Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JLHPROF

Another splinter group appears.

Recommended Posts

On 10/30/2017 at 8:25 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, duh, once more.

How does one obtain a remission of his or her sins, going by the Bible?  Clearly, Joseph believed that Jesus Christ was the Savior, and that he was the source of any remission of sins.  But besides that, what? There seems to be some disagreement as to the process.  Is receiving baptism a required step?  There are some Christian denominations who don't believe that it is.  If it is required, how is one to be baptized?  By immersion, pouring, or sprinkling? By whom is one to be baptized?  Some say that a figure of authority must do it (but differ on who has the authority), others that anyone at all who is a believer may do so.  Some say that the words used must include the trinitarian formula, "In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost", and others think that the name of Jesus Christ suffices.  Some say that a newborn baby must be baptized before it dies or else it will go to hell, and others say that a person must understand what he or she is doing before being baptized (but what happens if a one-week old baby dies? heaven, hell or something else? they don't know).  Some believe that if you never got baptized in life, or even so much as heard of Jesus Christ in your life, well, you're going to hell to burn for all eternity. Others believe that you won't burn, but will sit at the gate of heaven, not in torment, but nevertheless not being allowed to enter (in Limbo, in other words). Yet others believe that if you didn't hear of Jesus Christ in this life, you will have that chance before Judgement day, and will have the opportunity to accept him or not -- and that mortals still on earth can perform proxy baptism for you, just in case you accepted that preaching.

Yep, the Bible alone is sufficient to know how to receive a remission of sins.  Sure thing, right?

You've missed the truth. Baptism only comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I come from the inside out and not the outside in. Being immersed is a testimonial to those standing around that one is a Saved, Sanctified, and Sealed individual. Mormons have no sole divine claim  --- and it would seem they miss the point as proof.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You've missed the truth. Baptism only comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I come from the inside out and not the outside in. Being immersed is a testimonial to those standing around that one is a Saved, Sanctified, and Sealed individual. Mormons have no sole divine claim  --- and it would seem they miss the point as proof.

Without faith in Jesus Christ, and authority for the administration thereof, baptism is merely getting wet.  Plenty of people, of all denominations, have been baptized with nothing more than water. What you call the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is the confirmation of baptism, not the baptism itself, and it is what results from the specific application of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Assuming actual divine investiture of authority to perform the deed, it is something that occurs after baptism, -- sometimes immediately upon the laying on of hands, but more often later, as the person so gifted has become sufficiently receptive. There's a reason that the ordinance contains the wording "Receive the Holy Ghost". It's because the indwelling occurs upon the initiative of the Holy Spirit, dispensed upon confirmation of receptivity.  

And there is sufficient scriptural justification for believing that actual authority is required, and that this authority is not conferred by mere wishful thinking.  

I don't know your background, so I may be wasting words on you -- by which I mean that you may understand already what I'm trying to say, even if you don't believe the doctrine.  Please excuse my ignorance; I don't mean to sound condescending.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Without faith in Jesus Christ, and authority for the administration thereof, baptism is merely getting wet.  Plenty of people, of all denominations, have been baptized with nothing more than water. What you call the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is the confirmation of baptism, not the baptism itself, and it is what results from the specific application of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Assuming actual divine investiture of authority to perform the deed, it is something that occurs after baptism, -- sometimes immediately upon the laying on of hands, but more often later, as the person so gifted has become sufficiently receptive. There's a reason that the ordinance contains the wording "Receive the Holy Ghost". It's because the indwelling occurs upon the initiative of the Holy Spirit, dispensed upon confirmation of receptivity.  

And there is sufficient scriptural justification for believing that actual authority is required, and that this authority is not conferred by mere wishful thinking.  

I don't know your background, so I may be wasting words on you -- by which I mean that you may understand already what I'm trying to say, even if you don't believe the doctrine.  Please excuse my ignorance; I don't mean to sound condescending.

What about the one thief on the cross. He went to be with Jesus in Paradise, and it doesn't seem he was ever baptized in water. In fact, initially he scorned Jesus but finally came around to realize that Jesus was doing something special for no fault of His own...   

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

What about the one thief on the cross. He went to be with Jesus in Paradise, and it doesn't seem he was ever baptized in water. In fact, initially he scorned Jesus but finally came around to realize that Jesus was doing something special for no fault of His own...   

