busybee Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: The holding cell for the wicked is described in Luke 16:19-31. The final destination for the wicked is described in Revelation 20:11-15. Can you explain this scripture in 1 Peter 3 :18-20 18 For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit: 19 By whom also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, by which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water. If the spirits in prison are just waiting for resurrection so that can be burned, why would Christ go and preach to them? What purpose would there be for that? 1
busybee Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I am catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I am also Reformed. The reformers took the what was good and laudable from the Roman church and corrected those parts that contradicted scripture. Christ Jesus appointed the Apostles. The Apostles appointed the first bishops and deacons. No gap in authority was present. So why is this not in the Bible if this is how the church should be structured? Remember you're not allowed to add to the Bible. And where IN THE BIBLE does it say that there was no longer a need for apostles as proclaimed in Ephesians 4: 11-16?
Anakin7 Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 35 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Jim Stiles is not RCC or Orthodox. He is some variation of Protestant. Which didn't exist prior to 1517. I believe he has stated that he is Reformed catholic. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 With some 50,000 Christian sects out there. I've heard of the Protestant Reformation. It is possible that I've not heard what a Reformed catholic is however.
halconero Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 13 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: First of all the early Bishops were not Episcopal in the modern sense of the word. Second, the modern meaning of the pope (as in infallible) started about 1870, but there were antecedents. Thirdly, the popes of antiquity had zero temporal power. This may be of use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Early_Christianity_.28c._30.E2.80.93325.29 I simply used the original words used in Greek for Bishops and Elders. The two were often used interchangeably. Depends when you define antiquity as ending. That's a complicated question. 1
halconero Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: With some 50,000 Christian sects out there. I've heard of the Protestant Reformation. It is possible that I've not heard what a Reformed catholic is however. Small 'c' catholicism simply means that the particular church considers itself part of the universal body of believers according to the creeds established by the ecumenical councils. Most Protestant churches (I'm using a narrow definition of that word, as in the churches which developed out of the Reformers) consider themselves small "c" catholic churches. Where it gets sticky is the issue of priesthood authority. Is the priesthood catholic (universal) via belief in Christ? Or is it universal via the tradition of ordination from apostles through bishops? You'll have Protestant Churches on both sides. For example, Lutherans fall into the former category, while Anglicans (and more particularly High Church Anglicans) fall into the latter via the ordination of the Archbishop of Cantebury's original ordination from Rome. There a quite a few examples on either side but those are typically some of the biggest ones. A Reformed catholic would consider the ecumenical councils authoritative, as well as hold to Calvinist/Reformed theology. Whether the councils were authoratative and universal due to ordination or the correct universal belief of the bishops/elders attending (thereby bestowing upon them priesthood via belief) is another matter. Edited February 1, 2016 by halconero 1
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 10 hours ago, busybee said: Like I told you before. When I find myself drowning or sick, you'll be the first I call. In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question to as to what you think I should have done with the drunk patient with the fractured ankle. I wait with baited breath to hear your pearls of wisdom. I am not an expert with respect to medical ethics or the legal obligations of emergency room personnel. I would have asked for help from an orderly or two and took care of the intoxicated patient by force.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, busybee said: Can you explain this scripture in 1 Peter 3 :18-20 18 For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit: 19 By whom also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, by which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water. If the spirits in prison are just waiting for resurrection so that can be burned, why would Christ go and preach to them? What purpose would there be for that? To condemn them. Because they refused to get on the Ark, they refused Christ.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Anakin7 said: Just saw this after going back to begginings of this thread, missed it. Joseph Smith reasonably 19th century educated man ?, - 19th century frontier American with a 3rd grade education of which his wife Emma testified Joseph Smith could hardly write a coherent sentance during that time period. And why could it not mean what FARMS or FAIR say it does ?. He was translating an anchient text with anchient scriptural text meaning. And as with most critics who miss the context they get it wrong. What was "The all they could do" in context ?. He did not have to use different words because its content was true and scriptural with Holy writ - Bible. Thank you for your polemic. May True Grace Be With You and those you Love. In His Eternal Debt Grace Washing My Robes Anakin7 Joseph Smith Jr. was largely home schooled, but he was not particularly ignorant by the somewhat lax standards of 19th century United States. We have letters that were either written by Joseph Smith Jr. or dictated by him. These letters were not the product of a rube. Emma told a fib. Just like the time she told Joseph Smith III that his father was not involved in polygamy. He (purportedly) translated an ancient document into 19th century American English. "After all that you can do" means what an 19th century American English speaker would believe that it meant.