Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm. Why then does God call prophets. Are they not men on earth that speak the will of the Lord?By definition of the Hebrew word, nabi, they're mouthpieces of God.

We're to listen to them, assuming they're true prophets/mouthpieces of God.

God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God," to be delivered to whomever. The "mouthpieces of God" delivered the messages. Then, in due time, God acted on His messages, which His mouthpieces delivered for Him. Nowhere in this verse, nor anywhere else, does God instruct His people to follow any "mouthpieces."

No, they (and Moses) followed the Lord through the desert:

You'll have to be specific.

I don't know what you're trying to remember. So, I will assume that what they were condemned for was not obeying the message, which were delivered by His mouthpieces.

Yes, as "mouthpieces of God," not as humans to be followed. Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the only one we are ever to follow, not humans. However God uses us as humans, we are not to be followed. We are always supposed to cause people to look to and follow the Lord, only. Following prophets was not a biblical concept or practice. Adhering to the messages of God, delivered by His mouthpieces, WAS a biblical concept and practice.

Bob,

It looks like we have very close to the same understanding. Now this is the part that is a little strange for me.

"Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the only one we are ever to follow, not humans. However God uses us as humans, we are not to be followed" And this part "God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God," to be delivered to whomever. The "mouthpieces of God" delivered the messages. Then, in due time, God acted on His messages, which His mouthpieces delivered for Him. Nowhere in this verse, nor anywhere else, does God instruct His people to follow any "mouthpieces.""

Help me out. If God uses mouthpieces (prophets) and by following the prophets words wich are Gods words. how then do you not follow a prophets words but follow Gods? This makes no sence. You admited that the children of Israel were under condemntaion for not obeying the message that God delievered unto His prophets. Are obeying and following diffrent in meaning?

THanks for your time. Thank you for not being rude too.

[BCSpace]

Here, I agree with you, Bob. Grace cannot be earned. If grace is "earned," it is no longer grace, but reward, as Paul aptly notes in Romans.

But the free gift must be used in order to have any effect. That is why faith and works are requirements for salvation. Even in James 2 you see that works justify us...makes us eligible for salvation...which of course dovetails with Jesus' statements in Matthew 25.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

Even the lexicon (Strongs and Thayers) has 'justified' in this verse set (from vs 21 on) as the 'meritorious cause of their acceptance' and compares it to Paul's statements about 'apprehending'.

[Paul Ray]

Paul, you are defining the "Great Apostasy" differently than the PMG manual I quoted from in my OP. You seem to be watering down what the manual says.

Hmm. No, I donâ??t think so.

Here is what you quoted earlier in your OP from â??Preach My Gospelâ??:

After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost."

What I said in my last post was that the apostasy was not â??completeâ? in the sense I think you meant it.

We still have vestiges of the earlier church, such as words from some apostles that are recorded in our New Testament, so I donâ??t think it is proper to say there was a â??completeâ? apostasy, if by â??completeâ? you are thinking there isnâ??t anything leftover from the earlier church.

What we didnâ??t have were apostles to establishâ?¦ and correctâ?¦ local leaders, until the restoration God accomplished by the work of Joseph Smith.

Try looking at it this way for a moment:

If the earlier church was still on the Earth in the days of Joseph Smithâ?¦ and Iâ??m not saying it was or wasnâ??t at that pointâ?¦ which one do you think Joseph should have joined? Which one do you think had the fullness of the gospel and was led by authorized apostles of God with the authority to establishâ?¦ and correctâ?¦ and removeâ?¦ and replaceâ?¦ local leaders in all of the churches of God everywhere on the Earth then... while also appointing new apostles and general authorities over the whole Earth as the need for more apostles and general authorities arose?

We (LDS) claim that our Lord told Joseph Smith to join none of the churches in his day because they were all wrong (meaning they were all wrong to some extent, I believe). That their creeds were an abomination in our Lordâ??s sight, and those professors were all corrupt (meaning they mixed truth with error, I believe). That they drew near to him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him (meaning they were like the Pharisees, I believe). That they taught for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they denied the power thereof (meaning they denied at least some of what God could accomplish through them, I believe).

Nowhere in that statement did our Lord say there werenâ??t still some remnants of either doctrine or people who remained from the earlier church, and nowhere did our Lord say the Holy Bible is useless to help others see what the earlier church once was.

When people start teaching their own ideas as the doctrine of God, without accepting the idea that other people have the authority to correct them, we see divisions upon divisions of people forming so-called churches of God with nobody thinking God has the power to bring everyone into unity... and that power of God to bring people into unity with God is exercised through the priesthood of God that is righteously exercised by Godâ??s authorized servants, aka apostles of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

At least the Catholic church seems to be aware that there needs to be some kind of general authority figures, NOW (they didn't have any for several centuries after the death of the apostles), but they are not following the pattern of our Lordâ??s earlier church. They have changed some ordinances and come up with some new doctrines that are not in harmony with what we can see in the Holy Bible.

At least some other Christians see the value of trying to conform to the pattern of the Holy Bible.

Why donâ??t you just bring all the good that you have and add it to all the good that we have by joining you and your whole church with us and our church? I donâ??t think any LDS would ever try to tell you that you are completely wrong about everything. You simply need to be willing to learn more than you know now, from the people who have the authority to teach you, aka our Lordâ??s apostles.

God bless you in your journey.

Enjoy the experience.

If you're not a member of our Lord's church before this year is over, I'll be very disappointed with you, personally, Bob.

p.s. And btw, you might also enjoy reading 'Bishops and Apostles in Early Christianity', written by Hugh Nibley.

p.p.s. I'd like to explain that statement you quoted in the PMG. Who knows, maybe this will help you:

After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them... OIOW, wicked people, including Jews, persecuted and killed many of the apostles and true disciples of the true God that some of them claimed to worship.

With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth... OIOW, when the apostles died, the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority of those apostles who died were taken from the Earth along with them.

The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members... OIOW, the apostles maintained order and the standard of worthiness for Church members and kept the doctrines of the gospel pure despite any/all efforts by other people who taught, perhaps unintentionally, corrupt forms of true gospel doctrines.

Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.... OIOW, without apostles to maintain order in the Church and the standard of worthiness for Church members and the purity of true gospel doctrines, the true gospel doctrines became corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as doctrines concerning who can baptize another person and who can confer the gift of the Holy Ghost upon another person, as well as how to perform those ordinances.

Now to sum it up: Without apostles to continually maintain the church and all true gospel principles, by personally visiting and/or writing letters continually, the field was open and ready to be corrupted by people who were laboring in God's vineyard... some of whom probably have had only the best of intentions while thinking that their way was the best way to do things.

Adieu, Bob.

[PacMan]

BTW, the Bible speaks of no OT-like prophets, since Christ:

Darn those prophets!!

27

[Bob Betts]

BB,

On the problematic post, try this: Take out the original quote with the date, etc. Then break it up into two posts. That's worked for me. I wonder if the system just gets confused.

Appreciate the effort,

PacMan

Okay, I did as you suggested, cutting half of the post off and reposting the original first half, and it didn't change a thing. So, I went back in, pasted the cut portion back in, and I'm back to square one.

Sorry.

[owl]

It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness. But, they were anyway.

While the Lord sendeth rain upon the just and unjust, some believe the increase of earthquakes and natural disasters in the latter-days is the result of unrighteousness, and that the location of the maximum destruction of hurricane Katrina was an example.

[Paul Ray]

Okay, I did as you suggested, cutting half of the post off and reposting the original first half, and it didn't change a thing. So, I went back in, pasted the cut portion back in, and I'm back to square one.

Sorry.

Here you go, Bob, and PacMan.

On with the show!

... and btw, if it's not perfect, one of you can just fix it by knowing what you said.

Common sense needs no references. God didnâ??t create the Apostasy.

Did I use the word create? I don't believe I did. That's YOUR word which you substituted for MY words. What I said was, "It now sounds like you're saying that God predestined, and was responsible for, the apostasy;" Common sense tells ME that if the Church COULD have self-perpetuated through John (who had the authority), but could NOT perpetuate through John because he didn't have the authorization from God, that makes God ultimately responsible. God could have averted the apostasy, by granting the authorization.

PacMan: To do so would assume He creates wickedness and causes people to purposefully sin. While He permits it, to create it would be awfully stupid.

Bob: Again, your argument here is based on putting a word in my mouth, which I never used

PacMan: Not to mention itâ??d go strictly against the doctrine of agency (if you want a quote on that, Iâ??ll dig something upâ?¦but I donâ??t want to waste time on the obvious).

Bob: I do not see any doctrine of unlimited agency on man's part, anywhere in the Bible, either by teaching or example.

Bob: But, "permitting" puts an entirely different spin on God's will, than "doing."

PacMan: Thatâ??s why I found it important to clarify. I didnâ??t think itâ??d be an issue.

Bob: Did God ordain the flood, making it happen, did he "permit" the flood?

PacMan: It was God's purposeful will and reaction to the wickedness of that generation. Obviously, God dealt with the agency of those of that wicked generation, by judging them in their agency to not be worthy of continuing to live out and express their agency.

Bob: God cut off their agency, by cutting off their human existence.

PacMan: Yesâ?¦and no. He caused the flood itself (just as he causes the flowers to grow and birds to chirp), but not the destruction.

Bob: God caused the flood, but not the destruction? What kind of logic is this? God deliberately caused the flood with the very specific intention of destroying the people who were steeped in their wickedness, by using their agency to BE wicked. How could God possibly intentionally cause the flood, without intentionally causing the destruction?

PacMan: That was a direct consequence of the miss-used agency of the earth (or its inhabitants). So no, God didnâ??t cut off their agencyâ?¦they did

Bob: Hold on, PacMan. This makes no sense. I'll bet you anything that those wicked people did NOT want their agency cut off. But, they had no choice in the matter. They had no power behind their agency to prevent God from destroying them. HIS agency trumped their's. God's deliberate action of causing a flood, with the express and deliberate purpose of destroying those wicked inhabitants, for the way they were using their agancy, was God's way of showing who's the boss of agency, in consequence of their wicked use of their agency. God effectively took away their agency, by effectively destroying their humanity. And, there was nothing they could do about it with their agency. God imposed HIS agency on them. Your earlier statement, "The notion of agency is KEY to the LDS, and the Lord doesn't EVER infringe on it," has no biblical support. There's no way that you can claim that God never infringes on man's agency. He's done it from the very beginning. When God set up a couple of angels with swords to guard the tree of life, God prevented Adam and Eve from using their agency to eat from that tree (Gen. 3:22). God is in complete control. He has and will infringe on man's agency whenever He darn well wants to.

So, then, the early Church wasn't "exactly" self-perpetuating, with Matthias as the ONLY example throughout Acts?

PacMan: Did I say that? Nope. Stick with what I say, and I wonâ??t have to identify your logical fallacies (remember, Iâ??m happy to clarify if I misspeak).

Bob: So, then, how would YOU like to word this? Was the early Church subject to limited perpetuation? Each Apostle who died, was replaced by another Apostle...for a few decades But, eventually the dead Apostles were not replaced (for whatever reason), resulting in the eventual cessation of perpetuation? Put it in your own words for me.

PacMan: There were certainly differencesâ?¦all those offices delineated in Ephesians didnâ??t happen in a day. Moreover, I doubt new convert adult-males were automatically ordained Priests as they are today. Maybe, but no reason to believe they were.

Bob: Based on what the Apostle Peter (the one holding the keys) told the believers in his letter, all believers are of a holy and royal priesthood, by virtue of their being believers (1 Peter 2:5-9). So, actually, yeah, all new converts WERE automatically ordained Priests as they are today.

PacMan: The issue is, administrative changes are necessary for efficiency. That the administration at every level was the same is completely unnecessary

Bob: Well, it certainly would have been necessary at an administration level for the perpetuation of the "authority" to remain in the world.

PacMan: And no, Matthias, Paul, Barnabasâ?¦there are three examples and not just one.

Bob: Really? CFR for where you've found the names of the martyred Apostles who Paul and Barnabas replaced.

