why would we need a restored gospel??

Rescued One · May 15, 2013

Hoshiyya said:
"why would we need a restored gospel??"

Or: Why are there so many threads about Mormonism, seriously ????

Because the people who spend years discussing it are still here.

Albion · May 15, 2013

Hoshiyya said:
Why are there so many threads about Mormonism, seriously ????

This is the Unorthodox Theology forum. How many others are there to discuss that anyone cares about?

joneysd · May 15, 2013

child630 said:
The Bible says that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That's the simple gospel. Man complicates it

that is very true on both counts.

MormonFriend · May 15, 2013

The Boxer said:
Various interpretations are the result of the many logical fallacies men commit.

The first order of discipline is to apply the word of God to the original readers and not to yourself. The Spirit is not needed for this. All that is needed for this is common sense. There is no discipline apart from this. Furthermore, the Spirit of God was given only to the first century Christians. So if understanding the word of God was dependent upon Christians today having the Spirit we could not understand it at all because we do NOT have the Spirit.

By your reasoning, which is a first for me, today we do not have to repent, because that commandment only applied to those in biblical times. Is this what you are implying?

MormonFriend · May 15, 2013

joneysd said:
that is very true on both counts.

But what about the Bible passages that say those who repent and are baptized shall be saved, and those that endure to the end shall be saved?

MormonFriend · May 15, 2013

child630 said:
The Bible says that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That's the simple gospel. Man complicates it

Not meaning to complicate this, But what about the Bible passages that say those who repent and are baptized shall be saved, and those that endure to the end shall be saved?

MormonFriend · May 15, 2013

child630 said:
The Bible says that anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That's the simple gospel. Man complicates it

Or can we enter the Kingdom if we do not humble ourselves and become as a little child? Will God forgive our sins if we do not forgive others?

It is evident to me that the apostasy has given many people different ideas about God, and what His plan for us is.

Jack Terrence · May 15, 2013

MormonFriend said:
By your reasoning, which is a first for me, today we do not have to repent, because that commandment only applied to those in biblical times. Is this what you are implying?

If my reasoning is a first for you, then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with Preterist interpretation. And yes, there is no need for repentance today. Jesus took away all our sin. How do we repent of something that has been taken away?

All we need to do is to drink of the water of life.

MormonFriend · May 15, 2013

The Boxer said:
If my reasoning is a first for you, then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with Preterist interpretation. And yes, there is no need for repentance today. Jesus took away all our sin. How do we repent of something that has been taken away?

All we need to do is to drink of the water of life.

So now you apply what Jesus did to yourself, and not to those only in biblical times?

No offense, just being honest, but it sounds like someone is writing the rules as they go, and tilting the advantage to themselves. Kind of like what congress does.

I am certain there are many mainstream Christians here that will dispute that. But it wouldn't matter to you because they are saved by your guidelines as well as me. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

child630 · May 15, 2013

MormonFriend said:
Not meaning to complicate this, But what about the Bible passages that say those who repent and are baptized shall be saved, and those that endure to the end shall be saved?

The thief on the cross was not necessarily baptized. But I do believe in baptism. I was baptized, but it did not save me. The moment I called upon the name of Lord Jesus Christ, he saved me. After he saved me, I immediately repented of my sins. Don't get me wrong, I still struggle with sin, but I will continue to call on his name. And he is slowly transforming me to the image of Christ. You see, when you call on Jesus to save you, you gain the Holy Spirit; who is a person by the way; and he gives you the desire to repent. And I think those who endure to the end are those who continue to call on Jesus, and not forsake him till the day of death.

drstevej · May 15, 2013

MormonFriend said:
No offense, just being honest, but it sounds like someone is writing the rules as they go, and tilting the advantage to themselves. Kind of like what congress does.

Just like Joseph Smith did... Convenient revelations.

NumberOneSon · May 15, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
The Roman pontiff was captured by Napoleon's general, Berthier, on February 15, 1798 A.D., after arriving at Rome on February 9, 1798.[31] This was exactly 1260 years after 538 A.D., when the eastern emperor made the Roman bishop the head of all Christendom

Nothing was issued by the eastern emperor in 538AD making the Roman bishop the head of all Christendom. That is a myth.

RevelationTestament said:
The deadly wound was healed when the church again gained autonomy in 1929 by the Vatican City becoming an independent state.

The wound the papacy received in 1798 was healed in full in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna restored all of the former papal states back to the Roman See. Being recognized as an "independent state" over a small tract of land within Rome wouldn't be enough to heal what the papacy lost in 1798.

fatboys · May 15, 2013

NumberOneSon said:
Nothing was issued by the eastern emperor in 538AD making the Roman bishop the head of all Christendom. That is a myth.

