The apostasy [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

Christian

02-17-2015, 06:04 PM

dberry posted:
The Reformers did not reform the Roman Catholic church--if they did--then why did they leave the Roman Catholic church--and start a whole new set of denominations--

You mean like the mormons did? The reorganized lds, the community of christ, the fundamentalists, the utah mormons? Like that?

Let's see now. . .if you leave something and don't want to be confused as part of them any more, HOW do you let folks know?

OH YES, by what you call yourselves. CHRISTIAN Baptist, Lutherans, Presbyterians,

Why did brigham young leave joseph smith's church to make one of his own? To re-form joseph smith's church? Or to invent a new one? Why are YOU part of the utah religion and not part of the church joseph smith started, where his wife stayed, and as he claimed, HIS SON later became president of?

Again--sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology.

Nope, it is a CHRISTIAN theology instead.

Why does YOUR religion believe in only one wife? Joe smith's religion didn't believe that; HE and bringum yung both took MULTIPLE WOMEN as wives. Smith even took the wives of other LIVING MEN as 'wives' for himself.

How does that differ from the thousands of splinter groups of Protestantism? Splinter groups were even a reality for the NT church. The difference between the splinter groups in the NT--and what God accepted as His own church--was it was founded on the living, mortal apostles and prophets:

Ephesians 2:20King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Perhaps you should RE-READ that one before you start bleating your religion's party-line about the apostles having to be physically alive and here. JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF would be in the SAME BOAT AS THE APOSTLES IF THAT WERE THE TRUTH.

SO

Unless you have a PHYSICALLY ALIVE AND MORTAL JESUS CHRIST, your whole case that requires physical 'apostles' to be alive here on the earth falls into the toilet, just like so many OTHER mormon theorologies do.

AND

SO FAR, no 'complete apostasy,' 'lost authority' or 'removal from the earth' in CHRIST'S CHURCH that has existed alive and well now for about 2,000 years!

SO FAR no complete apostasy, no authority for joey smith from God, and nothing ever actually 'restored' by smitho.

SO FAR, NO EXCUSE FOR CALLING MORMONISM "christun" in any REAL WAY. They are as much 'from God' as the muslims, white supremecists, branch davidians and other non-Christian religions are.

Christian

02-18-2015, 10:30 AM

bump for dberrie

dberrie2000

02-19-2015, 05:26 AM

dberrie---Again--sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology.

Nope, it is a CHRISTIAN theology instead.

Two points here:

1) If sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology--then the Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church--it started a whole new theology. That is more of a restoration--since the gospel does not need reforming. What are you claiming was reformed in the Reformation? Obviously--the Reformers believed there had been an apostasy--and a deep one.

2) "Sola Fide"(faith alone) might be considered a "Christian" religion to the faith alone--but don't confuse that "Christianity" with the true Christianity of the Biblical text:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Christian--that is the ONLY occurrence of the term "faith alone" that is found in the Biblical text. The one and only occurrence.

alanmolstad

02-19-2015, 09:26 AM

When you are member of a CULT that stands against the teachings of the Bible...you tend to attack the people that live by the bible....

Christian

02-19-2015, 03:19 PM

dberry posted:
Two points here:

1) If sola fide is not a Roman Catholic theology--then the Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church--it started a whole new theology.

The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology, leaving the 'new theology' of the rcc. Sorry berry, I know you are confused. . .

That is more of a restoration--since the gospel does not need reforming. What are you claiming was reformed in the Reformation?

NOTHING was reformed in reality. The rcc didn't get reformed; those 'reformers' simply had to leave it in its apostate state.

THEY went back to the ORIGINAL beliefs, though some still held to what they had been taught by the apostate rcc in some instance, in matters not having to do with Salvation.

Like those who leave the smithite churches (rlds, fundamentalist, lds, etc) do, they have to LEARN FROM THE WORD OF GOD (the BIBLE) the TRUTH and leave the lies behind.

Obviously--the Reformers believed there had been an apostasy--and a deep one.

Yep, the ROMAN religion had left the fold. But the fold REMAINED. Jesus' church has NEVER failed.

2) "Sola Fide"(faith alone) might be considered a "Christian" religion to the faith alone--but don't confuse that "Christianity" with the true Christianity of the Biblical text:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Christian--that is the ONLY occurrence of the term "faith alone" that is found in the Biblical text. The one and only occurrence.

The word 'eternity' is found ONLY ONE TIME in the kjv Bible. So what? It says we CHRISTIANS (not mormons or smithites) receive ETERNAL life.

MORMON, LDS, and SMITHITE are all COMPLETELY FOREIGN TO THE BIBLE.

And your misunderstanding of the p***age you RIP OUT OF ITS CONTEXT demonstrates the pathetic nature of your sad little argument.

STILL NO COMPLETE apostasy in CHRIST'S church, no 'lost scriptures,' no 'lost authority' to speak/act for God either.

Sorry berry, but you are still following a false prophet, a liar, an adulterer, a conman who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

theway

02-19-2015, 06:14 PM

The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY. What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?What a naive statement.
The first problem with your position is that the "roman religion" was never reformed. In fact, they even persecuted and put to death anyone who attempted to do so. That means "The Reformation" was a misnomer as there was no reformation that ever took place. What happened was that the Protestants tried to reform the Orthodox Church; when they found out they couldn't, they formed their own belief systems based on their differing opinions of the Bible The problem with that was they no longer could claim a line of Authority; which meant no Priests, baptisms, or any other rites. That's when they were forced to invent the theory that Authority of God was not needed, or they gave everybody the same authority thereby making authority a meaningless claim.
Also, where was this Christian Church which existed outside of the few Orthodox Churches before Protestants came along?

There is nothing new about our theology.Really?
Let's just start with baptism.
Modern Christian Churches claim it is not necessary. Where did you get this idea from?
Because from the Bible, to the very first Christian writings, to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS, to even most of the Protestant Fathers, they have all stated that baptism is a requirement of salvation. Baptism as a requirement is even still a belief among the majority of Christians today...
So it begs the question, where do Faith Aloners get the idea that baptism is not a requirement?

THE MORMON apostasies (all 150+ of them) however have resulted in about 150 DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES in the mormon religion. Perhaps you could 'explain' THAT?Easy... Unlike what you believe, Mormons DO believe in apostasy. As the LDS Church was set up, the order of succession and authority in the Lord's Church was set up and agreed upon by all those within the LDS Church. Anyone who tried to take leadership in any other way that was different than the way which is clearly spelled out in the D&C... are apostates. It doesn't even matter if all their "theologies" were exactly the same as the LDS Church, they would still be apostates.

Christian

02-20-2015, 10:57 AM

[quote] Originally Posted by Christian The roman religion needed reformation, not CHRISTIANITY. What 'accusation' by whom are you talking about?

What a naive statement.
The first problem with your position is that the "roman religion" was never reformed. In fact, they even persecuted and put to death anyone who attempted to do so. That means "The Reformation" was a misnomer as there was no reformation that ever took place.

The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY.

joey smith lied.

What happened was that the Protestants tried to reform the Orthodox Church; when they found out they couldn't, they formed their own belief systems based on their differing opinions of the Bible.

STILL wrongo. They tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught. No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

Just as mormons have different levels of their followers understandings of THEIR religious books.

The problem with that was they no longer could claim a line of Authority; which meant no Priests, baptisms, or any other rites.

That was joey smith's theory, but the REALITY is that GOD HAS TOLD US THAT ALL CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY:
1 Peter 2:7-10
7 Therefore, to you who believe, (That would include EVERY CHRISIAN EVERYWHERE) He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
"The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,"
8 and
"A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense."
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
NKJV
As you can plainly see, joey smith lied to you.

That's when they were forced to invent the theory that Authority of God was not needed, or they gave everybody the same authority thereby making authority a meaningless claim.

Where do you think joey smith got HIS supposed 'authority?' Oh yes, he and ollie cowdery went out into the woods to play 'religion,' ordained each other and baptized each other, pretending God authorized it. A little like it would be if you and I went out into the woods and ordained each other into the roman catholic religion and baptized each other into it. All the while NEITHER of us were catholics.

Also, where was this Christian Church which existed outside of the few Orthodox Churches before Protestants came along?

All over the world in such groups as the Montanists, the Donatists, Patterins, Waldenses and others.

Where were the mormons? Oh yes, joey smith had not INVENTED them yet!

Originally Posted by ChristianThere is nothing new about our theology.

Really?
Let's just start with baptism.
Modern Christian Churches claim it is not necessary. Where did you get this idea from?

Not 'necessary' for WHAT? Salvation? The BIBLE indicates baptism is not necessary to be saved. It even gives the example of the thief on the Cross as one who was saved, but not baptized.

"Necessary" because Jesus commanded BELIEVERS to be baptized (Matt 28:19-20)? Of COURSE we are baptized for EXACTLY THAT REASON. NOT to 'get saved,' BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN saved.

Because from the Bible, to the very first Christian writings, to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS

(The ecf's are not part of the Bible NOR were they 'inspired by God.' They put their pants on just like the rest of us, one leg at a time. :p

to even most of the Protestant Fathers, they have all stated that baptism is a requirement of salvation.

Perhaps a few AS THEY LEFT THE RCC, since they still had more study to do before they knew the Bible as well as we do today. They still held vestiges of their rcc beliefs until they later shed them.

BUT I NOTE that you cannot CITE any of them stating baptism is a requirement of salvation. NOT ONE citation. Just empty OPINIONS and SPECULATIONS of course.

Baptism as a requirement is even still a belief among the majority of Christians today...

For church membership, not for salvation. Your false prophet (profit?) lied to you about this too, it appears..

So it begs the question, where do Faith Aloners get the idea that baptism is not a requirement

I note that you leave THE WORD OF GOD (THE BIBLE) completely out of your own equation here. The BIBLE is where we see that FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST is what saves us, counts us as righteous before God, NOT BAPTISM, NOT 'PRIESTHOOD AUTHORITY', NOT GOING TO THE RIGHT BUILDING TO WORSHIP.

joey smith has led you down the path in the direction of He**.

Easy... Unlike what you believe, Mormons DO believe in apostasy.

EXCEPT that they redefine it (pretending it means COMPLETE apostasy by Christ's church) AND THEY IGNORE THE TRUTH THAT THEY HAVE HAD THE SAME KIND OF APOSTASIES IN THEIR OWN RELIGION including brigham young apostasizing and taking much of smith's religion west, away from the original body.

As the LDS Church was set up, the order of succession and authority in the Lord's Church was set up and agreed upon by all those within the LDS Church.

Yep, joey smith invented his own 'order of succession and authority (which brigham young and company ignored), and NOBODY but the lds believe the lds have ANY authority from God in any way at all.

Anyone who tried to take leadership in any other way that was different than the way which is clearly spelled out in the D&C... are apostates. It doesn't even matter if all their "theologies" were exactly the same as the LDS Church, they would still be apostates.

That is part of one of the most common cultist tactics; tell folks that YOU are the 'true religion of god,' and everyone else is wrong or apostate.

joey smith's religion has nothing from God at all, and leads its folks to hell. Its supposed 'authority' was simply 'made up' by joey smith. It is only the mechanism by which the lds are 'held in line' within the lds religion. It has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY.

dberrie2000

02-26-2015, 05:58 AM

[B][COLOR=#0000ff]The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY.

Then what was reformed?

They tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught.

If there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had--then the only way would be through a restoration. Christian--the gospel of Jesus Christ does not need reforming.

No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

But that still exists today--just within additional denominations. How are you claiming the Reformation cured that?

dberrie2000

02-26-2015, 06:03 AM

The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,

If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy. If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

One can't restore a "faith alone" theology as a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and [COLOR="#FF0000"]not by faith alone.

Saxon

02-27-2015, 06:28 PM

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.

theway

02-27-2015, 06:58 PM

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.
Which Bible?

Saxon

02-27-2015, 07:38 PM

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!

theway

02-27-2015, 11:06 PM

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!
You appear to be ignorant.
"Bible" simply means a collection of books.

The Jews have a Bible, the Catholics have a Bible, Orthodox Christians have another, the Protestants have several Bibles, and the early Christian had dozens of different combinations in their Bibles.

You will have to state which Bible God gave his final approval to, before we can see who you believe the heretics are?

dberrie2000

02-28-2015, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Christian View Post The reformation did not start any 'new theology.' Those who LEFT during the time referred to as 'the reformation' simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,

If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy. If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

One can't restore a "faith alone" theology as a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Only the Bible writers were inspired writers of scripture. This is because there is no word of God before the books of the Bible or after it. There is no apostacy that you are trying to dream up.

Hi Saxon.

I believe you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Again--if there was no apostasy--then why the need for a Reformation? If they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

IMO--it's not an honest approach when we ignore the obvious to promote our own theology--that amounts to little less than boundary maintenance.

dberrie2000

02-28-2015, 05:40 AM

The only Bible. Which Bible; don't even pretend to be ignorant!

Saxon--the faith alone cannot comport their theology to the Biblical NT. They have precious little in common with the Biblical NT. What is found in the Biblical NT, as far as core salvational doctrines are concerned--is also found in the LDS church. It is absent in the faith alone theology--they preach a salvation through a faith without any acts of obedience to Jesus Christ. That is a false doctrine:

2 John 1:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Saxon

02-28-2015, 08:32 AM

Christian

02-28-2015, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by [B]Christian[B]The TRUTH is that a bunch of ROMAN CATHOLIC MEMBERS tried to reform the catholic church, couldn't, then left it. The TRUTH is that the rcc was never reformed. Neither was genuine CHRISTIANITY
[/quote]

Then what was reformed?

In reality, nothing. The roman religion continued to be apostasied, those who left began reverting to SCRIPTURAL Christianity.

Th[COLOR=#0000FF]ey tried to reform the roman religion, found out they couldn't, pursued GENUINE Christianity as the Bible taught. [/quote]

If there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had--then the only way would be through a restoration. Christian--the gospel of Jesus Christ does not need reforming.

Why would you and dopey joey smith BLINDLY ***UME there was not "GENUINE Christianity" to be had OUTSIDE of AND NOT PART OF the rcc?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has existed for about 2,000 years now. It never 'got lost.' Why would you BLINDLY ***UME that it had 'gotten lost' or 'gotten removed' when the romans apostasized from CHRISTIANITY?

When brigham young apostasized from smith's church, did young 'lose' YOUR 'gospel?'

[quote] No new belief systems; just different levels of understanding the Bible.

But that still exists today--just within additional denominations. How are you claiming the Reformation cured that?

"Cured' WHAT? That different CHRISTIANS exist at different levels of Christian maturity and have different levels of understanding the Bible?

No 'reformation' of that is needed. Continued teaching, discipling, and spiritual growing are happening all of the time.

"Denominations?" Different parts of the SAME STUFF? Like ones, fives, tens, etc are denominations of American currency?
And of course, they all spend. . .

But the ones are not french, the fives are not Spanish, and the tens are not Greek. They are all AMERICAN currency, legal tender HERE.

Presbyterians, Baptists, Nazarenes, and ***emblies of God are like that. . .all CHRISTIAN groups, parts of CHRIST'S church.

