Once Saved Always Saved ?

[Calm]

"Tell me what's jerky about anything I've said"

Using the word "pretend" to describe their process of interpretation for one thing.

[Bobbieaware]

Please quote for me where Paul states, "they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church?"

You surely remember where Paul said living apostles and prophets were at the foundation of the church's organization of his day, and where He also said no member of the body of Christ can say to any of the other members of the body that they have no need of the other members? And be sure to keep in mind Paul said all these things at a time when living apostles and prophets were present in the Church, and according to Paul's own word at the foundation and at the helm of the Church's highest council of leadership.

[Bobbieaware]

"Tell me what's jerky about anything I've said"

Using the word "pretend" to describe their process of interpretation for one thing.

I believe most knowledgable non-LDS Christians know full well they are contradicting the plain meaning of Paul's repeatedly expressed counsel when he testifies that the Church of Christ cannot exist without living apostles and prophets at the helm of leadership. And I believe many of these folks realize they are contradicting Paul when they make that assertion, but they have no choice but to ignore Paul's clear meaning because they might otherwise have to admit the Latter-day Saints are at least trying to have a church modelled after the New Testament Church organization. Any thinking person would have to ignore Paul or be compelled to admit their churches bear little resemblance to the New Testament era church.

As an aside, I believe non-LDS Christians could rightly say the Latter-day Saints largely ignore some portions of New Testament teaching as well. So to some extent we're even. We're still a relatively young religion and there's still much to learn.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

"I believe most knowledgable non-LDS Christians know full well they are contradicting the plain meaning of Paul's repeatedly expressed counsel..."

 

And I personally think it is inappropriate to engage in mindreading and making claims about what people really believe that contradicts what they state for themselves.

[Okrahomer]

"I believe most knowledgable non-LDS Christians know full well they are contradicting the plain meaning of Paul's repeatedly expressed counsel..."

 

And I personally think it is inappropriate to engage in mindreading and making claims about what people really believe that contradicts what they state for themselves.

Amen!! Thanks to both you and Bluebell for pointing this out in in such kind and charitable language.

[Bobbieaware]

"I believe most knowledgable non-LDS Christians know full well they are contradicting the plain meaning of Paul's repeatedly expressed counsel..."

And I personally think it is inappropriate to engage in mindreading and making claims about what people really believe that contradicts what they state for themselves.

I hope you will excuse me when I say I sincerely believe Paul's language is unambiguous on the principle of living apostles and prophets being essential in order for there to be a true church of Christ. In light of the plain meaning of Paul's words, I believe there are three possibilities beside believing what Paul said: 1) ignoring what he said, 2) being ignorant of what he said, 3) being unable to understand what he said. When in his own day Paul instructed the saints that no living member of the body of Christ (the church) can say to the other living members (most especially including the apostles and prophets who were at the head), "I have no need of thee," there is no reasonable excuse to not be able to understand the plain meaning of those words other than ignorance or an inability to understand. That is my considered opinion.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

I believe you believe that and would never think to claim that you don't.  

[danielwoods]

You surely remember where Paul said living apostles and prophets were at the foundation of the church's organization of his day, and where He also said no member of the body of Christ can say to any of the other members of the body that they have no need of the other members? And be sure to keep in mind Paul said all these things at a time when living apostles and prophets were present in the Church, and according to Paul's own word at the foundation and at the helm of the Church's highest council of leadership.

 

It's so plain that you can't even find where Paul states this. Oh well. Not holding my breath, since Paul didn't say it. 

 

Please quote for me where Paul states, "they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church?"

[Bobbieaware]

It's so plain that you can't even find where Paul states this. Oh well. Not holding my breath, since Paul didn't say it.

Please quote for me where Paul states, "they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church?"

You most certainly know full well that in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul instructs the saints that no member of the body of Christ (the Church) can ever say to any of the other members of the body -- most especially the living apostles and prophets who stand at the head of the church -- that "I have no need of thee." When Paul carefully estanlishes the doctrine that no member of the church will ever be able to say in righteousness that living apostles and prophets are unneeded in the church, it is just another way of saying "there will never come a time when you will have the right to eliminate the living apostles and prophets who stand at the head of the church." The fact that living apostles and prophets were eliminated from the church organization stands as prima facie evidence that Paul's unambiguous instructions were ignored.

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. (1Corinthians 12)

and...

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12)

Edited June 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

Are we playing games now? By IGNORING the obvious (in my post I clearly referenced Paul's teachings on the body of Christ) you are helping to prove valid the very point I made that Calmoriah holds in dispute. You most certainly know full well that in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul instructs the saints that no member of the body of Christ (the Church) can ever say to any of the other members of the body -- most especially the living apostles and prophets who stand at the head of the church -- that "I have no need of thee." When Paul carefully estanlishes the doctrine that no member of the church will ever be able to say in righteousness that living apostles and prophets are unneeded in the church is just another way of saying "there will never come a time when you will have the right to eliminate the living apostles and prophets who stand at the head of the church." The fact that living apostles and prophets were eliminated from the church organization stands as prima facie evidence that Paul's unambiguous instructions were ignored.

