Replies

John 5:24 simply states what we already know. The Gospel has to be followed, including baptism, to gain eternal life. Christ makes clear that he does nothing, but what he’s seen his Father (God the Father) has done.

Remember the context, FRiend. The Pharisees are on Jesus about both healing and saving on the Sabbath. Are you disputing the absolute need for baptism by authority?

I know the favorite tack is snipping a verse here and there to support some wrong contention. How about a little context for Romans 11:29.

Paul’s scolding the members of the Church for withholding the Gospel from the Jews. Your verse is reference to the promises made to Israel through the Patriarchs.

http://biblehub.com/romans/11.htm

Your exposition on Eph 2:8 is a masterclass example of eisegesis. It is grace/salvation that is a gift from God.

I subscribe to this definition of faith: http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm

Heb. 11:1 Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.

Seekers after Christ cannot pick and choose, but must take the Bible as a whole. As schismatic Catholics you’ve lost much and gained much, but it’s a muddle. Back to the Bible and you’ll find the way.

Done. So now we can discuss all that scary sideshow stuff, no?

How do you anoint the sick and give the blessing found in James 5:14?

Remember Christ’s True Church will have Apostles, Prophets, Bishops, Evangelists, Deacons and the authority to baptize in his name. So I’m not limiting our discussion to just the blessing for the sick and anointing with oil.

It’s just a starting point to focus your attention.

Your exposition on Eph 2:8 is a masterclass example of eisegesis. It is grace/salvation that is a gift from God.

No. Some rely on a gender mismatch between "that" and "faith" to disconnect "faith" from "gift," but that is a naive view of the Greek. There is a gender mismatch between the neuter “that (touto)” in “that not of yourselves,” and the earlier noun “pistos,” “faith,” which is feminine. However, this does not unlink "faith" from "gift of God," because “charis (grace)” is also feminine, and “sodzo (save)” is masculine, theoretically leaving the neuter “touto” pointing to ... nothing? How can that be? If faith is not the referent, what is? Based on the theory of gender mismatch, it can’t refer to any of the other preceding components of salvation either.

Most authorities I have found believe it is something Paul does elsewhere, use a neuter demonstrative pronoun to package an entire concept, the main heading for a bulleted list, as it were. By this understanding, the pronoun is pointing back to the whole package as the antecedent, i.e., he is referring to all the constituent parts as a gift or as the components of a gift. As faith is one of those constituents, it is more than fair exegesis to understand Paul is saying that grace, the basis, faith, the means, and salvation, the result, are all the gift of God, so that a saved man has nothing to boast about. Nothing at all. And that, after all, is his point, isn’t it? Why would he mention anything that didn’t buttress his main conclusion?

As for Romans 11, the gifts and calling of God being without repentance is citation to a meta-principle that rests in the holy nature of God Himself. Yes, it secures Paul's specific point with reference to Israel, but eternal truth remains eternal and universal no matter how many times or circumstances in which it is applied.

As for the remaining arguments, be assured I have already I have already danced that dance before. You can ascribe motive if you wish. I give you permission. But you will be wrong if you believe my motivation is other that what I am telling you: I don't believe those areas are worth exploring until the question of faith in Jesus is resolved. It's putting the cart in front of the horse, as it were. I have seen these endless arguments and sniping back and forth going nowhere for pages and page and pages, and I have no time for that nonsense. I am an old man on a limited budget of time with many other irons in the fire. Or like Smokey & the Bandit, I have a long way to go and a short time to get there. So I'm not going down any roads I don't think will have a decent ROI. It's nothing personal to you or anyone else. It's just how my life is right now. I hope you can appreciate that.

Peace,

SR

Remember Christ’s True Church will have Apostles, Prophets, Bishops, Evangelists, Deacons and the authority to baptize in his name.

1010, you've regularly defended Mormonism on FR...so same question as last post:

...tell us 1010RD:

(1) If Jesus had 12 apostles in Israel, as the Mormon Church portends...And then, as the Book of Mormon claims, he came to the Americas and set up another 12 apostles, doesn't that make (at least) two dozen apostles world-wide?

Why doesn't THEN the Mormon Church have two dozen "apostles" as part of their Apostles' Quorum?

While the Mormon Church attempts to "hearken" back to the Biblical Scriptures, if it was truly hearkening back to ALL that the Mormons claim as "Scripture," it would have at least 24 apostles, not 12. Maybe even 25 given Paul's addition. Yet it doesn't. It fails the "hearken" test.

Perhaps the Mormon apologists should stop this lying (or to give them the benefit of the doubt, they should stop bandying about false numbers as some sort of "proof" of its authenticity).

(2) And, hey, since we're on this sasme topic, we know the New Testament church had pastors (Eph. 4:11)...so where are the titled "pastors" in the LDS church if it indeed is a "restoration?"

The same Ephesians 4 section talks about titled "evangelists"? Where are the titled "evangelists" in the contemporary Mormon church if its a "restoration?"

We also know that Anna was a New Testament prophetess (Luke 2:36) and that Philip's daughters were also prophetesses in Acts 21:9. If the LDS Church is a restoration where are its titled prophetesses?

Guess we can agree that the Mormon Church flunks having "the same organization" as the New Testament church, right?