Jesus did NOT build a religious ORGANIZATION such as the rcc, coptics, orthodox, mormons, or branch davidians. He built a CHURCH, a CONGREGATION OF PEOPLE who can be found ALL OVER THE WORLD in the democrat, republican, libertarian, etc ORGANIZATIONS, but the ORGANIZATIONS are not Christ's CHURCH. CHRISTIANS are.

Perhaps if you READ the Bible instead of simply let yourself be 'told' about it by other spiritually blind folks, you would learn the TRUTH. . .that joey smith has lied to you.

Saxon

02-28-2015, 10:52 AM

You are definitely in a vacuum when it comes to the Jew-Christian books.

Christian

02-28-2015, 03:35 PM

berrie posted:
If they had to "go back"--then there was an apostasy.

Yep, there have in reality been MANY apostasies. The mormon religions have had even MORE APOSTASIES in their less than 200 years of existance than Christianity had in ITS first 200 years.

In about 180 years, the mormon religion has split into over 150 DIFFERENT smithite religions.

If there was an apostasy--and salvational doctrines were lost or changed, or both--then it had to be restored.

Let's see now. . .DO Christians 'lose' or 'change' their doctrines when heathens leave?

Nope. There is no reason for an HONEST MAN to blindly ***ume so.

IF MORMONS lost or changed their doctrines when brigham young apostasied from the church joey smith built, that is THE MORMON'S PROBLEM.

I <snipped> your 'faith alone' junk. It was off-subject and NOT part of this thread, and you have been shown MANY times that YOUR misinterpretation of James is junk theology. So I won't bother 'going there' to be distracted from the OP by your attempted diversion.

WHY HAS JOEY SMITH'S RELIGION apostasied 150+ times? Might it be because your deck of cards house cannot stand?

dberrie2000

02-28-2015, 05:14 PM

When you stop ignoring "not of works" then we can continue.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Hi Saxon. I believe what you mean is--ignore your take on that--IE--that works has nothing to do with salvation?

The Biblical text disagrees:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

No one is arguing against salvation is not of works. That is agreed upon. Not of faith, works, belief, trust, endurance, etc. Agreed.

It's by God's grace.

That leaves but one question to answer, IMO--who does God give this grace to?

Romans 2:5-11---King James Version (KJV)
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Saxon

02-28-2015, 06:41 PM

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 12:33 PM

Once again, What part of not of works , do you not understand?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Hi Saxon.

How do you relate the fact that salvation is not of works, therefore--God can't be giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him--to the fact the scriptures have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him?

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

The LDS do not believe it is of works. It's by God's grace. That salvational grace goes to them that obey Him:

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Could you explain for us how you are using Ephesians2 to negate what the scriptures bear testimony to--that God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him? That God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him in no way violates Ephesians2:8-9.

The scriptures do not state it's the obedience that saves--only that it's the obedient that what does save--God's grace--goes to:

Revelation 22:14--King James Version (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 01:19 PM

Answer my question.

What part of not of works , do you not understand?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 02:48 PM

Hi Saxon.

How do you relate the fact that salvation is not of works, therefore--God can't be giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him--to the fact the scriptures have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him?

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

The LDS do not believe it is of works. It's by God's grace. That salvational grace goes to them that obey Him:

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Could you explain for us how you are using Ephesians2 to negate what the scriptures bear testimony to--that God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him? That God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him in no way violates Ephesians2:8-9.

The scriptures do not state it's the obedience that saves--only that it's the obedient that what does save--God's grace--goes to:

Revelation 22:14--King James Version (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Answer my question.

What part of not of works , do you not understand?

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Please reread my above post. No one is suggesting it is by works.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 03:23 PM

All along you are saying that it is by works and now you are saying that no one is suggesting it is by works. make up your mind.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 03:33 PM

Hi Saxon.

I believe you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Again--if there was no apostasy--then why the need for a Reformation? If they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

Just because the Roman Catholic Church went astray does not mean that everyone went astray. The fact that there were people that were trying to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church supports the fact that the true faith was still operating in the lives of the real people of God. There was and is no need to restore what was never lost.

IMO--it's not an honest approach when we ignore the obvious to promote our own theology--that amounts to little less than boundary maintenance.

To that statement, I am in total agreement! You are the one promoting your own theology when you compare what you teach to what the Bible teaches.

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 04:58 PM

All along you are saying that it is by works and now you are saying that no one is suggesting it is by works. make up your mind.

Cite, please. Where does one find a reference to your accusation?

Saxon

03-01-2015, 05:02 PM

You are a Mormon. That is all that is needed.

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:02 PM

Just because the Roman Catholic Church went astray does not mean that everyone went astray. The fact that there were people that were trying to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church supports the fact that the true faith was still operating in the lives of the real people of God. There was and is no need to restore what was never lost.

You might want to relay that to the Reformers--who started numerous new denominations. Again--if what you stated is true---they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

To that statement, I am in total agreement! You are the one promoting your own theology when you compare what you teach to what the Bible teaches.

How so? That is just a straw man accusation without the first evidence to back it. The faith alone surely don't conform to Biblical truths:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:03 PM

Saxon

03-01-2015, 05:05 PM

What makes you thing that all the reformers even left the "original" theology??

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:10 PM

What makes you thing that all the reformers even left the "original" theology??

Because if they hadn't left the original--there would be no need to reform anything. Why would one start a whole new denomination--with a new theology--if what they had was unpolluted?

Saxon

03-01-2015, 05:14 PM

They were reforming the Roman Catholic Church, not Christianity.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 05:22 PM

Article of Faith of the Mormon Church

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Works.

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:28 PM

They were reforming the Roman Catholic Church, not Christianity.

The Reformers did not reform the Roman Catholic church. They started new denominations with a new theology--called "sola fide":

Origin of the term--Welcome to Wikipedia,

Martin Luther elevated sola fide to the principal cause of the Protestant Reformation, the rallying cry of the Protestant cause, and the chief distinction between Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism. John Calvin, also a proponent of this doctrine, taught that "every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own." According to Calvin, it is only because the sinner is able to obtain the good standing of the Son of God, through faith in him, and union with him, that sinners have any hope of pardon from, acceptance by, and peace with God.

While this precise terminology—"by faith alone"—does not appear in English Bible translations other than in James 2:24 where it has been claimed that the author seems to reject the notion that a person is justified by God solely on account of faith,[19] other Catholic authorities also used "alone" in their translation of Romans 3:28 or exegesis of salvation by faith p***ages,[20][21] and it is claimed to summarize the teaching of the New Testament, and especially the Pauline epistles such as Romans 4, which systematically reject the proposition that justification before God is obtained due to the merit of one's obedience to the Law of Moses (see also Biblical law in Christianity), or Abraham's circumcision and works.

Protestants base this on the fact that the New Testament contains almost two hundred statements that appear to imply that faith or belief is sufficient for salvation. For example: "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believe in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." (John 11:25, emphasis added). And especially Paul's words in Romans, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28) "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5)

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:29 PM

Article of Faith of the Mormon Church

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Works.

How does that differ from the Biblical testimony?

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;[/B]

Saxon

03-01-2015, 05:32 PM

the Roman Catholic Church did not move from their error so the reformers rejected them.

When did Wikipedia become the rule of Christianity over the bible?

dberrie2000

03-01-2015, 05:48 PM

the Roman Catholic Church did not move from their error so the reformers rejected them.

Yup--and started a whole new set of denominations. If they already had the truth--then why would they either feel a need to reform the Catholic Church--or start new denominations?

When did Wikipedia become the rule of Christianity over the bible?

Another taint so! statement. How are you relating what I posted from Wiki to the Bible?

Saxon--intelligent and effective arguments are not made with taint so! or straw man positions. Take the information--flesh out the specific point you would like to make--use any useful information you deem as supporting evidence--and make an intelligent argument.

Wiki is spot on with their ***essment--sola fide(faith alone) was the post and pillar of the Reformers--and one of the main differences between the Protestant Reformers theology--and the Roman Catholic theology.

The Reformers started a whole new set of denominations--that continue to multiply today.

How does that compare to the one denomination the Savior accepted in the NT--with the living, mortal apostles and prophets forming it's foundation? Do you have living, mortal apostles and prophets that form your foundation? If not--then that is probably one reason why there are numerous denominations.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 06:07 PM

You are not making intelligent arguments. You ignore the Bible when it says "Not Of Works". And the Mormon's aren't multiplying their denominations?

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Saxon

03-01-2015, 06:10 PM

Not of works. There are no works that will get you salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God. Gifts are not a product of works.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

dberrie2000

03-02-2015, 04:02 AM

Not of works.

Hi Saxon.

Again--where do you see anyone making the argument salvation is by works? Salvation comes by God's grace--and the Biblical record testifies that God's grace unto life goes to them that obey Him:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

That is the reality you have not addressed--nor the faith alone seem willing to address. One has to have a way of collating the scriptures--instead of pitting them against one another.

The LDS collate the scriptures of faith and works in this fashion--all acts of obedience to Jesus Christ are integral components to faith in Christ. The faith alone separate the two and place them in separate piles. IOW--a salvation through a faith without works.

They have no way of harmonizing the works scriptures with the faith scriptures--they just pit them against one another--quoting Ephesians2:8 whenever any scriptures are quoted that have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him.

Saxon--you can't make your point through that form of exegesis--and render the Bible a very unreliable source of truth in doing so.

IOW--pitting the scriptures against themselves does nothing but show you have no argument that harmonizes the Biblical record.

The LDS use this exegesis in harmonizing the scriptures--whenever you find the term "faith" in the scriptures--all obedience to Christ is an integral component to that term.

For example--whenever the scriptures command repentance and water baptism for God's salvational grace of the remission of sins--then repentance and water baptism is considered integral components to faith in Christ.

We do the same in language usage in our own vernacular, IE--

Term: Car ----- Integral components: engine, transmission, wheels, doors, windows, etc.

Term: House ---- Integral components: foundation, roof, walls, windows, floors, etc.

Term: faith ---- Integral components: belief, obedience to Christ, trust, endurance, repentance, water baptism, etc.

That harmonizes the Biblical record instead of pitting it against itself. And you will have to find a way to harmonize it--or it will remain a record and testimony you pit against it's own self.

Matthew 4:4--King James Version (KJV)
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Saxon

03-02-2015, 07:14 AM

Salvation is a gift from God. Gifts are not because of a work that is done or it would be a payment. What is it about "not of works" that you don't understand??

alanmolstad

03-02-2015, 12:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL1eXPgFy6k

Listen to the part on salvation that starts at 3:35 of the video

dberrie2000

03-03-2015, 04:59 AM

Hi Saxon.

Again--where do you see anyone making the argument salvation is by works? Salvation comes by God's grace--and the Biblical record testifies that God's grace unto life goes to them that obey Him:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

That is the reality you have not addressed--nor the faith alone seem willing to address. One has to have a way of collating the scriptures--instead of pitting them against one another.

The LDS collate the scriptures of faith and works in this fashion--all acts of obedience to Jesus Christ are integral components to faith in Christ. The faith alone separate the two and place them in separate piles. IOW--a salvation through a faith without works.

They have no way of harmonizing the works scriptures with the faith scriptures--they just pit them against one another--quoting Ephesians2:8 whenever any scriptures are quoted that have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him.

Saxon--you can't make your point through that form of exegesis--and render the Bible a very unreliable source of truth in doing so.

IOW--pitting the scriptures against themselves does nothing but show you have no argument that harmonizes the Biblical record.

The LDS use this exegesis in harmonizing the scriptures--whenever you find the term "faith" in the scriptures--all obedience to Christ is an integral component to that term.

For example--whenever the scriptures command repentance and water baptism for God's salvational grace of the remission of sins--then repentance and water baptism is considered integral components to faith in Christ.

We do the same in language usage in our own vernacular, IE--

Term: Car ----- Integral components: engine, transmission, wheels, doors, windows, etc.

Term: House ---- Integral components: foundation, roof, walls, windows, floors, etc.

Term: faith ---- Integral components: belief, obedience to Christ, trust, endurance, repentance, water baptism, etc.

That harmonizes the Biblical record instead of pitting it against itself. And you will have to find a way to harmonize it--or it will remain a record and testimony you pit against it's own self.

Matthew 4:4--King James Version (KJV)
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Salvation is a gift from God.

No one is arguing that either. Only that we are judged in accordance with what we do with those gifts:

Matthew 25:14-30---King James Version (KJV)
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Christian

03-03-2015, 07:53 AM

berrie posted:
No one is arguing that either. Only that we are judged in accordance with what we do with those gifts:

And this has to do with the OP. . .HOW?

Please stay on track.

Christian

03-03-2015, 07:57 AM

berrie posted:
Hi Saxon.

I believe you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Again--if there was no apostasy--then why the need for a Reformation? If they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

PURE NONSENSE! Just because the 'reformers' were returning to the ORIGINAL theology does not mean that OTHERS WERE NOT DOING SO ALL ALONG.

It's a little like mormos leaving the mormon church to become CHRISTIANS instead. Their leaving the mormon religion doesn't mean that OTHERS have not been living and believing the ORIGINAL theology all along.

IMO--it's not an honest approach when we ignore the obvious to promote our own theology--that amounts to little less than boundary maintenance.

That seems to be all YOU can do, doesn't it?

dberrie2000

03-03-2015, 09:00 AM

Hi Saxon.

I believe you are ignoring the elephant in the room. Again--if there was no apostasy--then why the need for a Reformation? If they "simply went back to the ORIGINAL theology,"--then the original theology must have been lost to begin with.

IMO--it's not an honest approach when we ignore the obvious to promote our own theology--that amounts to little less than boundary maintenance.

[COLOR=#0000FF]PURE NONSENSE! Just because the 'reformers' were returning to the ORIGINAL theology does not mean that OTHERS WERE NOT DOING SO ALL ALONG.

Then why didn't the Reformers just join with those who are already "DOING SO ALL ALONG"? Why the need to start whole new denominations--with a new theology? What did they reform?

Saxon

03-03-2015, 09:47 PM

No one is arguing that either. Only that we are judged in accordance with what we do with those gifts:

Matthew 25:14-30---King James Version (KJV)
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Of course you are arguing that salvation is a gift. Every time you say that there has to be a work involved for salvation changes a gift to wages, a payment for something earned. A gift is no earned, it is freely given and freely accepted.

Your quoted scripture is clearly out of context. Matthew 25:14-30 is speaking of those that are saved and are working for the master because they are saved already. You highlighted in red that they were already his own servants. The state of salvation while we live on the Earth is not one of eternal security as the 30th verse indicates.

Not of works, what is it that you don’t understand???

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

dberrie2000

03-04-2015, 05:26 AM

No one is arguing that either. Only that we are judged in accordance with what we do with those gifts:

Matthew 25:14-30---King James Version (KJV)
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Of course you are arguing that salvation is a gift. Every time you say that there has to be a work involved for salvation changes a gift to wages, a payment for something earned.

Then you believe that those who repented and were baptized here--earned God's salvational grace of the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Saxon

03-04-2015, 05:49 AM

No. They were saved first and then repented and baptized because of their sins having been remitted.

dberrie2000

03-04-2015, 07:06 AM

Then you believe that those who repented and were baptized here--earned God's salvational grace of the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

No.

Then why do you resort to "not of works" retorts whenever I post the scriptures that have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him--such as Acts2:38 demonstrates?

