Ordinances...

[Ran77]

Sounds like you are nitpicking.

Then you better get your hearing checked.

 

[Rescued One]

Then you better get your hearing checked.

Ditto.

 

[Wrigley]

Oh you have got to be kidding me, if your going to be this childish Im done.

Check your attitude apex. I'd expect some of your mormon cohorts to tell you the same.

Phoebe has answered your question many times. That you are unwilling to see that is not her problem.

 

[Ran77]

I checked through the thread and this is the progression of the discussion:

I asked you if you believed in Once Saved Always Saved - in response to an entrapment question by you.

You responded with: "If by salvation you mean eternal life, can you explain how something that is eternal can last only a week or only fifty years?"

No later post askes me to clarify any issue.

I ask the question again, looking for a simple yes or no.

My question is not answered.


Now. . .

There is nothing loose about anything I said. Why do you make that accusation? Is it because I don't believe my salvation depends on me?

I have asked for a simple yes or no answer and receive responses instead that have a great amount of wiggle room for you to claim you are being misunderstood. I see that as being loose and that is why I pointed it out.

Or in simpler terms: because you keep refusing to give a simple answer to the question.

You have failed to tell us what you mean by OSAS. How do you define it?

I have not failed to tell you. I have not been asked - at least not as part of this thread. (Unless you can point to a post where you have asked me that - this is false.)

And even though I haven't answered you, while I was reviewing the thread I saw that Swart has answered you at least twice.


For the purposes of this discussion, it would be that at the moment a person becomes a true believer of Christ they are saved and there is nothing beyond that point that threatens that status.

The refusal to define what you are asking is suspicious.

It is especially suspicious, since I haven't been asked to define it. And by the way, where exactly is my refusal to answer?

What does eternal mean to you?

How about an answer on your part. I have given you response to the "saved" clarifications that you asked for I think it is only fair that you finally answer the question that started this tangent.

You are wrong. I don't have to discredit Mormonism nor is it my goal. All I do is compare what Mormons teach to what the Bible says. If you or anyone else believes the Bible over the teachings of your leaders, that is not my doing. Nor is it my doing of you believe your leaders over the Bible. I am not making your views good or bad or neutral.

 

[Apex]

Check your attitude apex. I'd expect some of your mormon cohorts to tell you the same.

Phoebe has answered your question many times. That you are unwilling to see that is not her problem.

Point to a post where a simple yes or no has been given, otherwise the question has not been asnwered.

 

[RufustheRed]

Point to a post where a simple yes or no has been given, otherwise the question has not been asnwered.

Perhaps it isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question. Furthermore, when she did answer you, you didn't recognize the answer. Please read posts #80 and #82. Can you tell me why this is important to the "ordinance" topic? If so, why is it that you cannot define it? I, personally, asked you to define this acronym. Would you respond to a question that you weren't sure of the meaning?

So, the question has been answered. You just don't like it that Phoebe refused to follow your orders to the "t." I have a word of advice for you. COPE. You'll live longer

Mac

 

[RufustheRed]

Can anyone explain why all of this nit-picking, name calling and ordering people to respond in a specific vernacular is necessary? What in the world does OSAS have to do with the OP? Especially when it can't be defined by the interrogator

Mac

 

[Wrigley]

Point to a post where a simple yes or no has been given, otherwise the question has not been asnwered.

Once again, that you can't see the answer is not Phoebe's problem.

 

[Wrigley]

Can anyone explain why all of this nit-picking, name calling and ordering people to respond in a specific vernacular is necessary? What in the world does OSAS have to do with the OP? Especially when it can't be defined by the interrogator

Mac

It's called deflection Mac.

 

[RufustheRed]

It's called deflection, Mac.

Yeah. I know. It's pathetic, isn't it? They get the answer, then complain that it isn't in the pseudo-required language they like. Oh, my. Oh, my.


Mac

 

[ZealouS]

This wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond.

I do search out God's written word and receive aid from the Holy Spirit in understanding what He has said and what He wants me to do. There is no fear of what my family will say - I come from an extended family that has no use for any church. Only my brother and sister are active and they place no pressure on me to attend, believe, or anything else. Most of my friends are non-members and would probably be glad if I dropped the whole "God" thing.