PacMan: Moreover, that thereâ??s only a example is but ignoratium, and objectively useless.

Bob: Not IMHO. It goes to the consistency of whether or not your church today was actually administratively restored to that same early Church administration, as claimed by Joseph Smith. If perpetuation exists today according to Smith's restoring the true Church, logic says the early Church should have also perpetuated. Otherwise, your church isn't just talking about a restoration of the true early Church, but an improved and advanced version, with perpetuation virtually guaranteed, whereas the early Church failed to perpetuate past the deaths of the Apostles.

PacMan: But, not "exactly," since the time came when the Church ceased to be self-perpetuating, with the death of the Apostles, though the Apostles weren't all really dead, according to your church?

Bob: ??? Noâ?¦I have no doubt it was perfectly established. Remember, in the mind of an omniscient being that transcends time, it makes as much sense that he organized the church then, so that it would run the way it does today. Paradigmsâ?¦But, according to your belief, the Church did NOT run the way it does today, because the cessation of the succession of Apostles resulted in an apostasy of priesthood keys and authority, and that couldn't happen today (barring something catastrophic, as I understand).

So, "perfectly established," but "paradigms." How does that flesh out exactly?

Bob: But, ALL the main perpetuators were NOT killed off. So, then we come back around to the LDS belief that, though they (the four) weren't all killed off, those who had the authority to perpetuate the Church, didn't have the authorization?

PacMan: Now it looks like youâ??re catching it. Thereâ??s actually 2 possibilities (as I see itâ?¦no references, sorry): 1) They were told NOT to, Then, logically, the Apostles were told "not to" by God at some point in the first century, so that they would stop appointing replacement Apostles, so that the succession of Apostles would end.

Bob: So, what you would have me believe is, Christ "perfectly established" His Church with all the offices and gifts for the building up of the Body, being the Head and Chief Cornerstone, saying the gates of Hades would never prevail against it, just so that within a few decades after Christ's ascension, God could tell the Apostles to stop appointing replacements, with the express purpose of allowing the Apostolic succession to come to a screeching halt, causing the alleged complete apostasy of authority and keys? Help me, if possible, make better sense out of this "possibility as you see it."

PacMan: 2) Understood and saw that they shouldnâ??t.

Bob: Understood what, and why?

PacMan: The blessings of the gospel are predicated on righteousness. When people remove themselves from the Lord, he canâ??t bless themâ??thatâ??d violate the terms of agency.

Bob: At which time the Lord may infringe on their agency, which you said the Lord never does. CFR on the "terms of agency."

PacMan: Theyâ??re left to their own failings unless they repent. Now, I donâ??t know what the conversation was like between them and the Lord, but the ultimate answer wasâ?¦itâ??s time to let it go, for a time.

Bob: You believe that, within about 50 years (give or take a decade or two), God told the Apostles to stop appointing replacement Apostles, because of the unrighteousness of that generation, and the blessings of the gospel were pulled from the earth for 1,700 years? What a predicament God put the lay members of Christ's Church in, by being responsible for the authority and keys to be taken from the earth, so that the Church could no longer function, as organized by Christ, for the building up of the body. So, not only did God ultimately cause the organization to stop functioning, he hung the lay members out to dry, they no longer being part of a Church that would build up every member, as Christ organized it.

PacMan: So, John simply didn't perpetuate the Church because he was being obedient to Christ, Who didn't authorize John and the Nephites to perpetuate His Church, though Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate?

Bob: Noâ?¦youâ??re backwards. He certainly was authorized to call new Apostles (that's what he did with Joseph Smith). But, back around the time of the "complete apostasy" John WAS authorized? I'm getting confused about the chronology of when John was and was not authorized to call new Apostles. Just above you agreed with me that the four were NOT authorized. Which is it?

PacMan: But because of the wickedness, they were taken (hidden) from the earth:

Bob: "Taken" or "taken from" and "hidden" are not synonyms. "Take" cannot be defined as "hide." Your definition appears contrived.

PacMan: 10 And there are none that do know the true God save it be the adisciples of Jesus, who did tarry in the land until the wickedness of the people was so great that the Lord would not suffer them to bremain with the people; and whether they be upon the face of the land no man knoweth.

Bob: At THAT point, yes, they were (apparently) â??unauthorizedâ? to continue the church. Again, I think the reason makes a great deal of senseâ?¦but we can talk about that later. You lost me. Verse 10 of where?

PacMan: So, what I hear you saying is, that what God permitted was not what He wanted.

Bob: Absolutely.

PacMan: If you have any doubt that he doesn't enjoy seeing His children kick themselves to hell, Iâ??m sure I can scrounge up a scripture.

Bob: I have lots of doubt. "Scrounge" away.

PacMan: So, although Christ organized His Church to self-perpetuate, God didn't permit the Church to self-perpetuate, even if that's what He wanted, but permitted the agency of the wickedness of men to trump what He wanted, and what He organized the Church to do (perpetuate)?

Bob: Againâ?¦if you want to play reducio game, we can. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, Iâ??d caveat that he â??organized His Church to be able to self-perpetuateâ? and â??God didnâ??t permit the Church to self-perpetuate thenâ?¦.â?1) I'm not playing reductio games, I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about. 2) I fail to see how God was not responsible for the demise of the Church, if He organized His Church to self-perpetuate, but didn't "permit" the Church to perpetuate. If God picks times of unrighteousness to withdraw His gospel, then we would rarely, if ever, have the gospel on the earth. When was there any time of a lengthy, sustained righteousness in the world. Certainly not the time that Christ came to earth. Your reasoning sound flawed in light of mans consistent history of unrighteousness. Even the rare times that Israel was on a spiritual upswing, the rest of the world was mostly unrighteous. You think that after the deaths of the Apostles, was an especially unrighteous time period, due to persecution? Then, by that standard, you should view the fourth century, when Constantinople made Christianity the religion of his empire, ending persecution and bringing peace to the beleagered Christians, as a time of righteousness.

PacMan: This is too little information. To which generation of idolatrous Hebrews are you referring?