They were saved first and then repented and baptized because of their sins having been remitted.

But that is just altering the scriptures to comport to the man-made theology of faith alone. Where do we find any such sequence in Acts2:38?

Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

theway

03-04-2015, 07:32 AM

No. They were saved first and then repented and baptized because of their sins having been remitted.What????
That has got to be the most unbiblical statement yet on this forum.

Christian

03-04-2015, 11:58 AM

Then why didn't the Reformers just join with those who are already "DOING SO ALL ALONG"? Why the need to start whole new denominations--with a new theology? What did they reform?

Probably out of convenience. Of course the non-Christian catholic religion had the tendency to kill or at least ostracise non-catholics anyway.

What did they reform? As I pointed out before, in reality they reformed nothing. The catholic religion didn't change much (though public pressure did cause them to do away with paid 'indulgences' if I am not mistaken).

No 'new theology' either. Simply adult babes in Christ growing into BIBLICAL theology.

Of course joey smith's fabrications don't fit into that category. Smithy was merely a heathen starting his own new religion. And from that grew 150+ new theologies, none of which were from God including the utah mormon one.

Christian

03-04-2015, 12:06 PM

berry posted:

How does that differ from the thousands of splinter groups of Protestantism? Splinter groups were even a reality for the NT church.

So you ADMIT that the MORMON apsotasies (all 150+ of them in less than 200 years) are 'just like the CHRISTIAN (mormonism is NOT Christian) churches, in that your mormon religion is 'different' from the other mormon religions; they are NOT the same thing.

Your utah mormons are one of the apostasized groups.

The difference between the splinter groups in the NT--and what God accepted as His own church--was it was founded on the living, mortal apostles and prophets:

Ephesians 2:20King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;[/QUOTE]

FOUNDED on living mortal apostles and NO LONGER LIVING prophets, and JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

UNLESS YOU HAVE A LIVING, MORTAL JESUS CHRIST hidden in one of your ward buildings, your whole theory falls into the toilet. No mortal, living CHRIST. . .no need for mortal 'apostles' either.

CHRIST in HEAVEN? APOSTLES IN HEAVEN? OT PROPHETS IN HEAVEN?

SHOW ME WHERE THE church needs a new 'foundation' every few years. . .

Sorry berry, but your theory falls into the toilet again.

dberrie2000

03-04-2015, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Then why didn't the Reformers just join with those who are already "DOING SO ALL ALONG"? Why the need to start whole new denominations--with a new theology? What did they reform?

Probably out of convenience.

God never had a church out of convenience.

What did they reform? As I pointed out before, in reality they reformed nothing.

Exactly right, IMO. They just started new denominations with new theologies--as you stated--out of convenience.

The catholic religion didn't change much (though public pressure did cause them to do away with paid 'indulgences' if I am not mistaken).

No 'new theology' either. Simply adult babes in Christ growing into BIBLICAL theology.

There is nothing Biblical about faith alone theology:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and [COLOR="#FF0000"]not by faith alone.

Christian

03-05-2015, 08:07 AM

[quote]
Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post Then why didn't the Reformers just join with those who are already "DOING SO ALL ALONG"? Why the need to start whole new denominations--with a new theology? What did they reform?

Originally Posted by Christian

Probably out of convenience.

God never had a church out of convenience.

Why do you think God allowed a church at Corinth? Why not just have them go to Jerusalem each week? OF COURSE God allows churches to be built where it is convenient for the believers (the REAL church) to ***emble.

No 'new theology' involved.

What did they reform? As I pointed out before, in reality they reformed nothing.

Exactly right, IMO. They just started new denominations with new theologies--as you stated--out of convenience.

You are trying to be deceptive again. No, I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. NOT A WORD about any 'new theologies.' The 'new theologies' junk came from YOU. And the NEWER theology is all that dung invented by joey smith.

The catholic religion didn't change much (though public pressure did cause them to do away with paid 'indulgences' if I am not mistaken).

No 'new theology' either. Simply adult babes in Christ growing into BIBLICAL theology.

There is nothing Biblical about faith alone theology:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and [COLOR=#ff0000]not by faith alone.

EXACTLY WHERE did I say anything about faith being 'alone?' Your cult has been conning you, and you have believed your cult. We CHRISTIANS have been stating what the BIBLE states, that we are saved by Grace THROUGH FAITH, and that works FOLLOW GENUINE FAITH, they do not 'create' it.

It is CLEAR that you do not understand faith alone theology. Faith alone theology states what the BIBLE states, that it is FAITH that saves us (Eph 2:8-9) and NOT works.

It is ALSO CLEAR that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of James, and NO INTEREST in learning about his position, but are ONLY INTERESTED IN "SNATCHING" A PHRASE OUT OF CONTEXT to make yourself 'look good.'

It doesn't work.

THE TRUTH is that joey smith's made-up religion has NOTHING TO DO with GENUINE Christianity, but is nothing more than joey smith making up a religion and trying to 're-define' what Jesus taught.

And it likely sent joey smith to Hell with the rest of the heretics and false prophets.

Christian

03-05-2015, 08:14 AM

dberrie posted:
The Reformers did not reform the Roman Catholic church. They started new denominations with a new theology--called "sola fide":

Joey smith did not 'restore' Christianity either. CHRISTIANITY REMAINS AS IT HAS FOR ABOUT 2,000 years now.

Joey smith started a new religion which has since APOSTASIZED from its original religion into 150+ DIFFERENT NEW DENOMINATIONS of smith's new religion, the utah mormons being one of those apostasied groups, having left the main Body to go west under the heretic bringum yung.

Too bad. Joey smith was a liar, conman, peepstone gazer, thief and heretic who tried to shoot his way out of jail. Unfortunately for him, he lost in the shoot-out.

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 09:05 AM

[QUOTE=Christian;161908 CHRISTIANITY REMAINS AS IT HAS FOR ABOUT 2,000 years now.[/QUOTE]

Again--if that is true--then why the need for the Reformation?

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 09:12 AM

Why do you think God allowed a church at Corinth?

Because it was an extension of the SAME denomination found in the Biblical NT. Built on the foundation of the living, mortal apostles. Not true with the Reformation--and thereafter. There were numerous new denominations.

No, I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. NOT A WORD about any 'new theologies.' The 'new theologies' junk came from YOU. And the NEWER theology is all that dung invented by joey smith.[/COLOR]

Running to kick at Joseph Smith every time you are backed into a corner won't help you out. The Reformation invented new denominations with new theologies.

Faith alone(sola fide) is not a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:12 AM

Again--if that is true--then why the need for the Reformation?I believe there were 95 reasons....

they had a list.....

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostAgain--if that is true--then why the need for the Reformation?

I believe there were 95 reasons....

they had a list.....

But that only points to the reality an apostasy had occurred.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:14 AM

so the faith never changed.
But the administration was in error in the way ideas were being brought in that had nothing to do with the faith, yet were being used to cause harm to people.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:16 AM

But that only points to the reality an apostasy had occurred.
the faith remained....(By this I means the Christian faith, once for all given)
But the 95 reasons do highlight the issues that were around at the time, that were the cause of much trouble,and caused harm to people.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:19 AM

so the basics of the faith were not really the point of the 95 reasons...
But we can look at the source of the trouble at the time, and how some men ,in different ways, tried to turn things around...

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:20 AM

I think a good place to start, would be to look things up and get to the bottom of the trouble at the time...

Lets start with a google search and see what comes up first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:23 AM

"Luther argued that the sale of indulgences was a gross violation of the original intention of confession and penance, and that Christians were being falsely told that they could find absolution through the purchase of indulgences"

So it seems Luther had a problem with the selling of what are called "indulgences"
Clearly the leadership of some parts of the church had a need to raise money at the time, ....we should look into the question of 'why the need for money?' while we look into this issue

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:25 AM

The listed reason for the need to raise cash isalso found to be states as -

"As part of a fund-raising campaign commissioned by Pope Leo X to finance the renovation of St Peter's Basilica in Rome, Johann Tetzel, a Dominican priest, began the selling of indulgences in the German lands.
Albert of Mainz, the Archbishop of Mainz in Germany, had borrowed heavily to pay for his high church rank and was deeply in debt.
He agreed to allow the sale of the indulgences in his territory in exchange for a cut of the proceeds."

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:27 AM

So what we see then is a situation where basely due to a building program, a bunch of new ideas were being dreamed up to pay for stuff.

it had nothing to do with the faith, but as we can clearly see, it was going to turn into something that would cause harm to people.

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 09:27 AM

the faith remained....(By this I means the Christian faith, once for all given)

Again--if Christian theology remained--then why the need for a Reformation? What was reformed?

Christian

03-05-2015, 09:33 AM

But that only points to the reality an apostasy had occurred.

Yet in your willful ignorance you IGNORE the 150+ apostasies of your own religion and instead point fingers at the rcc, pretending the rcc was EVER "the" Christian faith (which of course it was not).

Why do you IGNORE THE OBVIOUS, berry?

Are you so sens***ized against the foibles of your own religion that you must IGNORE them and pretend they don't exist?

Many apostasies (leavings away from) Christianity have happened. They happened while Paul was still alive on earth. He said THIS about them:

1 John 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Just as it is clear that brigum yung was 'not of' joseph smith's religion (he DID leave them to go west), those who have left CHRISTIANITY were not 'of us' at all.

The catholic heretics are no exception. When they became a 'different religion' from Christianity, they ceased to be 'of us.' The wolves had devoured most of that flock.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:34 AM

now ...when you look at the 95 reasons for the split, you see that it was all basely driven around this issue of raising cash to pay for things.

it has zero to do with the real Christian faith...The basics of the Christian faith were not involved.

But so we all are on the same page as to the reasons behind the split, I think I should go right ahead and post the 95 reasons ...

one moment ...

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:35 AM

Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.

When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.

As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.

The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.

The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.

God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.

The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.

Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.

It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.

When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.

In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.

Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.

Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.

This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to cons***ute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.

There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and ***urance.

Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.

Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.

Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and ***ured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.

Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.

Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.

Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.

If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.

It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.

The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.

The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).

There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.

Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).

No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.

One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.

All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally ****ed, together with their teachers.

We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.

For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.

It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.

Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.

Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.

Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.

It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.

A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very mul***ude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.

Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.

Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.

Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.

Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.

Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but p***es him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.

Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.

Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.

Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.

Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:36 AM

Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.

Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.

It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.

Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.

The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.

That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.

Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.

St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.

We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.

For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.

The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.

On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.

Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.

The treasures of the indulgences are the nets which to-day they use to fish for the wealth of men.

The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.

Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the comp***ion shown in the Cross.

Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.

But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.

Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.

In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.

It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.

It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.

We ***ert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.

When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

We ***ert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].

It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.

The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit ***ertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.

This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.

They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.

Again: Why should funeral and anniversary m***es for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions ins***uted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?

Again: Surely this is a new sort of comp***ion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.

Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?

Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?

Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?

Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.

What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?

These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.

If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.

Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.

Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.

Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.

And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false ***urance of peace.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 09:39 AM

Again--if Christian theology remained--then why the need for a Reformation? What was reformed?

the list I have now provided should answer your question.

as you can see, it has everything to do with the things brought in to help raise money...
The core teachings of the christian faith were not involved, but the administration was deeply involved...

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View PostAgain--if Christian theology remained--then why the need for a Reformation? What was reformed?

the list I have now provided should answer your question.

as you can see, it has everything to do with the things brought in to help raise money...
The core teachings of the christian faith were not involved, but the administration was deeply involved...

If the doctrines of Christianity were not involved--then again--why a whole new set of denominations with a whole new theology in the Reformation?

Again--what did the Reformation reform?

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 01:55 PM

95 reasons...

They made a list of the issues they had...

by the way I posted this already. .I listed the reasons.
Is there one that you wish to talk about?

dberrie2000

03-05-2015, 04:48 PM

95 reasons...

They made a list of the issues they had...

by the way I posted this already. .I listed the reasons.
Is there one that you wish to talk about?

The one where the Reformers started new denominations with new theologies.

alanmolstad

03-05-2015, 04:54 PM

Can't find it eh?

Didn't think you could..

Saxon

03-05-2015, 11:12 PM

Then why do you resort to "not of works" retorts whenever I post the scriptures that have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him--such as Acts2:38 demonstrates?

The reason that I always remind you that it is not of works is because when you make the statement that God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him such as Acts 2:38 demonstrates, you are indicating that it is the obedience that earns the right to be saved.

Ephesians 2:8 states that salvation is by grace through faith and it is not of the person receiving salvation, it is a gift that is given by God. Verse 9 makes it absolutely clear that it is NOT OF WORKS. There is nothing that a person can do that will obligate God to save them. Grace is an at***ude that God has towards man. Grace is God’s unmerited favour to man.

In the context of Ephesians 2:8 and 9, it is totally impossible for Acts 2:38 to mean that repenting and being baptized is going to be what causes you to be saved by grace. The word for, in this case indicated because of the remission of your sins. In Acts 10:46, the term “for” is obviously meaning because. They had received the Holy Ghost (saved) and then they were baptized.

As far as obeying God, did they not believe in Christ as they were told to do? Faith does not save you. Grace does not save you. God is the agent of salvation, God saves.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

But that is just altering the scriptures to comport to the man-made theology of faith alone. Where do we find any such sequence in Acts2:38?

Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

What is altering the scriptures is the way you ignore the clear statement of Ephesians 2:8 and 9. Not of works means that we, the saved, had nothing to do with being saved as far as contributing to salvation by our acts or thoughts. Yes, we are to respond to God’s call, but that is not what saves us. God does the saving because he has predetermined to save those that have faith in Christ. Our responding does not save us, God saves us.

Acts 22:16 is not saying that baptism washes away sins; it is calling on the name of the Lord, the response to the Call of God, faith in Christ. Even after that God is still not obligated to save us, but he does because he wants to save us.

Saxon

03-05-2015, 11:13 PM

How would you know???

dberrie2000

03-06-2015, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post-----Then you believe that those who repented and were baptized here--earned God's salvational grace of the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Quote Originally Posted by Saxon View Post----- No.

Then why do you resort to "not of works" retorts whenever I post the scriptures that have God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him--such as Acts2:38 demonstrates?

But that is just altering the scriptures to comport to the man-made theology of faith alone. Where do we find any such sequence in Acts2:38?

Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

The reason that I always remind you that it is not of works is because when you make the statement that God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him such as Acts 2:38 demonstrates, you are indicating that it is the obedience that earns the right to be saved.

Is that what you believe Acts2:38 indicates? The fact is--the scriptures are chocked full of testimonies that God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him:

1 Timothy 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Saxon--the scriptures defy faith alone theology.

What is there about repentance and water baptism you don't consider obedience to Jesus Christ--or the remission of sins that you don't consider God's grace?

Christian

03-06-2015, 10:45 AM

dberry posted:
Because it was an extension of the SAME denomination found in the Biblical NT. Built on the foundation of the living, mortal apostles. Not true with the Reformation--and thereafter. There were numerous new denominations.

Let's see now. $1.00 bills, $5.00 bills, $10.00 bills. . .different denominations of the SAME MONEY SYSTEM.

Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Bible churches, ***emblies. . .different denominations of the SAME CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

Sorry Berry, but your theory doesn't work.

Running to kick at Joseph Smith every time you are backed into a corner won't help you out.

