It was my issue not your sites, sorry.

Aaron,

I seem to be having a connection problem, even using Chrome.

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.

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).

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.