Ahab Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 19 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Those who have chosen to believe His gospel and are thereby adopted into His family are they that should obey His commandments because they love Him. What good would trying to do what Jesus Christ commands if He has never known you? "aAnd then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: bdepart from me, ye that work ciniquity." True. But he has commanded that everyone be baptized to become a member of his family/kingdom so that everyone can have the same blessings, so in the end only those who have refused to be baptized will not be part of his family or kingdom.
smac97 Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 Just now, RichYoungRuler said: Do you hope that Heavenly Father will allow you to access His kingdom? Yes. Just now, RichYoungRuler said: "Pure love" is love that wants nothing in return, like your husband's love for the person who gave him all including life. Those who give "pure love" already have all that can possibly be given. If hope for a heavenly reward is incompatible with loving God, then why is the Bible replete with promises of heavenly rewards / blessings / inheritance / judgment? Thanks, -Smac 2
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, RichYoungRuler said: Do you think an "I didn't know the law" argument would work in a court of law? Try telling a police officer "I didn't know the speed limit" and see if it works. D&C 131:6 "It is impossible for a man to be asaved in bignorance." So fix your ignorance. Read the scriptures instead of reading about them. We can wait. 2
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: But he has commanded that everyone be baptized to become a member of his family/kingdom so that everyone can have the same blessings, so in the end only those who have refused to be baptized will not be part of his family or kingdom. What if being baptized isn't actually how one is born into His family? Makes sense to claim that if one has another gospel that one also has another baptism too. Wrong gospel means wrong baptism, wrong spirit, wrong test of truth, etc Why is baptism not mentioned in "the gospel" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?
Popular Post caspianrex Posted March 13, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 13, 2020 I'm always amazed/amused when someone (in this case, the original poster) says something along the lines of, "<Fill-in-the-blank> is the key verse/passage that distills all the rest of Scripture. And if you don't agree with my particular interpretation of that essential verse/passage, you are denying the gospel." Yes, I know, that's not exactly what RichYoungRuler wrote in so many words, but that seems to me to be the upshot of the post. Even if we were simply talking about the Bible, without bringing the Book of Mormon or Doctrines & Covenants into the discussion, I find it an oversimplified approach to theology. In the world of discussing Bible versions, as I often do on Facebook, I see the same approach just from KJV Only Christians trying to tell Christians who read modern versions that they are missing the gospel. How about we admit that it's okay to disagree on many things, while we seek to serve the same Lord? From my months interacting with others on this forum, I see that not all Saints agree on every detail, just as many non-LDS Christians don't agree on every detail. I'm not LDS, but I have had many enjoyable interactions with the many folks on the forum who are. 5
Ahab Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: What if being baptized isn't actually how one is born into His family? It is, though. No need for such fantasy questions. 5 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Makes sense to claim that if one has another gospel that one also has another baptism too. Sure. Yes. I agree with that. 5 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Wrong gospel means wrong baptism, wrong spirit, wrong test of truth, etc True. Yes. I agree. 5 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Why is baptism not mentioned in "the gospel" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4? Because Paul mentioned it elsewhere and there was no need for him to keep saying it in every sentence he uttered or put down in writing.
