Vance Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 I would appreciate it if folks would stop derailing the thread with the Servetus issue. No Calvinist today agrees with the way that situation was handled, and it has no bearing on the theological issue at hand.?????So you are saying that Calvin's questionable character has no relevance to the theology he developed?
Vance Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Argument by derision is neither respectful nor persuasive.Oh the irony!
Vance Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 The problem is only exacerbated by adding the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, in addition to the teachings of the "living prophets." On the contrary, more witnesses reduce the problems of interpretation.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 thesometimesaint,You wrote:Not necessarity. Prophets have always had the reponsibility of interpreting and adding to Scriture....This statement has nothing to do with my point, which is that interpretation is inevitable. Having more revelation does not mean having less interpretation to do; it always means having more interpretation to do. Furthermore, when the new "revelations" are contradictory to the older revelations and even to each other, the task of interpretation becomes far more problematic.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Steve,You wrote:We deny that we should pray to Christ because we believe that Christ has directed us to pray to the same person He prays to. How many times does that need to be explained? You're criticizing us for obeying what we believe to be a commandment from the Savior. That's ridiculous.No, Steve. You need to show, not that Christ commanded us to pray to the Father (with which I agree) but that Christ commanded us to pray ONLY to the Father and therefore NOT to him (with which I disagree).You wrote:Once again, I don't believe there is any part of the Bible that teaches us to pray to Christ. I believe it teaches the opposite, and that this teaching has been clarified and reinforced in modern revelation. Just as we come unto the Father to eternal life through Jesus Christ, we also come to the Father in prayer through Jesus Christ. It's perfectly consistent. Everything is done through Christ.See above. A command to pray to the Father is not a command NOT to pray to Christ.Regarding John 14:14, you wrote:Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Clearly, there are several scholars who diasgree with you from what I've read.That fact proves nothing. There are a whole lot more scholars who disagree with you. The issue is what the evidence shows, and an appeal to scholarly authority is irrelevant to answering that question.You wrote:1 Chron. 16:8 says: "Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people."Seems to be another example where the KJV and other older translations disagree with newer ones. Are we to call upon the Lord's name, or call upon the Lord in His name? The latter still seems more inconsistent with other parts of the Bible. As for Ps. 54:1, the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, American Standard Version, God's Word Translation, Darby Bible Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation ALL say "by thy/your name," not "in your name." Exactly which Bible translation are you using?I was referring to the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament that was commonly used by first-century Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. The expression in 1 Chronicles 16:8 in Greek is en onomati autou, "in/by your name" -- the same expression commonly translated "in your name" in the New Testament. Psalm 54:1 (53:3 LXX) uses the same expression with the definite article tw, "the," en tw onomati autou.Regarding Acts 1:24-25, you wrote:That's interesting, because in Acts 4:29-39 they use the same word for Lord (Greek kurios), yet they are clearly praying to the Father, since "thy holy child Jesus" is referred to. I still see no indication that Christ is the "Lord" they are praying to in Acts 1.Your comment here ignores the three reasons I gave for concluding that "Lord" in Acts 1:24-25 refers to Jesus. I specifically commented on the fact that yes, in some places in Acts "Lord" refers to the Father. This isn't one of those places, for the reasons I gave.You wrote:It is correct that the power of the Lord is also the power of Christ, since the Father and the Son are one God. That doesn't mean he was praying to Christ, though. Once again, there are many scholars who disagree with you.CFR.Regarding Revelation 22:20-21, you wrote:Once again, I don't see this as a formal prayer, merely as a simple statement.You must be getting tired. Once again, your comment ignores the evidence presented to you.You wrote:Sorry, Rob, but I'm unconvinced. I still don't believe any part of the Bible shows Jesus being prayed to, or commanding that we should pray to Him. He always commands that we pray to the same person that He prays to: His Father. Remember that LDS doctrine is not drawn from the Bible, anyway (though it is completely consistent with it). It is modern revelation that is the rock upon which the Church is built. Whether Christ was prayed to in the past is irrelevant. We have been instructed by latter-day prophets and scripture to pray to the Father, always, and we Latter-day Saints will continue to do so until God has specifically directed otherwise.Finally, the modern revelation trump card comes out, as it always must. Next time, save yourself and me some trouble and just lead from your trump suit.
shalamabobbi Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Finally, the modern revelation trump card comes out, as it always must.from post #531, Evangelical's Highest Authority...No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.
zerinus Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 No, Steve. You need to show, not that Christ commanded us to pray to the Father (with which I agree) but that Christ commanded us to pray ONLY to the Father and therefore NOT to him (with which I disagree).See above. A command to pray to the Father is not a command NOT to pray to Christ.If we accept that in the Lord's Prayer Jesus established the general guideline on how to pray (which I believe the context demands), then the inevitable conclusion is that addressing prayers to the Father would be the commonest and most frequent way of offering prayers--while at the same time not ruling out prayer to the Son. Well, that is what we observe in the LDS Church. The LDS Church does not categorically rule out praying to Jesus (at least in personal and private prayers), but simply establishes that praying to the Father is the norm that should be followed (especially in public prayers), while at the same time not making it mandatory against addressing prayers to the Son.