No 'running' required to kick at smith's manmade religion. His religion suffers the same foibles you are claiming WE CHRISTIANS have suffered. Same apostasies from HIS religion. Same different denominations of HIS religion.

Pointing those things out DO counter YOUR phoney claims, but DO also destroy smith's phoney claims as well.

The Reformation invented new denominations with new theologies.

No more so than bringum young and HIS new denomination of smith's religion brought new theologies to YOUR religion.

Sorry berry, but your horse don't run.

dberrie2000

03-06-2015, 01:51 PM

Because it was an extension of the SAME denomination found in the Biblical NT. Built on the foundation of the living, mortal apostles. Not true with the Reformation--and thereafter. There were numerous new denominations.

Running to kick at Joseph Smith every time you are backed into a corner won't help you out. The Reformation invented new denominations with new theologies.

Faith alone(sola fide) is not a Biblical doctrine:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[COLOR=#0000FF][COLOR=#0000FF]Let's see now. $1.00 bills, $5.00 bills, $10.00 bills. . .different denominations of the SAME MONEY SYSTEM.

Again--there were no different denominations in the Biblical NT--all the churches(different locations) were part of the same denomination. That denomination was built upon the foundation of the living, mortal apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner Stone.

There was only one denomination that was accepted by Christ in the NT.

Christian

03-07-2015, 09:19 AM

Again--there were no different denominations in the Biblical NT--all the churches(different locations) were part of the same denomination. That denomination was built upon the foundation of the living, mortal apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner Stone.

There was only one denomination that was accepted by Christ in the NT.

Yep, it was called CHRISTIAN (followers of Christ). Joey smith's made-up religion wasn't there.

And you have NOTHING to connect YOUR manmade 'apostles' to Jesus Christ any more than the rlds 'apostles', the New Apostolic Church's 'apostles' or any other manmade apostles.

Joey smith's manmade religion didn't exist at all in that first century.

We CHRISTIANS have existed for about 2,000 years now, complete with the WORD OF GOD (the BIBLE), the HOLY SPIRIT living within each of us, and the authority to act and speak for God.

Joey smith's 'mormo specific' dung wasn't invented until the last 180 or so years now. . .

Christian

03-07-2015, 09:21 AM

Again--if Christian theology remained--then why the need for a Reformation? What was reformed?

As I pointed out, the Christian theology was NOT what the catholics had; it was OUTSIDE OF the rcc. In reality, not much of anything at all was reformed.

And of course none of joey smith's manmade mormon specific dung had been invented yet.

dberrie2000

03-08-2015, 05:20 AM

[B][COLOR=#0000FF]We CHRISTIANS have existed for about 2,000 years now, complete with the WORD OF GOD (the BIBLE), the HOLY SPIRIT living within each of us, and the authority to act and speak for God.

Again--if that is true--then why the need for a Reformation? Whole new denominations--with new theology?

Saxon

03-09-2015, 01:50 PM

Is that what you believe Acts2:38 indicates? The fact is--the scriptures are chocked full of testimonies that God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him:

Where in the Bible do you find God giving “salvational grace”? Does he keep it in a jar and pour out a pile, or does he save the individual by grace? You have yet to explain what you believe grace to be.

1 Timothy 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Saxon--the scriptures defy faith alone theology.

It is not Scriptures that defy “faith alone” it is you that defies scripture.

What is there about repentance and water baptism you don't consider obedience to Jesus Christ--or the remission of sins that you don't consider God's grace?

It is obedience to Christ, but it is after one is saved. God has remitted the saved person’s sins and that is by grace.

What is you explanation of what salvation is. Can it happen before one dies?

dberrie2000

03-10-2015, 05:08 AM

Originally Posted by Saxon View Post---The reason that I always remind you that it is not of works is because when you make the statement that God giving His salvational grace to them that obey Him such as Acts 2:38 demonstrates, you are indicating that it is the obedience that earns the right to be saved.

Is that what you believe Acts2:38 indicates? The fact is--the scriptures are chocked full of testimonies that God gives His salvational grace to them that obey Him:

1 Timothy 4:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Saxon--the scriptures defy faith alone theology.

What is there about repentance and water baptism you don't consider obedience to Jesus Christ--or the remission of sins that you don't consider God's grace?

Where in the Bible do you find God giving “salvational grace”?

Here, for example:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I colored in red what I consider God's salvational grace for you.

Does he keep it in a jar and pour out a pile,

I believe it's God Himself who is full of grace and truth:

John 1:14---King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

or does he save the individual by grace? You have yet to explain what you believe grace to be.

I believe grace is God doing something for us we cannot do for ourselves. What is it about the scriptures I have posted above--such as Acts2:38--or Acts5:32--that you don't believe is God's salvational grace--or does not go to the individual who obeys Christ?

It is not Scriptures that defy “faith alone” it is you that defies scripture.

It's the scriptures themselves:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

It is obedience to Christ, but it is after one is saved. God has remitted the saved person’s sins and that is by grace.

Acts2:38 does not have one receiving the remission of sins before repentance and water baptism:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What is you explanation of what salvation is. Can it happen before one dies?

One can certainly be in a "saved" condition before death--but does not actually receive of eternal life, in it's fulness--where one sits on the throne of God--in His presence--until after death.

Christian

03-10-2015, 11:41 AM

Again--if that is true--then why the need for a Reformation? Whole new denominations--with new theology?

Answered for you SEVERAL times before. Only the roman catholic church was the object of reformation, NOT CHRISTIANITY. The rcc organizaton and its foibles.

Again--We CHRISTIANS have existed for about 2,000 years now, complete with the WORD OF GOD (the BIBLE), the HOLY SPIRIT living within each of us, and the authority to act and speak for God.

It is not about the rcc, the mormons, the jw's, the branch davidians, OR the white supremecists that we speak. It is about CHRISTIANITY, the church JESUS CHRIST BUILT.

Joey smith's made-up religion has only existed for about 180 years now, along with its 150+ apostasies (INCLUDING the utah mormons who split off smith's church to go west).

Sorry berry, but you STILL have nothing to demonstrate any complete apostasy by CHRIST'S church. The religion joey smith invented however. . .you seem to be one of the 'apostates' of THAT religion.

theway

03-10-2015, 01:31 PM

You are definitely in a vacuum when it comes to the Jew-Christian books.
I sorry, you'll need to explain what exactly you mean by your reply, or what was wrong with my statement?

All I wanted to know is what Bible, what version, and what year do you believe God gave His final blessing on scripture? Or show us where God says that there's to be an end to scripture.

Not hard questions.

Saxon

03-10-2015, 02:27 PM

Here, for example:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I colored in red what I consider God's salvational grace for you.

There is no grace there from what you tell me about these verses. According to you you have to do something for salvation. You say in Acts 2:38 you have to repent and be baptized and in Acts 5:32 you tell me that you have to obey in order to get saved.

You are in error. You have no idea what grace is and you don’t seem to understand the concept of a gift and you have demonstrated that you do not understand what “not of works” means in a functional manner.

Romans 11:6 says that if it is of grace, it is not of works. You cannot do anything to aid God who is gracious enough to do the saving. Salvation is a gift, not of works. (See Ephesians 2:8 and 9)

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I believe it's God Himself who is full of grace and truth:

John 1:14---King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I do believe that you have that statement right. Now if you only understood “grace”.

I believe grace is God doing something for us we cannot do for ourselves. What is it about the scriptures I have posted above--such as Acts2:38--or Acts5:32--that you don't believe is God's salvational grace--or does not go to the individual who obeys Christ?

If grace is God doing something for us we cannot do for ourselves, then why do you insist on us helping out?? God saves us by grace, not works by us. It is a gift, gifts are free to the receiver. Why do you not pay attention? All the works that God does want us to do are to be done after we are saved. After we are created in Christ Jesus, saved, we are to do good works. That is what we are to do, it is called living the Christian life. (See Ephesians 2:10) You want to work to get saved but the Bible says to get saved to do good works. You have it backwards when you pay attention the Bible.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

It's the scriptures themselves:

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

This is in reference to a different subject, justification, not salvation.

Acts2:38 does not have one receiving the remission of sins before repentance and water baptism:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It certainly does. You are still doing something to aid God in something you cannot do. One cannot ever earn or help God in salvation. Salvation is totally of God. Ephesians 2:8 to 10 makes it perfectly clear that salvation is a gift and is not of works. It is clearly stated that works are to be after one is saved. That being the case, the term “for the remission of sins” can only mean because of the remission of sins.

for preposition (BECAUSE OF) (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/for)
› because of; as a result of (doing something):
She was stopped for speeding.
The things we do for love!
For some reason, she isn’t interested in going out at all tonight.
Certain Chicago restaurants are famous for their deep-dish pizza.

One can certainly be in a "saved" condition before death--but does not actually receive of eternal life, in it's fulness--where one sits on the throne of God--in His presence--until after death.

You need to be clearer than that as you seem to be saying that you are saved but at the same time you are not saved. I believe that you are saved or you are not saved. I do not believe OSAS is a Bible doctrine.

Where does the Bible say that we will ever sit on the throne of God?

Saxon

03-10-2015, 02:40 PM

If it is a Bible it doesn't matter what version it is as they are all saying the same thing. I don,t trust the New World translation (JW) as it is obviously tampered with. The Joseph Smith version is not even considered a Bible.

Contrary to Mormon thought, there is no changes in the Bible. Any m****cript that is dealing with the Bible is saying the same as all the rest.

The difference in versions is different words that mean the same thing. It is the same as if I said, Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare, and you saying, Bob poked **** in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.

Saxon

03-10-2015, 04:40 PM

Or show us where God says that there's to be an end to scripture.

The Bible is only one book. It is a compilation of other books but is treated as one book. The following give warning about adding and subtraction to the Bible. This also means equating other books as equal in authority. There is not enough time to go through the Bible with all the information about the Bible being the one and only authority for instruction in God’s word and I am not going to pound out hours of text that you have already made up your mind about. The following four verses are enough to show that there is nothing more to be added to the scripture.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

theway

03-11-2015, 06:27 AM

The Bible is only one book. It is a compilation of other books but is treated as one book. This is where you err, the Bible is not only one book. It's very name comes from the Greek meaning a collection of scrolls or little books. The Hebrew collections of books which they considered scriptures varied over the years. During Christ's time There were three types of books or collections of books; The Law (The Books of Moses), The Prophets (Major and Minor prophets), and the Writings (or the Psalms) ... Or in other words, three Bibles if you will. It is sometimes refered to in the New Testament by only two as "The Law and the Prophets" and some times by all three as in Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
The early Christians had many different versions of the Bible, where they included books of scripture we don't use today, and excluded many that we do. It was not until the fourth century in the West that they decided on their canon, and the fifth century in the East that a general consensus was given as to what was their canon of scripture. However, the Catholics and Orthodox scriptures and even early Protestant Bibles included addition books of scripture to the Old Testamament called the Deuterocanonical books, which are still in use today in the Catholic and several Orthodox Bibles. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible was only finalized and accepted as canon in 1825, ironically around the time of Joseph Smith. All this was done by vote, and not by revelation.
This is why I asked which Bible God gave His final approval to? And when exactly did it happen?

The following four verses are enough to show that there is nothing more to be added to the scripture.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.This only applies to "THE WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU" otherwise you would have to exclude everything after Deuteronomy as heretical (including All of the New Testament)

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.Once again this is only in reference to ""WHAT THING SOEVER I COMMAND YOU" but not in reference to any Bible, as none existed at that time.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.See above.

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.What does it say?... "TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROCHECY" which means that John was only talking about his Revelation which had nothing to do with the Bible, as there was no Bible at the time except for the Hebrew Bible. So if we were to take this as referring to the "Bible" then we would have to exclude the rest of the New Testament.

Ironically, The book of Revelation barely made it into the Bible and was the last one included as it was not thought to be scripture by many. Even early Protestant Fathers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin believed Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic". It was not included in several Orthodox versions.

Christian

03-11-2015, 01:33 PM

Perhaps you should do a little more homework. . .

Biblos means. . .'book.' It does NOT mean 'a collection of little books or scrolls.'

The BOOK we call 'the Bible' consists of 66 'books,' many of which were merely epistles or letters, parts of which are even poetry.

It is TRUE that the Bible does not say not to add to THE BIBLE, BUT IT DOES SAY:

Jude 3-4
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
NKJV

AND it says:

Gal 1:6-10
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
NKJV

SO, the Bible DOES say that the faith was delivered ONCE FOR ALL (not in tiny parts to be added to or changed as it goes along) to the saints (That term refers to ALL Christians, btw).

AND

IF the message is CHANGED or perverted (as joey smith tried to do), he is literally CURSED TO HELL according to the original-language Greek Bible's new Testament.

So the 'change with the 'changing-wind' of whatever new non-prophetizing 'prophet' you follow in the mormon religion simply IS NOT THE CHURCH Jesus built.

Christian

03-11-2015, 01:40 PM

When did the apostasy occur?

WHICH ONE? Brigham young's apostasy from joey smith's religion?

NO apostasy has happened in CHRIST'S church that ever took anything away from the church (exept perhaps a few stolen hymnals, pens, pencils, junk like that)

When people leave CHRIST'S church they are as the Apostle Paul said:

1 John 2:18-19
18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
NKJV

Since they were NOT 'OF" US, what makes you think they stole part of our scriptures, stole away our responsibility and/or authority to speak for, act for, and teach and preach and live the Word of God?

Joey smith simply didn't know the God of the Bible.

Saxon

03-11-2015, 02:18 PM

This is where you err, the Bible is not only one book. It's very name comes from the Greek meaning a collection of scrolls or little books. The Hebrew collections of books which they considered scriptures varied over the years. During Christ's time There were three types of books or collections of books; The Law (The Books of Moses), The Prophets (Major and Minor prophets), and the Writings (or the Psalms) ... Or in other words, three Bibles if you will. It is sometimes refered to in the New Testament by only two as "The Law and the Prophets" and some times by all three as in Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
The early Christians had many different versions of the Bible, where they included books of scripture we don't use today, and excluded many that we do. It was not until the fourth century in the West that they decided on their canon, and the fifth century in the East that a general consensus was given as to what was their canon of scripture. However, the Catholics and Orthodox scriptures and even early Protestant Bibles included addition books of scripture to the Old Testamament called the Deuterocanonical books, which are still in use today in the Catholic and several Orthodox Bibles. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible was only finalized and accepted as canon in 1825, ironically around the time of Joseph Smith. All this was done by vote, and not by revelation.
This is why I asked which Bible God gave His final approval to? And when exactly did it happen?

Well there you go. It seems that you can’t satisfy everyone. I am of the 66 book pack. The others that we call the Apocrypha contain too many contradictions within themselves and also contradict the 66 that are in the “protestant” groups. The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. This is far earlier than 1825.

When I use a Bible it is one book that has been compiled from 66 other writings. You may believe what you want as I will believe what I want but in the end we will all stand in front of the originator of the Bible and he will give us the correct answer.

This only applies to "THE WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU" otherwise you would have to exclude everything after Deuteronomy as heretical (including All of the New Testament)

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "THE WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

Once again this is only in reference to ""WHAT THING SOEVER I COMMAND YOU" but not in reference to any Bible, as none existed at that time.

