en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/273890 Comments by Gundek http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/for-a-more-enjoyable-commenting-experience/#IDComment12416276 It was my issue not your sites, sorry. Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:00:06 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/for-a-more-enjoyable-commenting-experience/#IDComment12416276 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/for-a-more-enjoyable-commenting-experience/#IDComment12370657 Aaron, I seem to be having a connection problem, even using Chrome. Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:42:19 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/for-a-more-enjoyable-commenting-experience/#IDComment12370657 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12316616 DOF, I believe that God has fulfilled His promise in Proverbs 22:19-21, revealed Himself and through His providence brought together His Word, compiling it and preserving it so that the faithful may know His Truth. I am sure that you have heard all of this before but hear goes. First Peter testifies to the canonical nature of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-16). Second Peter also teaches that the words of the prophets in the Bible are the Word of God and not of men (2 Peter 1:19-21). These words are "carried along by the Holy Spirit" who testifies of their truthfulness to the faithful. The writer of Hebrews tells also tells us that the age of the Prophets is over (Heb 1:1, 2). As to how I can reject the D&C or any other modern revelation, once again I refer you to 2 Peter 1:20. Scripture is not something for personal interpretation. This verse and others are the basis for the Reformed teaching that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself..." (WCF I, IX) Add to that Paul's teaching in Galatians chapter 1 verse 9, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." It is my contention that when you take the Old and New Testament and compare them with the teachings of the D&C you will not find the same Gospel that Paul preached. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:30:47 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12316616 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12307014 DOF, You ask, "Why are you suggesting that the Bible be that benchmark?" I would answer that I do not claim the Bible as the bench mark, the Bible claims to be the benchmark (2 Tim 3:15-17; Gal 1:8, 9; 2 Thes 2:2). You continue, "Do the prophets who wrote the book ever suggest that a compiled document would serve such a purpose?" To answer simply, yes (Luke 24:27). Your last question "If so, how do you convince a Jew that the OT is not sufficient? Why should they accept the NT if their "benchmark" of the OT seems sufficient for them?" Might I suggest that we follow the example of Paul and "preach Christ crucified" 1 Cor 1:23-25). Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:11:38 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12307014 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12302055 SteveH, While I do not know the teachings of "Roman Catholicism, Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Marionite, Anglican etc. including most mainline Protestant churches - Lutheran, Anabaptist..." I am familiar with the Reformed teaching on Baptism. Calvin teaches us in the Institutes that... “We must utterly reject the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptized to eternal death… Baptism is not so necessary that one from whom the capacity to obtain it has been taken away should straightway be counted as lost” (4.16.26). I cannot speak for all who claim to be Reformed of course but for anyone who subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith the Divines tell us that... "Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." (WCF XXVIII, V) And yes cheap grace is a false gospel. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 04:20:47 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12302055 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12301859 SteveH, I would not call it "bibiolatry" because it is not worshiping the bible but looking at the bible and seeing that it's claims are true. The authority of the bible to make these claims does not come from a church or a council but from the very God revealed in it's pages. These claims cause us to worship the Truth revealed outside of the bible, namely God. As for your examples of Paul and Moses you miss the point that we are no longer in an age of inscripturation. Moses lived in the time of the Prophets and Paul in the Apostolic period. Communication with God certainly is not over, that would miss the gift of the Holy Spirit. What we do not believe is that anything can be added to Scripture (Gal 1:8, 9) because it contains the "... whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life.." (WCF I, IV)(2 Timothy 3:15-17). In accord with Paul's teaching in Romans 10:17 we do believe that "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Because of this Reformed Churches confess in the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION... "Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good." Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:58:10 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12301859 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12300612 Ralph, Thank you again for the answer. I am still not clear on how the spirit and intelligence thing is supposed to work. I understand that god makes the spirit and puts the pre-existing non-made intelligence in them. My question is where does the intelligence come from for the spirits born to the exalted in the future? Has this intelligence existed for all time too? Thank you also for the suggesting a copy of gospel principals. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:59:09 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12300612 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12300443 SteveH, I agree that there is debate about Paul's marital status. John Calvin comments on it in a number of places in his commentaries. Read his comments on Philippians 4:3. Once again the is focusing on the Greek word "Syzygos" and if it is a proper name. I am interested in why your Jewish friends are convinced that Paul was married. I would also be interested in the Jewish view on celestial marriage. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:43:48 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12300443 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12250174 FoF, To answer your question, “I was saying that the Bible is viewed by EV as the only authority on earth in relation to God- am i right?" Well Yes and No. You see as plainly stated in the WCF Chapter I Part VI “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” But that is not the entire story. Christ has seen fit to give us, “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.” (Chapter XXV Part I). Chapter XX on Christian Liberty tells us that it is an abuse of Christian Liberty to “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical…” Chapter XXX tells us that there is church discipline. Chapter XXXI tells of synods or councils “For the better government, and further edification of the Church...” So you see, Yes the Holy Scripture is the final authority but there is the Church and ecclesiastical leaders and councils to guide and discipline us on our way. Mon, 8 Dec 2008 01:01:18 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12250174 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249249 Steve H, I ask sir, that your stop your personal insults. I have not attacked you nor insulted you. I am disturbed that each time I try to engage with you you resort to insulting the reputations of theologians that I site. D A Carson is a highly regarded New Testament scholar, Missionary and Churchman. Among his works are An Introduction to the New Testament (Carson, Leon and Moo 1st ed, sadly just Carson and Moo for the 2nd), New Bible Commentary, in the era of Jewish Studies, Justification and Variegated Nomism Vol. 1&2: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. Ben Witherington, while not as conservative as I am, is a fine scholar and Minister in the Methodist Church. His commentary series of New Testament books focusing on the "Socio-Rhetorical" show a keen insight into the historical and social setting of 1st century Palestine. There are 4 reasons sited to question the Paul's membership in the Sanhedrin. 1 Paul never claimed to be a member of the Sanhedrin, even during his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1-6). Paul also does not claim to be a member of the Sanhedrin when proving his Jewish credentials (Gal 1:14). Paul also does not use membership in the Sanhedrin to bolster his ministry to Jews in the Diaspora. 2 Paul's teaching on marriage (1 Corinthians 7:25-31) brings into question if Paul was married. 3 Estimates of Paul's age show him to probably be to young to be a member of the Sanhedrin. This is based on a 40 year old requirement to be a member of the Sanhedrin and an estimated 20+ year ministry. 4 It is doubtful that a ruling member of the Sanhedrin would have been actively involved in the persecution of the Church (Acts 9). If Paul was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin it is doubtful that he would have needed letters from the High Priest (Acts 9:2) in order to have authority in Damascus. I am sure that you can argue against each of these 4 points, but taken as a whole it is interesting. I understand that this is a doctrinal issue for you and that Paul's marital status can be seen to either support or undermine the LDS position on Celestial Marriage. You should also understand that this is frankly not an issue that I feel compelled to fight about much less engage in the style offensive slurs that you stoop to. Unfortunately Sir, do to your unprovoked, personal and frankly childish attack on two Godly men, I must ask again that you act like a gentleman and debate the ideas that I present and refrain from the ad hominem attacks. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:58:24 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249249 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12210040 Maybe in a future thread we will have the opportunity to discuss the role of a mediator in your tradition. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 01:53:46 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12210040 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12208046 Ralph, Does this mean that there continues to be a (for lack of a better term) pool of intelligence for future gods? Don't you find the Job example slim? It does not speak of marriage for time and all eternity or of any temple rituals. I understand that I am making an argument based on the absence of a ritual but the lack of a set marriage ritual set out in the Old Testament seems to show that marriage is not essential to salvation. By the way this is the same reason the the reformers did not include marriage in the sacraments, keeping only baptism and the Lord's Supper. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 01:49:26 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12208046 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12201990 SteveH, If your reason for saying that Paul was married was that he was a member of the Sanhedrin you will should read D A Carson or Ben Witherington on the subject before making bold claims. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 01:38:00 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12201990 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12177109 thanks for the correction Germit, You are correct I, and I should have said, "It seems narcissistic to assume that the creature can in any way approach the [power of the] Creator..." I am not sure that I have ever heard of a Mormon speaking of Christ as a Mediator with God or for that matter the need of a mediator. But this seems to add to the inconsistencies in their doctrine. What is His role for the Mormon as a mediator? Does He function as the Prophet, Priest, and King? If so what is the need of the LDS priesthood and system of prophets? Or is Christ seen as the perfect sacrifice an atonement for our sins bringing an end to the need for temple worship? Interesting, I would like to learn more about the LDS view on the need for a mediator and how this works with their view of the priesthood and the role of prophets. Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:17:26 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12177109 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12175487 Gloria, As a person who has family and friends who are Mormons I try to understand their beliefs but the inconsistencies and contradictions in Mormon doctrines of progression and creation (among others) baffle me. It seems narcissistic to assume that the creature can in any way approach the Creator without the Mediator and the indwelling of the Spirit. With the LDS view of becoming a god, I wonder how a Mormon would answer the first question the the Westminster Shorter Catechism? What is the chief end of man? Somehow I doubt the answer would be "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." (1 Cor10:31; Rom 11:36; Psalm 73:25-28). Thank God for the righteousness of Christ, no hope without it. Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:33:39 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12175487 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12156085 Ralph, Thank you for the answer, let me make sure that I have this straight. In LDS theology, God created the spirit and somebody/something else put the intelligence in? I hope that you can understand how this is a redefinition of creation. Changing it from creation out of nothing into organising and building out of pre-existing material. This doctrine would change not only the essence but also the nature of God. No longer do we have the omnipotent, omniscient, infinite God of the Old and New Testaments. We would no longer be the creatures of a sovereign God. We would be the product of a cosmic mystery. If you can bear with me and answer another question from the LDS perspective. If celestial marriage is so important to a persons ultimate salvation why is it not in the Old and New Testaments? As Germit pointed out above Jesus was not married. There is no mention of a temple marriage ceremony in Leviticus or anywhere else that I can find. It seems logical that there should be some mention of this requirement. Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:46:46 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12156085 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12137650 Thank you for the post Sharon, While the thought of becoming a god is wrong on so many levels, one thing strikes me as inconsistent within LDS teaching. Quoting from the post, "So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring." My question is how does this square with the Mormon Belief that , "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29). So how can you become the parent of something that cannot be created? Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:07:47 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12137650 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment11943944 An "obvious error in the media"... This is not the New York Times or the Washington Post this is from the Mormon Times, part of Deseret News. The banner reads "For and about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The article opens, "Gary Lawrence is a card-carrying, tithe-paying, churchgoing Mormon." What I see is a member of your church in a publication run by your church, not the media making mistakes about LDS doctrine. Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:17:11 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/the-main-claim-of-mormonism/#IDComment11943944 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/11/do-we-need-to-become-children-of-god/#IDComment11942633 SteveH, Thank you for educating me concerning Protestant theology, but there are a few details that you seemed to have missed. The doctrine of total depravity comes from the Synod of Dort (1618-19) after Calvins death. Calvin did teach about the Fall of Adam and its effect on man (Institutes in Book 1 Chapter 15 and Book 2 Chapters 1-4.) Calvin credits Augustin on the subject (2.3.5) Dr Horton points out that Calvin was "simply echoing Erasmus, Lefevre, Valla..." A reading of Calvin will show that he had a higher view of man after the fall than many of the first generation Reformers, particularly Luther. Calvin held that God's image was not "totally annihilated" but was corrupted (1.15.4). Luther taught that man no longer held the image of God. While you may call Calvin's teaching bleak I would point out the following quote from Calvin "...We cannot have a clear and complete knowledge of God unless it is accompanied by a corresponding knowledge of ourselves." The fact is that Total Depravity has a cure. As J. Gresham Machen put it, "Thank God for the righteousness of Christ. No hope without it." Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:58:37 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/11/do-we-need-to-become-children-of-god/#IDComment11942633 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/11/do-we-need-to-become-children-of-god/#IDComment11927038 Neo-Calvinist is commonly defined in Reformed circles as the new Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper and his followers in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Centering on a new definition of common and particular grace It has more to do with how and why a Christian interacts with the world and does not have anything to do with a "predilection to address theology in terms of abstract principles." Critics of Kuyper claim that his theology has resulted in an over emphasis on culture and engaging the world at the expense of the salvation (particularly regeneration and sanctification). Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:34:16 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/11/do-we-need-to-become-children-of-god/#IDComment11927038