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. (1Corinthians 12)

and...

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12)

 

Since what you quoted doesn't say what you claimed. Let's focus just on the office of Apostle, because even though you don't acknowledge it, there are prophets in evangelical circles.

What is an Apostle? In Acts 1 we read the requirements to be an Apostle. 

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

So, the claim you are making about Paul stating that ""they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church" is clearly false. Paul never said this. Apostles were used to establish the church and after that the office of Apostle no longer existed because the Church was established (the foundation was built), and because those who fit those criteria died. 

 

So, based on the fact that we disagree about what Paul said, does this mean that I'm ignoring his words? Of course not. Your claim is just wrong. Your quote of Paul isn't even from Paul. I don't know where you get the concept that "Living Apostles must lead the Church", but it's not from the NT. 

[Bobbieaware]

Since what you quoted doesn't say what you claimed. Let's focus just on the office of Apostle, because even though you don't acknowledge it, there are prophets in evangelical circles.

What is an Apostle? In Acts 1 we read the requirements to be an Apostle.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

So, the claim you are making about Paul stating that ""they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church" is clearly false. Paul never said this. Apostles were used to establish the church and after that the office of Apostle no longer existed because the Church was established (the foundation was built), and because those who fit those criteria died.

So, based on the fact that we disagree about what Paul said, does this mean that I'm ignoring his words? Of course not. Your claim is just wrong. Your quote of Paul isn't even from Paul. I don't know where you get the concept that "Living Apostles must lead the Church", but it's not from the NT.

I'm not at all surprised by this because you have consistently demonstrated an amazing talent to get the scriptures to say what you want them to say, even when there seems to be not even an centimeter of twisting room.

If your are correct, then Paul would have said "no member of the body of Christ can say I have no need of the apostles and prophets UNTIL the church is established.." He didn't say that, yet you act as if he did. In Ephesians Paul said the apostles and prophets were to remain in the church to keep the saints safely on the strait and narrow path until each of the saints ultimately became perfect men, "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Those conditions were never met and therefore the church was in apostasy until the restoration of the gospel. Paul's words have been fulfilled: the churches have become filled with children who are tossed to an fro by every wind of doctrine because they are not led by living revelators, as was the New Testament church. You believe you have no need for the foremost living members of the body of Christ, and that is your prerogative.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

I'm not at all surprised by this because you have consistently demonstrated an amazing talent to get the scriptures to say what you want them to say, even when there seems to be not even an centimeter of twisting room.

If your are correct, then Paul would have said "no member of the body of Christ can say I have no need of the apostles and prophets UNTIL the church is established.." He didn't say that, yet you act as if he did. In Ephesians Paul said the apostles and prophets were to remain in the church to keep the saints safely on the strait and narrow path until each of the saints ultimately became perfect men, "unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Those conditions were never met and therefore the church was in apostasy until the restoration of the gospel. Paul's words have been fulfilled: the churches have become filled with children who are tossed to an fro by every wind of doctrine because they are not led by living revelators, as was the New Testament church. You believe you have no need for the foremost living members of the body of Christ, and that is your prerogative.

 

What I did was quote to you a specific passage where the guidelines for what it takes to be an Apostle is spelled out. You call what I did twisting scripture? Amazing. 

 

Your quote of Ephesians also doesn't say what you claim. You claim that Paul stated that the Apostles would remain in the church until each were perfected. This is plainly not true. 

 

Let's look at that. Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

 

Paul doesn't say what you claim, but what does he say? Christ gave apostles to equip the church, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith… Unfortunately, given the context of what it takes to be an apostle, the role of the apostle was to establish the church. Thus, they have done their job, equipping the Church with their teachings. They did the things that Christ wanted done, that is they established the church. They left behind what we now study as the NT. 

 

As Christ said to Peter, "On this Rock will I build my Church…" Jesus has been building his Church from the day he resurrected to now. 

[Bobbieaware]

What I did was quote to you a specific passage where the guidelines for what it takes to be an Apostle is spelled out. You call what I did twisting scripture? Amazing.

Your quote of Ephesians also doesn't say what you claim. You claim that Paul stated that the Apostles would remain in the church until each were perfected. This is plainly not true.

Let's look at that. Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Paul doesn't say what you claim, but what does he say? Christ gave apostles to equip the church, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith… Unfortunately, given the context of what it takes to be an apostle, the role of the apostle was to establish the church. Thus, they have done their job, equipping the Church with their teachings. They did the things that Christ wanted done, that is they established the church. They left behind what we now study as the NT.

