124 replies to this topic

[Bill Hamblin]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 06:53 AM, said:

If a reader to studys the Book of Hebrews (which tells us what is behind religious practices and rites) then turn right around and concludes that information about specific religious rites and practices in the New Testament are not adequately  described to run Christianity, PhD or what ever, they have missed Pharaoh's cosmic boat.

When we know what was behind rites and practices- we will have no problem understanding the intent, function, and meaning of those practices.

Enough said...

Hick-

Well, that's a nice paraphrase of Sola Scriptura ideology, but, in practical terms the Bible is clearly not sufficient on these matters, as manifest by the wide range of Christian beliefs and practices throughout history, all claiming to be based on the Bible.  No one reading the Bible alone, without the Evangelical assumptions and the centuries of historical theological development and debate that inform modern Evangelicalism, would come up with US Evangelical Protestantism as the religion of First Century Christians.

Edited by Bill Hamblin, 01 December 2010 - 01:42 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Zakuska, on 01 December 2010 - 12:26 AM, said:

Tell me about it Dr. Hamblin!

This "disciple" who Rob thinks is a non-disciple is specifically identified in the previous chapter as a "believer in Jesus Christ."

Acts 18
24 ¶And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in  the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,  knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and  Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the  way of God more perfectly.
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote,  exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped  them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Yup.  Rob's position on this is preposterous.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 30 November 2010 - 01:10 PM, said:

Vance,

He sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me.

So then, I have as much authority to declare doctrine and interpret scripture as you.

I therefore declare that you are wrong on this issue.

[Hick Preacher]

Bill Hamblin, on 01 December 2010 - 10:58 AM, said:

Well, that's a nice paraphrase of Sola Scriptura ideology, but, in practical terms the Bible is clearly not sufficient on these matters, as manifest by the wide range of Christian beliefs and practices throughout history, all claiming to be based on the Bible.  No one reading the Bible alone, without the Evangelical assumptions and the centuries of historical theological development and debate than inform modern Evangelicalism, would come up with US Evangelical Protestantism as the religion of First Century Christians.

Bill

Note that I am  not actually Sola Scriptura in my Identity footer.
And not really a Protestant-- but have a Campbelite underpinning,(restoratonist) once being a Mormons who was a friend of LDS apology efforts of the 1980s.
And I am not a morally degenerated ex-Mormon- but I left the LDS world due to advanced doctrinal differences.   I am not an ordinary Evangelical by the usual traditional standard-- so you should we aware that I will say odd things compared to other EVs.  
-----------


Sola Scriptura ideology?  Nah-- History of the ancient cultures are not emphasized in that ideology.   And really Mormonism has certain Sola Scriptura bent to it at the Preparatory Gospel level of doctrine.

For example GAs saying that "offical" doctrine comes only from the Standard Works.

Quote

"It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator—please note that one exception—you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea!" And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them "standard"—it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it."

Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee, The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Address to Seminary and Institute of Religion Faculty, BYU, 8 July 1964  ( HP's eph and underlines)

Labeling and/or portraying LDS critics and analyists as Fundamentalist anti-Mormons and Reformation Protestants-- who are also Evangelicals-- and/or  'Creedal Christians, is the front line of current Mormon Apologetics.

This being so, it is no surprise because most of the street literature and popular books against the doctrines of the LDS Church are produced by the  'fundmentalist' plenary verbal inspiration types---the'Bible thumper' Christians.  This is changing with many of the Evangelical Ministries to Mormons now growing out of those ranks.
But Mormon Apologetics is still fixated on debunking the things Ed Decker started saying in 1979. When I was in grad school in the 1980 the Utah State University Special Collections Library room had a special section with a massive amount of Ed Decker's publications archived. It was considered a milestone event in Mormon history. That kind of anti-Mormon information is still around, but much more refined kinds of information, is on the rise for the better of everyone on both sides of the issues.

I can jump over to your view of he Bible however in some sense. It is not a hand book or a technical guide-- so it is not sufficient as a handbook.  I spent 25 years as a training developer and technical writer in the medical, textbook, and information technology area creating job aids,product information, technical training, and CBT. The Bible cannot be approached that way.   The Bible is no hand book like a modern 21st century is able to create.    Certain high church organizations have created works like the Common Book of Prayer and hymnal and such in which it is easier to access doctrinal conclusions.

A person can read the Bible alone-- esp an unbeliever as a lone reader for a long long time before they can come to consistent formulated view a lot of these doctrinal matters. So again in a sense what you say is true about lone sufficiency.   But the Saints have been commanded to gather together, and study the scriptures together-- and even build a culture. A culture will develop summarized explanations for Biblical teachings and make them into doctrines and creeds and practices. And the Holy Ghost facilitates Bible conclusions-- so the Christian is never just a lone reader.