Bob: A perfect example of tu quoque is the Hebrews, shortly after leaving Egypt. Recall, their whole purpose was to enter the promise land under the direction of Moses. The Lord TOLD them to, but because they got scarred, he told them NOT to, even though they were SUPPOSED to. Then Moses hit the blasted rock, and the Lord told him NOT to enter the promised land, even though He wanted him to before.The pronmise was, nevertheless, fulfilled with the next generation entering that promised land. God did not withdraw His promise, but withheld it from the generation of Moses. Ultimately He wanted His people freed from slavery and to enter into the promised land. His people were freed from slavery, and His people entered the promised land. It just happened that, due to unrighteousness, the children of Moses generation were the ones to enter the promised land. How is this example supposed to be similar to the time of the deaths of the Apostles?

PacMan: This idea that God would permit (yea, instruct) which is ultimately contrary to what He really wants is completely biblical.

Bob: True. But, I simply don't believe that the scenario which LDS believe regarding events following the deaths of the Apostles, is what actually happened. As you've presented it above, doesn't follow. Christ started His Church organization for the building up of the Body of believers, with all it's various parts (offices and gifts), just to decide in a few years that it wasn't having the desired affect in light of unrighteousness in the land, so He rendered it non-functional, removing the leadership, and leaving the non-leadership defenseless. I don't believe that's what happened at all.

PacMan: Do you think He wanted to see His son crucified? Of course not! But he instructed it to beâ?¦and He had His reasons.

Bob: Well, it certainly wasn't an afterthought. It was definitely anticipated. In Rev. 13:8, Christ is referred to as the Lamb Who was slain from the foundation of the world.

PacMan: Your take on Eph 2:19 are skewedâ?¦terribly.

Bob: Just as Christ does not need to be physically present in the world for the Church foundation to rest on Him as the Cornerstone, neither do the prophets and Apostles of old have to be present in the world for the Church to be built on them as the foundation.

PacMan: Again, youâ??re mixing paradigms. There is ONE Jesus Christ. There are many apostles and prophets. The foundation of the Church is STILL the living apostles and prophets, just as the foundation is STILL the living Christ.

Bob: PacMan, surely you're not telling me that the foundation of Christ's Church has to do with whether the Apostles were physically alive or dead. The foundation of Christ's Church, being built on the OT prophets and NT Apostles had to do with their respective prophecies and teachings, God using the Apostles to build the Church into a self-sustaining organism of believers, no matter where they are scattered around the World. They had the authority to build the Church through the evangelizm and doctrinal teachings, all focussed around Jesus Christ, the Head and Cornerstone. When they died, that foundation of preaching and teaching remained, being written down on whatever they wrote on, and also written on the hearts of those who remained after their deaths. The OT prophets prophesying regarding Christ, and the Apostles preaching and teaching remain today, being believed and practiced to this day. God's Church never went completely down, because God's Spirit has always been here, dwelling in believers. A remnant.

I will even say that there have always been prophets and apostles on the earth, but without the formal titles, yet operating in those gifts. They just don't go around saying, "I'm an apostle" or "I'm a Apostle George." But, by Greek definition of the function of those gifts of the Spirit, they function as prophets or apostles. The Greek for "apostle" is "one sent forth." But, every time Christian Churches send forth missionaries into the world, we don't title them, "Apostles." I operate in MY gifts of the Spirit, but don't go around giving myself the title of my gifts. I'm recognized as a shepherd at my Church, by function. Nobody calls me Shepherd Bob. I have administrative gifting. It's obvious to all who know me. I don't get called Administrator Bob.

I've known Christians who preach like John the Baptist, by Greek definition they preach like a prophet, which is "one who speaks forth or openly." They function in the operation of their gift as prophets, without the title or recognition. We're simply not that formal.

PacMan: The Chruch was built upon them then, and once they died the Church was STILL built upon them.

Bob: I reject that notion. What happens when you kill off the foundation of a house? How do you kill of the foundation of a house. Once the foundation is laid, it's permanent, and everyone knows this. Your analogy has no basis in reality. Building foundations, are not removed and replaced. Foundations are permanent, as long as they are solid and not built on sand.

PacMan: At the time of Ephesians, the foundation was alive and well (hence the remarkable present tense).

Bob: Foundations are permanent, thus they remain, and are not replaced (hence the remarkable present tense).

PacMan: With their deaths, the house came tumbling downâ?¦for a time.

Bob: Nonsense. Their foundation was not their physical presense, but the gospel and their teachings and doctrines.

PacMan: Now, we can talk the semantics of this until weâ??re blue in the faceâ?¦but you have very little ground to convince me otherwise. For your logic to be complete, youâ??re going to have to explain how Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas were NOT part of that foundationâ?¦that it was complete with the original 12

Bob: Quote me, PacMan. Where have I written anything remotely about the foundation being the original 12?

PacMan: Thatâ??s not the case, as we all know very well. The only thing we can conclude, is that the foundation doesnâ??t lie upon the original twelve but also those called in a succession for which there is precedence.

Bob: Only until the death of the last appointed Apostle. But, the foundation was laid, was permanent and remains without another Apostle being appointed.

PacMan: Thatâ??s not the common sense notion of how helpful itâ??d be to have representatives and special witnesses of Christ, leading us to the â??one Lord, one faith, one baptism,â? rather than let us flounder to find whether itâ??s with EVâ??s, Catholics, Jehovaâ??s Witnesses, LDS, etc., etc.

Bob: The most common sense "notion" is what the scriptures (specifically Paul) say about the foundation in 1 Cor. 3:10-11ff.

PacMan: But the part that you have most unfortunately skipped is Ephesians 4: 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Bob: So He established apostles, right? Why? For the perfecting of the saints, work of the ministry, and edifying of the body of Christ. Is that done? No!Correct. It's an ongoing process on an individual level, which affects the Church as a whole. Yet, perfection will not be achieved in this life, nor in the universal Church in any given generation. (After 177 years the LDS church, being led by so-called prophets and apostles, isn't perfected, is it?)

PacMan: And itâ??s evident that the apostles were meant to stick around for a long timeâ?¦.check out 13, â??till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of a knowledge of the Son of God.â?