As Christ said to Peter, "On this Rock will I build my Church…" Jesus has been building his Church from the day he resurrected to now.

What I did was quote to you a specific passage where the guidelines for what it takes to be an Apostle is spelled out. You call what I did twisting scripture? Amazing.

Your quote of Ephesians also doesn't say what you claim. You claim that Paul stated that the Apostles would remain in the church until each were perfected. This is plainly not true.

Let's look at that. Ephesians 4:11 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Paul doesn't say what you claim, but what does he say? Christ gave apostles to equip the church, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith… Unfortunately, given the context of what it takes to be an apostle, the role of the apostle was to establish the church. Thus, they have done their job, equipping the Church with their teachings. They did the things that Christ wanted done, that is they established the church. They left behind what we now study as the NT.

As Christ said to Peter, "On this Rock will I build my Church…" Jesus has been building his Church from the day he resurrected to now.

So you believe each member of the church has become "a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ?" The apostles and prophets were to remain in the church until that day. It never happened. Read the Book of Revelation and see the woeful state much of the church was in at that point in time. Not by ant means had all the members become perfect and obtained "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Quite the contrary. The Lord was prepared to spew a large number of them out of his mouth. So by your own word apostles and prophets were no longer found in a church of widespread wickedness and imperfection. The righteous saints of the New Testament era wouldn't recognize the modern church that you say is the church of Christ today. And one thing is for sure, that modern church has certainly not come "to the unity of the faith." Rather, it is carried to and fro by every wind if doctrine.

As for the qualifications of an apostle, it is my testimony that the modern LDS church apostles meet the criteria to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ. And they often testify to the reality of that fact.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

So you believe each member of the church has become "a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ?" The apostles and prophets were to remain in the church until that day. It never happened. Read the Book of Revelation and see the woeful state much of the church was in at that point in time. Not by ant means had all the members become perfect and obtained "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Quite the contrary. The Lord was prepared to spew a large number of them out of his mouth. So by your own word apostles and prophets were no longer found in a church of widespread wickedness and imperfection. The righteous saints of the New Testament era wouldn't recognize the modern church that you say is the church of Christ today. And one thing is for sure, that modern church has certainly not come "to the unity of the faith." Rather, it is carried to and fro by every wind if doctrine.

As for the qualifications of an apostle, it is my testimony that the modern LDS church apostles meet the criteria to be witnesses of the resurrected Christ. And they often testify to the reality of that fact.

 

Where do you get this idea that the Apostles would remain? It simply doesn't say that no matter how many times you repeat it. 

 

Unfortunately the "witness" that your apostles testify to doesn't qualify them according to Acts 1:21 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us."

 

I understand that is what you believe, however you accused me of ignoring the clear teachings of Paul. Which as we have seen wasn't the teachings of Paul at all, rather it is based on your faith in the LDS church. 

[UtahTexan]

Where do you get that it doesn't?  Under your theory, it sounds like you believe the Church was, and has been built sufficiently to not need Apostles and prophets.

 

Do you really believe that?  Do you believe there is unity?  Do you believe we are so wonderful that we no longer a prophet to guide?

[danielwoods]

Where do you get that it doesn't?  Under your theory, it sounds like you believe the Church was, and has been built sufficiently to not need Apostles and prophets.

 

Do you really believe that?  Do you believe there is unity?  Do you believe we are so wonderful that we no longer a prophet to guide?

 

I believe what the NT teaches. What are the requirements to be an Apostle? It's pretty clear. 

 

Does that mean there aren't leaders (Prophets, Teachers, Pastors, etc.) to lead and guide the church today? Of course the church has those. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand the difference? 

 

The closest thing to an Apostle today is a missionary that goes to another country and plants churches like Paul did. 

[UtahTexan]

I believe what the NT teaches. What are the requirements to be an Apostle? It's pretty clear. 

 

Does that mean there aren't leaders (Prophets, Teachers, Pastors, etc.) to lead and guide the church today? Of course the church has those. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand the difference? 

 

The closest thing to an Apostle today is a missionary that goes to another country and plants churches like Paul did. 

 

and your support for that?

 

And you did not answer my questions.....do you really believe there is unity and everything is hunky dory?

Edited June 16, 2015 by CountryBoy

[danielwoods]

and your support for that?

 

And you did not answer my questions.....do you really believe there is unity and everything is hunky dory?

 

Support for the fact that Missionaries that plant churches are the closest thing to an Apostle in todays world? 

 

Based on the Book of Acts, both Peter and Paul reached out to different areas planting churches. 

 

 

Do I believe their is Unity and everything is hunky dory? Depends what you mean. 

 

As far as the reference in Ephesians, no. And so we still have pastors, teachers, prophets etc. 