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: What if being baptized isn't actually how one is born into His family? Makes sense to claim that if one has another gospel that one also has another baptism too. Wrong gospel means wrong baptism, wrong spirit, wrong test of truth, etc Why is baptism not mentioned in "the gospel" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4? “Please fixate on this one verse to the exclusion of all else. It trumps everything else. It is all that matters.” -A very smart person with a holistic view of the Bible 3
The Nehor Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, caspianrex said: I'm always amazed/amused when someone (in this case, the original poster) says something along the lines of, "<Fill-in-the-blank> is the key verse/passage that distills all the rest of Scripture. And if you don't agree with my particular interpretation of that essential verse/passage, you are denying the gospel." Yes, I know, that's not exactly what RichYoungRuler wrote in so many words, but that seems to me to be the upshot of the post. Even if we were simply talking about the Bible, without bringing the Book of Mormon or Doctrines & Covenants into the discussion, I find it an oversimplified approach to theology. In the world of discussing Bible versions, as I often do on Facebook, I see the same approach just from KJV Only Christians trying to tell Christians who read modern versions that they are missing the gospel. How about we admit that it's okay to disagree on many things, while we seek to serve the same Lord? From my months interacting with others on this forum, I see that not all Saints agree on every detail, just as many non-LDS Christians don't agree on every detail. I'm not LDS, but I have had many enjoyable interactions with the many folks on the forum who are. You said it much more nicely. I just say that people who do this are deeply stupid. 1
Ahab Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 12 minutes ago, caspianrex said: I'm always amazed/amused when someone (in this case, the original poster) says something along the lines of, "<Fill-in-the-blank> is the key verse/passage that distills all the rest of Scripture. And if you don't agree with my particular interpretation of that essential verse/passage, you are denying the gospel." Yes, I know, that's not exactly what RichYoungRuler wrote in so many words, but that seems to me to be the upshot of the post. Even if we were simply talking about the Bible, without bringing the Book of Mormon or Doctrines & Covenants into the discussion, I find it an oversimplified approach to theology. In the world of discussing Bible versions, as I often do on Facebook, I see the same approach just from KJV Only Christians trying to tell Christians who read modern versions that they are missing the gospel. How about we admit that it's okay to disagree on many things, while we seek to serve the same Lord? From my months interacting with others on this forum, I see that not all Saints agree on every detail, just as many non-LDS Christians don't agree on every detail. I'm not LDS, but I have had many enjoyable interactions with the many folks on the forum who are. I can still remember how I was when I first found out about the Church and had someone to talk to about it, a nice young woman who had recently returned from her mission. I knew pretty much nothing about what "Mormons" believed and I had question after question as she told me a little bit here and a little bit there, and I was fairly well acquainted with the Bible. So what about this verse..., I would ask? And what about this.... ? She answered every question perfectly, as far as I could tell, and soon after I received a witness from the Spirit to assure me of what was true. I was ready to join the Church in about 2 weeks time, and I wasn't able to talk to her all that much because I still had a job and I was getting ready to move to another state then, from Arizona to Oregon. But she was amazing and I still really appreciate how she would patiently answer my questions, giving me just enough to think about while still leaving the Spirit enough space for him to do his work. That's how I like to be when people come at me with questions. Answer them while realizing they don't know as much as I do, yet, and while realizing the Spirit needs the proper atmosphere for him to do his work, too. 2
smac97 Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Quote But he has commanded that everyone be baptized to become a member of his family/kingdom so that everyone can have the same blessings, so in the end only those who have refused to be baptized will not be part of his family or kingdom. What if being baptized isn't actually how one is born into His family? I'm not interested in pondering imponderables. Baptism is necessary. That's pretty clear. 25 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Makes sense to claim that if one has another gospel that one also has another baptism too. Wrong gospel means wrong baptism, wrong spirit, wrong test of truth, etc Why is baptism not mentioned in "the gospel" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4? Prooftexting is not how the Bible should be studied. I think that's all you're doing. Thanks, -Smac 3
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, caspianrex said: I'm always amazed/amused when someone (in this case, the original poster) says something along the lines of, "<Fill-in-the-blank> is the key verse/passage that distills all the rest of Scripture. And if you don't agree with my particular interpretation of that essential verse/passage, you are denying the gospel." Yes, I know, that's not exactly what RichYoungRuler wrote in so many words, but that seems to me to be the upshot of the post. Even if we were simply talking about the Bible, without bringing the Book of Mormon or Doctrines & Covenants into the discussion, I find it an oversimplified approach to theology. In the world of discussing Bible versions, as I often do on Facebook, I see the same approach just from KJV Only Christians trying to tell Christians who read modern versions that they are missing the gospel. How about we admit that it's okay to disagree on many things, while we seek to serve the same Lord? From my months interacting with others on this forum, I see that not all Saints agree on every detail, just as many non-LDS Christians don't agree on every detail. I'm not LDS, but I have had many enjoyable interactions with the many folks on the forum who are. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 clearly defines "the gospel". "I adeclare unto you the bgospel" Nowhere in "the gospel" do we see anything about keeping the commandments. Adding anything to "the gospel" would make it "another gospel". How is this "my particular interpretation"?
smac97 Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 clearly defines "the gospel". "I adeclare unto you the bgospel" Nowhere in "the gospel" do we see anything about keeping the commandments. But we see plenty of other scriptural reverences "about keeping the commandments." Prooftexting is not the way the Bible should be studied. 6 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Adding anything to "the gospel" would make it "another gospel". How is this "my particular interpretation"? Because you are prooftexting. Thanks, -Smac 1
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 36 minutes ago, Ahab said: Because Paul mentioned it elsewhere and there was no need for him to keep saying it in every sentence he uttered or put down in writing. Paul mentions a lot of things, but that doesn't make them part of the gospel.