Zakuska Posted October 30, 2011 Author Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Back to the OP of the thread...Apparently Paul didn't think grace was irresistable...Romans 13:22 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Edited October 30, 2011 by Zakuska
zerinus Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Back to the OP of the thread...Apparently Paul didn't think grace was irresistable...Romans 13:22 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.By "the power" he means the political power, or the civil power of the Roman government. In other words, by "resisting the power" he means rebelling against the civil or government authority, by breaking the law.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 zerinus,The problem with your argument is that the Lord's Prayer does not even include anything like praying "in Jesus' name." Yet Mormons include such a clause in their prayers on a regular basis. Jesus gave the Lord's Prayer to his disciples before he rose from the dead and sat at the Father's right hand--before the disciples had come to know Jesus as the divine Son, as the Lord God incarnate. Only on the night before his death did Jesus explain in detail his relationship to the Father and the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both he and the Father (John 14-17). It was in that context that Jesus first said anything about praying to him (John 14:14).The Lord's Prayer had a very specific purpose. It taught the disciples what sort of prayers to make, what the priorities of prayer were to be, so that they would not fall into the errors common to their culture. To read the Lord's Prayer as negating something the rest of the NT exemplifies repeatedly is to misunderstand its purpose.I'm curious about your distinction between public and private prayers. Have LDS prophets or apostles made this sort of argument?If we accept that in the Lord's Prayer Jesus established the general guideline on how to pray (which I believe the context demands), then the inevitable conclusion is that addressing prayers to the Father would be the commonest and most frequent way of offering prayers--while at the same time not ruling out prayer to the Son. Well, that is what we observe in the LDS Church. The LDS Church does not categorically rule out praying to Jesus (at least in personal and private prayers), but simply establishes that praying to the Father is the norm that should be followed (especially in public prayers), while at the same time not making it mandatory against addressing prayers to the Son.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Zakuska,The Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace" simply cannot be refuted by citing texts in which people in various contexts resist God's will, purpose, love, gospel, etc. The doctrine simply means that in one very specific context, that of God bringing individuals from darkness to light, from death to life, what he does to effect that change succeeds.Back to the OP of the thread...Apparently Paul didn't think grace was irresistable...Romans 13:22 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 shalamabobbi,If you're trying to suggest that I contradicted myself, you're mistaken. I believe in revelation, but I reject the claim that modern revelation trumps the revelation in the Bible.from post #531, Evangelical's Highest Authority...
CV75 Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 I believe in revelation, but I reject the claim that modern revelation trumps the revelation in the Bible.Please give an example of modern revelation.
Rob Bowman Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 CV75,You wrote:Please give an example of modern revelation.Why? I didn't say that I believe in modern revelation, at least not in the sense you do. I said that I believe in revelation. If there is modern revelation, it cannot trump biblical revelation. That was my point. I don't happen to think that any of the modern texts that claim to be revelation -- such as the LDS scriptures or Science and Health -- are genuine revelation from God.
CV75 Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 I didn't say that I believe in modern revelation, at least not in the sense you do. I said that I believe in revelation. If there is modern revelation, it cannot trump biblical revelation. That was my point. I don't happen to think that any of the modern texts that claim to be revelation -- such as the LDS scriptures or Science and Health -- are genuine revelation from God.Biblical revelation is divine revelation that occurred in biblical times and is identifiable in today's Bible publications. When do you think that divine revelation ceased so as to prevent any such thing as modern divine revelation, or for revelations to be absent from any document other than the Bible?
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 Rob Bowman:Since Prophets have the God given responsibility of interpreting Scripture. Then that interpretation is the responsibity of that God chosen Prophet. Further as we obviously still have need of Prophets of God then any interpretation they give is from God.
zerinus Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) The problem with your argument is that the Lord's Prayer does not even include anything like praying "in Jesus' name." Yet Mormons include such a clause in their prayers on a regular basis.That is a diversion. The truth is that we don't offer the Lord's Prayer verbatim at all. But that is a different issue from the fact that the Lord's Prayer establishes a general guideline of addressing our prayers to the Father, which LDS follow.Jesus gave the Lord's Prayer to his disciples before he rose from the dead and sat at the Father's right hand--before the disciples had come to know Jesus as the divine Son, as the Lord God incarnate.He gave the Sermon on the Mount before He rose from the dead too; that doesn't make it obsolete. Only on the night before his death did Jesus explain in detail his relationship to the Father and the relationship of the Holy Spirit to both he and the Father (John 14-17). It was in that context that Jesus first said anything about praying to him (John 14:14).It was on that night also that Jesus promised His disciples that He would send them the Comforter, who would bring to their remembrance the things that He had previously taught them. Why should that be, if those prior teachings were not to be followed strictly after His resurrection?The Lord's Prayer had a very specific purpose. It taught the disciples what sort of prayers to make, what the priorities of prayer were to be, so that they would not fall into the errors common to their culture. To read the Lord's Prayer as negating something the rest of the NT exemplifies repeatedly is to misunderstand its purpose.There is no negation. It establishes the norm, without ruling out prayers to Christ as an exception to the rule.I'm curious about your distinction between public and private prayers. Have LDS prophets or apostles made this sort of argument?Public prayers are more formal, in which the "norm" is more apt to be followed rather than private prayers. If we accept the Lord's Prayer as establishing a pattern for the norm, then that pattern is likely to be more strictly adhered to in public than in private prayers. Edited October 31, 2011 by zerinus
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 from post #531, Evangelical's Highest Authority...Different thread, different side of the argument.
