Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Dachande | 98721 | ||
The Hebrew was not so from Mormons, but a correction is note worthy and no problem to take, thank you... You're not seeing what I'm saying though... remember, this is not a debate over Mormon doctrine... so lets leave them alone and focus soley on the Bible... There are many passages that state there is only one God yes... but where in the Bible does it state this is the "Trinity" and the Godhead is no where explained as that of the "Trinity" in the Nicene Creed... that is the problem with the doctrine, yes, the creeds states it and gives a detailed definition, but the Bible does not teach the doctine of the Trinity, the creeds do... do you see my delema? I base my beliefs on the Bible, and the Trinity is not in the Bible, so how can it be upheld as concrete? Explain the Apostle Steven's vision then... And back to the origanal topic... Since when in the Bible was it taught that there are to be no more Apostles or Prophets, it doesn't... When doctrines are set out to be the absolute, how can they be when they are not in Bible? I know you will quote those same verses, but then I quote Acts 7:55-56... but if the Bible does not contradict itself, how can Christ stand on the right hand of the Father if they are the same... "Being" Or Christs prayer in John 17, where He prays that we may be one in Him, as He is one in the Father, that we all might be one with the Father... or John 20:17 where Christ ackowledges sebing subject to the Father, "...To my God, and your God." This argument can be faught til we're both blue in the face with supporting scripture for each side, which I'm not trying to do... So if we can do this, why should we not have Apostles and Prophets to settle these petty doctrinal issues? As far as I've read, God doesn't like confusion, which is why He had Prophets and Apostles Am I making any logical sense? Joe |
||||||
2 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98725 | ||
"And back to the origanal topic... Since when in the Bible was it taught that there are to be no more Apostles or Prophets, it doesn't..." And yet the LDS gets it backward, placing the Prophet (why only one?) on a higher authoritative ground than the Quorum of the Apostles. I think it is clear from the New Testament that the apostles were the leaders of the church, not the prophets. "I know you will quote those same verses, but then I quote Acts 7:55-56... but if the Bible does not contradict itself, how can Christ stand on the right hand of the Father if they are the same..." Because Christ and the Father are NOT the same. You misunderstand the church's doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is God; the Son is God; but the Father is not the Son. "So if we can do this, why should we not have Apostles and Prophets to settle these petty doctrinal issues?" Because they are not needed. We have the teachings of the apostles inscripturated in the New Testament. The church plays a role in interpreting the Scriptures (albeit imperfectly). The LDS errs in allegedly providing additional revelation above and beyond (and in contradiction to) what God has already revealed. We do not need "another testament" or any other supposed teaching from God; what he gave us in the Old and New Testaments is absolutely, 100 percent sufficient for the church and for the individual disciple of Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Dachande | 98817 | ||
Ok you just made no sense in this... "Because Christ and the Father are NOT the same. You misunderstand the church's doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is God; the Son is God; but the Father is not the Son." The doctrine of the Trinity teaches they are 3 in 1, and 1 in 3, amking all 3 the same being I understand the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no need in trying to explain it, since I understand it is my confussion You said "The Father is God, the Son is God; but the Father is not the Son." If the Father is, and the Son is God, and there is but one God, and they not the same, then what you're statement is saying is that there is one Title of God How ever the Trinity does teach that the Father is the Son and also the Ghost, stating that they are all each other... this is contrary to what you just said... And Why back on the Mormons? Did I not say to leave them out of this? Joe |
||||||
4 | Apostles, Prophets? An Office for Today? | NT general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 98834 | ||
"If the Father is, and the Son is God, and there is but one God, and they not the same, then what you're statement is saying is that there is one Title of God" God is one being, eternally existent in three persons. Jesus and the Father are two personages, but they are the same being. Difficult for the finite human being to grasp? Sure, but that is how God has revealed Himself to be. "How ever the Trinity does teach that the Father is the Son and also the Ghost, stating that they are all each other... this is contrary to what you just said..." The historic doctrine of the Trinity does NOT say that they are all each other. This is a heresy known as modalism or "oneness." Go read the Athanasian Creed: http://www.reformed.org/documents/athanasian.html "And Why back on the Mormons? Did I not say to leave them out of this?" Because you are promoting LDS theology, whether you label it as such or not. --Joe! |
||||||