Richard7
Well-known member
Still waiting for your truths, any time we are eagerly waiting ...Explained it earlier on a thread Aaron started. Search it and read it.
Still waiting for your truths, any time we are eagerly waiting ...Explained it earlier on a thread Aaron started. Search it and read it.
Go look it up. I don't believe it is on the Mormonism forum. The Mormonism forum is to discuss Mormonism. I am still awaiting what the Mormon Gospel is and how you explain it.Still waiting for your truths, any time we are eagerly waiting ...
I gave it to you, once more you're just trolling... since I gave it to you, tell me why I'm wrong, this could be the beginning of a two way conversation if that is applicable...Go look it up. I don't believe it is on the Mormonism forum. The Mormonism forum is to discuss Mormonism. I am still awaiting what the Mormon Gospel is and how you explain it.
That is a part of the Gospel... not an explanation of the Gospel.
Look it up or just actually answer the question. If not, maybe best you not speak any more of it since you have demonstrated you don't know.I gave it to you, once more you're just trolling... since I gave it to you, tell me why I'm wrong, this could be the beginning of a two way conversation if that is applicable...
I have never denied they are connected to the Gospel. Thye question to you Mormons is WHAT IS THE GOSPEL? That is what you guys can't or won't answer.At least you acknowledge repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins is connected to the gospel.
So--does your church connect repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins--with the gospel of Jesus Christ?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches and practices just what is testified to in the scriptures, IE--
Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Look it up or just actually answer the question. If not, maybe best you not speak any more of it since you have demonstrated you don't know.
At least you acknowledge repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins is connected to the gospel.
So--does your church connect repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins--with the gospel of Jesus Christ?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints preaches and practices just what is testified to in the scriptures, IE--
Acts 2:38---King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Something that does not exist cannot be reformed. There is nothing to reform. By asking, "Then why the need for Reformation....?" you've implicitly acknowledged the correctness of Janice's statement (which I assume was something broached in another thread which you chose not to discuss there where and when it first occurred.Then why the need for a Reformation--with numerous new denominations--with a different theology?
No, it is not. Restitution is not restoration.And why the prophecy here?
Acts 3:21---King James Version
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
That's a restoration, not a Reformation.
The gospel is reforming.God's gospel is perfect already, and has no need to be reformed.
Certainly, but God is not limited to adding people to just one method. The problem of "onlyism" should be avoided in any and all discussions of "prophesied restoration."Does God add people to His church today--- the same way He did in the NT?
Acts 2:38-42---King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Well, the fact of history is the CoLDS prophesied Jesus would be returning in the 1800s and that did not happen.That's the doctrine one will find being practiced in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is no need for new denominations and different theologies. Ironically, the CoLDS is a new denomination and thereby evidence of the problem to be solved, not the solution.Then why the need for a Reformation--with numerous new denominations--with a different theology?
Chuckle, Restitution: the restoration of something to its original state:Something that does not exist cannot be reformed. There is nothing to reform. By asking, "Then why the need for Reformation....?" you've implicitly acknowledged the correctness of Janice's statement (which I assume was something broached in another thread which you chose not to discuss there where and when it first occurred.
No, it is not. Restitution is not restoration.
Therefore, something that commonly occurs with you - a gross misreading of scripture - is no evidence right from the very beginning of a new thread!
The gospel is reforming.
So, once again, another gross misunderstanding of scripture.
Certainly, but God is not limited to adding people to just one method. The problem of "onlyism" should be avoided in any and all discussions of "prophesied restoration."
Well, the fact of history is the CoLDS prophesied Jesus would be returning in the 1800s and that did not happen.
Eschatologically speaking, EVERYTHING the Church of Latter Day Saints taught about the then coming restoration is demonstrably proven to be false. Rather than correct their teaching(s), they modified the timing and held onto the same presuppositional errors and basic mistakes, while also maintaining their separateness from the rest of Christendom.
There is no need for new denominations and different theologies. Ironically, the CoLDS is a new denomination and thereby evidence of the problem to be solved, not the solution.
NONE of the denominations or sects of the 19th century restoration movement proved correct. They were ALL wrong when it came to restoration and apocalypse. ALL OF THEM! The LDS included. They claimed restoration needed, they claimed to be restored, they all changed theology to suit their respective views, and none of them proved correct restoratively. Every single one of them ended up making things worse, not better.