Bob: Then why, according to your belief, did God allow the end of the succession of prophets and Apostles?

PacMan: Thereâ??s NO other way to understand it, no matter how creative you want to get with Ephesians 2.

Bob: Well, YOU certainly got creative with how portions of a foundation can be repeatedly removed and replaced. Ephesians 2:20-22 tells us how the Church is built, upon the prophets and apostles. And it indicates nothing like what your trying to suggest about a foundation being removed and replaced, removed and replaced. The foundation is permanent. That's logical and practical, both literally and figuratively. Nobody builds a building on a removable and replacable foundation. Why do you think Paul was inspired to use such an analogy? Because everyone knows about buildings and foundations. You need to be a lot LESS creative, and conform your theology to what the NT actually says and means. The "foundation" laid by Christ and the OT prophets and NT apostles, was never meant to be temporary or adjustable, but solid and permanent. And verse 14 tells you why. It's all about true doctrine. It's not adjustable. In fact that very foundation that Paul refers to, being about sound doctrine, being solid and unmovable and all foundation are, was meant to protect the faithful from people like Joseph Smith, who brought "new winds of doctrine."

PacMan: Now hereâ??s my question for you: Are we all united? Have we all a knowledge of the Son of God?

Bob: No, and no. But, according to YOUR theology, God "permitted" the end of the succession of prophets and Apostles. So, from YOUR theological standpoint, God was responsible for Apostles not being around long enough to achieve unity and knowledge of the Son. From a biblical perspective, the Church never ended, nor did it's authority, but as was foretold, there would be tares among the wheat, and wolves among the sheep. The goal was not then nor is now accomplished. But, who's in charge? Who's the head? Who's the Chief Cornerstone. I don't second guess the Lord about the results. I trust Him implicitly that Hiw will is yet to be accomplish HIS way, and timing.

PacMan: If you think the answers yes, live in China as I have and youâ??ll have an awakening to reality that unfortunately, the answer is no. And why are they so important? Check out 14. Apostles and prophets are meant to be around until we are unified, and we are not. Any other interpretation is wholly nonsensical.

Bob: Thank you for your opinion. Based on your nonsensical view of how a foundation functions, I'm not inclined to believe that you have your finger on the pulse of the truth.

PacMan: Scriptures in context are a bugger.

Bob: Aren't they though? Along with definitions of terms? Would you like to point out an example of a removable foundation?

[Bob Betts]

I've gone over this already with someone else. If you read it in context, it can only be prophesying the last day (yet to come), not the time following the deaths of the early Church Apostles. You've taken it out of context.

By your own logic, then there has to be a universal apostasy at some time.

In the book of the Revelation, there will be a point in the future (last days) when God will remove His Spirit from the earth. THEN there will be a complete apostasy.

But nowhere have you shown that this must not take place soon after the deaths of the original apostles.

Your church is the one making the claim. I believe the burden of proof is on you, if you're going to use Rev. 13-14, to demonstrate that that revelation is specifically about the post-apostolic age. The extensive details contained in those chapters, should fit nicely in the history right after the deaths of the Apostles.

On the other hand it is easily shown that the early Christians knew of and taught the impending universal apostasy. Shall I show you?

Are you telling me that after the Apostles all died, there was enough authority and knowledge for the remaining Christians to know the truth and teach it? Sure, I'd like to see that.

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. How does "forty and two months" of the beast speaking "great things and blasphemies" fit into the LDS belief in an apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles?

Obfuscation. This takes place before the overcomming of the saints.

Over-generalization. You can't just take such specific and extensive details of the Revelation which you think is about the post-apostolic apostasy, and just throw a generalization on them. If the revelation fits your post-apostolic apostasy of authority and keys, then those extensive details should have specific significance. Make them fit the post-apostolic scenario. You've got a beast speaking great things and blasphemies, with power given to him to continue forty and two months. So, make those details fit somewhere within the history of the second, third, or fourth centuries.

6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. Who is this beast who made war with the saints after the deaths of the Apostles, according to LDS belief, and what is the historical evidence for it?

More obfuscation. The saints were completely overcome.

More over-generalization. Can't you make the details of the Revelation fit into your post-apostolic apostasy scenario? If you think post-apostolic history so perfectly demonstrates a complete apostasy, then the details of Revelation 13 should fit like a hand in a glove. Who's the beast who made war with the saints and was given power over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations, in the history of the second, third, or fourth centuries? If the Revelation is talking about the same exact event, this should be easy for you.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So, who is this beast whom all the people worshipped, whose names are not written in the Lambs book of life? There are two people groups spoken of: those who worship the beast, and those who don't. After the deaths of the Apostels, was the whole world worshipping a beast? If so, who?

No, all you can get from that verse is that none of the names of all who were left on the earth were written in the book of life.

No, it does NOT say that. It says that all those who worshipped the beast, were those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life. That means that there ARE those left whose names are written in the book, who do NOT worship the beast. But, you haven't identified the beast. Who is the beast in the alleged post-apostolic apostasy which everyone worshipped, whose names are not in the book of life?

This matches quite well what was written in the Pastor of Hermas (considered scripture by Christians of the time) that the last chance to become part of the Church was nigh at hand, that the church to come would be inferior regarding salvation, until it was restored in the latter days.

The gnostic writings? Of what time are you speaking? What Christians? Good luck proving THIS to me. Why don't you stick with the Bible for now, since you're currently struggling with connecting the details of Revelation 13 to the alleged post-apostolic apostasy.

12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. So, the first beast had a deadly wound that was healed, and the second beast exercised the power of the first beast, to cause everyone to worship the first beast. How is any of this relevant to the alleged apostasy after the deaths of the Apostles. And, since the beast-worship was world-wide, why is there no mention of it in the BoM or D&C, since it certainly would have affected the ministries of John and the 3 Nephites.

The Apostasy of the early Christian Church is indeed mentioned in our other scriptures.

Uh-huh. Okay.

As for John and the Three, there is no constraint upon them to continue the earthly Church (especially since it was Bible predicted to fall).

No, now you're telling a different story, telling me that the four apostles continued the early Church, when others have told me they didn't.