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 On 3/12/2020 at 12:24 PM, RichYoungRuler said: Of any passage in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 provides the most clear and simple definition of "the gospel": We are saved if we keep in memory (i.e. believe) that Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day. KJV "1 Moreover, brethren, I adeclare unto you the bgospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are asaved, if ye bkeep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ adied for our bsins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures:" JST "1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received and wherein ye stand, 2 By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures," I see no reference to keeping the commandments, enduring to the end or being judged according to works mentioned in "the gospel" as defined in 3 Nephi 27:13-17. Why did Joseph Smith not restore the gospel when he "restored" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4? It's hard to understand why you keep misunderstanding that FOR US THERE ARE TWO DEFINITIONS FOR THE WORD SAVED, one sense gives us " heaven or paradise" and the other gives us exaltation. Sorry but you are starting to sound like a broken record. If you are a millennial then that means that you are just repeating yourself without thought. Millennials might not know what a broken record is. I'm not saying this to be cruel it's just a waste of your time to continue this. You simply do NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE and so you have zero credibility. Frankly I do not know why people continue to even answer you. Every conversation turns out to just be a repeat of what has been said before. 1
Ahab Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 Just now, RichYoungRuler said: Paul mentions a lot of things, but that doesn't make them part of the gospel. I think the best way to see what Paul preached is to see what he was taught and what others did after hearing him preach. Acts 9 shows that Paul himself was baptized. Acts 18 shows that he preached to those in Corinth and they were baptized after hearing him preach the gospel. His letters to the Corinthians were to those same people who were baptized. Acts 22:16 shows him specifically telling people to be baptized and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord. How long are you going to continue to show your ignorance of the scriptures and the power of God? 1
InCognitus Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 19 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 clearly defines "the gospel". "I adeclare unto you the bgospel" Nowhere in "the gospel" do we see anything about keeping the commandments. Adding anything to "the gospel" would make it "another gospel". How is this "my particular interpretation"? While it is true that the core message of “the gospel” can be reduced to this single sound bite, it is irresponsible to take these verses completely out of context to assume this is everything the New Testament teaches about “the gospel” and all that it entails. Even within the same chapter, Paul continues his thought as he expounds on the doctrine of the resurrection, which includes baptism (for the dead, verse 29) and the “gospel of the kingdom” when Jesus delivers up the kingdom to God (verses 24-28). ALL of these things are included in Paul’s message of “the gospel”. And clearly, the gospel is something that must also be “obeyed”: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thes 1:7-9) "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:17-18) Bottom line: Don't take things out of context and read everything that "believing" in Jesus entails.
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's hard to understand why you keep misunderstanding that FOR US THERE ARE TWO DEFINITIONS FOR THE WORD SAVED, one sense gives us " heaven or paradise" and the other gives us exaltation. Sorry but you are starting to sound like a broken record. If you are a millennial then that means that you are just repeating yourself without thought. Millennials might not know what a broken record is. I'm not saying this to be cruel it's just a waste of your time to continue this. You simply do NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE and so you have zero credibility. Frankly I do not know why people continue to even answer you. Every conversation turns out to just be a repeat of what has been said before. LDS have only two definitions of the word "saved"? I was thinking there were more than two forms of "salvation" - like Salvation from Physical Death, Salvation from Sin, being "Born Again", Salvation from Ignorance, Salvation from Second Death, etc
JAHS Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: LDS have only two definitions of the word "saved"? I was thinking there were more than two forms of "salvation" - like Salvation from Physical Death, Salvation from Sin, being "Born Again", Salvation from Ignorance, Salvation from Second Death, etc Those are all included in the two forms of the word "saved". 1
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think the best way to see what Paul preached is to see what he was taught and what others did after hearing him preach. Acts 9 shows that Paul himself was baptized. Acts 18 shows that he preached to those in Corinth and they were baptized after hearing him preach the gospel. His letters to the Corinthians were to those same people who were baptized. Acts 22:16 shows him specifically telling people to be baptized and wash away their sins, calling on the name of the Lord. How long are you going to continue to show your ignorance of the scriptures and the power of God? Those who heard the gospel and believed were baptized. That doesn't make baptism part of the gospel and certainly doesn't equate baptism with being born again. In Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Ghost was given to those who heard the gospel and believed it without being baptized.