The only thing that leads me in my quest is my desire to know the truth and serve God. I am not resistant to change in myself. I admit I am wrong often, because I would rather adopt the right view than vainly hold on to a lie to protect my pride.

I commend you Ran77. It takes courage to believe in something when others around you do not.

Christ guide you on your quest for truth,
Jed

 

[Orontes]

How do you know the Bible is the final word?

Also, which Bible are you referring to? Is this the Ethiopic Bible? Is this the Armenian Bible? Is this the Catholic Bible? Is this the Protestant Bible? These are a few of the options: once you've chosen, then tell me what is the justification for the choice and how does that impact the notion of "all of Christianity" noted above?

The Bible.

Is this answer for all the questions I asked? One knows the Bible is the final written word because: the Bible? This seems to beg the question some.

Regarding which Bible, the answer is the Bible? Does this mean all are equally acceptable?

 

[Orontes]

The final written word is the Bible, your church has that as do many others.

Why is the Bible the final written word? What justifies this claim? The LDS Church does not consider the Bible the final written word, nothing in the canon has that position.

True Christians have the Bible but they also have Jesus Christ personally interacting with them. I am not judging your status as a true Christian or not but I am making it known that true Christians have more then just scriptures, we have Jesus Christ.

Does this mean you believe in revelation? Does that trump the Bible?

Am I to love that which I believe is false and the wrong path? Have I struck out and said a harshword to any person that I have interacted with? Not to my knowledge and I ask your forgiveness if I have.

To proclaim that I am not loving my neighbor because I said an article was foolishness is without merit. To claim that I am not loving my neighbor because I question the motives of a man whom shot other men is also without merit. To claim that I am not loving my neighbor because I used hyperbole to demonstrate the excessive regard and reverence a church has for a mere mortal human being is once again without merit. However, I can admit that I am not a perfect human being and sometimes I do act with other motives besides love. I wish it were not so but it is.

Do you consider the previously noted examples of acrimony, untutored utterance and hyperbole as examples of the Second Great Commandment? Going from the bottom upwards: how is a hyperbolic accusation loving your neighbor? Whither is the merit? Hyperbole means unduly excessive. How can a hyperbolic accusation be a positive or justified? How is charging a Church cover up about Joseph Smith's murder an example of the Second Great Commandment? Let's be clear with our verbiage: a cover up means an intent to deceive. What evidence can you bring to the table? As to Joseph Smith: I recall some comment about Lambs going to the slaughter and shooting a gun. Did Joseph Smith willfully turn himself over to the authorities? Did he put up any resistance? If not, then where does the analogy fail? Is the problem he defended himself from a mob attack that had already killed one in his company? Does this mean you believe the proper course of action when being held in a jail and attacked by a mob is not to defend one's self? What motives are being questioned? Are you suggesting he planned the attack so he could fire a pistol blindly through a crack in a door? I can't see your point. Finally, charging foolishness is acrimonious by definition. What's the old adage about those who charge 'fool' being in danger of the fires from below? Do you think this is mitigated by saying "I only looked to his ideas, not the man". Is this the Second Great Commandment at work?

Your reply seems to move between rejecting any criticism or your statements as without merit and admitting you sometimes act on motives less than the ideal. Do you wish to defend your statements or are you willing to agree they do not meet the ideal?

 

[ZealouS]

Why is the Bible the final written word? What justifies this claim? The LDS Church does not consider the Bible the final written word, nothing in the canon has that position.

Through the Bible we come to know of Jesus Christ, the savior of the world. He is complete truth and we need no other book since the Bible speaks of him more then any other book. Through the two greatest commandments we are given all the teachings we need. Final.

Does this mean you believe in revelation? Does that trump the Bible?

Revelation and the Bible go hand in hand. Revelation will never contradict the Bible nor the Bible contradict revelation. So the answer is yes, I do believe in revelation.