[Zakuska]

Support for the fact that Missionaries that plant churches are the closest thing to an Apostle in todays world? 

 

Based on the Book of Acts, both Peter and Paul reached out to different areas planting churches. 

 

 

Do I believe their is Unity and everything is hunky dory? Depends what you mean. 

 

As far as the reference in Ephesians, no. And so we still have pastors, teachers, prophets etc. 

Yes and in one of Pauls letter he tells us that all the churches he had planted had turned away from him and Apostatized.

 

  2 Timothy 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of ...

 

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me,...

 

John calls a lot of these same churches to repentance in Revelation.

 

They never did come to a unity of Faith, even with the Living Apostles still with them.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Support for the fact that Missionaries that plant churches are the closest thing to an Apostle in todays world? 

 

Based on the Book of Acts, both Peter and Paul reached out to different areas planting churches. 

Do you believe they did anything else besides what a missionary might do these days.

[danielwoods]

Yes and in one of Pauls letter he tells us that all the churches he had planted had turned away from him and Apostatized.

 

  2 Timothy 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of ...

 

You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me,...

 

John calls a lot of these same churches to repentance in Revelation.

 

They never did come to a unity of Faith, even with the Living Apostles still with them.

 

If your point is to support the LDS claim that the early church apostatized, then please point me to where it states that there was a complete apostasy of the Church. 

[danielwoods]

Do you believe they did anything else besides what a missionary might do these days.

 

Yes, everything was new at that time. The establishment of a completely new organization (amidst persecution) entailed more than what missionaries do today, not to mention the whole writing scripture thing. I also believe that Paul supported himself with tent making. Missionaries today usually have support from their home churches. 

[ERayR]

If your point is to support the LDS claim that the early church apostatized, then please point me to where it states that there was a complete apostasy of the Church. 

 

What would you consider a "complete" apostasy?

[Bobbieaware]

Since what you quoted doesn't say what you claimed. Let's focus just on the office of Apostle, because even though you don't acknowledge it, there are prophets in evangelical circles.

What is an Apostle? In Acts 1 we read the requirements to be an Apostle.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

So, the claim you are making about Paul stating that ""they should never allow the time to come when living apostles and prophets are not standing at both the foundation and head of the church" is clearly false. Paul never said this. Apostles were used to establish the church and after that the office of Apostle no longer existed because the Church was established (the foundation was built), and because those who fit those criteria died.

So, based on the fact that we disagree about what Paul said, does this mean that I'm ignoring his words? Of course not. Your claim is just wrong. Your quote of Paul isn't even from Paul. I don't know where you get the concept that "Living Apostles must lead the Church", but it's not from the NT.

There's a big problem with your belief that an Apostle of Jesus Christ can only be called to be an Apostle if he meets all the above criteria, and it is that Paul and James (the Lord's brother) did not at all meet those criteria and yet they were both called to be Apostles. The Apostle Barnabas also appears to be in the same category. It appears later revelation revised the original criteria.

A question.

1) Since your claim concerning the calling of Apostles and Prophets has been shown to be erroneous, where in the New Testament does it say Apostles and Prophets were to be regarded by the New Testament saints as only temporarily needed officers within the organization of the body of Christ?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

There's a big problem with your belief that an Apostle of Jesus Christ can only be called to be an Apostle if he meets all the above criteria, and it is that Paul and James (the Lord's brother) did not at all meet those criteria and yet they were both called to be Apostles. The Apostle Barnabas also appears to be in the same category. It appears later revelation changed the nature of the original criteria.

First, James. We know he was present with Jesus for his whole life, so he fits the criteria. Plus he was visited by Christ himself post resurrection, where he was likely selected to be a leader/Apostle. 

 

Second, Barnabas. Not a lot is known about him, but he is called an Apostle and was with the believers at the time of the resurrection. So, it's conceivable that he also was with them during Christ's ministry. So it's not out of the question that he fits the criteria. 

 

Last is Paul. He calls himself an Apostle that had an untimely birth. But, he claims to have seen Christ in person, and to having been taught by him directly for three years. He also met with Peter to make sure they were in agreement. 

 

So, as we can see all three do actually fit the criteria laid out in Acts 1.

 

A question.

1) Since your claim concerning the calling of Apostles and Prophets has been shown to be erroneous, where in the New Testament does it say Apostles and Prophets were to be regarded by the New Testament saints as only temporarily needed officers within the organization of the body of Christ?

 

Your claim is a little premature and I haven't ever said that Prophets were temporary. I'm only pointing out that Acts 1 limits who can be Apostles to those who were with them from the beginning.

 

Paul is your only hope, but the huge problem from the LDS point of view is that Paul met with Peter and other Apostles and to make sure they were in agreement. The LDS and Joseph Smith in particular were clearly not in agreement with any christian church at the time of his visions and the formation of the LDS Church.