Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: I have been doing so. You have not been reading. Yes, you have been just posting a bunch of links. BUT I am looking for this fabled "cogent argument" in your own words. It hasn't been posted yet.
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 26 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Vance, are you seeing the same issues with consistency that I am with Mr. Stiles? If you mean INconsistency, then yes, I am seeing it.
Jim Stiles Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 18 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Westminster Reformed theology is a bastardization of traditional Calvin theology. It toes the line between heterodoxy and heresy. Evangelical Calvinism, such as T.F. Torrance and Karl Barth, is a much better version of Reformed theology. Why do you think so?
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Amos 3:7 was applicable to the age in which it was written: the Old Testament period. During the Old Testament period, God spoke through his prophets. Now, the New Testament period, God spoke through his Son. Hebrews 1 again. What the LDS Church calls the Restored Gospel is really just another gospel, which is different from the gospel of Christ. Ah ok. Hold on a second while I tear the Old Testament out of my Bible because it's irrelevant now. And people accuse us of adding to and taking away from the scriptures? Talk about 'another' gospel!!!
halconero Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 22 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Westminster Reformed theology is a bastardization of traditional Calvin theology. It toes the line between heterodoxy and heresy. Evangelical Calvinism, such as T.F. Torrance and Karl Barth, is a much better version of Reformed theology. If you're going to go heterodoxy/heresy you might as well go all in by claiming apostolic authority, new scripture, calling the creeds abominations, and teaching the exalted potential of humanity. None of this namby-pamby reformed stuff. 4
Jim Stiles Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 31 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Vance, are you seeing the same issues with consistency that I am with Mr. Stiles? How am I not be consistent?
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: What Jesus called gehenna, which is translated as hell in the gospels, clearly means the Lake of Fire referred to by John in Revelation. And what of the Greek word "hades" which is also translated "hell" in the New Testament. What does it mean?
Damien the Leper Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said: Why do you think so? If you compare Calvin's theology in its original form, Westminster does not reflect or resemble it adequately. The Confessions and the Articles of Religion are re-imagined Calvinism. They are reinterpretations. Fundamentally, they are far from the same thing.
Jim Stiles Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Vance said: And what of the Greek word "hades" which is also translated "hell" in the New Testament. What does it mean? A holding cell for damned souls until the resurrection when they will be get their bodies back and then cast into the lake of fire.
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Joseph Smith Jr. is an anvil that the drowning members of the LDS church grasp to ensure that they go to the same place as he did. There you go with your 'flotation devices' again. You cannot seriously expect me to listen to you when you insist on bludgeoning me under the guise of saving me!! Why do you imagine I would want to follow a belief system that allows you to use these methods in trying to convert others to what you believe. You are not compassionate in your efforts. Are you trying to save us or not? If you are, why? 1
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Deu 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: These "gods" that are subservient to God, are they real? Are they true? Are they false? Is it praise to say "God is a God of false gods"? Is it praise to say "God is a God of unreal, nonexistent gods"?
Jim Stiles Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Vance said: Oh, so the apostle Paul wasn't an apostle. And the apostle Barnabas wasn't an apostle. (As in Acts 14:14). So, in Rom 1:1 and 11:13, Paul lied? Paul and Barnabas were eyewitnesses, with their natural eyes, to the resurrected Christ. They were also martyred before John died. Joseph Smith Jr. was not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Thomas S. Monson is not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.