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, busybee said: So why is this not in the Bible if this is how the church should be structured? Remember you're not allowed to add to the Bible. And where IN THE BIBLE does it say that there was no longer a need for apostles as proclaimed in Ephesians 4: 11-16? Because Paul, when he selected those who would continue his ministry after his martyrdom, appointed Timothy and Titus as teaching elders, not apostles.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: With some 50,000 Christian sects out there. I've heard of the Protestant Reformation. It is possible that I've not heard what a Reformed catholic is however. I consider myself a reformed catholic. Catholic in the original sense of the word, namely I accept the ecumenical creeds. Reformed in the sense that I accept the reformations made by Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and others. When I lived in the Morgantown, West Virginia area (Lets Go Mountaineers), I was a member of the local Orthodox Presbyterian Church. That is why I have been citing the OPC website's copy of the Westminster Standards. The Presbyterian Church of America uses the same version, to the best of my knowledge.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, halconero said: Small 'c' catholicism simply means that the particular church considers itself part of the universal body of believers according to the creeds established by the ecumenical councils. Most Protestant churches (I'm using a narrow definition of that word, as in the churches which developed out of the Reformers) consider themselves small "c" catholic churches. Where it gets sticky is the issue of priesthood authority. Is the priesthood catholic (universal) via belief in Christ? Or is it universal via the tradition of ordination from apostles through bishops? You'll have Protestant Churches on both sides. For example, Lutherans fall into the former category, while Anglicans (and more particularly High Church Anglicans) fall into the latter via the ordination of the Archbishop of Cantebury's original ordination from Rome. There a quite a few examples on either side but those are typically some of the biggest ones. A Reformed catholic would consider the ecumenical councils authoritative, as well as hold to Calvinist/Reformed theology. Whether the councils were authoratative and universal due to ordination or the correct universal belief of the bishops/elders attending (thereby bestowing upon them priesthood via belief) is another matter. Quote WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH CHAPTER 31 1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils: and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. 2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word. 3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. 4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. The ecumenical creeds are binding because they reflect what is taught in scripture. Not the other way around.
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 10 hours ago, busybee said: The drugs involved in chemotherapy are inanimate objects and, as such, are incapable of feeling or showing anything. This is a poor analogy, and quite offensive to those involved in the care of people receiving chemotherapy. They are some of the most compassionate people on the planet. Your analogy would suggest that they have no compassion. Your aim here is to administer your version of 'spiritual chemotherapy' to us poor damned souls, right? People have the choice whether they wish to receive chemotherapy or not, (Unless you think that they are tied down and force fed an intravenous cocktail of cytotoxic drugs). You come in here all guns blazing and immediately cause people to want to reject what you are saying. It's the delivery that's the problem with you and others like you, not the treatment. I am tired. Do you want to believe the tall tales of a 19th century confidence man? You have my permission. Do you want to believe the guests on the Art Bell radio program? You have my permission. Do you want to believe that sexual immorality is good and wholesome? You have my permission.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 33 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: The ecumenical creeds are binding because they reflect what is taught in scripture. Not the other way around. Except, they don't. They reflect uninspired misinterpretation of scripture, not the original teaching. A quick google shows they were finally formulated and adopted more than 300 years after Christ. Any notion that the original apostolic doctrines were passed down over 300 years unaltered is just wishful thinking. Even in Mormonism today nearly 200 years from founding many teachings and doctrines have changed. Also, the very purpose of these councils was to choose which of the many doctrinal theories would be adopted as official - they were the correlation of their day. The idea that a group of disparate men who didn't agree on doctrine met and debated and somehow came to exactly the correct conclusion that perfectly matched original theological apostolic teachings from 300 years before is just illogical. No, the creeds are full of items not in scripture. Quote These seven ecumenical councils are: First Council of Nicaea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381) Council of Ephesus (431) Council of Chalcedon (451) Second Council of Constantinople (553) Third Council of Constantinople (680) Second Council of Nicaea (787) 1
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 31 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said: Do you want to believe the tall tales of a 19th century confidence man? You have my permission. I follow a 19th century prophet called by Christ himself instead of 4th century academics and politicians masquerading as priests. 2
Vance Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 On 2/1/2016 at 7:13 PM, Jim Stiles said: Yes, the Devil and his demons cannot do anything that God does not want them to do. So, your God is responsible for all the evil in the world then. Not a just character at all. Causing people to do evil and then punishing them for it. I am glad my God is a just God. 1
Vance Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 On 2/1/2016 at 7:18 PM, Jim Stiles said: God gave us all of the information that we needed. Obviously not. Else we you be in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. Quote We do not need information from Salt Lake that contradicts what God has already revealed to us. True! That is why I ignore all of the Salt Lake anti-Mormon ministries. 1
Vance Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 23 hours ago, Valentinus said: Quite the uneducated and misinformed assertion wasn't it? Yes indeed!
