danielwoods Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 What would you consider a "complete" apostasy? Enough that it needed to be restored? I don't know, I don't believe it will happen until the end, as it's predicted.
Sp0ckrates Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Even forgiving those who want to repent is an extension of "undeserved favor to that person". You question is curious though. Let's think about it for a second. A person who comes to Christ does so for a reason. Something is motivating them to seek Christ. That motivation is different for different people. Some feel empty, some just feel the need to seek the truth found in the Creator. No matter the reason, the closer that person gets to God, the more they realize their own sinfulness and their need to repent is.No one comes to Christ with a complete knowledge of how much we need to repent. We all grow in our knowledge of our own sinful nature and how much it separates us from God. So, if a person comes to Christ, and "refuses to repent" what does that tell you about their need for Christ? They don't really need or want to get close to him. So, it's not the lack of repentance that stops them, that simply is a symptom of a greater problem going on inside. Self-sufficiency or thinking that one doesn't need Christ is the greatest problem going on. It was the same in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve thought they didn't need God to gain knowledge, they could do it on their own and in their own way, violating God's way. In essence, setting themselves up as Gods of their own lives.Sorry for not responding till now. What I'm wondering is why you believe Ephesians 2:8-9 is a complete description of how to be saved and the only words I need to ever know. I mean, let's say I'm stranded alone on a desert island and a page of the Bible washes up on shore. The only thing I can make out on the page are these words: By grace you are saved, through faith. And this is not of yourselves. It's the gift of God--not by works, so that no one may boast.And let's say I've never read nor heard the Bible read, before. Since the word repent is not even mentioned, how would I know from these 27 words alone that I need to repent before God will save me? Edited June 17, 2015 by Sp0ckrates
Zakuska Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) 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. Paul predicted it several times... Acts 20:29I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. All in Asia turned away from the truth just as he predicted. Edited June 17, 2015 by Zakuska
Anakin7 Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Right Zakuska - Judiazers/Hellenists/Gnostics were in attack mode !. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
danielwoods Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Sorry for not responding till now. What I'm wondering is why you believe Ephesians 2:8-9 is a complete description of how to be saved and the only words I need to ever know.I mean, let's say I'm stranded alone on a desert island and a page of the Bible washes up on shore. The only thing I can make out on the page are these words: By grace you are saved, through faith. And this is not of yourselves. It's the gift of God--not by works, so that no one may boast.And let's say I've never read nor heard the Bible read, before. Since the word repent is not even mentioned, how would I know from these 27 words alone that I need to repent before God will save me? You may or may not. It depends on your understanding of Grace. "By grace are you saved…" mentioning grace gives you an indication of it because it's not by doing things, but by his grace. But whether your hypothetical person understands that or not, is not known. Is that phrase all you need to know? I don't think I'd say that either. It does capture the gospel, just as John 3:16 does.
danielwoods Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Paul predicted it several times... Acts 20:29I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. All in Asia turned away from the truth just as he predicted. No one I know disputes this point.
UtahTexan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 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. ah...so you have no support other than YOUR interpretation. Interesting. And does it really depend on what I mean? I do not think so. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, in what ways do you believe all Christendom is unified and everything is well?
UtahTexan Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 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. Ah...so when it is YOUR point, you want exact wording...but when I ask YOU, it is YOUR interpretation? Fine...show me the word TRINITY in the Bible. 1
danielwoods Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 ah...so you have no support other than YOUR interpretation. Interesting. And does it really depend on what I mean? I do not think so. But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, in what ways do you believe all Christendom is unified and everything is well? No support? I guess if you ignore the book of Acts. Christ knows all who are his. We are unified in Christ in that way.
UtahTexan Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) No support? I guess if you ignore the book of Acts. Christ knows all who are his. We are unified in Christ in that way. Ah...so if I have two sons trying to kill each other, they are actually unified because I know they are mine? And no, I am not ignoring the Book of Acts. I asked you to be specific, you toss out a whole book. The problem is, the Book of Acts does not say what you say it says. YOU interpret it that way Edited June 18, 2015 by CountryBoy 2
danielwoods Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Ah...so if I have two sons trying to kill each other, they are actually unified because I know they are mine? And no, I am not ignoring the Book of Acts. I asked you to be specific, you toss out a whole book. The problem is, the Book of Acts does not say what you say it says. YOU interpret it that way What specific question are you interested in? If you are wondering where Paul plants churches, do I need to point to you each chapter where he visits cities for the first time and starts churches? As far as interpretation, this is true. We all interpret things. The difference is the LDS don't rely on the Bible alone for their interpretation, they have "further" revelation that tells them how to interpret it, and then they claim those who only use the Bible don't have the right interpretation.