But the Book of Mormon, being an easier read, will be evaluated by a lone reader as teaching of one lone God.  And the primary covenant of Mormonism-- BAPTISM is to One God, who is the Father and the Son. So says Jesus Himself in 3 Nephi.  And this is in theory critical to human salvation in the most fundamental way.  It is only after the interpretation of the Book of Mormon is retrospectively refitted to Eternal Progression using LDS Divine Investiture that this 'Plain and Perfect' easy to understand Book is made to harmonize with overall LDS beliefs.



To think and assert what you have said above about understanding Bible doctrine suggests to me that you are buying into the idea that Mormonism and Evangelical are completely separate movements, with no past historical connection. That idea of a complete absolute divide is not strictly true.

From a historical approach a critic could argue extensively that Mormonism is a product of the evolution of the Protestant reformation, and the Campbell-Stone Restoration Movement-- and a host of other influences. These influences could be said to create the LDS hermeneutic of scripture.  Something like if one were to run with and elaborate Dan Vogal's and Fawn Brodie's writings.

Also the notion that the best Church is a first century Church-- is a huge assumption.

Food for the growing Brain

Hick-

Edited by Hick Preacher, 01 December 2010 - 02:43 PM.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree.  The Bible is not a handbook of Church Order.  Nor is it a Handbook of Systematic theology.  Trying to make it such inevitably leads to confusion and frustration.  It cannot answer the types of questions usually asked of it.  We should instead read it for the message it presents: that we should come unto Christ, love God and love our fellow humans.  Repentance, discipleship and love is difficult enough message, which most (including me) never master.

[Hick Preacher]

Bill Hamblin, on 01 December 2010 - 02:52 PM, said:

I agree.  The Bible is not a handbook of Church Order.  Nor is it a Handbook of Systematic theology.  Trying to make it such inevitably leads to confusion and frustration.  It cannot answer the types of questions usually asked of it.  We should instead read it for the message it presents: that we should come unto Christ, love God and love our fellow humans.  Repentance, discipleship and love is difficult enough message, which most (including me) never master.

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your thoughts -- in all your posts- its educational and at times inspirational.

I got to leave the board soon for a few days-- buz trip.

Later-

Hick-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

  I am not an ordinary Evangelical by the usual traditional standard-- so you should we aware that I will say odd things compared to other EVs.  
-----------

Hick-

I think it important for people to know this. I will state that I gladly welcome the difference and think it will go a huge way in bridging the gap.

[ElfLord]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 02:58 PM, said:

I got to leave the board soon for a few days-- buz trip.

Later-

Hick-

It takes you a few days to get a hair cut?  

[Vance]

Zakuska, on 01 December 2010 - 12:26 AM, said:

Tell me about it Dr. Hamblin!

This "disciple" who Rob thinks is a non-disciple is specifically identified in the previous chapter as a "believer in Jesus Christ."

Acts 18
24 ¶And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in  the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord,  knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and  Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the  way of God more perfectly.
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote,  exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped  them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.


I liked what this Blog has to say about the phenominon of reading things into the text that aren't there and reading things out of the text that are explicitly stated.

http://marcushoneyse...acts-191-6.html

Oh snap!

Now you have done it. You, no doubt, have provoked Rob into taking some time to put together a devastating attack.  None of this namby pamby stuff of the past but a real "fatal flaw" expose'.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 30 November 2010 - 05:05 PM, said:

  Irrelevant, since the burden of proof is not on me to show that the ritual of laying on of hands is required to receive the Holy Spirit. Rather, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is required. Citing a couple of texts in which laying on of hands is mentioned does not demonstrate the necessity of that ritual.

Does this mean that the burden of proof is on you to show that the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" wasn't fabricated by Martin Luther?  This, of course, would include providing pre-Luther documents that clearly connect "the priesthood of all believers" to that one lone verse in Peter.

[Hick Preacher]

ElfLord, on 01 December 2010 - 03:06 PM, said:

It takes you a few days to get a hair cut?  

Yeah my son in law-- pictured with the completely shaved head is going to administer it Marine style delegated to my grandson. This pic is a phone upload from the Middle East.  He is 1stSgt USMC 2/6 in the field.



These Marines have Authority!

Edited by Hick Preacher, 01 December 2010 - 04:08 PM.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

These Marines have Authority!

Indeed they do.

Have you seen the new weapon being deployed?  Awesome firepower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Vance, 01 December 2010 - 04:13 PM.

[ElfLord]

Hick Preacher, on 01 December 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

Yeah my son in law-- pictured with the completely shaved head is going to administer it Marine style delegated to my grandson. This pic is a phone upload from the Middle East.  He is 1stSgt USMC 2/6 in the field.

a href=

These Marines have Authority!

I thought you were leaving for your trip?