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "WHAT THING SOEVER I COMMAND YOU" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

What does it say?... "TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROCHECY" which means that John was only talking about his Revelation which had nothing to do with the Bible, as there was no Bible at the time except for the Hebrew Bible. So if we were to take this as referring to the "Bible" then we would have to exclude the rest of the New Testament.

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROCHECY" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

Ironically, The book of Revelation barely made it into the Bible and was the last one included as it was not thought to be scripture by many. Even early Protestant Fathers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin believed Revelation to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic". It was not included in several Orthodox versions.

The Muratorian Canon (200 AD) includes Revelation.

dberrie2000

03-12-2015, 05:09 AM

alanmolstad

03-12-2015, 11:19 AM

I like to stay out of the conversation when I am not necessarily. ..

Clearly the forum has more than enough people now

dberrie2000

03-13-2015, 05:53 AM

Anyone who does not believe the forgiveness of sins nor the Holy Ghost represents God's grace does not seem Christian, IMO.

I posted the scriptures--they do the testifying for us:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

As I have stated a number of times--the faith alone will deny the Bible, whenever the Bible testifies against them.

Matthew 15:8-9----King James Version (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I like to stay out of the conversation when I am not necessarily. ..

Clearly the forum has more than enough people now

If that is true--then why do the posted scriptures go unanswered? Why do the faith alone here fold, whenever the Bible is brought out?

Saxon

03-13-2015, 08:50 PM

Anyone who does not believe the forgiveness of sins nor the Holy Ghost represents God's grace does not seem Christian, IMO.

Now where do you come up with these opinions? IMO, the forgiveness of sins and the presence of Holy Ghost is the result of the grace of God.

I posted the scriptures--they do the testifying for us:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Yes you do post scriptures, but they are not saying what you wish them to say. You would have them contradict other scriptures that clearly show that you do not need to do anything in order to receive salvation and the misuse of the two that you have posted above is so blatantly contrary to Ephesians 2:8 and 9 it is not as amusing as it was to start with. Because Ephesians 2:8 and 9 says that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works, it is logically impossible for the verses you have posted, Acts 2:38 to possibly mean that repenting and water baptism is going to get you saved.

What is the obedience that and Acts 5:32 is referring to? It is believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, not the things that should be done after a person is saved such as repentance and water baptism. The unsaved will not repent and the unsaved will not submit to water baptism that amounts to obeying the Lord. Those that do submit to water baptism in order to get saved are not going to get saved by water baptism because Ephesians 2:8 and 9 has not been rescinded.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As I have stated a number of times--the faith alone will deny the Bible, whenever the Bible testifies against them.

Matthew 15:8-9----King James Version (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

I have also stated a number of times those that ignore scripture such as Ephesians 2:8 and 9 can quote all the verses that they want to, but salvation is still a gift of God, not a wage for works.

theway

03-15-2015, 02:56 PM

Well there you go. It seems that you can’t satisfy everyone. I am of the 66 book pack. The others that we call the Apocrypha contain too many contradictions within themselves and also contradict the 66 that are in the “protestant” groups. The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. This is far earlier than 1825.You are being contradictory and are not making any sense. First you claim you are a 66 book Bible man, and yet you then reference the Easter letter of Athanasius as some sort of proof or evidence??? However Athanasius was not a Protestant 66 Bible book man as he believed that there were only 22 books that cons***uted the Old Testament. That begs the question, do you believe Protestants like yourself are guilty of adding to the scriptures or the Bible? Or do you believe Early Christianity is guilty of taking away from the Bible? Also as I stated, there were many different veriations of the Bible at that time, his was just one of many, and not accepted by many.
Of interest to note, is that he says several books are still good for the teaching and instruction of new members, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas contains such uniquely Mormon doctrine as: Baptism for the dead, Fasting for a day and then giving the money saved to the needy.

When I use a Bible it is one book that has been compiled from 66 other writings. You may believe what you want as I will believe what I want but in the end we will all stand in front of the originator of the Bible and he will give us the correct answer.
God did not create the Bible... That was man.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. Who are you to limit Christ's words to just 66 small books, and who is man to decide which of His words are actually His?

One day you will have to stand before God and explain why you did that, when He never said to.

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "THE WORD WHICH I COMMAND YOU" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "WHAT THING SOEVER I COMMAND YOU" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.

I do believe that I gave the context of my answer, the Bible is one book. In that context "TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROCHECY" is the whole Bible, nothing more and nothing less.
This is what I don't understand, you posted scripture from Deuteronomy and Revelation to prove that scripture could not be added to the Bible... Yet between Deuteronomy and Revelation there were 60 books of scripture added????
Seems every time you post scripture or references you shot your own argument in the foot.

The Muratorian Canon (200 AD) includes Revelation.It notes it as the Revelations of "John and Peter.".We have the Revelation of John, WHAT HAPPENED TO PETER'S?

I also don't understand your point?
There are 5 books missing in that New Testament canon which is in the Protestant Bible.
Does this proof mean that Protestants have added to the scriptures?
Also of note is the acceptance of the book of The Shepherd of Hermas for instruction...

dberrie2000

03-15-2015, 03:23 PM

Yes you do post scriptures, but they are not saying what you wish them to say.

I wish them to say exactly what they testify to:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

If that is true--then faith alone theology is false.

Christian

03-15-2015, 03:39 PM

I wish them to say exactly what they testify to:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

If that is true--then faith alone theology is false.

The Holy Ghost has CLEARLY SHOWN ME that mormonism is false. The fact that you don't understand what you call 'faith alone theology' simply shows YOUR IGNORANCE of the subject. Nothing more.

And stll, you can find NO complete apostasy of CHRIST'S ORIGINAL CHURCH which makes the false religion of your false prophet worthless cultism.

Christian

03-15-2015, 03:42 PM

The one where the Reformers started new denominations with new theologies.

Not new theologies, but the belief and practice of the ORIGINAL theologies.

UNLIKE the NEW (1800's) theoryologies of joey smith who made up a whole NEW RELIGION.

You know. . .the one that believes in the existance of multiple gods, marrying the current wives of OTHER MEN, 'marriage' to little girls, 'thou shalt shoot thy way out of jail'. . .stuff like that!

Christian

03-15-2015, 07:24 PM

Then why the need for the Reformation? Why the accusation the Early Church Fathers were wrong?

Obviously--if it were bad enough for the Reformers to start numerous new denominations--with a whole new theology--then the apostasy must have been deep.

So far you have not shown any need to start anything new. Neither have you shown that joey smith's junk was believed by CHRIST'S church. . .EVER.

And what about brigham young's 'reformation' of joey smith's religion? You know, the 'reformation' brigham began when he APOSTASIZED from joey's group to go west instead?

Why have the 'reformers' of joey's religion (all 150+ of them counting bringum young's version) started 150+ DIFFERENT smithite denominations, EACH OF THEM with new theologies AND new prophets AND apostles?

Why should we believe bringum yung's version of smith's religion is the 'right' one?

SMITH'S RELIGION NEEDED REFORMATION as badly as the roman religion did, it seems, ONLY SOONER AFTER ITS INVENTION!

dberrie2000

03-15-2015, 07:25 PM

[B][COLOR=#0000ff]Not new theologies, but the belief and practice of the ORIGINAL theologies.

Now you are referring to a Restoration. What do you believe the Reformers restored?

Saxon

03-15-2015, 08:44 PM

You are being contradictory and are not making any sense. First you claim you are a 66 book Bible man, and yet you then reference the Easter letter of Athanasius as some sort of proof or evidence??? However Athanasius was not a Protestant 66 Bible book man as he believed that there were only 22 books that cons***uted the Old Testament. That begs the question, do you believe Protestants like yourself are guilty of adding to the scriptures or the Bible? Or do you believe Early Christianity is guilty of taking away from the Bible? Also as I stated, there were many different veriations of the Bible at that time, his was just one of many, and not accepted by many.
Of interest to note, is that he says several books are still good for the teaching and instruction of new members, such as the Shepherd of Hermas. The Shepherd of Hermas contains such uniquely Mormon doctrine as: Baptism for the dead, Fasting for a day and then giving the money saved to the needy.

The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. This is not scripture. It is a historical document that lists the 27 books of the New Testament long before your 1825 date. The question is do you comprehend what you read? If not, tell me and I will try to explain better.

What do you mean by “the scriptures or the Bible”? I am under the impression when speaking of the Christian scriptures, you are speaking of the Bible and nothing more.

There is no evidence that anyone has taken away from the Bible. The Apocrypha was not supposed to be there to begin with, so in my opinion, that does not count.

If it is not in the Bible is we now have it, there is no need to look to it, as what the Church needs to fully function is in the Bible. Whatever else there is comes from uninspired men and could be good only if it is supported by the Bible. Your uniquely Mormon doctrines are not valid as far as I can see from the Bible.

God did not create the Bible... That was man.

The Bible is the word of God, not the word of man. The word of God is also Jesus Christ who lives and abides forever.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Who are you to limit Christ's words to just 66 small books, and who is man to decide which of His words are actually His?

That was not my decision, the Bible speaks for itself and limits what is to be there. If you were a Bible believer you would know these things.

One day you will have to stand before God and explain why you did that, when He never said to.

What will you say when he asks you why you resorted to extra biblical books to learn about him when he never said to?

This is what I don't understand, you posted scripture from Deuteronomy and Revelation to prove that scripture could not be added to the Bible... Yet between Deuteronomy and Revelation there were 60 books of scripture added????
Seems every time you post scripture or references you shot your own argument in the foot.

That is yet another example of you not comprehending what you read. The result of the 66 books is the Bible, one book. The Bible, the one book is what I said is not to be added to.

It seem every time you try to get into the Bible you show total ignorance of what is called the Bible.

It notes it as the Revelations of "John and Peter.".We have the Revelation of John, WHAT HAPPENED TO PETER'S?

I also don't understand your point?
There are 5 books missing in that New Testament canon which is in the Protestant Bible.
Does this proof mean that Protestants have added to the scriptures?
Also of note is the acceptance of the book of The Shepherd of Hermas for instruction...

The books listed in the Muratorian Canon are as follows:

Gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John
Acts
Letters of Paul to churches: Corinthias (2), Ephesians, Phlippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians (2), Romans
Letters of Paul to individuals: Philemon, ***us, Timothy (2)
Jude, John (2)
Wisdom of Solomon (!)
Revelation of John
Revelation of Peter (!), questionable
Shepherd (or Pastor) of Hermas, good but not be read in church
This leaves out Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. That's not unusual in the west in the 2nd century. In fact, what might be most unusual is his inclusion of 2 John! (Of course, we don't know its 3 John he's leaving out. He doesn't say which two letters of John were being read.)

My point in mentioning this document is to point out that the book of Revelation was in early, around 200 AD, and not just barely making it as you stated. This is a man-made item and does not have to be taken as “God’s truth”. As for the Wisdom of Solomon, Revelation of Peter and Shepherd (or Pastor) of Hermas they didn’t make it. You are so easily carried about by anything that is written concerning scripture. You need to focus on what you are reading then you could understand why a document is mentioned.

The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired.

Saxon

03-15-2015, 08:48 PM

They are out of context and do not mean what you are trying to get them to say. I have answered these distorted use of scripture in other posts. I won't change my mind on it so find different ones to post.

dberrie2000

03-16-2015, 03:57 AM

I wish them to say exactly what they testify to:

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

If that is true--then faith alone theology is false.

They are out of context and do not mean what you are trying to get them to say. I have answered these distorted use of scripture in other posts. I won't change my mind on it so find different ones to post.

Again--this is just the typical answer of the faith alone whenever Biblical scriptures are posted that defy faith alone theology.

Taint so!! answers are neither convincing nor compelling.

Saxon

03-20-2015, 01:36 PM

Again--this is just the typical answer of the faith alone whenever Biblical scriptures are posted that defy faith alone theology.

Taint so!! answers are neither convincing nor compelling.

If you were able to dedicate yourself to the Bible in the same fashion you have dedicated yourself to Joseph Smith and his false teachings that are so obviously contrary to the Bible you would not be so easily turned to every wind of doctrine that the deceivers of the world bring to your ears. (See Ephesians 4:14) In order for you to even understand the simplest things in the Bible you need to have Jesus Christ, the creator of all things created living in you. (See John 1:3)

Your anti Bible comments are neither convincing or compelling!

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

dberrie2000

03-21-2015, 04:04 AM

If you were able to dedicate yourself to the Bible in the same fashion you have dedicated yourself to Joseph Smith and his false teachings that are so obviously contrary to the Bible you would not be so easily turned to every wind of doctrine that the deceivers of the world bring to your ears. (See Ephesians 4:14) In order for you to even understand the simplest things in the Bible you need to have Jesus Christ, the creator of all things created living in you. (See John 1:3)

Your anti Bible comments are neither convincing or compelling!

What do you find as "anti-Bible" about the scriptures I posted?

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

They are certainly anti-faith alone, to be sure.

Saxon

03-21-2015, 07:37 AM

What do you find as "anti-Bible" about the scriptures I posted?

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 5:32---King James Version (KJV)
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

They are certainly anti-faith alone, to be sure.

The scriptures that you post from the Bible are not anti-Bible. You are anti Bible because you miss use the scriptures trying to get them to say what clearly contradicts what is so plain in the Bible. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are trying to say that you need to do something in order to be saved.

Acts 2:38 and Acts 5:32, the way you intend them to state that in order to be saved you have to repent, be baptized and obey, is contrary to Ephesians 2:8 and 9. Ephesians 2:8 and 9 is quite clear that salvation is a gift, not something to be worked for by repenting, being baptized or obeying. Salvation is NOT of works. What you are claiming is not a possibility when Ephesians 2:8 and 9 is in the Bible.

If you wish to continue, try explaining why Ephesians 2:8 and 9 does not make your version impossible.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast

Phoenix

03-21-2015, 10:51 AM

...other scriptures that clearly show that you do not need to do anything in order to receive salvation ....

If nobody needs to do anything in order to be saved, then won't everyone be saved? If not, then upon what basis will they be denied salvation?

Saxon

03-21-2015, 12:18 PM

If nobody needs to do anything in order to be saved, then won't everyone be saved? If not, then upon what basis will they be denied salvation?

I may have miss stated the fact. Try this: other scriptures clearly show that you do not need to do anything in order to merit the reception of salvation. I make this slight change because it idea of doing or working for salvation is not a biblical concept.

In Ephesians 2:8 we are told that we are saved by grace, through faith. The term grace eliminated the ability of anyone doing anything to merit salvation. The term gift also eliminated the ability of anyone doing anything to merit salvation.

In Ephesians 2:9 Not of works again eliminated the ability of anyone doing anything to merit salvation. There is no way that a person can say that you must do something in order to receive salvation.

In Ephesians 2:8 states that salvation is by grace, through faith. Faith is a condition of salvation that God has made a requirement. We are requires to respond to the call of God to salvation by faith. Acts 16:29 to 31 covers this question of faith.

Paul and Silas were asked directly, what must I do to be saved? The only answer that was given was Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. There was no mention of doing any repenting being baptized or obeying, there were no further conditions for receiving salvation. Believing was the act of faith that God requires. Believing is placing a person into a position of obedience. The question is, did believing do the actual saving of anyone? The Bible says that salvation is by grace and it is a gift of God, so the answer is no, believing did not and does not save. God is the ony one that saves. Why did God save anyone?