The wound the papacy received in 1798 was healed in full in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna restored all of the former papal states back to the Roman See. Being recognized as an "independent state" over a small tract of land within Rome wouldn't be enough to heal what the papacy lost in 1798.

They finally had revelations?

Rescued One · May 15, 2013

MormonFriend said:
Not meaning to complicate this, But what about the Bible passages that say those who repent and are baptized shall be saved, and those that endure to the end shall be saved?

That's what Christians do. They repent and are baptized. Enduring to the end is a given. God promised to remain with us.

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
2 Cor. 7:9

samcarternx · May 15, 2013

skylark1 said:
Concerning the statement that the Catholic church refers to itself as the temple of the Lord, in order to better understand their beliefs please see the following from Catechism of the Catholic Church.

III. THE CHURCH IS THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

797 "What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church."243 "To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members."244 The Holy Spirit makes the Church "the temple of the living God":245

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the "Gift of God" has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God's Spirit; where God's Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.246

798 The Holy Spirit is "the principle of every vital and truly saving action in each part of the Body."247 He works in many ways to build up the whole Body in charity:248 by God's Word "which is able to build you up";249 by Baptism, through which he forms Christ's Body;250 by the sacraments, which give growth and healing to Christ's members; by "the grace of the apostles, which holds first place among his gifts";251 by the virtues, which make us act according to what is good; finally, by the many special graces (called "charisms"), by which he makes the faithful "fit and ready to undertake various tasks and offices for the renewal and building up of the Church."252

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit

Are these statements all presumably from Catechisme Catholiqu Populaire, published in 1903? The pope was given a gold phone as a gift from Catholics in the United States in 1930, on the occasion of connectin Vatican City phone system with the international community. It was used until 1963. Please see:
Golden Telephone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Top Level Telecommunications: Papal telephony

Perhaps this will help to explain the Catholic view of the title Prince of the Apostles.

1. St. Peter was Prince of the Apostles

“Prince of the Apostles” means that St. Peter held a certain primacy over the other eleven. Understanding St. Peter’s unique position among the twelve and the unique ministries he exercised lays an excellent groundwork for a discussion of Christ’s founding of the Papacy. There are three primary topics of focus for exploring the biblical articulation of the primacy of the Petrine ministry.

In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope | St. Peter's List
And:

Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles: Each pope stands in the place of St. Peter, who was the Prince of the Apostles, and each pope receives Peter's authority through the fourth mark of the Church: apostolic succession. The responsibility of shepherding all Catholics is placed upon the pope.

Pope-U-Lator.com / Papal Titles

It doesn't sound like the Pope elevates himself above the apostles, but that Catholics teach that he fills the same office as Peter the Apostle.

Please see below:

Pope

The most noteworthy of the titles are Papa, Summus Pontifex, Pontifex Maximus, Servus servorum Dei. The title pope (papa) was, as has been stated, at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, On Modesty 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P.L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century St. Gall (d. 640) addresses Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P.L., LXXXVII, 265). Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter.

Pontiff

The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironi

I will tell you one name I will not call him. Holy Father is a reserved word for God, as is Sir(sire) Father Abba Papa and the rest of them too. Your pontiff can get off his high horse and acknowledge the Lord is God and there is no other no not even us. And unless I want to submit to him about something he does not rule me and I don't care how many cardinals he has, I ain't kissin their stu... er rings either.

Rescued One · May 15, 2013

MormonFriend said:
Or can we enter the Kingdom if we do not humble ourselves and become as a little child? Will God forgive our sins if we do not forgive others?

It is evident to me that the apostasy has given many people different ideas about God, and what His plan for us is.

Why wouldn't people think differently? They always have: Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, atheism, Zoroastrianism, Shamanism, Judaism, Christianity, etc. So it wasn't an apostasy from Christianity that caused people to come up with differences of opinion.

RevelationTestament · May 15, 2013

skylark1 said:
Pontiff

The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P.L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P.L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes.

How neatly they avoid the fact that the Pontifex maximus was the chief priest of the Roman Colleges of pagan priests. Further, that basically all the Roman emperors took that office. And lastly, yep, the bishop of Rome. Would Christ take that office?

Servant of the Servants of God

The phrase Servus servorum Dei is now so entirely a papal title that a Bull in which it should be wanting would be reckoned unauthentic. Yet this designation also was once applied to others. Augustine (Ep. 217 a. d. Vitalem) entitles himself "servus Christi et per Ipsum servus servorum Ipsius". Desiderius of Cahors made use of it (Thomassin, "Ecclesiae nov. et vet. disc.", pt. I, I. I, c. iv, n. 4): so also did St. Boniface (740), the apostle of Germany (P.L., LXXIX, 700). The first of the popes to adopt it was seemingly Gregory I; he appears to have done so in contrast to the claim put forward by the Patriarch of Constantinople to the title of universal bishop (P.L., LXXV, 87). The restriction of the term to the pope alone began in the ninth century.[/indent]

I think that the current pope, Pope Francis had done much to exemplify the papal title, Servant of the Servants of God.