Ahhhh...but if Christ truly said that today he would be with the thief in paradise he must have lied. You see, he did not ascend to the father until after the resurrection. Uh-oh........

More likely an equally acceptable alternate reading is accurate and Jesus instead meant that on this day "today" he was saying the thief would be with him in paradise. Eventually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ahhhh...but if Christ truly said that today he would be with the thief in paradise he must have lied. You see, he did not ascend to the father until after the resurrection. Uh-oh........

More likely an equally acceptable alternate reading is accurate and Jesus instead meant that on this day "today" he was saying the thief would be with him in paradise. Eventually.

Ahhhh...but what about the story Jesus told of the Rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was in hell but apparently in Abraham's Bosom (Paradise?)  The rich man ended up in hell but on the other side of a great gulf and was tormented and asked for Lazarus to be sent over to dip his finger and moisten the rich man's tongue. I believe the story is a factual account because Jesus said both a certain rich man and use a proper name. 

More likely Jesus and the thief were both on the very same side with Lazarus and from there Jesus preached to everyone in hell ---both areas...That very day.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Ahhhh...but what about the story Jesus told of the Rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was in hell but apparently in Abraham's Bosom (Paradise?)  The rich man ended up in hell but on the other side of a great gulf and was tormented and asked for Lazarus to be sent over to dip his finger and moisten the rich man's tongue. I believe the story is a factual account because Jesus said both a certain rich man and use a proper name. 

More likely Jesus and the thief were both on the very same side with Lazarus and from there Jesus preached to everyone in hell ---both areas...That very day.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/7/2017 at 3:56 AM, LittleNipper said:

What about the one thief on the cross. He went to be with Jesus in Paradise, and it doesn't seem he was ever baptized in water. In fact, initially he scorned Jesus but finally came around to realize that Jesus was doing something special for no fault of His own...   

Paradise is not Heaven. It is the place we go before the Judgement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Nope.

You'd contradict the Bible in order to support your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Paradise is not Heaven. It is the place we go before the Judgement.

I didn't say that Paradise was heaven. Those that died prior to the resurrection --- their souls went either to Abraham's Bosom or they went to a place of dread awaiting judgment. Jesus freed those souls that were waiting for their Redeemer! Abraham's Bosom was emptied and hell was enlarged. Those souls are now in Paradise waiting to be reunited with their new eternal bodies.  Those in hell are waiting to be reunited with their eternal bodies to be judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire --- the second death.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

You'd contradict the Bible in order to support your opinion?

No. I just contradict your infantile understanding of it. Seriously, a clear parable and you want it to be a factual account?

Do you also argue that the devil is literally a multi-headed dragon with an improbable obsession with crowns and horns?

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/26/2017 at 10:12 AM, The Nehor said:

I prefer the People's Popular Front of Judea...........HERETIC!!!!!

I'm torn between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No. I just contradict your infantile understanding of it. Seriously, a clear parable and you want it to be a factual account?

Do you also argue that the devil is literally a multi-headed dragon with an improbable obsession with crowns and horns?

I would argue that Satan wears many hats and spins more webs and entanglements than a spider. Kinda seems like the branches of Mormonism?  At least Protestant churches never fought who was "Pope". So, what makes a story concerning a rich man an a man named Lazarus a parable and some people getting baptized for the dead people who do not seem to believe in life after death not a parable? The logical theme being ---- why bother with any immersion if one doesn't believe in life after death anyway?!?!

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I would argue that Satan wears many hats and spins more webs and entanglements than a spider. Kinda seems like the branches of Mormonism?  At least Protestant churches never fought who was "Pope". So, what makes a story concerning a rich man an a man named Lazarus a parable and some people getting baptized for the dead people who do not seem to believe in life after death not a parable? The logical theme being ---- why bother with any immersion if one doesn't believe in life after death anyway?!?!

That is like defending infant baptism by bringing up feeding babies to the flames of Moloch. Generally it is unwise to appeal to false doctrines to establish true ones. Unless your argument is that Paul is an idiot?

The story Jesus told is not established as true. He starts it  off as a story. When someone starts out a story with “Once upon a Time...” do you also expect a history lesson to follow?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 6:29 AM, LittleNipper said:

You've missed the truth. Baptism only comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I come from the inside out and not the outside in. Being immersed is a testimonial to those standing around that one is a Saved, Sanctified, and Sealed individual. Mormons have no sole divine claim  --- and it would seem they miss the point as proof.