Notice that the Church on this continent also fell away not long after (at best) the Church in the East.

Or, so the story goes.

But, you have now entirely strayed from connecting the details of Revelation 13 to the alleged post-apostolic apostasy (not that you HAVE been addressing the details). Until you demonstrate the details fit your apostasy story, instead of just generalizing a connection, there's no logical connection between the two.

[Bob Betts]

But that means that some church has preserved the original doctrines over the last 2000 years.

I disagree. I believe that God is the preserver the doctrines as we find them today in His written Word which he preserved.

There is no such Church and thus the need for the Bible predicted restitution of all things.

Hmmm. How do you even trust ANY of the Bible, if you believe that the canonization and the resulting canon, were in the hands of the Great and Abominable Church throughout the 1,700-year apostasy?

Only the LDS Church meets the doctrinal reuqirements as we are the only Christian Church whose doctrine the Bible does not conflict with.

The heresies of the trinity, creation ex nihilo, traducianism (aka original sin) sola fide, sola scirptura, OSAS, etc. etc. were not extant in the early Christian church and certainly not the Bible and yet these are the doctrines which nonLDS Christianity has created and preserved.

A completely false statement, and I have no time to get into all of it. Maybe over time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A completely false statement, and I have no time to get into all of it. Maybe over time.

That last part of BCSpace is an oversimplistic view. It is not completly false. Many churches believe in sola scriptura and OSAS.

And Im sure we will get into this on another thread. So far, Im glad your here. You arent preaching the hate speach, and you can at least carry on a conversation with out names. Unfortuantly I have seen many names flung your way. Glad you stuck around.

[owl]

People,

Bob is right that the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ exists in Heaven. The original 12, less Judas, are there, and they still have their authority, so the Church does exist in Heaven.

Furthermore, at the risk of putting words in his mouth, there is no hope of convincing him of a Great Apostacy between the time of Christ and the present as long as Bob believes that apostles, authority, a church organization, and revelation are not needed on earth. If he believes no organization is necessary on earth, how could there have been a complete apostacy. The words Universal and Apostasy are not found in any of the scriptures. Bob admits there have been wolves among the flock and a falling away, but thoughout this time, we have had the Scriptures, imperfect as they may be, and there have always been believers, misguided as some of them may have been. There has been continuous access to whatever truth can be found in the Bible, limited as access may have been before printing and before common people could read.

Now a couple questions that I think are related to the apostacy.

Bob

When Christ wooed me to Himself and saved me, I wasn't on a deliberate or serious hunt, seeking for Christ....Spiritually dead people don't have faith, and can only sin....until they're made alive in Christ.

I'm not trying to trip you up, but what makes you sure you are alive in Christ? Don't try to convince me. Just tell me what convinces you.

To LDS it is when we feel the burning in our hearts as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Also, why do ministers marry for time only when Peter was given power to bind on earth and have it be bound in Heaven? Adam and Eve were not married for time only since there was as yet no death when Eve became Adam's wife.

[consiglieri]

This is the post that will not end!

Oh, it goes on and on my friends.

I wish you guys would stop the arguing already.

I think Bob has proven he is much more erudite in LDS theology than the Marmons are.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[owl]

There was never a "complete" apostasy, in the sense I think you [bob] mean it.

We still have words of the apostles that were written in the Holy Bible.

We still have all the writings that we have in the Old Testament.

What we don't have are apostles... or at least we didn't until the priesthood of God was restored.

Without apostles there can be no unity, because it is the work of the apostles to bring us into unity.

... they are the general authorities with the authority to establish... and correct... local leaders.

The Great Apostasy was directly related to people turning away from the teachings of our Lord through his true apostles.

Without leadership over the whole church, the church became divided over matters of doctrine in which they were not in agreement.... they were not united.

Up to the sentence, "What we don't have is apostles." This seems to be saying just what I would think Bob can agree with, but the rest I would think Bob would just say is unnecessary since we have the words of the apostles in the Bible.

[Zemah]

This is the post that will not end!

Oh, it goes on and on my friends.

I wish you guys would stop the arguing already.

I think Bob has proven he is much more erudite in LDS theology than the Mormons are.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Can anyone argue against the fact that no other church except the LDS Church has living revelation from heaven, which has produced new scripture?

Can anyone argue against the fact that only the LDS Church has the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood?

This is the third time on this thread that I have raised these questions as evidence of the Apostasy.

I guess there really is no rebuttal to the truth.

The Restoration is real because the Apostasy is real.

But even to this day the Spirit continues to be denied while the blind are leading the blind, the deaf speak to the deaf, and the silence creates an earsplitting noise.

Zemah

[owl]

Quote of BCSpace "One certainly can have the promise of future salvation though. The Bible testifies that one is not saved until after it is determined that you have endured to the end (Matthew 24:13 etc.)"

A verse not to be taken out of context with all other salvation-related scriptures, as if this is the only verse on the subject. If you exclude all other salvation-related scriptures, sure you'll assume that salvation isn't assured until such a determination of enduring to the end. But, if you include this verse with all other salvation-related scriptures, and in context, then enduring to the end is one of several expectations on those who already have been saved, along with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing the will of the Father, etc. These things all demonstrate that one really HAS been saved, not that they won't be saved until they do those things. Salvation is secured to those who have been saved, unless they prove they weren't really saved by NOT fulfilling the expectations of the Christian life. This is precisely what James was talking about in his letter, chapter 2:14ff. Faith without works is dead faith. A faith that IS alive in Christ WILL be a saved life of good works, of loving God and neighbor, and enduring to the end.

Bob,

The difference in this area between LDS and Evangelicals seems very slight. We believe that Faith and repentance are both necessary, and that if a believer has completely repented, his life will become free of sin and filled with good works. You apparently, if I understood correctly, believe that when one accepts Christ as his individual Savior a mighty change is wrought, and he has no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually. Therefore, his life becomes filled with good works.

Actually the concept I attributed to the evangelicals is very LDS, it is just that while we believe such a mighty change is a gift from God, the gift is only given after all we can do.