Jim Stiles Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Valentinus said: If you compare Calvin's theology in its original form, Westminster does not reflect or resemble it adequately. The Confessions and the Articles of Religion are re-imagined Calvinism. They are reinterpretations. Fundamentally, they are far from the same thing. I view them as short summaries of Reformed Theology. Too long for people here to read, but too short to completely describe Reformed Theology. Edited February 1, 2016 by Jim Stiles spelling
Glenn101 Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: No. The office of Apostle was never intended to last beyond the lifetimes of the original 11 plus Mattias. The apostles in those denominations that claim to have apostles have not received their authority from one of the 12 nor are they an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. The only theological leg that the LDS church stands on is the testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. Prove that his testimony is not acceptable, and it all falls down. I am going to repeat a quote by another poster, the sometimessaint: Ephesians 4:11-13 King James Version (KJV) 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: Have we all come to a unity of faith??? Not hardly 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Now, who says that another apostle was called to replace James, the brother of John? Remember Paul in his letter to the Galatians? Chapter 1: 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. There Paul is not referring to James the brother of John, but James, the brother of the the Lord as one of the apostles. And to come to an understanding if this Christ had a brother named James, ket us look at another scripture: Matthew 13: 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Other posters have also pointed out that there were other apostles called, including Paul and Barnabas. Nowhere is the Bible does it say that the office of apostle was to die when the first batch of apostles died. That it was not supposed to last beyond the lifetime of the original twelve. The eleven thought that the replacement for Judas should be from among those that had been there and a witness from the time of the baptism of John up to the time that Christ made His final ascension. However, the call of Paul as an apostle makes it pretty clear that such was not a requirement by Christ. Quoting Jim Stiles: Paul and Barnabas were eyewitnesses, with their natural eyes, to the resurrected Christ. They were also martyred before John died. Joseph Smith Jr. was not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Thomas S. Monson is not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ." Where in the Bible does it say that Barnabas was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ? Paul saw Him in a vision, but there is no record of Jesus appearing physically to Paul and Paul seeing the wound in His side and the prints of the nails in His hands. There is no record that Barnabas was there during the baptism to ascension events. Paul definitely was not among those disciples. Joseph Smith is indeed a witness to the resurrected Christ. Glenn Edited February 1, 2016 by Glenn101 Added a couple of things 1
Vance Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Paul and Barnabas were eyewitnesses, with their natural eyes, to the resurrected Christ. They were also martyred before John died. Joseph Smith Jr. was not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Thomas S. Monson is not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. How do you know they are not eyewitnesses? Are you omniscient? Where does it say that you have to be an eyewitness to be an apostle? Plus, the fact that you admit that Paul and Barnabas were apostles shows the lie of what you said about only being the original 11 plus Mathias. 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Ain't the internet great! John I know, Peter I know, Joseph I know. Who the hell is Clement?
Vance Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: A holding cell for damned souls until the resurrection when they will be get their bodies back and then cast into the lake of fire. Can you provide a scripture that supports this? Didn't Christ also go there? Acts 2:31. Edited February 1, 2016 by Vance add 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Amos 3:7 was applicable to the age in which it was written: the Old Testament period. During the Old Testament period, God spoke through his prophets. Now, the New Testament period, God spoke through his Son. Hebrews 1 again. What the LDS Church calls the Restored Gospel is really just another gospel, which is different from the gospel of Christ. Ephesians 4:11 is New Testament. 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till 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: Edited February 1, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Jim Stiles Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, busybee said: There you go with your 'flotation devices' again. You cannot seriously expect me to listen to you when you insist on bludgeoning me under the guise of saving me!! Why do you imagine I would want to follow a belief system that allows you to use these methods in trying to convert others to what you believe. You are not compassionate in your efforts. Are you trying to save us or not? If you are, why? Using your definition of compassionate, chemotherapy is not compassionate either. CNBC's program American Greed had an episode about a pharmacist who was widely considered to be compassionate. His patients simply did not get sick when they were on chemotherapy. Turns out the diabolical pharmacist was replacing the chemotherapy chemicals with tap water and selling the chemicals for cash. His patients died of cancer. He was given a long prison sentence as a reward for his compassionate efforts. Do you want to be told that everyone goes to heaven? Do you want the chemicals removed from your chemotherapy? You do not want to get sick do you? Edited February 1, 2016 by Jim Stiles clarification