UtahTexan Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 What specific question are you interested in? If you are wondering where Paul plants churches, do I need to point to you each chapter where he visits cities for the first time and starts churches? As far as interpretation, this is true. We all interpret things. The difference is the LDS don't rely on the Bible alone for their interpretation, they have "further" revelation that tells them how to interpret it, and then they claim those who only use the Bible don't have the right interpretation. So, you did not address my point on unity? As to Churches, I am familiar with the Bible. Very familiar. I was specifically asking for verses that stated clearly there would no longer be prophets and apostles. And yes, the LDS DOES have interpretations. They do not come the "The Church" But from Prophets and teachers ordained by God.
danielwoods Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) So, you did not address my point on unity?Christ knows all who are his. We are unified in Christ in that way. I did (above), but you made a flippant comment, that I didn't respond to, after that.I said that we are both unified have room to grow, and so we still have a pastors and teachers, and will until the end. As to Churches, I am familiar with the Bible. Very familiar. I was specifically asking for verses that stated clearly there would no longer be prophets and apostles. And yes, the LDS DOES have interpretations. They do not come the "The Church" But from Prophets and teachers ordained by God.As I have said numerous times, only the office of Apostle was limited to what is described in Acts 1, where only Paul is one who had an "untimely birth" meaning he didn't quite meet the Acts 1 criteria, but obviously was still an Apostle, as he met with Peter and others to confirm he was on the same page. I haven't said that there wouldn't be prophets. Edited June 18, 2015 by danielwoods
UtahTexan Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 I did (above), but you made a flippant comment, that I didn't respond to, after that.I said that we are both unified have room to grow, and so we still have a pastors and teachers, and will until the end. As I have said numerous times, only the office of Apostle was limited to what is described in Acts 1, where only Paul is one who had an "untimely birth" meaning he didn't quite meet the Acts 1 criteria, but obviously was still an Apostle, as he met with Peter and others to confirm he was on the same page. I haven't said that there wouldn't be prophets. You are gonna have to show me where it says the office is limited. I looked and NEVER saw the word limited. Could you please point it out for me? And I was not flippant. You indicated unity was satisfied by belonging. I showed you how ludicrous that idea was.
danielwoods Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 You are gonna have to show me where it says the office is limited. I looked and NEVER saw the word limited. Could you please point it out for me? And I was not flippant. You indicated unity was satisfied by belonging. I showed you how ludicrous that idea was. If you don't wish to believe what the Acts passage states, that's not a problem for me. I will agree with you that it doesn't say, "Limited" rather it states rather plainly what a replacement Apostle should have as a criteria. Again, if you don't agree, that's ok. I'll trust what they said and believed. You didn't in fact show how ludicrous the idea was, rather you demonstrated that you weren't interested in understanding what I was saying. Which is ok, I'm not worried if you disagree. When Jesus said he would build his church, he obviously wasn't referring to a physical building or structure. So, unity also isn't based on a physical structure either.