Yeah, actually you have read your scriptures or at least you have not understood them. Prior to the baptism of fire or the baptism of the Holy Ghost Jesus commanded the apostles and his disciples to go and baptize for the remission of sins.  No where in the NT does it teach or insinuate that the followers of Jesus Christ should do a specific act so that other Christians will know they are saved.  It does not exist - what does exist is teachings that all need to be baptized.

I think that Protestants developed this concept that baptism is only a testimonial to other Christians to denigrate the priesthood of Jesus Christ.  It allowed them to break away from Catholicism. Protestants have no divine claim because they deny the power of the priesthood or denigrate to the point that if you want it you got it.  This completely negates the scriptures teaching.  In the NT individuals offered to buy the priesthood and were rejected by the apostles.  Strange that these things are so often ignored by those who rely on a perfect scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah, actually you have read your scriptures or at least you have not understood them. Prior to the baptism of fire or the baptism of the Holy Ghost Jesus commanded the apostles and his disciples to go and baptize for the remission of sins.  No where in the NT does it teach or insinuate that the followers of Jesus Christ should do a specific act so that other Christians will know they are saved.  It does not exist - what does exist is teachings that all need to be baptized.

I think that Protestants developed this concept that baptism is only a testimonial to other Christians to denigrate the priesthood of Jesus Christ.  It allowed them to break away from Catholicism. Protestants have no divine claim because they deny the power of the priesthood or denigrate to the point that if you want it you got it.  This completely negates the scriptures teaching.  In the NT individuals offered to buy the priesthood and were rejected by the apostles.  Strange that these things are so often ignored by those who rely on a perfect scripture.

Acts 2:28  

`Repent of your wrong ways and turn back to God,' answered Peter. `And then everyone of you can be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ. Your wrong ways will be forgiven you, and you will receive the Holy Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is like defending infant baptism by bringing up feeding babies to the flames of Moloch. Generally it is unwise to appeal to false doctrines to establish true ones. Unless your argument is that Paul is an idiot?

The story Jesus told is not established as true. He starts it  off as a story. When someone starts out a story with “Once upon a Time...” do you also expect a history lesson to follow?

It is not listed as a made up account. Parables can of course be made up; however, Jesus had at His disposal an eternal well. It would be like me saying, "Once there was a fantastic ship with over 2000 souls aboard. It was believed by those who built her that their ship was unsinkable and so no precautions were taken to provide enough lifeboats for everyone. On its maiden voyage this fantastic ship hit an iceberg and in the course of approximately 2 hours it sank. The majority of the people aboard drowned. The moral of the story is: Don't promote anything as impossible.no matter how improbable."

Obviously, this is a parable; however, it is founded on actual event. Call it historic, but it still conveys in this case a warning that prudence is the best policy...God doesn't have to make up anything He knows every possible scenario that has ever taken place. Even the story of the house on the sand and the one on a rock. I'm sure that this event happened as some point in history --- if not yesterday. 

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Acts 2:28  

`Repent of your wrong ways and turn back to God,' answered Peter. `And then everyone of you can be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ. Your wrong ways will be forgiven you, and you will receive the Holy Spirit

It is not self-evident that this supports your proposition that baptism is even remotely just a symbol for other Christians. To the contrary, Peter states, repent...then be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ..why? for the forgiveness of sins... and then receive the Holy Spirit.  Incidentally, that is the same process today.  If anything, I would use this scripture along with several others to support the position I have stated, which directly supports the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/7/2017 at 3:56 AM, LittleNipper said:

What about the one thief on the cross. He went to be with Jesus in Paradise, and it doesn't seem he was ever baptized in water. In fact, initially he scorned Jesus but finally came around to realize that Jesus was doing something special for no fault of His own...   

What about him?  Is Paradise the final destination, in other words, the heaven promised to the faithful?  In a word, no.  He went with Jesus to Paradise, to hear the gospel in its fulness.  Because Jesus didn't immediately go to the heaven promised to the faithful, and neither did the thief.  