John 3:16 says that God loves us so much that he saves us if we if we believe in Jesus Christ. That is all that we can do, believe in Christ. Our believing does not cause God to be obligated to save us. This is because he had determined, before the foundation of the world, that whoever was in Christ would be saved. (See Ephesians 1:4) Before the foundation of the world and before there was anyone actually in Christ God had made up his mind to save those that would be in Christ. Therefore it is again impossible to influence God because God has already said that he is going to save.

As far as works are concerned they come after one is in Christ and saved. (See Ephesians 2:10) Being saved, because of his workmanship in creating us in Christ Jesus, we are to do good works that God has ordained. We, as Christians are obligated to do works because we are saved, not to get saved.

John 3:19 is the only basis that will deny anyone salvation.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

theway

03-21-2015, 01:22 PM

If nobody needs to do anything in order to be saved, then won't everyone be saved? If not, then upon what basis will they be denied salvation?I've been asking that for years.
At least a few "God does it all" Faith Aloners will admit that there is no criteria which God uses in determining who will be saved and who will not. The rest just say it is a mystery.

That is one of the many paradoxes with "God does it all", there can not be any criteria. If there is then God is a respecter of persons, or makes our salvation dependent on a work we did.
The only problem is that if there is not any criteria which God uses, then it comes back to the old "Salvation Lottery" system of random chance.

The bottom line is if "God does it all" and we do nothing to either lessen or enhance our chance at salvation, then one would have to question why they are wasting their time talking to us trying to get us to see their point of view?
As nothing they do, or we do, can change anything.

Phoenix

03-21-2015, 03:01 PM

I've been asking that for years.
At least a few "God does it all" Faith Aloners will admit that there is no criteria which God uses in determining who will be saved and who will not. The rest just say it is a mystery.

That is one of the many the paradoxes with "God does it all", there can not be any criteria. If there is then God is a respecter of persons, or makes our salvation dependent on a work we did.
The only problem is that if there is not any criteria which God uses, then it comes back to the old "Salvation Lottery" system of random chance.
That's kind of what I have seen. The two most prevalent soteriologies I have seen from them are:

1. There IS one thing, and ONLY one thing, that we must do in order to be saved, and that is "have faith." BUT...but even THAT is given by God and is not something that WE choose to have...lest any should boast. So the bottom line is STILL "God does it all."

2. The Calvinistic Salvation lottery, where God pre-decided each person's fate before He created any of us, and He ***igned us to salvation or hell right then, and there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to switch our fate from "guaranteed salvation" to "guaranteed ****ation" or vice versa. So again: God does it all and He does it completely arbitrarily.

The bottom line is if "God does it all" and we do nothing to either lessen or enhance our chance at salvation, then one would have to question why they are wasting their time talking to us trying to get us to see their point of view?
As nothing they do, or we do, can change anything.
I was thinking of the Great Commission yesterday, and wondering the same thing: What is the point in Christ sending believers out to teach and baptize non-believers, if it doesn't increase, even 1%, their chances of being saved?

dberrie2000

03-22-2015, 05:02 AM

I may have miss stated the fact. Try this: other scriptures clearly show that you do not need to do anything in order to merit the reception of salvation. I make this slight change because it idea of doing or working for salvation is not a biblical concept.

In Ephesians 2:8 we are told that we are saved by grace, through faith. The term grace eliminated the ability of anyone doing anything to merit salvation. The term gift also eliminated the ability of anyone doing anything to merit salvation.

Is God extending His salvational grace to them that obey His commands a "working for salvation" concept--or meriting salvation, IE--

Revelation 22:14--King James Version (KJV)
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

dberrie2000

03-22-2015, 05:08 AM

THEY went back to the ORIGINAL beliefs, though some still held to what they had been taught by the apostate rcc in some instance, in matters not having to do with Salvation.

If they went back to the original beliefs--then there had to have been an apostasy--and something had to be restored to the original point.

Yep, the ROMAN religion had left the fold. But the fold REMAINED. Jesus' church has NEVER failed.

If the fold remained--then why did they have to go back to the original beliefs? And if the fold remained--why didn't the Reformers just join with those original fold, instead of starting new denominations?

Christian

03-22-2015, 06:54 AM

When did the apostasy occur?

So far the only apostasy REALLY worth talking about here is the apostasy of brigham young from joseph smith's religion. Smith invented a manmade religion. Young re-invented it and left smith's religion to become the Utah mormon religion.

Utah mormons apostasied.

Christian

03-22-2015, 07:02 AM

berrie posted:
If they went back to the original beliefs--then there had to have been an apostasy--and something had to be restored to the original point.

As we have pointed out to you (but of course you refuse to acknowledge because you are part of your own religion's apostasy from joey smith's invented religion), the roman catholic religion had apostasied. The CHRISTIANS within the rcc (not the CHRISTIANS that never were part of that apostate religion) left the rcc to rejoin those CHRISTIANS that were never apostasied at all.

Your self-imposed ingnorance doesn't impress anyone, berry.

If the fold remained--then why did they have to go back to the original beliefs? And if the fold remained--why didn't the Reformers just join with those original fold, instead of starting new denominations?

The rcc 'fold' remained apostasied. The reformers had to continue studying their SCRIPTURES to relearn (and undo the trash from the rcc) the original beliefs.

The original 'fold' made up of all of the CHRISTIANS in the world remained CHRIST'S fold all along.

And joey smith's religion hadn't even been invented yet.

Christian

03-22-2015, 07:05 AM

Now you are referring to a Restoration. What do you believe the Reformers restored?

They didn't 'restore' anything. They simply REJOINED genuine Christianity which has been alive and well for about 2,000 years now.

And joey smith hadn't even INVENTED his new religion yet!

theway

03-22-2015, 11:14 AM

So far the only apostasy REALLY worth talking about here is the apostasy of brigham young from joseph smith's religion. Smith invented a manmade religion. Young re-invented it and left smith's religion to become the Utah mormon religion.

Utah mormons apostasied.
I'm always amazed at how little Critics of our Church actually know about our Church, the gospel, or the bible, yet they think they can come on here to school us.
If you notice below the Twelve as a quorum are equal in authority to the Presidency of the Church. So when the President/Prophet dies or the Presidency is disolved, then the 12 Apostles instantly take over the Leadership of the Church, and they are then the ones to elect a new President when all 12 are present and in agreement.

THE TWELVE CHOOSE BRIGHAM YOUNG!

Any claim by anyone outside of that process which God revealed to Joseph Smith, are erroneous and they will become apostates if they persist in their claims

D&C 107:22-24
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

Erundur

03-22-2015, 12:08 PM

So far the only apostasy REALLY worth talking about here is the apostasy of brigham young from joseph smith's religion. Smith invented a manmade religion. Young re-invented it and left smith's religion to become the Utah mormon religion.
Brigham Young was chosen and sustained by the membership of the church to succeed Joseph Smith as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the same church that Joseph Smith organized in 1830.

Utah mormons apostasied.
Your statement is objectively false.

dberrie2000

03-22-2015, 05:10 PM

[COLOR=#0000FF]They didn't 'restore' anything. They simply REJOINED genuine Christianity which has been alive and well for about 2,000 years now.

If it was alive and well--then why the need for the Reformation?

Christian

03-22-2015, 09:23 PM

If it was alive and well--then why the need for the Reformation?

CHRISTIANITY didn't need reformed. The apostate rcc did.

Just like your MORMON JUNK does.

Sorry berry, but you are too blinded by satan to see, imho.

Scripture doesn't support you.
God doesn't support you.
You subscribe to a false religion started by a liar, conman, adulterer (you STILL have not proven anyone wrong about those things), and false prophet (you are too blind to notice that).

The Bible clearly addresses such stuff:

Matt 24:23-25
believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
NKJV

1 Cor 2:14-15
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

The mormon religion is full of spiritually dead people. The dead cannot understand the TRUTH from God unless HE reveals it to them. When He does that, YOU WILL KNOW THAT.

But for now, you are blind, dead in your tresp***es and sins.

YOU need to be reformed, become a 'new man' in Jesus Christ.

Phoenix

03-22-2015, 11:11 PM

CHRISTIANITY didn't need reformed. The apostate rcc did.
And did Martin Luther succeed in reforming it?

dberrie2000

03-23-2015, 05:51 AM

[COLOR=#0000FF] CHRISTIANITY didn't need reformed. The apostate rcc did.

The Reformers didn't reform the Catholic church--they started a whole new set of denominations--with a new theology. If they simply "rejoined" Christianity--why the need for new denominations?

Christian---They didn't 'restore' anything. They simply REJOINED genuine Christianity which has been alive and well for about 2,000 years now.

Christian

04-11-2015, 07:10 AM

berrie posted:
The Reformers didn't reform the Catholic church--they started a whole new set of denominations--with a new theology. If they simply "rejoined" Christianity--why the need for new denominations?

The reformers TRIED to reform the catholic religion. If you are whining about 'denominations,' why don't you whine of the 150+ MORMON denominations that came from smith's religion including the apostate brigham young's apostasy from emma smith and joseph smith III, the next president of SMITH'S religion (according to what GOD SUPPOSEDLY TOLD HIM). Instead, young broke off, apostasized, and went west and started HIS OWN NEW DENOMINATION OF MORMONISM.

Denominations. . .parts of the same.

Ones
Fives
Tens
Twenties
Fifties
hundreds

ALL parts of the SAME monetary system.

Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, ***emblies of God, Calvary Chapels, Bible churches
ALL parts of CHRIST'S church

Mormonism, white supremecisim, jw'ism, branch davidianism. . . .all parts of the same satanic cultisms.

Phoenix

04-14-2015, 04:01 PM

The reformers TRIED to reform the catholic religion.

They tried, and they failed, correct?
Why would God allow them to fail? Did God lack the power or ability to prevent this failure? Or did God have the ability, but lacked the desire?

Christian

04-16-2015, 06:45 AM

They tried, and they failed, correct?
Why would God allow them to fail? Did God lack the power or ability to prevent this failure? Or did God have the ability, but lacked the desire?

They found it easier to LEAVE the catholic religion than to really reform it. What YOU seem to be missing is that they were trying to reform the CATHOLIC RELIGION, NOT CHRISTIANITY. CHRISTIANITY was (and has been for about 2,000 years now) doing just fine and didn't need any 'reforming' OR 'made up junk by joe smith' either.

You really ought to acquaint yourself with Biblical CHRISTIANITY. It will amaze you!

Christian

04-16-2015, 06:52 AM

erunder posted:
Brigham Young was chosen and sustained by the membership of the church to succeed Joseph Smith as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the same church that Joseph Smith organized in 1830.

He did win the popularity contest. More folks left joseph smith's church with him than stayed, it's true.

A MAJOR apostasy, clearly!

Your statement is objectively false.

Of COURSE you say that. You have a vested interest in hoping that is true. Of course it is not. Simply winning the popularity constest as bringum yung did does not make HIS new religion become 'of God.' That would be like saying that since Judaism remained more popular than Christianity back at that crucifiction, Judaism was 'chosen and sustained by' its membership and therefore 'gotta still be God's church.'

No, your theory doesn't wash.

Christian

04-16-2015, 06:58 AM

way posted:
I'm always amazed at how little Critics of our Church actually know about our Church, the gospel, or the bible, yet they think they can come on here to school us.

I am always amazed at how little mormons know about their own religion, don't know what their religion has taught (it is all recorded in the archives of the mormon religion), and have never thought it out, but simply suck in the spoon-feeding they get from their church without ever really examining it.

If you notice below the Twelve as a quorum are equal in authority to the Presidency of the Church. So when the President/Prophet dies or the Presidency is disolved, then the 12 Apostles instantly take over the Leadership of the Church, and they are then the ones to elect a new President when all 12 are present and in agreement.

THE TWELVE CHOOSE BRIGHAM YOUNG!

WHICH twelve? The ones bringum yung chose himself?

Any claim by anyone outside of that process which God revealed to Joseph Smith, are erroneous and they will become apostates if they persist in their claims

I erased your d&c manmade junk. It doesn't have anything to do with the made-up junk by young when he apostasied.

So anyone who disagrees with YOU will become apostates, huh?

SOME religion you have there, my friend!

Erundur

04-16-2015, 07:35 AM

He did win the popularity contest.
And therefore Brigham Young was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith.

More folks left joseph smith's church with him than stayed, it's true.
Prove it.

Of COURSE you say that. You have a vested interest in hoping that is true.
LOL, it's not a matter of hope, it's objective truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not apostatize from itself. That's silly.

Simply winning the popularity constest(sic) as bringum(sic) yung(sic) did does not make HIS new religion become 'of God.'
Of course not. It was already of God before that!

Christian

04-16-2015, 01:53 PM

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianHe did win the popularity contest.

And therefore Brigham Young was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith.

Christianity by popularity contest, I see. . .

More folks left joseph smith's church with him than stayed, it's true. [/quote]

Prove it.

Are you trying to DISAGREE with the FACT that more folks left with bringum yung than stayed with emma smith?

Of COURSE you say that. You have a vested interest in hoping that is true.

LOL, it's not a matter of hope, it's objective truth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not apostatize from itself. That's silly.

The Utah mormons DID apostasize from joseph smith's and emma's religion. . .

And you DO have a vested interest in hoping that is true. Are you DENYING your vested interest?

[quote] Simply winning the popularity constest(sic) as bringum(sic) yung(sic) did does not make HIS new religion become 'of God.'

Of course not. It was already of God before that!

Too bad it was not 'of' the GOD OF THE BIBLE. Your false gods = the one false god = satan.

Phoenix

04-16-2015, 04:01 PM

They found it easier to LEAVE the catholic religion than to really reform it.
It's amazing how little some anti-Mormons know about the history of Christianity in general, and the history of Protestantism in particular. Father Martin Luther, priest, was first defrocked, and then excommunicated from the church that HE BELIEVED to BE the Christian church--because of his efforts to reform that church.

Once he had been excommunicated, he and his followers had no choice but to start their own church. If there had been a church teaching their version of Christianity already in existence at the time, wouldn't Luther and his disciples have joined THAT church instead of creating their own, brand new church?

Erundur

04-16-2015, 05:45 PM

Christianity by popularity contest, I see. . .
Since you have no re****al, I accept your concession.

Are you trying to DISAGREE with the FACT that more folks left with bringum yung than stayed with emma smith?
I'm challenging you to prove your ***ertion that over 50% of the members left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Utah mormons DID apostasize from joseph smith's and emma's religion. . .
Until you can explain how a church can apostatize from itself, your ***ertion goes directly into the silly bin.

Too bad it was not 'of' the GOD OF THE BIBLE. Your false gods = the one false god = satan.
Now you're just pouting.

alanmolstad

04-17-2015, 04:42 AM

CHRISTIANITY didn't need reformed. The apostate rcc did.

.

I think I remember posting the actual sticking points that Luther had with his Catholic church.
There were a bunch of them.

I also remember reading in his list of reasons that there was nothing there that was actually about the religion itself that needed reforming, rather what seems to be the big deal is the introduction of the idea of gift giving cash or gold as a means to not have to deal with other issues.

So the Christian 'faith" as it were, (one God, resurrection, the trinity,etc) was not effected and remains the same in both Catholic and non-catholic churches.
And that is why I can feel free to worship god in both catholic and non types of churches...for the same "God, the same "faith"is found there.