Do you consider the previously noted examples of acrimony, untutored utterance and hyperbole as examples of the Second Great Commandment? Going from the bottom upwards: how is a hyperbolic accusation loving your neighbor? Whither is the merit? Hyperbole means unduly excessive. How can a hyperbolic accusation be a positive or justified? How is charging a Church cover up about Joseph Smith's murder an example of the Second Great Commandment? Let's be clear with our verbiage: a cover up means an intent to deceive. What evidence can you bring to the table? As to Joseph Smith: I recall some comment about Lambs going to the slaughter and shooting a gun. Did Joseph Smith willfully turn himself over to the authorities? Did he put up any resistance? If not, then where does the analogy fail? Is the problem he defended himself from a mob attack that had already killed one in his company? Does this mean you believe the proper course of action when being held in a jail and attacked by a mob is not to defend one's self? What motives are being questioned? Are you suggesting he planned the attack so he could fire a pistol blindly through a crack in a door? I can't see your point. Finally, charging foolishness is acrimonious by definition. What's the old adage about those who charge 'fool' being in danger of the fires from below? Do you think this is mitigated by saying "I only looked to his ideas, not the man". Is this the Second Great Commandment at work?

Your reply seems to move between rejecting any criticism or your statements as without merit and admitting you sometimes act on motives less than the ideal. Do you wish to defend your statements or are you willing to agree they do not meet the ideal?

You have failed to prove that what I have stated is in violation of loving thy neighbor. I can show you where Christ himself used hyperbole in order to drive his point home. Do you believe that all accusations and questions are done out of hatred? My posts have contained questions that I felt should be asked.

An example of Christ using hyperbole:

Luke 14:26
26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

I can also find hyperbolic accusations in the Bible but I think you get the point.

We know that Christ wanted us to love everyone so he would not command otherwise. In this verse he uses the word hate to make it clear that they must love Christ above all else.

Onto the matter of foolisness, did I call the poster foolish or the article he quoted? There is a diffrence. I can say that a post is foolishness without believing someone to be a fool, just as I can admit that I have posted foolishly before. A day probabley doesnt go by that I dont do or say a foolish thing.

2 Chronicles 16:7-9
7 At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him: "Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the LORD your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand. 8 Were not the Cushites [b] and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemen [c] ? Yet when you relied on the LORD, he delivered them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war."

I guess this seer was breaking the commandment for telling the king of Judah he did a foolish thing.

Ecclesiastes 2
2 "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?"

I guess the writer of Ecclesiastes was violating the 2nd greatest commandment when he said laugher is foolish. Since we all laugh he must have been calling us all fools. Or perhaps he was merely making a hyperbolic accusation?

Now to drive it home:

Mathew 25:1-5
1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

Was Christ himself violating the 2nd greatest commandment when he told this parable and called 5 of the virgins foolish?

Search the Bible for the word foolish and you will see Christ using it, the Apostles and prophets using it, and God himself using the word. I do not think Christ or God would violate either of the first two commandments.

Finally I will say that a prophet, a true leader, and a follower of the way would probabley let himself be slain for he would not fear death. Remember, the only thing we are to fear is God. Call me crazy but Christ did set the best example and he didnt slay anyone.

With all the above being said, this debate occuring betwen you and I is foolishness.

Christ guide us,
Jed

 

[Wrigley]

Why is the Bible the final written word? What justifies this claim? The LDS Church does not consider the Bible the final written word, nothing in the canon has that position.

Which explains why mormonism is so far off the right track. The anchor is not used.

 

[Swart]

This thread of Zealous' has been subject to the most serious case of thread drift I've ever seen! It was meant to be a discussion of LDS ordinances and what ordinances we consider to be the most important.

All went fine for nearly two pages. There was some slight thread drift but the posters apologise, corrected themselves and reverted to the OP.

In post 20, Tawhano queried me on Smith Wigglesworth as (I assume) a Point-of-order on the ordinance of the gift of the HG. This was our first fork. I followed up in this with post 35 and the arc continued through 37 (Tawhano), 38 (Daneel), 51 (myself), 58 (Tawhano), 62 (myself),

Post 22 was our first humour related interjected (by BM of course). It was followed up on by Apex (post 24)

PA then came in with post 25 that (to me at least) appeared to have nothing to do with the OP, nor any other post up to that point either. Her post was about perfection. We have one quote from the Bible, one from SWK and two from the BOM. None of the quotes were from topics that were in any way related. I can only see this as an attempt to sabotage the thread.