And scripturally speaking that occurs consequent to the loss of something like a debt or theft and not anything anywhere that is evolutionary.Chuckle, Restitution: the restoration of something to its original state:
And scripturally speaking that occurs consequent to the loss of something like a debt or theft and not anything anywhere that is evolutionary.
Chuckle all you like but an astounding ignorance was put on display with that post. If we applied your extra-biblical secular Merriam's/Webster's definition we'd all have to be Jews because that is what the "original state" looked like in the Church.
Or should I read your post to indicate you think we should all be practicing the Jewish rituals? If not then you're contradicting yourself and I, for one, will expect more from you.
Think of restitution in this context:
- Confession (or acknowledgment of wrongdoing
- Repentance (or a sincere effort at change, especially in thought, word, and deed)
- Restitution (or making amends, repaying what was lost, damaged, or returning what was taken)
- Penalty (the additional costs inherent to the loss)
- Forgiveness (giving, receiving, canceling all debt or lien against another)
- Reconciliation (restoring the relationship to either its prior state of correctness or a state improved upon the prior good state because now the relationship is stronger having endured and overcome the prior loss).
Do not conflate or confuse restitution with reconciliation.
Oh no, just trying to figure out how you arrive at such a strange gospel...Now, I will assume you know the scriptural references and precedents for what I just outlined but if you want me to walk you through them I will gladly do so. I also, likewise, assume you intuitively know what I just posted is correct but if you're like a more substantive understanding I will, again, gladly walk through the scriptures.
The Church was corrupt? I don't understand. Who is the cornerstone of the Church? Is Christ corrupt? or are the men who strive to be part of the foundation corrupt or weak like unto man... hmmThe Church has always been messy. No one can read the letters to Corinth or Ephesus and think the Church was ever perfect. There has always been need for reformation but that has never meant the Church was not the Church or that it was wholly corrupt and in need of replacement. The latter is and has always been bad theology. It came to a head in the 1800s and we've been dealing with those errors for the better part of two centuries. It is the restoration movement that needed reformation.
Something that does not exist cannot be reformed.
There is nothing to reform.
No, it is not. Restitution is not restoration.
There is no need for new denominations and different theologies.
Can you see all the extra-biblical content in that sentence? Can you see how you're adding MORE, not less, biased definition?I see, so the following would not be a restoration: return of the authentic priesthood power, spiritual gifts, ordinances, living prophets and revelation of the primitive Church of Christ after a long period of apostasy and bringing the people of Judah back to the land of Judea from their 75 years of captivity in Babylon. Not evolutionary?
Digressive.So how do you define apostasy?
No, of course not. Who would say apostasy is biblical?...and is it biblical?
What does scripture state?Really, so when did the Church actually begin?
Irrelevant, off-topic, and your problem, not mine.I don't see the humor in that...
Yes....were not gentiles also part of the original state or Gospel?
No. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ (Gal. 3). The dividing wall of hostility has been removed and the two have been united into one people (Eph. 2). Gentiles did not replace the Jews, the Church does not replace Israel; the former have been grafted into an already-existing tree that is Christ (Romans 11).Were the Gentiles made Jews?
False dichotomy.Did the Church of Christ and Apostles practice Jewish rituals, or did not Christ say all things were fulfilled
Neither of those passages state, "All things were fulfilled."“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” Matt. 5:17
“Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” Matt 5:19
Looking forward to you comments.
???? My point was just proved, not disproved.Oh no I won't for they are not the same... Even though your statement above seems off..... You said,
Think of restitution in this context:
Reconciliation:
6). (restoring the relationship to either its prior state of correctness or a state improved upon the prior good state because now the relationship is stronger having endured and overcome the prior loss).
“‘Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.’ [Ephesians 1:9–10.]
What I have posted is scripture. If your beliefs are other than what is stated in the text of scripture, then it is you who has the "strange gospel." This has ALWAYS been a problem for the CoLDS because Paul explicitly stated anyone teaching a gospel different than that which he taught is cursed. The CoLDS tries various ways to get around that, like claiming their revelation is the original revelation and the Bible has been corrupted but they undermine their own arguments because if the Church was never orthodox then there is no foundation upon which a "latter day" version might be justified.Oh no, just trying to figure out how you arrive at such a strange gospel...