Can't get a hair cut if you don't get goin.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Here is PacMan's first sentence opening this thread:

Quote

If there is a clear doctrine in the bible, I believe it is the importance and process of ordination and callings.

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 30 November 2010 - 10:23 PM, said:

The fact that the Bible alone is not sufficient to prove either your position or our position should be obvious after this discussion.

You disagree with your fellow LDS here. He says the Bible clearly teaches the LDS doctrine; you say it does not.

I'll let you two sort this out.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Bill Hamblin, on 30 November 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:

I'm sorry to say, but this is the most preposterous eisegetical misreading of scripture I've seen in a long time.

This, from a guy who defends the claim that Cornelius did not receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost" before he was baptized, even though Acts 10:44-48 explicitly says that Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Ghost" before he was baptized. Somehow that's not a preposterous interpretation, but my view (and the view of numerous commentators) that the "disciples" of Acts 19:1-6 were disciples of John, not of Jesus, is preposterous.

You wrote:

Quote

First, can you show me anywhere in Acts where the term disciples does not mean disciples of Jesus?

Why the limitation to the book of Acts? Because, as you probably know, Luke (the author of Acts) uses the word "disciples" with reference to "disciples of John" in his Gospel (Luke 5:33; 7:18, 19).

You wrote:

Quote

Second, and more importantly, in verse two Paul says they are believers?  Believers in Jesus.  It couldn't possibly be anything else.  Your eisegesis is clearly twisting the text to match your theory.  Very disappointing.

This is ridiculous, Bill. Paul does not call them "believers." He asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit "when they believed." What, or in whom, they believed is not specified in this verse. To know what they had, and had not yet, believed, we must read the rest of the passage. Instead of engaging the evidence that I presented from verses 2-5 that they had not yet put their faith in Christ, you tried to distract attention from that exegetical evidence by claiming that my interpretation is preposterous.

There is nothing more that needs to be said until you seriously engage the evidence I presented for my view.

[Zakuska]

Rob Bowman, on 01 December 2010 - 06:57 PM, said:

Why the limitation to the book of Acts? Because, as you probably know, Luke (the author of Acts) uses the word "disciples" with reference to "disciples of John" in his Gospel (Luke 5:33; 7:18, 19).

Did you forget that Chapter 18 specifically Identifies them as believers/disciples of Jesus Christ?

Quote

Acts 18
24 ¶And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

Edited by Zakuska, 01 December 2010 - 07:04 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Acts 18 says nothing to indicate that Apollos believed in Jesus until after Priscilla and Aquila had explained the way of God to him. Only after they do so (18:26) does Acts say that Apollos was showing people from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (18:28). When he "knew only the baptism of John" (18:25), he was not yet a Christian. The people that Paul meets in Acts 19:1 are likewise people who knew John's baptism but did not know about Jesus Christ, as Acts 19:2-5 clearly explains. Apollos is not one of the men whom Paul met in Acts 19:1.

Tell me this: Is it possible for someone to be a "believer in Jesus Christ" who doesn't yet know about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, but who only knows about the baptism of John? Would you recognize someone as a believer in Jesus Christ who was still a follower of John the Baptist?

Edited by Rob Bowman, 01 December 2010 - 07:04 PM.

[Zakuska]

Rob Bowman, on 01 December 2010 - 07:02 PM, said:

Zakuska,

Acts 18 says nothing to indicate that Apollos believed in Jesus until after Priscilla and Aquila had explained the way of God to him. Only after they do so (18:26) does Acts say that Apollos was showing people from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (18:28). When he "knew only the baptism of John" (18:25), he was not yet a Christian. The people that Paul meets in Acts 19:1 are likewise people who knew John's baptism but did not know about Jesus Christ, as Acts 19:2-5 clearly explains. Apollos is not one of the men whom Paul met in Acts 19:1.

Tell me this: Is it possible for someone to be a "believer in Jesus Christ" who doesn't yet know about baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, but who only knows about the baptism of John? Would you recognize someone as a believer in Jesus Christ who was still a follower of John the Baptist?

Let him speak for himself Rob...

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Was he Preaching John the Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ Prior to speaking with Priscilla and Aquila?  

So stop putting words in his mouth that are not there.

Edited by Zakuska, 01 December 2010 - 07:14 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Since you chose not to answer my question or to address any of the points I made about Acts 19, our discussion seems to have run aground.

Zakuska, on 01 December 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

Let him speak for himself Rob...

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Was he Preaching John the Baptist or the Lord Jesus Christ Prior to speaking with Priscilla and Aquila?  

So stop putting words in his mouth that are not there.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 01 December 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

Zakuska,

Since you chose not to answer my question or to address any of the points I made about Acts 19, our discussion seems to have run aground.

An implicit admission that Rob lost.

And besides that, what is the Baptism of John?

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Acts 13:25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

Explicit in "the baptism of John" is the knowledge of Jesus!