BM followed up on PA in post 26 with another humour post (not a very good one). PA did one with post 27. BM followed that with 28. TheWay tried to contribute some humour with post 29. Apex's contribution was #30. Humour posts continued with post 36 (mine), 40 (BM),

Ran77 took PA's bait with post 31, essentially castigating PA for misrepresentation and restated the LDS belief on "perfection".

Post 32 was PA's response to Ran77 in which she used TuQuoque to deflect the discussion into a Salvation vs Exaltation argument. This is a clear example of deliberate thread hijacking. More out of context quotes were used to bolster this argument. Not once did PA attempt to answer Ran's rebuttal. PA pretended as though it never existed.

In Post 33, Ran confronted PA with her refusal to acknowledge his rebuttal and introduce new material not germaine to the discussion at hand. At this point, Ran introduced the OSAS question for the first time.

Post 34 involved PA on the defensive, interjecting one-line answers finishing with "What is the point of salvation (eternal life) if it isn't everlasting? If it is merely a temporary thing, then God wouldn't refer to it as eternal life." in answer to the OSAS question.

In post 39 Ran stated that he wanted a conclusive yes or no if PA accepted OSAS. The question was questioned by PA in post 41. RPJ restated the question in post 42.

PA answered the OSAS question in post 43 with a non answer.

McGregor posted a quote from the Bible in post 44 and claimed that meant Baptism was not important. Presumably this was disputing that no ordinances are important and thus (I suppose) obliquely in line with the OP. JeffC followed up on this with post 48. Post 45, also by McGregor, seemed to contain within it its own answer.

Continuing with the OSAS arc, Ran commented in post 47 that PA hadn't answered the question. He then restarted the question.

The thread effectively concluded with post 49 where Zealous thanked Ran and myself for our answers. He acknowledged the growing discussion of OSAS by stating that he believed in OSAS. A point strangely ignored by all parties - particularly since Zealous was the OP.

Zealous' post should have really closed the thread. However, it has continued on with accelerating pace gaining a life of its own - mainly due to PAs refusal to state categorically if she accepted OSAS. In post 50, PA restated her previous non-answer, mandating that LDS state what they mean by salvation. I interjected on this with an OT post 60. This continued with post 61 (Apex),

At this point, I attempted to make the question more acceptable in post 52 by redefining the question as a discussion on PS. Wrig seemed to take offense at this with his post 53 claiming I didn't understand PS, thus spawning yet another arc. Wrig also objected to JeffC's understanding of OSAS in post 54 and RPJ's understanding in post 55.

This arc of "you don't know" continued in post 56 (Apex), 57 (PA). In post 59 I presented my understanding of OSAS as part of PS as it has been explained to me and as I understand it from two perspectives and why I believe them to be incorrect. I also invited criticism of my understanding of the teachings.

Things get a little confusing from here on working out who is responding to what.

OSAS discussion continues from this point on basically along the lines of:

• LDS don't understand what OSAS is all about
• ECs can't agree on what they mean with OSAS

I've read through the posts and that's basically the crux of the matter (except when involving ad hominem) and it probably deserves it's own thread or two.

In post 72 PA posted an objection to my understanding of one version of OSAS as it has been presented to me. That's fine, I can appreciate that, just understand there are some people out there that do believe that. She also asked me a number of excellent questions that I addressed in post 74. In post 73 she answered my question about PS with another non-answer question that I addressed in post 75.

In all of this, somehow another arc was spawned on scripture vs revelation.

In post 78, Wrigley claimed my understanding of PS was a strawman - despite my challenge to demonstrate that my understanding is incorrect. In post 79 wrig challenged me to post a link - my answer is that it would be a rule 3 violation to do so. I know because I've received a rule 3 alert for this exact link.

PAs post 80 was lauded as an exposition of what OSAS means by wrigley. I dunno. I'll have to read it more carefully and perhaps start a thread on it specifically. In post 82 PA gave me a challenge that I'll respond to later in this post.

To be honest, after here it gets kinda boring for me and appears to be a broken record of what I've already posted, but descending into ad hominem and the alternately giving and taken of offence. Ran attempted to get the OSAS discussion back on track with post 104, but it was already too late. The point-of-order has gained a life of it's own and I intend to start a thread specifically on it so we can let this one die a natural death.