You remember that after Jesus was resurrected, he told Mary not to touch him, because he had not yet ascended to his Father.  So where was he during the time between his death and resurrection?  Preaching the gospel, of course, the land between mortality and immortality.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." 1 Peter 3:18-20

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:6

Now, I suppose you're going to try to limit Christ, in that the claim might be it was only the people who were killed by flood who got preached to. Everyone else who never heard of Christ in this life is out of luck.  But I don't think that's very merciful. And what happens after they get preached to?  Nothing, because of course they are too late to be baptized even if they now believe.  Or baptism is only for the people who hear the gospel when they're in mortality?  I don't know what your argument on that is going to be, but when Christ told Nicodemus that baptism was essential, he forgot to tell him that it was only the very few people who happened to be alive when Christ was preaching who needed baptism.  Nobody else did, right?

And so we come to 1 Cor 15:29 in which proxy baptism is brought up by Paul.  Those who did not hear the gospel in this life will have the opportunity to hear and accept or reject in the next life, called Paradise if you will.  And those who accept will be able to call upon a proxy baptism made for them by those still in mortality.  

But all this rejected by Catholicism and Protestantism. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

It is not listed as a made up account. Parables can of course be made up; however, Jesus had at His disposal an eternal well. It would be like me saying, "Once there was a fantastic ship with over 2000 souls aboard. It was believed by those who built her that their ship was unsinkable and so no precautions were taken to provide enough lifeboats for everyone. On its maiden voyage this fantastic ship hit an iceberg and in the course of approximately 2 hours it sank. The majority of the people aboard drowned. The moral of the story is: Don't promote anything as impossible.no matter how improbable."

Obviously, this is a parable; however, it is founded on actual event. Call it historic, but it still conveys in this case a warning that prudence is the best policy...God doesn't have to make up anything He knows every possible scenario that has ever taken place. Even the story of the house on the sand and the one on a rock. I'm sure that this event happened as some point in history --- if not yesterday. 

So, you think that every Parable Jesus uttered had to be founded on a real event?  And that these illustrations can be relied upon for deep doctrine?

OK, then what about that rich grower who hired a whole bunch of temp workers over the course of the day, and then ended up paying them all the same wage regardless of how long they actually worked?  I'll grant you this might have happened, and the workers working 12 hours got annoyed that they got the same pay as the ones who worked 1 hour.  And I'll grant you that the rich grower was perfectly within his rights to pay them what he and they agreed to get paid, but does this mean that labor unions are evil?  Because obviously a union would have called a strike immediately if they knew what was going down!  Or does this mean that the minimum wage laws are evil?  Or even, perhaps, that each employer and employee is supposed to bargain with each other independently and there be no set wages, or no set work times?  Or is it something else?  Or all of them!!

Or is that Jesus wanted to teach the clear example that according to his grace, nobody in the Kingdom was better just because they found Him first?  And that all righteous men are alike unto God?  

And what deep doctrine is Jesus teaching when he speaks admiringly about the woman who sweeps out her house diligently looking for a lost coin?  I'll grant you that this might very well have happened, and in fact, it might even have been Jesus' own mother who did this once when Jesus was young, and it stuck in his mind.  But is it a divine teaching that we must dig up all our coins out of the sofa?  Or that coins are important, and this means that paper money is evil?  Or that sweeping must be done with a side-to-side motion, and never front-to-back?

Or was Jesus trying to teach that the those who are lost in sin must be diligently sought for and brought to repentance and forgiveness? That all of God's children are valuable to Him and every effort must be made to redeem them from sin?

And what do we make of the parable of the two debtors?  The parable indicates that the one who had the greater debt loved the one who forgave it much more than the one who had a smaller debt. Of course this would be based on a true story of a rich man with two debtors, and naturally there would be many such in real life.  But is the deep doctrine the principle that we must always forgive debts, so that our debtors will love us, or on the other hand, that we should go into massive debt that we can't repay, just so we can go to bankruptcy court and get it all forgiven and thus love the bankruptcy court judge more than some other guy who didn't have such a large debt?

Or was Jesus trying to teach us not to scorn those who had been worse sinners than ourselves, because all of us are sinners and are unworthy, but through his grace all are made clean?

Actually, in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, there is no way that Lazarus could be enjoying heaven already, since the resurrection hadn't yet happened.  The whole thing is figurative, and not literally true.

Share this post


Link to post

Little Nipper is adopting a position which IS in fact widely debated among Evangelicals: is the story of the rich man and Lazarus true or is it a parable?

There are a lot of theological assumptions made by Evangelicals packed into how they read this story which are different from the assumptions packed in to how LDS read it. 