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

Here are a few bits of information you may find to be useful:

God never takes away our agency. He simply expects us to face the consequences of our own choices.

For example, if someone doesn't choose to meet the qualifications for receiving the keys of the kingdom that can be given by God, that person isn't receiving them because he has chosen not to qualify for receiving them. And even if the whole church falls into apostasy as a result of that person not receiving the keys of the kingdom so that he can then pass them on to other people, it isn't God's fault if the Church falls into apostasy. It is the fault of the person who doesn't qualify to receive the keys and then pass them on to other people.

Bob: ... the cessation of the succession of Apostles resulted in an apostasy of priesthood keys and authority, and that couldn't happen today (barring something catastrophic, as I understand).

Pretty close.

People need to continue to receive the keys of the kingdom from people who have them and are authorized to give them to other people, otherwise there will be an end to the succession of the people who have the keys of the kingdom.

... and just because people may know of people who had them and what they did when they had them doesn't mean they also have them to work with.

They must be given to people by the people who have them and are authorized to give them to other people.

So, it could still conceivably happen today if nobody qualified to receive the keys of the kingdom OR the apostles were no longer authorized to pass them on to other people.

God can't force anybody to choose to receive his blessings which are predicated upon principles of righteousness. The keys of the power of God will never be given to wicked and/or apostate people.

Bob: So, what you would have me believe is, Christ "perfectly established" His Church with all the offices and gifts for the building up of the Body, being the Head and Chief Cornerstone, saying the gates of Hades would never prevail against it, just so that within a few decades after Christ's ascension, God could tell the Apostles to stop appointing replacements, with the express purpose of allowing the Apostolic succession to come to a screeching halt, causing the alleged complete apostasy of authority and keys? Help me, if possible, make better sense out of this "possibility as you see it."

Imagine this: It could have continued if the members of the church had simply followed all of the apostles's teachings. It didn't because, perhaps, they didn't OR God chose to wait until a better time for the world to receive them.

How long of a time do you think the Church needed to be reformed/restored before the Reformation/Restoration movement(s) ???

PacMan: 2) Understood and saw that they shouldnâ??t.

Bob: Understood what, and why?

... that you don't hand over the keys of God's kingdom to people who are unworthy to receive them.

People actually have to do something to qualify to be worthy to receive God's blessings, because God won't give His power to people who would misuse it and/or use it unrighteously.

Bob: You believe that, within about 50 years (give or take a decade or two), God told the Apostles to stop appointing replacement Apostles, because of the unrighteousness of that generation, and the blessings of the gospel were pulled from the earth for 1,700 years? What a predicament God put the lay members of Christ's Church in, by being responsible for the authority and keys to be taken from the earth, so that the Church could no longer function, as organized by Christ, for the building up of the body. So, not only did God ultimately cause the organization to stop functioning, he hung the lay members out to dry, they no longer being part of a Church that would build up every member, as Christ organized it.

There you go blaming God again for the fact that other people chose to NOT follow God.

Assign the blame to the guilty parties, please.

Bob: Your reasoning sound flawed in light of mans consistent history of unrighteousness. Even the rare times that Israel was on a spiritual upswing, the rest of the world was mostly unrighteous. You think that after the deaths of the Apostles, was an especially unrighteous time period, due to persecution? Then, by that standard, you should view the fourth century, when Constantinople made Christianity the religion of his empire, ending persecution and bringing peace to the beleagered Christians, as a time of righteousness.

What makes you think the Christianity of Constantine's empire was the true form of Christianity?

Try reading some more books about that period of history while asking God to enlighten you.

Bob: Just as Christ does not need to be physically present in the world for the Church foundation to rest on Him as the Cornerstone, neither do the prophets and Apostles of old have to be present in the world for the Church to be built on them as the foundation.

Look at what a mess with only deceased apostles guiding the Church.

... from the perspecive of people who don't realize there are apostles now living among us as mortals who are guiding the church of Christ as in former days.

If the words of deceased apostles are enough to unify those of us who are still on this Earth, why isn't there unity in all of Christendom right now?

Even a 14 year old boy was capable of noticing all of the confusion.

Bob: PacMan, surely you're not telling me that the foundation of Christ's Church has to do with whether the Apostles were physically alive or dead.

Try thinking of the apostles as the pillars of the church of Christ, and the church of Christ as a living building (and/or organization) of people who follow Christ while living on this Earth as mortal people.

When an apostle dies, or is removed, what makes you think the pillar is still supporting the building?

... the organization of those of us who are now mortals who are now living on this Earth?

I know the pillars usually last a while, and I know they leave remains or indications of what they once stood for, but they eventually need to be replaced by other pillars just as Matthias replaced the pillar of Judas Iscariot and Paul was needed to guide the churches he wrote to and visited.

The foundation of Christ's Church, being built on the OT prophets and NT Apostles had to do with their respective prophecies and teachings, God using the Apostles to build the Church into a self-sustaining organism of believers, no matter where they are scattered around the World. They had the authority to build the Church through the evangelizm and doctrinal teachings, all focussed around Jesus Christ, the Head and Cornerstone. When they died, that foundation of preaching and teaching remained, being written down on whatever they wrote on, and also written on the hearts of those who remained after their deaths.

That's your opinion. Why should I think you speak for God?

I think you're trying to put the puzzle together without having all of the pieces.

... and I believe God is capable of helping me put it together, without you.

The OT prophets prophesying regarding Christ, and the Apostles preaching and teaching remain today, being believed and practiced to this day.

Consider how far off the mark the church (or people of God) were at the time of our Lord's mortal ministry.

They still had the writings of many past prophets, and they still had some form of organizational structure, but they were way off the mark on quite a few issues.

Many of them didn't even know who was God when he was right there in front of them doing miracles.

God's Church never went completely down, because God's Spirit has always been here, dwelling in believers. A remnant.

Yes, a remnant. Try putting the whole puzzle together with only a remnant.

Now try to do it, again, a little differently, without knowing how they should be put together.

That's where you are, right now, I believe.

Try again.

Bob: I reject that notion. What happens when you kill off the foundation of a house? How do you kill of the foundation of a house. Once the foundation is laid, it's permanent, and everyone knows this.