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 If there is modern revelation, it cannot trump biblical revelation.So the Bible (or at least your intrepretation of it) trumps God.We get it.
shalamabobbi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 post #55Finally, the modern revelation trump card comes out..post #531, Evangelical's Highest Authority..No again. I have always insisted that I do believe in revelation.post #64:Why? I didn't say that I believe in modern revelation..post #62:If you're trying to suggest that I contradicted myself, you're mistaken.
Bernard Gui Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) I would appreciate it if folks would stop derailing the thread with the Servetus issue. No Calvinist today agrees with the way that situation was handled, and it has no bearing on the theological issue at hand.Are you as forgiving of Joseph's and Brigham's supposed indiscretions? Did the way theymay have handled situations bear on their theology?Bernard Edited October 31, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Zakuska,The Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace" simply cannot be refuted by citing texts in which people in various contexts resist God's will, purpose, love, gospel, etc. The doctrine simply means that in one very specific context, that of God bringing individuals from darkness to light, from death to life, what he does to effect that change succeeds.1. Do the individuals do anything to deserve being brought to light? My understanding of CVNSM: no.2. Can an individual decline the invitation to be brought to life? My understanding of CVNSM: no3. Does God ever fail to make the change succeed? My understanding of CVNSM: noBernardPS: I get headaches when Calvinism is discussed. From my experience, Calvinists do not agreeamong themselves exactly what Calvinism is. And when you ask, they tell you to read some books. Edited October 31, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 CV75,You wrote:Why? I didn't say that I believe in modern revelation, at least not in the sense you do. I said that I believe in revelation. If there is modern revelation, it cannot trump biblical revelation. That was my point. Is there modern revelation? Who has received it?Bernard
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 CV75,You wrote:Biblical revelation is divine revelation that occurred in biblical times and is identifiable in today's Bible publications. When do you think that divine revelation ceased so as to prevent any such thing as modern divine revelation, or for revelations to be absent from any document other than the Bible?I think that divine revelation (of the sort that would include the production of new scripture) ceased when the apostles of the first century passed away, around AD 100 or so. And so do you. The only difference between us, in a sense, is that you believe this cessation of new revelation lasted for about 1700 years and I think it has lasted for about 1900 years (so far).My position is not that God is unable to inspire new revelations. He could do so at any time of his choosing. I don't happen to think that we have any basis for expecting new scriptures prior to the Second Coming, but I'm not precluding the possibility a priori. I also am convinced that God has not inspired any new scriptures since about AD 100, and that all of the purported long-lost scriptures various persons have claimed to find are fraudulent. Alleged new scriptures produced after the passing of the NT apostles include the Qur'an, Science and Health, Doctrine & Covenants, Oahspe, and A Course in Miracles. Alleged rediscovered ancient scriptures include the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, the Life of Issa, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Archko Volume, the Book of Jasher, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. I view all of these books as belonging in the same category: they are all false scriptures. I don't make that statement on the basis of blind dogmatism that refuses to consider evidence supporting such writings, although I do place the burden of proof on those who defend these books as scriptures. Rather, as I examine each of these texts, I find evidence that convinces me that they are not what they claim to be. I also see some patterns, including the fact that there has been a veritable flood of new and supposedly rediscovered ancient scriptures in the past two centuries (all of the above mentioned texts, except the Qur'an and the Book of Jasher, appeared since 1800). I am not embarrassed by the fact that I view such texts as false revelations. Nor will it work to characterize me as being unwilling to hear anything new God might choose to reveal; after all, you would not accept most of these supposed revelations as being from God, either. It is simply my sincere belief and conviction that none of them is really from God.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 thesometimesaint,You wrote:Since Prophets have the God given responsibility of interpreting Scripture. Then that interpretation is the responsibity of that God chosen Prophet. Further as we obviously still have need of Prophets of God then any interpretation they give is from God.The fact is that each person interprets the modern Prophet's statements. You listen to the Prophet, and you understand him to be saying something. Your understanding may not be exactly the same as another Mormon's understanding. You are both interpreting him. Again, interpretation is inevitable.
Recommended Posts