Jim Stiles Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Glenn101 said: I am going to repeat a quote by another poster, the sometimessaint: Ephesians 4:11-13 King James Version (KJV) 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: Have we all come to a unity of faith??? Not hardly Now, who says that another apostle was called to replace James, the brother of John? Remember Paul in his letter to the Galatians? Chapter 1: 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. There Paul is not referring to James the brother of John, but James, the brother of the the Lord as one of the apostles. And to come to an understanding if this Christ had a brother named James, ket us look at another scripture: Matthew 13: 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Other posters have also pointed out that there were other apostles called, including Paul and Barnabas. Nowhere is the Bible does it say that the office of apostle was to die when the first batch of apostles died. That it was not supposed to last beyond the lifetime of the original twelve. The eleven thought that the replacement for Judas should be from among those that had been there and a witness from the time of the baptism of John up to the time that Christ made His final ascension. However, the call of Paul as an apostle makes it pretty clear that such was not a requirement by Christ. Quoting Jim Stiles: Paul and Barnabas were eyewitnesses, with their natural eyes, to the resurrected Christ. They were also martyred before John died. Joseph Smith Jr. was not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. Thomas S. Monson is not an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ." Where in the Bible does it say that Barnabas was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ? Paul saw Him in a vision, but there is no record of Jesus appearing physically to Paul and Paul seeing the wound in His side and the prints of the nails in His hands. There is no record that Barnabas was there during the baptism to ascension events. Paul definitely was not among those disciples. Joseph Smith is indeed a witness to the resurrected Christ. Glenn 1 hour ago, Vance said: How do you know they are not eyewitnesses? Are you omniscient? Where does it say that you have to be an eyewitness to be an apostle? Plus, the fact that you admit that Paul and Barnabas were apostles shows the lie of what you said about only being the original 11 plus Mathias. The mere fact that Acts refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles indicates that they were eyewitnesses. We know that Paul say the resurrected Christ in a vision, but it was a real vision and not make believe or a hallucination. Paul mentions 500 brethren who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. Barnabas was probably one of them. Quote 1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas S. Monson teach a different gospel about a different christ. While they were probably eyewitnesses to someone, they were not eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.
Jim Stiles Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Vance said: Deu 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: These "gods" that are subservient to God, are they real? Are they true? Are they false? Is it praise to say "God is a God of false gods"? Is it praise to say "God is a God of unreal, nonexistent gods"? The gods of the nations around Israel at the time Deuteronomy was written were demons.
Jim Stiles Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 40 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Ephesians 4:11 is New Testament. 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till 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: New apostles and prophets were not appointed after the older ones died or were killed. The New Testament church did not fail and was not taken from the earth. Quote Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So much for the New Testament church failing in its mission before the second advent.
Vance Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 20 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The mere fact that Acts refers to Paul and Barnabas as apostles indicates that they were eyewitnesses. Circular argument there. Quote We know that Paul say the resurrected Christ in a vision, but it was a real vision and not make believe or a hallucination. And we know that how? Again, you are using circular reasoning. Quote Paul mentions 500 brethren who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. So? No where does it tell us who they were. Quote Barnabas was probably one of them. PURE speculation. But, again, where is the requirement that an apostle must be an "eyewitness". Quote Joseph Smith Jr. and Thomas S. Monson teach a different gospel about a different christ. No, they don't. It is you that is teaching a different gospel about a different christ. Quote While they were probably eyewitnesses to someone, they were not eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ. That is merely speculation on your part. But again, WHERE is the requirement that you have to be an "eyewitness". Chapter and verse please.
Vance Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 22 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The gods of the nations around Israel at the time Deuteronomy was written were demons. So, then God is a God of "demons". THAT is your position?
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 10 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: New apostles and prophets were not appointed after the older ones died or were killed. The New Testament church did not fail and was not taken from the earth. So much for the New Testament church failing in its mission before the second advent. New Apostles were called, Saul/Paul is just one example. So you must be Catholic. You really do need to read your Bible. The rock is revelation from God, not Simon bar Jonah. Matthew 16:17-18New International Version (NIV) 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.
Recommended Posts