Vance Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: To condemn them. Because they refused to get on the Ark, they refused Christ. So, he showed up in hades to condemn them to hades?
Vance Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Joseph Smith Jr. was largely home schooled, but he was not particularly ignorant by the somewhat lax standards of 19th century United States. We have letters that were either written by Joseph Smith Jr. or dictated by him. These letters were not the product of a rube. Emma told a fib. Just like the time she told Joseph Smith III that his father was not involved in polygamy. He (purportedly) translated an ancient document into 19th century American English. "After all that you can do" means what an 19th century American English speaker would believe that it meant. Right, "after" as in chronologically after. Got it. Not "because of". So, "we are saved by grace, chronologically after all we can do" is the correct interpretation. NOT "we are saved by grace, because of all we can do".
Anakin7 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: Joseph Smith Jr. was largely home schooled, but he was not particularly ignorant by the somewhat lax standards of 19th century United States. We have letters that were either written by Joseph Smith Jr. or dictated by him. These letters were not the product of a rube. Emma told a fib. Just like the time she told Joseph Smith III that his father was not involved in polygamy. He (purportedly) translated an ancient document into 19th century American English. "After all that you can do" means what an 19th century American English speaker would believe that it meant. Yet with a 3rd grade frontier school education he was not knowledgable in many areas of life in temporal and spiritual knowledge. With Holy Ghost/Spirit help Joseph Smith could put together some literate material. Emma did not fib. "After all you can do" is a perfectly Christian Biblical thought pattern but must be understood through spiritual Holy Ghost/Spirit filled Hearts/Minds. Thank you for your thoughts. May Grace attend you and those you love. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited February 2, 2016 by Anakin7
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Vance said: So, your God is responsible for all the evil in the world then. Not a just character at all. Causing people to do evil and then punishing them for it. I am glad my God is a just God. The following is a clarification of the reformed position: Quote WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH CHAPTER 3 VERSE 1 1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Proof Texts: Ps. 33:11 Eph. 1:11 Heb. 6:17 James 1:13–14 Heb. 1:13 Acts 2:23 Matt.17:12 Acts 4:27–28 John 19:11 Prov. 16:33
Jim Stiles Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Anakin7 said: Yet with a 3rd grade frontier school education he was not knowledgable in many areas of life in temporal and spiritual knowledge. With Holy Ghost/Spirit help Joseph Smith could put together some literate material. Emma did not fib. "After all you can do" is a perfectly Christian Biblical thought pattern but must be understood through spiritual Holy Ghost/Spirit filled Hearts/Minds. Thank you for your thoughts. May Grace attend you and those you love. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Can you show me a portion of the bible where a sentiment like "after all you can do" is expressed?
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said: Can you show me a portion of the bible where a sentiment like "after all you can do" is expressed? Parable of the Talents. 1
busybee Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Jim Stiles said: I am not an expert with respect to medical ethics or the legal obligations of emergency room personnel. I would have asked for help from an orderly or two and took care of the intoxicated patient by force. Good luck with your appearance in court on the assault charges that would follow.
Recommended Posts