The Roman pontiff is anything but the servant of servants.

It might be wise to listen again to the words of Christ when exxentially accusing the pope of being the anti-Christ:

I never called the pontiff "the" or "an" antichrist. He is a usurper of Christ. He is the little horn of Daniel and the represents the prince of this world who has nothing in Christ.

23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong mans house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong mans house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.

You are right that a divided kingdom cannot stand. In fact the RCC kingdom will fall as prophesied in Revelation.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for יהוה hath avenged you on her.
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

skylark1 · May 15, 2013

samcarternx said:
I will tell you one name I will not call him. Holy Father is a reserved word for God, as is Sir(sire) Father Abba Papa and the rest of them too. Your pontiff can get off his high horse and acknowledge the Lord is God and there is no other no not even us. And unless I want to submit to him about something he does not rule me and I don't care how many cardinals he has, I ain't kissin their stu... er rings either.

He isn't my pontiff. I'm not Catholic, nor do I intend to convert to Catholism. However, that doesn't mean that I believe the things that Revelation Testament has claimed or implied about the Catholic Church. I do not agree with all Catholic doctrine, but I accept Catholics as my brothers and sisters in Christ and have no qulams about defending them when accusations are hurked at them such as their church being the seven-headed beast of Revelation 13. Since Mormons here have often complained that others distort their doctrines, I am a little surprised to see Catholic doctrines being presented in this manner by someone who is Mormon.

skylark1 · May 16, 2013

RevelationTestament said:
How neatly they avoid the fact that the Pontifex maximus was the chief priest of the Roman Colleges of pagan priests. Further, that basically all the Roman emperors took that office. And lastly, yep, the bishop of Rome. Would Christ take that office?

So what. Jesus didn't refer to himself as President either. When used to refer to the chief of the Catholic priests, the title obviously did not refer to pagan priests, but Christian priests. It seems clear that the term had come to mean high priest.

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops,[4] including the Bishop of Rome,[5] and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,[6] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

source

The Roman pontiff is anything but the servant of servants.

I think that Pope Francis is setting a good example. He asked people to pray for him, pays his own hotel bill, rides a shuttle bus with cardinals after being elected, chooses simpler attire, refuses to move into the papal apartment and instead chooses a simple room, washes the feet of juveniles at a detention center (including females and a Muslim). I suspect that the list continues.

Pope Francis honeymoon continues: Draws big crowds and new fans - World News

I never called the pontiff "the" or "an" antichrist. He is a usurper of Christ. He is the little horn of Daniel and the represents the prince of this world who has nothing in Christ.
You are right that a divided kingdom cannot stand. In fact the RCC kingdom will fall as prophesied in Revelation.
Rev 18:20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for יהוה hath avenged you on her.
Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; [for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

The Prince of this world is also referred to as Satan. Thanks for clarifying.

That is your interpretation.

Mark 9

38 Now John answered Him, saying, Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.

39 But Jesus said, Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

RevelationTestament · May 16, 2013

skylark1 said:
So what. Jesus didn't refer to himself as President either. When used to refer to the chief of the Catholic priests, the title obviously did not refer to pagan priests, but Christian priests. It seems clear that the term had come to mean high priest.

The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops,[4] including the Bishop of Rome,[5] and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles,[6] but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.

source

It was not just a name or title he assumed - he was actually investitured into the office.

I think that Pope Francis is setting a good example. He asked people to pray for him, pays his own hotel bill, rides a shuttle bus with cardinals after being elected, chooses simpler attire, refuses to move into the papal apartment and instead chooses a simple room, washes the feet of juveniles at a detention center (including females and a Muslim). I suspect that the list continues.

I think they purposefully chose someone who refuses the pomp. But their concern won't matter. It doesn't undo all Christ's laws the RCC has changed nor all the evil she has perpetrated falsely in the name of Christ.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and יהוה hath remembered her iniquities.

The Prince of this world is also referred to as Satan. Thanks for clarifying.

Yep, and she rides the dragon.

That is your interpretation.

It is apparent enough. She is the mother of the errant doctrine of the trinity.
Peace to you Skylark

why would we need a restored gospel??

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Facilitator

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Fighting the good fight

Senior Veteran

child630

Guest

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

Senior Veteran

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

saint

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me

Our God is a consuming fire.

In awesome wonder

In awesome wonder

Our God is a consuming fire.

Similar threads