cite, please. I have never made any such claim as all inherit eternal life.

Quotes from you were provided as evidence. That they are now denied makes things worse, not better.

What quotes? The imaginary ones?

Please provide us with those quotes--as I have requested above.

 

[dberrie2020]

Josheb said: Don't proof-text scripture.

Does that mean don't use scripture?

It's curious to me that the scriptures which violate the critic's theology--is classified as "proof texting".

It seems as Matthew 25 fits that bill well, for the critics:

Matthew 25:14-30---King James Version
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I would really like the critics to engage that testimony--and explain why the servants are judged according to what they did with the received gifts from the Lord--and that for "the joy of thy lord"--or--"outer darkness".

That parable fits the LDS theology very well.