UtahTexan Posted June 19, 2015 Posted June 19, 2015 If you don't wish to believe what the Acts passage states, that's not a problem for me. I will agree with you that it doesn't say, "Limited" rather it states rather plainly what a replacement Apostle should have as a criteria. Again, if you don't agree, that's ok. I'll trust what they said and believed. You didn't in fact show how ludicrous the idea was, rather you demonstrated that you weren't interested in understanding what I was saying. Which is ok, I'm not worried if you disagree. When Jesus said he would build his church, he obviously wasn't referring to a physical building or structure. So, unity also isn't based on a physical structure either. Ah....so then you admit that it is simply how YOU interpret it. it does not say what you claim...you interpret it that way. That was all I needed to know. Next time, do not make assertions that are not accurate or that are based solely on your own reading. See, I can say, "If you don't wish to believe Acts does not limit, that's not a problem for me." See, I prefer for something to actually exist before I declare it. It does not say anything about limiting anything. So, I cannot accept the idea of a limitation. You are free to rewrite the Bible however you feel suits you. I prefer to bend to God instead of having God bend to me
danielwoods Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 Ah....so then you admit that it is simply how YOU interpret it. it does not say what you claim...you interpret it that way. That was all I needed to know. Next time, do not make assertions that are not accurate or that are based solely on your own reading. See, I can say, "If you don't wish to believe Acts does not limit, that's not a problem for me." See, I prefer for something to actually exist before I declare it. It does not say anything about limiting anything. So, I cannot accept the idea of a limitation. You are free to rewrite the Bible however you feel suits you. I prefer to bend to God instead of having God bend to me The beauty of the scripture it's available for all to access. You mention how I interpret it, when we both have our interpretations. A plain reading of Acts 1 states what they understood the requirements for apostleship to be. You have focused on the word "limited" being missing, and the only problem with that is the word "unlimited" is also missing. So one has to read the passage in context in order to understand what they believed.
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 The beauty of the scripture it's available for all to access. You mention how I interpret it, when we both have our interpretations. A plain reading of Acts 1 states what they understood the requirements for apostleship to be. You have focused on the word "limited" being missing, and the only problem with that is the word "unlimited" is also missing. So one has to read the passage in context in order to understand what they believed. If it is a plain reading, why are you needing to add words that do not exist? Hmmmmm
ERayR Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 The beauty of the scripture it's available for all to access. You mention how I interpret it, when we both have our interpretations. A plain reading of Acts 1 states what they understood the requirements for apostleship to be. You have focused on the word "limited" being missing, and the only problem with that is the word "unlimited" is also missing. So one has to read the passage in context in order to understand what they believed. It is indeed plain but I do not plainly understand it the way you plainly understand it. 1
UtahTexan Posted June 20, 2015 Posted June 20, 2015 It is indeed plain but I do not plainly understand it the way you plainly understand it. That was plainly said
mikegriffith1 Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) my baptist friend came over to have a bible study.He told me about the once saved always saved doctrine.Has anyone else heard of this teaching? Yes, and it's also called the doctrine of "eternal security." This invalid teaching is based on a misreading of a handful of Bible verses and ignores the many verses that clearly teach that mature Christians can fall away. Can Genuine Christians Fall Away?http://miketgriffith.com/files/eternalsecurity.htm Edited June 21, 2015 by mikegriffith1 2
Anakin7 Posted June 22, 2015 Posted June 22, 2015 This OSAS Teaching is also answered/responded to by other Evangelical Christians - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/tragedies.htm In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
Auggybendoggy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Hi all,I'm brand new to this forum. I recently had a trip to Utah and Provo where I met up with a Mormon missionary that I've made good friends with. My friend met with me and my family at Cracker Barrell and we inundated him with boring discussions of theology and philosophy. Still, I love this guy and have learned what neat people Mormons are and hope to learn a bit from them as well as share my own ideas regarding the nature of God and life.In perusing the discussions here, I came across this issue which is one that I'm well versed in. I attended the Master's College in Southern California, a Calvinist school, and was first introduced to Calvinist ideas while attending John MacArtuthur's church. From what I've read some people have touched a bit on the foundation of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) but also miss some important aspects.I believe OSAS is based on several ideas. One of them is scripture. They use several scriptures to point out that OSAS is true. Another aspect is logic (philosophy) and the sovereignty of God. God's election is not open but is deteremined. God has appointed some to be saved and passed/appointed (different versions of Calvinism) the numbers cannot be altered. The system of Calvinism often has been reduced into what is often called TULIP - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.Since they see mentions of determinism in scripture, they see the system working together, namely - if God has determined who will be saved then an elect person cannot disqualify their election else they were never really elect/saved (as John says - "they were never really a part of us").I myself am a Christian Universalist and love to dialogue on matters of faith. Thanks for welcoming me to the site.
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Auggybendoggy, welcome to the forum! So what do you think about Mormonism and it's doctrine? Did you discuss the works and grace doctrine?
Recommended Posts