The administration is different however...
And it to this very day continues to struggle .
The administration is the sticking point.

Not the faith.....

But the people who tended to use their position to introduce ideas that are a financial benefit to themselves...

What seems to have happened, (and is always a issue to this very day) is that the people that go to church start to look like a "market" to 'tap" for coin.

The moment this happens in whatever church you are a member of, it tends to cause people to take advantage of others as they seek to tap the market to pay for things like buildings or wars.....

Christian

04-18-2015, 09:36 AM

erunder posted:

Originally Posted by Christian Christianity by popularity contest, I see. . .

Since you have no re****al, I accept your concession.

I guess you cannot read. I re****ed you by pointing out to you that your popularity contest was not Christian.

Therefore, in your ignorance, I accept that you cannot read with understanding.

I'm challenging you to prove your ***ertion that over 50% of the members left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I never said over 50% of bringum yung's followers left pervert yung. I merely pointed out that more than half apostasized WITH him, leaving SMITH'S religion, not yungchaser's religion.

The Utah mormons DID apostasize from joseph smith's and emma's religion. . .

Until you can explain how a church can apostatize from itself, your ***ertion goes directly into the silly bin.

Your (and bringum yung's) religion is VASTLY DIFFERENT from tht of joseph smith, his LEGITIMATE wife and son's religion. Your religion is vastly DIFFERENT from that of the rlds that smith III led, the church joseph smith REALLY built.

Christian

04-18-2015, 09:44 AM

They tried, and they failed, correct?
Why would God allow them to fail? Did God lack the power or ability to prevent this failure? Or did God have the ability, but lacked the desire?

God led them to LEAVE the rcc. Has God FAILED to remove the perverted religions that broke off from joseph, emma, and joseph smith III to form THEIR OWN NEW RELIGIONS? Or does God have the ability, but lack the desire? :rolleyes:

Erundur

04-18-2015, 11:49 AM

I guess you cannot read. I re****ed you by pointing out to you that your popularity contest was not Christian.
1) No you didn't, and 2) that wouldn't be a re****al anyway.

I never said over 50% of bringum yung's followers left pervert yung. I merely pointed out that more than half apostasized WITH him, leaving SMITH'S religion, not yungchaser's religion.
You lost me. I thought we were talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your (and bringum yung's) religion is VASTLY DIFFERENT from tht of joseph smith, his LEGITIMATE wife and son's religion. Your religion is vastly DIFFERENT from that of the rlds that smith III led, the church joseph smith REALLY built.
Your ***ertion is objectively false. Joseph Smith did not found the RLDS church.

Christian

04-18-2015, 02:44 PM

erunder posted:

1) No you didn't, and 2) that wouldn't be a re****al anyway.

I never said over 50% of bringum yung's followers left pervert yung. I merely pointed out that more than half apostasized WITH him, leaving SMITH'S religion, not yungchaser's religion.
You lost me. I thought we were talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You were lost long ago; you need to be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

We were talking about the church that joseph smith built, not the 'church of jesus christ of latter-day saints,' the group that came OUT of smith's religion to become a new one of its own

Your (and bringum yung's) religion is VASTLY DIFFERENT from tht of joseph smith, his LEGITIMATE wife and son's religion. Your religion is vastly DIFFERENT from that of the rlds that smith III led, the church joseph smith REALLY built.

Your ***ertion is objectively false. Joseph Smith did not found the RLDS church.

No he did not. HE founded his own religion that emma and the rest of that religion REORGANIZED into the RLDS church later, AFTER bringum young apostasized with more than 50% of its members.

You can play word-games all you want, but you CANNOT HONESTLY pretend that brigham young DIDN'T apostasize from smith's church. You can tell all the lies, make all the excuses, pretend all the pretenses you wish, but you CANNOT HONESTLY REFUTE THE TRUTH. Young and his group LEFT smith's group behind (APOSTASIZED).

Christian

04-18-2015, 02:54 PM

dberry posted:

THE MORMON apostasies (all 150+ of them) however have resulted in about 150 DIFFERENT THEOLOGIES in the mormon religion. Perhaps you could 'explain' THAT?

How does that differ from the thousands of splinter groups of Protestantism? Splinter groups were even a reality for the NT church. The difference between the splinter groups in the NT--and what God accepted as His own church--was it was founded on the living, mortal apostles and prophets:

Ephesians 2:20King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Same thing the rlds and the other splinter groups (like the bringum young group) all claim, each with its own "real" apostles and prophets.

Why should we believe young was 'the right one' and not joseph smith III? Or not the current 'fundamentalist group.

Of course SMITH'S religion splintered into 150+ groups in less than 180 years!

NOW YOU WANT TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE CHRISTIAN GROUPS AS "JUST ANOTHER GROUP?"

Naah, FIRST you would have to become a genuine CHRISTIAN group, not a cultist any more. You'd have to renounce the false 'prophet' joey smith.

btw, why haven't your 'prophets' been able to PROPHESY for over 75 years now? Why do you CALL them 'prophets' when they cannot actually prophesy?

It appears your religion LOST ITS CORNERSTONE! You PRETEND those 12 guys you elected are 'apostles' and that such 'apostles' must be alive and mortal in every year of the church Jesus built.

YET YOU LOST YOUR CHIEF CORNERSTONE. . .UNLESS you want to PRETEND that you have a 'real, mortal, living jesus' alive in your head offices too! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Is YOUR god so inconsistent? Does YOUR god lie?

Erundur

04-18-2015, 06:35 PM

We were talking about the church that joseph smith built, not the 'church of jesus christ of latter-day saints,' the group that came OUT of smith's religion to become a new one of its own
That makes no sense. How can a church come out of itself?

No he did not.
I'm glad we could get that cleared up.

You can play word-games all you want,
But I don't need to; you're playing enough games for both of us.

but you CANNOT HONESTLY pretend that brigham young DIDN'T apostasize from smith's church.
Of course not; I don't have to pretend at all, because reality is on my side.

You can tell all the lies, make all the excuses, pretend all the pretenses you wish, but you CANNOT HONESTLY REFUTE THE TRUTH.
No you can't, but I know you're going to continue to try.

Young and his group LEFT smith's group behind (APOSTASIZED).
False.

Phoenix

04-18-2015, 09:52 PM

God led them to LEAVE the rcc.
So God led Luther and his followers to leave the RCC, "forcing" them to start up a new church called the Lutheran church? God "inspired" the Pope to excommunicate Martin Luther?

So similarly, God led the Methodists to kick out Joseph Smith from being a visitor to their Bible studies, "forcing " him to start up HIS new church, the LDS church?

Has God FAILED to remove the perverted religions that broke off from joseph, emma, and joseph smith III to form THEIR OWN NEW RELIGIONS?
If God allowed the perverted break-off churches (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.), the "illegitimate offspring" of the Catholic church, to survive to this very day, then why wouldn't He also allow the perverted break-off churches from the LDS church (the RLDS, Temple Lot, etc.) to also survive?

Christian

04-19-2015, 01:58 PM

phoenix posted:

So God led Luther and his followers to leave the RCC, "forcing" them to start up a new church called the Lutheran church? God "inspired" the Pope to excommunicate Martin Luther?

They left the rcc RELIGION to form a 'new' CONGREGATION of THE OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Leaving the rcc is NOT leaving CHRISTIANITY, but is leaving a MANMADE RELIGION.

And CHOOSING to leave is NOT 'being forced.'

So similarly, God led the Methodists to kick out Joseph Smith from being a visitor to their Bible studies, "forcing " him to start up HIS new church, the LDS church?

Joe smith may have been forced to leave the methodist group for any of many reasons, one of which was the fact that he was a thief and a conman who apparently showed no repentance.

Nobody "forced" joey smith to invent his own new religion, the now RLDS church, from which bringum young and his group apostasized (left, walked away from).

If God allowed the perverted break-off churches (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.), the "illegitimate offspring" of the Catholic church, to survive to this very day, then why wouldn't He also allow the perverted break-off churches from the LDS church (the RLDS, Temple Lot, etc.) to also survive?

The Lutheran and Baptist churches are PARTS OF CHRIST'S church, but the mormon religion is not. God also allows the muslims (islam) to survive along with the church of satan.

God seems to allow LOTS of heretical and sinful organizations survive for a while like the mormons, muslims, and church of satan.

Phoenix

04-19-2015, 09:05 PM

They left the rcc RELIGION ...
Martin Luther was KICKED OUT because he had been given several warnings, and several chances to recant his accusations, and he refused to do so. His membership in the church that he believed to be the mother church of Christianity, was terminated.

If you had a ***, and the boss fired you for insubordination, would it be honest to tell your next employer "Yeah, I LEFT my former ***" ?? Is that how honest Christians do things?

And CHOOSING to leave is NOT 'being forced.'
"Yeah, I CHOSE to leave my former ***." Seems dishonest.

dberrie2000

04-20-2015, 04:45 AM

They left the rcc RELIGION to form a 'new' CONGREGATION of THE OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Are you claiming "Christianity" had to be restored?

Apologette

04-20-2015, 07:51 AM

Are you claiming "Christianity" had to be restored?

We are claiming that Joseph Smith was a disgusting pedophile and "restored" pagan sex worship!

Phoenix

04-20-2015, 02:44 PM

We are claiming that Joseph Smith was a disgusting pedophile and "restored" pagan sex worship!

I don't worship pagan sex, nor do I worship sex of any other type, for that matter. Do any of you other Mormons worship it?

Erundur

04-20-2015, 08:01 PM

I don't worship pagan sex, nor do I worship sex of any other type, for that matter. Do any of you other Mormons worship it?
I never have either...but it sounds interesting.

dberrie2000

04-21-2015, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post--Are you claiming "Christianity" had to be restored?

We are claiming that Joseph Smith was a disgusting pedophile and "restored" pagan sex worship!

How does that collate with Christian's post?

Originally Posted by Christian View Post---They left the rcc RELIGION to form a 'new' CONGREGATION of THE OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Who left the "rcc RELIGION" to form a new congregation called Christianity?

dberrie2000

04-22-2015, 04:44 AM

[COLOR=#0000FF][COLOR=#0000FF]They left the rcc RELIGION to form a 'new' CONGREGATION of THE OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Are you claiming "Christianity" had to be restored?

Bump for Christian

Christian

04-22-2015, 08:22 AM

Are you claiming "Christianity" had to be restored?

Apparently you cannot READ. The rcc needed (and STILL needs) to be restored to CHRISTIANITY. The reformers left the apostate rcc to return to CHRISTIANITY which had existed and operated effectively all along. They simply formed new PARTS or CONGREGATIONS of the OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY. They did not form 'new religions' at all. The disgusting pedophile joey smith DID form his own 'new religion' however, with junk that CHRIST'S church never taught, believed, or practiced.

Christian

04-22-2015, 08:29 AM

erunder posted:

That makes no sense. How can a church come out of itself?

It is called APOSTASY when a group leaves the original group to form a NEW group. bringum young left the original group (the one joey smith invented) and went west to form a NEW group, the lds group in utah. duh!

You can play word-games all you want, but you CANNOT HONESTLY pretend that brigham young DIDN'T apostasize from smith's church. You can tell all the lies, make all the excuses, pretend all the pretenses you wish, but you CANNOT HONESTLY REFUTE THE TRUTH.

But I don't need to; you're playing enough games for both of us.

Of course not; I don't have to pretend at all, because reality is on my side.

No you can't, but I know you're going to continue to try.

The TRUTH is that young's group IS NO LONGER PART OF SMITH'S GROUP (the rlds) BECAUSE YOUNG APOSTASIZED (LEFT the group to form a NEW group)

You can continue to make your false claims if you wish, but don't expect anyone to believe you.

Erundur

04-22-2015, 10:04 AM

It is called APOSTASY when a group leaves the original group to form a NEW group.
Exactly. That's why your claim is false.

bringum young left the original group (the one joey smith invented) and went west to form a NEW group, the lds group in utah. duh!
I don't know about him, but Brigham Young was selected as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--the original church that Joseph Smith organized. You are objectively wrong.

The TRUTH is that young's group IS NO LONGER PART OF SMITH'S GROUP (the rlds) BECAUSE YOUNG APOSTASIZED (LEFT the group to form a NEW group)
That's false. The LDS church was never part of the RLDS church.

You can continue to make your false claims if you wish, but don't expect anyone to believe you.
LOL!

theway

04-22-2015, 12:08 PM

It is called APOSTASY when a group leaves the original group to form a NEW group. bringum young left the original group (the one joey smith invented) and went west to form a NEW group, the lds group in utahJust continuing to repeat the same false claim, over and over, will not make it true.

Because even if you believe Joseph Smith "made up" the Mormon Church, you would also have to believe that he "made up" the rules for succession of the Presidency and who leads the Mormon Church. Those rules are clearly spelled out in the D&C by Joseph Smith whether you believe it was made up or not.
According to those rules, The Twleve becomes the Authority of the Church after the death of the President, and then it is The Twelve who elects the next President... They elected Brigham Young.

Seeing as though you also believe that the RLDS were following made-up rules by Joseph Smith as well, where are those made-up rules that gives them authority?

Christian

04-22-2015, 03:50 PM

way posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianIt is called APOSTASY when a group leaves the original group to form a NEW group. bringum young left the original group (the one joey smith invented) and went west to form a NEW group, the lds group in utah

Just continuing to repeat the same false claim, over and over, will not make it true.

Now what? Will you pretend that the group bringum young left when he went west WASN'T THE ORIGINAL CHURCH that smith built?
OR
Will you instead pretend that bringum young really DIDN'T go west, leaving (apostasizing from) the group that joseph smith DID build?

Repeating myself does not make my claim become false NOR does your whine make it become true.

Bringum went west, leaving the wife, son and rest of the original group behind him (that IS called 'apostasy.).

Because even if you believe Joseph Smith "made up" the Mormon Church, you would also have to believe that he "made up" the rules for succession of the Presidency and who leads the Mormon Church. Those rules are clearly spelled out in the D&C by Joseph Smith whether you believe it was made up or not.

OR (and most likely) he simply IGNORED THE RULES (as most cultists do), conned the rest that went west to follow him, and went west, and phooey on his god!

According to those rules, The Twleve becomes the Authority of the Church after the death of the President, and then it is The Twelve who elects the next President... They elected Brigham Young.

WHICH twelve? HOW MANY of the ORIGINALS were conned by young to vote for him? Who ran the popularity contest?

Seeing as though you also believe that the RLDS were following made-up rules by Joseph Smith as well, where are those made-up rules that gives them authority?

In GOD'S sight NEITHER of the two groups has any authority to do ANYTHING FOR GOD. You don't worship the God of the Bible, you don't follow the Christ of the Bible, you follow a man-who-you-think-BECAME-a-god, and a 'spirit brother of satan' according to mormon doctrine. There is no genuine 'authority from God' in any of it.

Phoenix

04-22-2015, 09:01 PM

even if you believe Joseph Smith "made up" the Mormon Church, you would also have to believe that he "made up" the rules for succession of the Presidency and who leads the Mormon Church. Those rules are clearly spelled out in the D&C by Joseph Smith whether you believe it was made up or not.
According to those rules, The Twleve becomes the Authority of the Church after the death of the President, and then it is The Twelve who elects the next President... They elected Brigham Young.