What amazed me was that wrig claimed in post 109 that it was DS who were deflecting!!! A review of this thread like the one I've done will show the opposite is the case. McGregor slapped wrig on the back with post 110.

The rest of this thread continued with the scriptures vs revelation arc.

Now to my final comments before I start the OSAS thread:

Could you please give us the reference to such a quote? Where can we see this?

Tozer at least understood this belief was common in ECy:

In the Bible the offer of pardon on the part of God is conditioned upon intention to reform on the part of man. There can be no spiritual regeneration till there has been a moral reformation. That this statement requires defense only proves how far from the truth we have strayed.
In our current popular theology pardon depends upon faith alone. The very word reform has been banished from among the sons of the Reformation! …The promise of pardon and cleansing is always associated in the Scriptures with the command to repent …
I think there is little doubt that the teaching of salvation without repentance has lowered the moral standards of the Church and produced a multitude of deceived religious professors who erroneously believe themselves to be saved when in fact they are still in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. And to see such persons actually seeking the deeper life is a grim and disillusioning sight. Yet our altars are sometimes filled with seekers who are crying with Simon, “Give me this power,” when the moral groundwork has simply not been laid for it. The whole thing must be acknowledged as a clear victory for the devil, a victory he could never have enjoyed if unwise teachers had not made it possible by preaching the evil doctrine of regeneration apart from reformation.
— The Best of A.W. Tozer, Book 2, p115-117. Compiled by Warren W. Wiersbe

“Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism. The creed of the Antinomian is easily stated: We are saved by faith alone; works have no place in salvation; conduct is works, and is therefore of no importance. What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God.

Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian. And so fully has it permeated the Fundamental element in modern Christianity that it is accepted by the religious masses as the very truth of God. Antinomianism is the doctrine of grace carried by uncorrected logic to the point of absurdity. It takes the teaching of justification by faith and twists it into deformity.”

(sorry, I have lost the links to my secondary sources. Both quotes were verbatim from two separate web sites containing Tozer quotes)

This shows that Tozer believed that salvation was conditional upon repentance and that we are not saved by faith alone. He also states that the converse is widely accepted.

It also appears from his statements that Tozer believes a person can be a Christian, yet not be saved. Tozer clearly believs a person's salvation is conditioned upon their actions in this life and that a person may lose their salvation through their actions.

I'll continue this in the other thread. But feel free to correct any mistakes I have made here. My purpose is not to discredit Tozer or anybody else but to determine the full range and thought of OSAS.

 

[Wrigley]

swart
Do you realize how arrogant and condescending you appear?

Also, in regards to the link you claim you can't post..

Try the PM function.

 

[Swart]

swart
Do you realize how arrogant and condescending you appear?

I guess I'll always have wrig here to remind me!

Also, in regards to the link you claim you can't post..

Try the PM function.

This is but one of the posts:

Calvinism states that if a believer walks away from faith, either that person will return, or they were never a real believer to begin with. I'm pretty tolerant of this position because I don't think it can cause any real harm... what I oppose is this new breed of ES which says we can do whatever we want, in direct conflict with the Bible, and yet be saved. How can one be saved if they turn away from faith? It makes no sense to me.

Do an "I'm feeling lucky" google search for "cocforums". Once there append

showthread.php?t=978

to the link.

 

[Wrigley]

I guess I'll always have wrig here to remind me!



This is but one of the posts:



Do an "I'm feeling lucky" google search for "cocforums". Once there append "t978" to the link.

PM the link.
The "im feeling lucky" link does not always give the same links.

 

[Rescued One]

To claim that a Christian would desire to live in sin is absurd. One who has the Spirit of Christ is one who loves Him. A person who claims that sin is acceptable to God is a liar. Sin is forgiven if you have been born again; this does not mean that the new creature desires to walk in the darkness that he was once in.

Romans 8
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

LDS should not jump to a conclusion that eternal security is license to sin. Yet sinning or not sinning is not what saves a person. Lifestyle is evidence of what God has done or not done in that person.

The people who claim that lifestyle doesn't matter to God are in error and that teaching is not found in the Bible. This is why God gave us the Bible.

Acts 17
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.