Try thinking of the foundation as a set of pillars that eventually give out over time and which then need to be replaced by new pillars... at least in regards to the church that is now among mortals on this Earth.

The church of Christ is a living, building, organization of people, and the components of the living building eventually wear out or simply go somewhere else.

...

I think that's enough for now. I hope you will seriously consider everything I have told you.

[Bob Betts]

We are a product of our own choices and God will never force us, or anyone else, to do anything.

This may be what your church teaches, but it's not supported in the Bible. Not that God will force us to do anything, but that we are simply products of our own choices. It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness.

Actually, it WAS because of their own choices. Notice the princple found in Jeremiah 18:1-10. God actually responds to the choices we make therefore we are indeed the products of our own choices as the Bible says.

Actually, Jeremiah proves MY point. While God, in His mercy, will relent from destroying an evil kingdom if that kingdom repents, if that kingdom does NOT repent, God may override the agency of those evil people of that kingdom and destroy that kingdom's inhabitants.

As I stated above: "It was not the choice of the people in Noah's day, or of Lot's day, that they be destroyed from the earth because of their unrighteousness." Nor would it be the choice of that kingdom of evil people to be destroyed, if they could use their agency to prevent God's destruction of them. But, they cannot prevent their own destruction, by exercizing their agency, if God chooses to destroy them because of their evil, because God can and will infringe on their agency, and destroy them against their will.

Man has limited agency. The limited agency man has, is given by God, and God can infringe on their agency and destroy them for their evil at will.

You will find no passage in the Bible, where man's agency trumps God's agency, because He can't infringe on man's agency. God is ultimately in control here. Infringement on our agency, is within the agency of God.

The LDS belief that God cannot infringe on our agency, is not biblical.

[Paul Ray]

Up to the sentence, "What we don't have is apostles." This seems to be saying just what I would think Bob can agree with, but the rest I would think Bob would just say is unnecessary since we have the words of the apostles in the Bible.

The words of deceased apostles are good, but that doesn't mean we no longer have a need for the words of living apostles who are capable of providing continual guidance to other members of the Church they live among.

Bob does seem to be satisfied with deceased apostles, and deceased apostles only.

I am thankful we have apostles now living among us giving us additional guidance from our Lord.

[owl]

We must be reading different Bibles. Eph. 2:9 in my Bible says, "not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

And, BTW, here's your LDS definition of "grace" taken from lds.scripture.org: So, in Mormonism, grace is not the unmerited or undeserved favor from God as in the Greek definition, but it must be earned.

Bob,

You misinterpret our LDS definition of Grace. Grace can never be earned, and it is a free gift. We believe all men are unprofitable servants, and that when we do anything good, God immediately blesses us, so we can never build an account with Him to earn Grace.

Do you believe that a sinful man can just listen to the word of God, and say in his heart , "Jesus save me," and his life will turn around with no further effort on his part?

[Bob Betts]

Hell, therefore, is the fruit of what we have chosen to accept, and reject.

Before Christ saves anyone, they are dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Therefore, what good can someone do who is spiritually dead? The only fruit that spiritually dead people can produce is dead fruit. Until we are made alive in Christ, and the HG indwells us, we cannot produce good, living fruit. Spiritually dead people don't do works that are pleasing to God. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Spiritually dead people don't have faith, and can only sin. That's their only agency...to sin...until they're made alive in Christ.

I don't think any LDS person would disagree here (except for the EV concept of indwelling). But how does this not make hell the fruit of our actions? Such fruit certainly seems dead to me!

I wasn't addressing the concept that hell is the fruit of our choices. I was addressing the concept that no one can make right choices that are of faith and pleasing to God, until God makes him alive. Until God makes him alive, he can only produce dead fruit. He's dead in his trespasses and sins. As long as he's dead in his trespasses and sins, he will not make good choices or do good works. The ability to make good choice and do good works, depends first on God making the person alive in Christ. Then the good works that the person will do are the works which God has prepared for that person to do before the foundation of the world (Eph. 2:1-10).

So, you simply misunderstood that I wasn't addressing his whole sentence. Just the second half of it.

[owl]

I agree with you, Bob. Grace cannot be earned.

Well said, sorry I hadn't read further before I stuck in my oar.

[Bob Betts]

God's will and agency trumps man's whenever He chooses. God's the boss of our agency. When Christ wooed me to Himself and saved me, I wasn't on a deliberate or serious hunt, seeking for Christ.

This would seem to violate John 6:44. God entices us, He does not force us.

No, my above testimony perfectly fits John 6:44. You just used a different word to say the same thing I did. God enticed me. He wooed me. He made Himself appealing to me so that I would choose Him. He didn't force me. He did override my choices, but not by force. Prior to wooing or enticing me, I chose to be an agnostic in by beliefs, while researching the atheistic beliefs. By enticing me, by making Himself appealing to me, He helped me change my perspective of Him, AND subsequently my choices.

True that God can override our choices forcefully,

Good. This is what I've been saying. But you just contradicted PacMan who earlier told me that God cannot infringe on our agency.

but that does not change the fact that we still chose to do it in the first place.

If God did not choose to lovingly entice me, making Himself appealing to me in ways I would accept, then I would not have chosen Him "in the first place." He chose ME in the first place, evident by the wooing and appealing. John 15:16 (Jesus said) "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

[Bob Betts]

Paul, you're next on my list of responses, but I have to log off now. I'll be back ASAP.

[Bob Betts]

Wow Paul, I just noticed how you arranged my response to PacMan to be more readable. Thank you for that. That was very kind and thoughtful.

Talk to you later.

[PacMan]

Okay, I did as you suggested, cutting half of the post off and reposting the original first half, and it didn't change a thing. So, I went back in, pasted the cut portion back in, and I'm back to square one.

Sorry.

Sorry...when I said repost, I meant post anew, not going back and editing it. Make two brand spank'n new posts. There's a point where it WILL work...just maybe not right at half-way.

Thanks,

PacMan

And thanks for the try Paul. Problem is that the quotes are often him answering my answer that included his quote, which include mine. That's the complication.