Seeing as though you also believe that the RLDS were following made-up rules by Joseph Smith as well, where are those made-up rules that gives them authority?

Good points. Plus, Joseph had a vision of the church--the real one, not the "apostate" one--fleeing to the Rocky Mountains to get away from its enemies. That kind of rules out the RLDS being the true church, since it stayed in Missouri. And it kind of supports the group led by B. Young as being the legitimate continuation of the church Joseph founded, since the group led by Young DID fulfill Joseph's prophecy, and settled in the West.

But other than those facts of history, "Christian" may have a valid theory....

dberrie2000

04-23-2015, 04:12 AM

Apparently you cannot READ. The rcc needed (and STILL needs) to be restored to CHRISTIANITY. The reformers left the apostate rcc to return to CHRISTIANITY

Again--why did they have to return to Christianity, if it was already present--and operating effectively?

which had existed and operated effectively all along.

If it was effectively operating--then why would they have to "return" to it? Christian--the Reformers didn't return to anything but a newly created denomination--with a whole new theology.

They simply formed new PARTS or CONGREGATIONS of the OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Why would the Reformers have to do so--if Christianity "which had existed and operated effectively all along."--is a true statement?

The Reformers did not form 'new religions' at all.

They most certainly did--it's called "sola fide"(faith alone)--and is not found but once in the Biblical text:

James 2:24--New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Not only did they form a new theology--but whole new denominations.

Christian

04-23-2015, 07:01 AM

dberry posted:

Originally Posted by ChristianApparently you cannot READ. The rcc needed (and STILL needs) to be restored to CHRISTIANITY. The reformers left the apostate rcc to return to CHRISTIANITY

Again--why did they have to return to Christianity, if it was already present--and operating effectively?

Because (of course, but you don't like this) they (the reformers) had been part of the catholic religion, NOT Christianity up to that point, and they LEFT the catholic religion to join Christianity which was alive and well and doing just fine.

which had existed and operated effectively all along.

If it was effectively operating--then why would they have to "return" to it? Christian--the Reformers didn't return to anything but a newly created denomination--with a whole new theology.

Why did the Ephesians start a whole new CHRISTIAN church the first time Paul went there? OH YES! It was because there were a bunch of folks who JOINED the Way (as CHRIST'S church was called). WHENEVER there is a sizable new group of people who come to JESUS CHRIST a new CONGREGATION (the DEFINITION of "church") is created.

As for the 'whole new theology,' the only one of THOSE that has appeared is the one joey smith invented.

They simply formed new PARTS or CONGREGATIONS of the OLD RELIGION called CHRISTIANITY.

Why would the Reformers have to do so--if Christianity "which had existed and operated effectively all along."--is a true statement?

I feel like I am explaining to a five-year-old who has comprehension skills. THEY (the reformers) came to Jesus Christ and formed a new CONGREGATION (the DEFINITION of 'church'). PAUL did that in each new city he visited, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, places like that where no church had existed of those folks before.

The Reformers did not form 'new religions' at all.

They most certainly did--it's called "sola fide"(faith alone)--and is not found but once in the Biblical text:

James 2:24--New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Not only did they form a new theology--but whole new denominations.

Just because YOU don't know what 'sola fide' refers to (ONLY Jesus Christ saves us. ONLY through faith. FAITH RESULTS IN WORKS, ALWAYS) Your ignorance does not make Biblical truth at all.

Sorry berry, but you have no REAL argument against normal CHRISTIANITY. Your cult is nothing more than another amongst many cults. Your heathen gods no different than the others.

Christian

04-23-2015, 07:24 AM

phoenix posted:

Originally Posted by theway even if you believe Joseph Smith "made up" the Mormon Church, you would also have to believe that he "made up" the rules for succession of the Presidency and who leads the Mormon Church. Those rules are clearly spelled out in the D&C by Joseph Smith whether you believe it was made up or not.
According to those rules, The Twleve becomes the Authority of the Church after the death of the President, and then it is The Twelve who elects the next President... They elected Brigham Young.

Seeing as though you also believe that the RLDS were following made-up rules by Joseph Smith as well, where are those made-up rules that gives them authority?

Good points.

Except for the fact that I demonstrated that each one of his points were false, not valid, illogical and untrue.

Plus, Joseph had a vision of the church--the real one, not the "apostate" one--fleeing to the Rocky Mountains to get away from its enemies. That kind of rules out the RLDS being the true church, since it stayed in Missouri.

EXACTLY WHERE is this supposed 'vision' supposed to have happened? And WHEN did Emma smith and joseph smith III's group become 'not smith's church?" I don't think you can find any such stuff.

Sorry, but bringum young remains an apostate leader of an apostate group.

And it kind of supports the group led by B. Young as being the legitimate continuation of the church Joseph founded, since the group led by Young DID fulfill Joseph's prophecy, and settled in the West.

But other than those facts of history, "Christian" may have a valid theory....

Old Testament priesthoods were p***ed from father to son. IF smith's religion had been valid to start with, HIS 'priesthood' would have p***ed to joseph smith III, not to bringum young by any 'popular vote.'

BIBLICAL FACTS. HISTORICAL TRUTH. Bringum young was apostate!

Christian

04-23-2015, 08:56 AM

kruath whatever his name is posted:

Originally Posted by Christianphoenix posted:

Good points.

Except for the fact that I demonstrated that each one of his points were false, not valid, illogical and untrue.

Plus, Joseph had a vision of the church--the real one, not the "apostate" one--fleeing to the Rocky Mountains to get away from its enemies. That kind of rules out the RLDS being the true church, since it stayed in Missouri.

EXACTLY WHERE is this supposed 'vision' supposed to have happened? And WHEN did Emma smith and joseph smith III's group become 'not smith's church?" I don't think you can find any such stuff.

Sorry, but bringum young remains an apostate leader of an apostate group.

And it kind of supports the group led by B. Young as being the legitimate continuation of the church Joseph founded, since the group led by Young DID fulfill Joseph's prophecy, and settled in the West.

But other than those facts of history, "Christian" may have a valid theory....

Old Testament priesthoods were p***ed from father to son. IF smith's religion had been valid to start with, HIS 'priesthood' would have p***ed to joseph smith III, not to bringum young by any 'popular vote.'

BIBLICAL FACTS. HISTORICAL TRUTH. Bringum young was apostate!

I think Morefish just wants to argue about it so he can write "Bringum Young" as much as he can.

Is THAT the best you can do? Avoid dealing with the TRUTH by trying to switch subjects? JW's do that. That is a cheap way of running away from the TRUTH of course. . .

I refer to him as bringum young because he (like smith) seemed to like younguns and women other than his own wife. So he 'married' a bunch of them. I don't like letches.

So why are you afraid to deal with the FACT that young was a heretic and apostate?

theway

04-23-2015, 09:21 AM

I think Morefish just wants to argue about it so he can write "Bringum Young" as much as he can.LOL... You know... I actually did not see that one.

I just automatically skip though his posts without really reading any of it, knowing it's mostly full of nonsensical, illogical, unbiblical, untruths. So can you really fault me for not seeing it?

Phoenix

04-23-2015, 10:12 AM

I think Morefish just wants to argue about it so he can write "Bringum Young" as much as he can.

Maybe he will someday realize that such juvenile antics actually result in netting LESS fish.

Christian

04-23-2015, 01:51 PM

Maybe he will someday realize that such juvenile antics actually result in netting LESS fish.

And having LESS FAITH in joey smith or other heretics is a GOOD thing, isn't it?

The Lord will call whatever 'fish' HE calls. If you lose faith in the heretics does NOT necessarily mean you find Jesus. It just means you lose faith in the heretics.

Christian

04-23-2015, 01:55 PM

STILL no complete apostasy or loss of authority from God's church. . .ever.

Sorry, but joey smith lied.

theway

04-23-2015, 01:56 PM

And having LESS FAITH in joey smith or other heretics is a GOOD thing, isn't it?

The Lord will call whatever 'fish' HE calls. If you lose faith in the heretics does NOT necessarily mean you find Jesus. It just means you lose faith in the heretics.If true... Then where is my incentive to lose faith in the heretics???

I don't think you thought that one through very well.

Phoenix

04-23-2015, 03:29 PM

If true... Then where is my incentive to lose faith in the heretics???
I don't think you thought that one through very well.

Plus, Lessfish wants us to have less faith in heretics. To the church that excommunicated Martin Luther for heresy/apostasy, Luther was a heretic. So if we have less faith in Luther's teachings, we are having less faith in a heretic, which then should make Lessfish happy, right?

theway

04-23-2015, 03:44 PM

Christian

04-23-2015, 04:17 PM

If true... Then where is my incentive to lose faith in the heretics???

I don't think you thought that one through very well.

IF you believe the heretic joey smith, changing your mind and leaving his false religion is NOT NECESSARILY to go to God. You could become an atheist, a catholic, a jw, or a branch davidian.

You would just be leaving the heretic joey smith (a GOOD thing and perhaps a START in the right direction even though you may be led into a DIFFERENT cult before leaving that one and coming to God).

Christian

04-23-2015, 04:19 PM

Plus, Lessfish wants us to have less faith in heretics. To the church that excommunicated Martin Luther for heresy/apostasy, Luther was a heretic. So if we have less faith in Luther's teachings, we are having less faith in a heretic, which then should make Lessfish happy, right?

To the God of the Bible, anyone (such as joey smith) who claims DIFFERENT gods is a heretic. You pretended a strawman, then argued against it.

I do not think you should follow Luther's teachings. I think you should follow GOD'S teachings, the BIBLE as Luther began to do.

Christian

04-23-2015, 04:21 PM

AntiMormons contradict themselves all too easily.... Is like shooting morefish is a barrel.

Mormons contradict themselves even MORE. And if you think morefish is a barrel, BOY ARE YOU WRONG!

Perhaps if you 'wood'nt' believe that mormon junk, you could 'stave' off Hell!:p

theway

04-23-2015, 05:19 PM

Perhaps if you 'wood'nt' believe that mormon junk, you could 'stave' off Hell!:pOh I see... So now it's not who I believe in, which will save me, it's what I don't believe in that will save me???
Boy, those contradictions just keep on coming.

theway

04-23-2015, 05:22 PM

IF you believe the heretic joey smith, changing your mind and leaving his false religion is NOT NECESSARILY to go to God. You could become an atheist, a catholic, a jw, or a branch davidian.

You would just be leaving the heretic joey smith (a GOOD thing and perhaps a START in the right direction even though you may be led into a DIFFERENT cult before leaving that one and coming to God).Like I said, then what's the point in not believing in someone who you believe to be a heretic, if it doesn't make a difference one way or the other???

Christian

04-25-2015, 07:58 AM

Like I said, then what's the point in not believing in someone who you believe to be a heretic, if it doesn't make a difference one way or the other???

It depends upon your reason for leaving the heretic like joey smith. IF you have found the REAL God, that leaving is a good thing. IF it is 'on the trail' to the truth, it is a good thing. If it is to join a different cult or because you have become an atheist, it doesn't make any difference at all whether you stay or go.

Christian

04-25-2015, 08:00 AM

Oh I see... So now it's not who I believe in, which will save me, it's what I don't believe in that will save me???
Boy, those contradictions just keep on coming.

No contradictions. Just your twisting of my words to pretend I said something I did not.

Yep, you mormons DO seem to have a problem. . .

dberrie2000

04-27-2015, 04:32 AM

Because (of course, but you don't like this) they (the reformers) had been part of the catholic religion, NOT Christianity up to that point, and they LEFT the catholic religion to join Christianity which was alive and well and doing just fine.[/COLOR]

If it was doing just fine--then what Christian group could you identify for us the Reformers joined with?

Christian--the Reformers started a whole new set of denominations--with a whole new theology--sola fide. It's referred to as "Protestantism".

Christian

04-27-2015, 08:03 AM

If it was doing just fine--then what Christian group could you identify for us the Reformers joined with?

Christian--the Reformers started a whole new set of denominations--with a whole new theology--sola fide. It's referred to as "Protestantism".

They joined with the rest of the CHRISTIANS, left the rcc religion.

Just WHERE is the headquarters of this church 'protestant' that the catholics made up and the mormons were suckered into believing exists somewhere?

WHO leads this "protestant" religion?

Your religion is ignorant to the fact that the catholics made up the term to have something to 'dump' all NON-catholics (including mormons) into.

The TRUTH is that CHRISTIANITY is alive and well and has been around about 2,000 years now. The 'catholic' religions have been around about 1,700 years now. The mormon religions (all 150+ of them) have been around less than 200 years.

theway

04-27-2015, 10:14 AM

They joined with the rest of the CHRISTIANS, left the rcc religion.

What??? Where and who was this group of Christians which already existed that they joined?

That also begs the question; were those left in the RCC saved or not?

dberrie2000

04-28-2015, 03:49 AM

[COLOR=#0000FF]They joined with the rest of the CHRISTIANS, left the rcc religion.

If they joined with the rest of the Christians--then why did they start whole new denominations?

Just WHERE is the headquarters of this church 'protestant' that the catholics made up and the mormons were suckered into believing exists somewhere?

The headquarters of the different Protestant denomination might be located in sundry different places, IE--the WEL Luthern headquarters is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, some other Protestant denomination might be in Tennessee, etc.

WHO leads this "protestant" religion?

It varies with the particular church and location. And that is my point--no such doctrine nor example can be found in the Biblical NT--there was only one denomination there that Christ recognized--and it was founded upon the living, mortal apostles and prophets--Jesus Christ being the Chief Corner Stone.

Does your church have living, mortal apostles and prophets?

The TRUTH is that CHRISTIANITY is alive and well and has been around about 2,000 years now.

Again--if Christianity was alive and well--then why the need for the Reformation?

Phoenix

05-08-2015, 03:11 PM

alanmolstad

05-11-2015, 11:24 AM

I believe I have already posted on this forum the 95 reasons behind the reformation.

The reasons centered around money.
The big objection had to do with the way funds for building programs were being used.

But when you read the 95 reasons, you dont really find any stuff against the faith as it were..
These are all sideline issues and not the core of our Christian faith.

basecly we are talking about the "administration " of how the church was organized...
The core teachings like One God....The death and resurrection of Christ...remain unchanged...

alanmolstad

05-11-2015, 11:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

alanmolstad

05-11-2015, 11:28 AM

Thesis 86, which poses the question: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Cr***us, build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?

dberrie2000

05-12-2015, 04:35 AM

Martin Luther didn't just call it an apostasy, he said Christianity DIED. This man, one of the most well-known reformers, made the statement that because of the corruption made within the Church of Jesus Christ, Christianity was no longer on the earth.

"I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been not only corrupted by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it." (Luther and His Times, p. 509).

Hi Child:

To be sure--many of the "Reformers" thought of it as more of a restoration, rather than a "Reformation". If they had thought the true church was to be found on the earth--they would have joined with that church. Instead--they formed new denominations--with new theologies.

The post and pillar of Protestantism is "sola fide"--faith alone---a salvation through a faith without works:

James 2:26---King James Version (KJV)
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The faith alone preach salvation through a dead faith--something Christ warned about:

Matthew 7:19-21---King James Version (KJV)
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.