For example, Ev's assume that the Third Heaven,  the Heaven of God, is synonymous with paradise:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). (Emphases mine, to show how Evangelicals arrive at their view). 

Latter-Day Saints,  of course, assume the third Heaven to be the Celestial Kingdom. 

Many Evangelicals have made the case that the Temple of Jerusalem is a sort of model of Heaven, with an outer court, an inner sanctuary,  and a Holy of Holies, the latter being where the Throne of yhe Father is.

The thief on the Cross could, therefore, have accompanied Christ to Heaven/Paradise: yet, Christ did not proceed from the outer courts into the Holy of Holies. Hence: "I have not yet ascended to my Father". 

(I heard one expositor suggest that the story is true but had not yet happened at the time Jesus was recounting it: that our Lord tapped into His Divine omniscience to expound a story he knew WOULD HAPPEN--as Deity, of course, Christ being understood to exist outside of time. That seemed rather a stretch to me. Clever, but rather a stretch).

I  personally never wrestled very long nor hard with the question.  I have,  however, heard the case made for either argument. No offense intended toward LittleNipper, but s/he does strike me as not being broadly exposed to the spectrum of opinion on issues of this sort.

Some sources for how the case is made:

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Little Nipper is adopting a position which IS in fact widely debated among Evangelicals: is the story of the rich man and Lazarus true or is it a parable?

There are a lot of theological assumptions made by Evangelicals packed into how they read this story which are different from the assumptions packed in to how LDS read it. 

For example, Ev's assume that the Third Heaven,  the Heaven of God, is synonymous with paradise:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). (Emphases mine, to show how Evangelicals arrive at their view). 

Latter-Day Saints,  of course, assume the third Heaven to be the Celestial Kingdom. 

Many Evangelicals have made the case that the Temple of Jerusalem is a sort of model of Heaven, with an outer court, an inner sanctuary,  and a Holy of Holies, the latter being where the Throne of yhe Father is.

The thief on the Cross could, therefore, have accompanied Christ to Heaven/Paradise: yet, Christ did not proceed from the outer courts into the Holy of Holies. Hence: "I have not yet ascended to my Father". 

(I heard one expositor suggest that the story is true but had not yet happened at the time Jesus was recounting it: that our Lord tapped into His Divine omniscience to expound a story he knew WOULD HAPPEN--as Deity, of course, Christ being understood to exist outside of time. That seemed rather a stretch to me. Clever, but rather a stretch).

I  personally never wrestled very long nor hard with the question.  I have,  however, heard the case made for either argument. No offense intended toward LittleNipper, but s/he does strike me as not being broadly exposed to the spectrum of opinion on issues of this sort.

Some sources for how the case is made:

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html

Actually, I'm a he. And I've been exposed to Jews, Jehovah Witnesses (co-workers & door visitors), Atheists (Friends & Forums), Mormons (relatives who are Mormon --- co-worker who had been an LDS --- and house visitors).  I've read/studied Dispensational Truth. I've spoken to many Roman Catholics, Presbyterians,  some Quakers, Methodists, and Mennonites. 

The main subject evolves around HELL. JWs do not accept an eternal HELL and that is the rub. It seems to me that Mormons don't wish to accept one either and have designed a doctrine by which everyone both living and dead may escape.

Interestingly, it also seems that there are as many "Mormon" denominations as there are Christian ones. It doesn't seem that Mr. Joseph Smith solved anything. If I had to pick the most likely "REAL" Mormon group, I'd have to side with Mr Smith's son.  I'm very sure that wanting to be president and all, Mr. Smith wanted to start a DYNASTY with himself as the kingpin and he'd turn everything over to his boy... The Bible is clear that there is no safety in numbers, so any argument using membership counts seem rather worldly at best.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post

Actually LDS have a concept of Hell. We call  it Outer Darkness. Where we differ from you is who goes there.

My goodness you've become the best  mind reader of long dead people. :rolleyes: Shortly before his death JS gave the Authority to the 12 Apostles. His son was very young at the time. Emma wanted her son to become the Prophet as a means of support.

Ps; What do you have to say about the some 40,000 different Christian sects?

Edited by thesometimesaint
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Emma wanted her son to become the Prophet as a means of support"

CFR.

Seems to me you are running the risk of mindreading long dead people yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...