Go back and re-read what I posted because I said the Church is NOT corrupt. The portion of my post you quoted was me summarizing opponents of this view; those who claim the Church is corrupt and in need of restoration.The Church was corrupt? I don't understand. Who is the cornerstone of the Church? Is Christ corrupt? or are the men who strive to be part of the foundation corrupt or weak like unto man... hmm
Non sequitur.The Gospel does not need to be reformed--it's perfect already.
Not true at all. Most of the Reformers wished to remain Catholic. They did NOT set out to form new denominations and sects like those of the 19th century restorationist movement. Neither did the Reformers depart in frequency or magnitude like those in the 1800s, especially the LDS. The explosion of sects following the restorationist sects is exponential in comparison to what happened in the 16th century.The Reformers started whole new denominations--with a different theology. That takes a heavenly event, which the critics here have been unable to show for their denominations.
LOL. You have yet to prove there is a "prophesied restoration."Then why the Reformation? Why the prophesied Restitution?
LOL.Restitution--Merriam Webster
1: an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: such as
Then what existing denomination was this pertinent to?
Acts 3:21---King James Version
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
None.Then what existing denomination was this pertinent to?
Acts 3:21---King James Version
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Can you see all the extra-biblical content in that sentence? Can you see how you're adding MORE, not less, biased definition?
Give it a try, so far you seem to talking all around it... just saying, lots of words and little to no substance so far.So I won't be entertaining definitions of "apostasy" until the matter of restoration is agreed upon.
Understand that there are aspects of this that go all the way back to Eden, because we do not define something good by something not-good. We do not define the Church, restored or otherwise, by apostasy. The fact that you would ask the question is, imho, evidence of the problem to be solved.
No, of course not. Who would say apostasy is biblical?
What does scripture state?
Irrelevant, off-topic, and your problem, not mine.
Yes.
No. There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ (Gal. 3). The dividing wall of hostility has been removed and the two have been united into one people (Eph. 2). Gentiles did not replace the Jews, the Church does not replace Israel; the former have been grafted into an already-existing tree that is Christ (Romans 11).
False dichotomy.
I am unaware of any specific verse in which Jesus states "all things were fulfilled," but the gospel and epistolary writers did report Jesus saying various individual prophecies fulfilled and they did say things like, "After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture would be fulfilled, said, 'I am thirsty.'" and "But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled" (Acts 3:18)." If there is a specific verse that explicitly states, "All things are fulfilled," then please cite it. This is important. It's important because if, as you are implying, ALL things were fulfilled then there is nothing left to be fulfilled. If all things were fulfilled and there is nothing left to be fulfilled, then there is no prophesied restoration left to be fulfilled.
Cannot be had both ways.
Are you full-preterist?
Neither of those passages state, "All things were fulfilled."
So my first comment is to point out that fact. Everything built on a flawed premise is likely to also be flawed and lead to flawed conclusions. I direct you, and every reader to start first with what is explicitly stated and NOT add things nowhere stated because that risks apostasy AND is evident of a need for restoration. The irony then being the ones crying for restoration being the one most in need of it because of their failure to read scripture as written.
You've just made yourself culpable of the very things Matthew 5 is speaking against.
Stick with what is stated. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the prophets. Do not fall prey to "onlyism," or the practice of inserting the word "only," into scripture where it is not mentioned. The author of this op does so often. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the prophets. but Jesus did not come ONLY to fulfill the Law and the prophets. Jesus came for many reasons, some of which preceded both the Law and the prophets, some of which exceeded the Law and the prophets.
The Law and the prophets were fulfilled in Christ..... and a new standard and new prophecies were added. Despite Christ fulfilling the Law and the prophets (they testified about him), the New Testament writers tell us,
Acts 3:19-21
Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
Note this restoration is NOT a restoration ONLY of the Church, but a restoration of "all things."
Note also that this is the only mention of restoration in the New Testament outside of the gospels 😮. Go ahead; look it up now. Verify what I just posted.
Then adjust your thinking, your doctrine, and your practice accordingly.
It turns out there is no mention of any restoration of the Church in the New Testament after the gospels. How then did ALL of the restorationist sects of the 1800s get it so wrong?
???? My point was just proved, not disproved.
Romans 15]4For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.If you follow that Ephesians narrative on to its later conclusion Paul explicitly states these things have been reconciled. Furthermore, Paul believed and taught he and the first century Christians were living in the ends of the ages.
1 Corinthians 10:1-11
The ends of the ages had come 😲. That is what the text actually states.
Yes. I thinking you're tired of eating dust.You haven't explained the Gospel. I won't waste my time with you.