Ahab Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: Those who heard the gospel and believed were baptized. That doesn't make baptism part of the gospel and certainly doesn't equate baptism with being born again. In Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Ghost was given to those who heard the gospel and believed it without being baptized. I could explain that to you but I don't think you'd accept what I would tell you so I am done with this conversation. Thank you for participating to the extent that you have. 1
RichYoungRuler Posted March 13, 2020 Author Posted March 13, 2020 27 minutes ago, InCognitus said: While it is true that the core message of “the gospel” can be reduced to this single sound bite, it is irresponsible to take these verses completely out of context to assume this is everything the New Testament teaches about “the gospel” and all that it entails. Even within the same chapter, Paul continues his thought as he expounds on the doctrine of the resurrection, which includes baptism (for the dead, verse 29) and the “gospel of the kingdom” when Jesus delivers up the kingdom to God (verses 24-28). ALL of these things are included in Paul’s message of “the gospel”. And clearly, the gospel is something that must also be “obeyed”: "And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thes 1:7-9) "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4:17-18) Bottom line: Don't take things out of context and read everything that "believing" in Jesus entails. There are those who choose to believe there is more to the gospel than belief in Jesus Christ. They add personal worthiness, trips to mecca, keeping lent, pilgrimages and suicide bombings all in hope of somehow making their version of "God" pleased with their actions. A false gospel always corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ.
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: LDS have only two definitions of the word "saved"? I was thinking there were more than two forms of "salvation" - like Salvation from Physical Death, Salvation from Sin, being "Born Again", Salvation from Ignorance, Salvation from Second Death, etc Yes. All the more reasons that your questions are ridiculous when you speak of "salvation" as if it is a meaningful and relevant word for serious discussion when used in the way you use it. Specificity is essential- what kind of "salvation" are you talking about? What saves us from death through resurrection is not the same as what "saves" us in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom. What "salvation" means depends on the context and detailed situations- and yet you use it as a catch-all and then play off against other senses of the word. It's just plain irrelevant babble. It's no more valuable to theological discourse than talking about being saved from a flood with a life vest or for that matter, kittens being saved from a fire, or something as irrelevant to theology as different varieties of Idaho potatoes. 🤨 Edited March 13, 2020 by mfbukowski
InCognitus Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, RichYoungRuler said: There are those who choose to believe there is more to the gospel than belief in Jesus Christ. They add personal worthiness, trips to mecca, keeping lent, pilgrimages and suicide bombings all in hope of somehow making their version of "God" pleased with their actions. A false gospel always corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ. And there are those who choose to ignore clear scripture where it says that those who do not "obey" the gospel are kicked out of God's kingdom. A false gospel always wrests the scriptures by taking verses out of context and completely ignoring other clear passages. Please explain why you ignored those verses.
JAHS Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 1 hour ago, RichYoungRuler said: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 clearly defines "the gospel". "I adeclare unto you the bgospel" Nowhere in "the gospel" do we see anything about keeping the commandments. Adding anything to "the gospel" would make it "another gospel". How is this "my particular interpretation"? Jesus Himself said it: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matt 19) Is not what Jesus said part of the Gospel?
mfbukowski Posted March 13, 2020 Posted March 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, caspianrex said: Even if we were simply talking about the Bible, without bringing the Book of Mormon or Doctrines & Covenants into the discussion, I find it an oversimplified approach to theology Yep! That is precisely the problem! The gospel may be simple in some ways, and is even for the simple-minded but not when we are pretending to discuss doctrinal nuance. That is the central contradiction here. He pretends to ask questions about "simple" matters in an over-simplified way when in fact those subjects are highly nuanced. We must know what meaning of "salvation" is under examination as well as what LEVEL of "salvation" is under discussion. A drowning man may be "saved" from drowning but that does not imply that he will be "saved" from financial needs or health concerns for the rest of his life. It seems to me that that is a good analogy for they way he discussions it. It is as if he is claiming that saving one from drowning saves that individual from every possible consequence of his actions that might befall him, or that he is then guaranteed a perfect life. He is perfectly demonstrating the actual definition of "equivocation". Quote e·quiv·o·ca·tion /iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication. "I say this without equivocation" Quote Equivocation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.[1][2] It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1] Below is an example of equivocation in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning). Since only man [human] is rational, and no woman is a man [male], therefore, no woman is rational.[1] The first instance of "man" implies the entire human species, while the second implies just those who are male. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation That is a great example of what he is doing here- just like this: Since only man is rational, and no woman is a man, therefore, no woman is rational. Edited March 13, 2020 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts