Charles Perry Locke wrote:
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:32:37 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
The RCC needed reformation because it was
broken, not missing.
Plus, as several have told you, there always has been a true church
that existed outside the RCC.
I do not believe that the restituion
of all things has anything to so with the LDS.
DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. Furthermore, even though that is my
belief, I am not trying to promote it here. What I am trying to do is
find out why the early Reformers did not claim the RCC folks had
apostasies instead of just suggesting their doctrines were broken.
Just another LDS prooftext.
DAVEH: I humbly believe you do not understand the nature of my
questions, Perry. May I suggest (again, humbly) that you address the
question I ask, instead of the question you perceive I'm asking and
let's see if we can have a more meaningful discussion......please!
In fact, the only references to restoring
all things I found were in Matthew and Luke, when it states that Elijah
will restore all things...do you consider JS to be Elijah?
DAVEH: No.
If not, please give ma a chapter and verse.
DAVEH: ??? I do not understand. You want me to give you
chapter/verse for a negative answer?
No. If the verses in Matthew and Luke where Elijah restores all things
are not the verse you are referring to, then please lead me in
sctripture to where you are reading about the restituiton of all
things.
DAVEH: Sorry it is taking so long to respond to your question, Perry.
I've got a few minutes to kill while waiting to leave, so I'll see if I
can get this post out of my inbox!
Let's start by saying I was reading about the restitution of all
things that you mentioned at the top does not apply to the LDS Church.
I'll highlight it in blue. So.....the question should be addressed to
yourself, shouldn't it? If you do not believe the restitution of all things has anything to so with
the LDS but you do believe it applies to something/someone
else....then to whom do you believe restitution
of all things has to do?
That is not to say I don't think there need be a
restoration.....quite the contrary. If you want me to quote a
Scripture that I think pertain to this prophesied event ........Mal 4:
5-6 & Mt 17:10-13 & Acts 3:19-21 & Rev 14:6-7 are a few
that I believe apply.
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Last Days
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:59:55 -0800
Charles Perry Locke wrote:
If I may add a comment, there is a
difference between reformation and restoration. The protestant movement
was a reformation...JS' movement was a restoration. I see them as quite
different.
DAVEH: I understand that, Perry. I'm trying to figure out why they
went with a reformation instead of a restoration. Seems like the Bible
suggests there would be a restitution (restoration) of all things,
rather than a reformation. Wouldn't it have been more Biblical for the
Reformers to think in restitution/restoration terms? Is there Biblical
evidence to suggest a reformation?
Luther thought the church had gone
astray,
DAVEH: Yes.....That seems like a perfect reason to suggest an apostasy
had taken place in/by the RCC. I'm surprised the Reformers did not
consider such.
and reformed it to correct doctrinal
error. JS thought the church had totally apostatized, so totally
resored it. I dfon;t think the two can be compared.
DAVEH: I wasn't trying to compare them. To me the restoration makes
perfect sense from the Biblical evidence of an apostasy, and subsequent
restitution. Yet the Reformers evidently didn't see it that way, but
rather preferred to consider that the RCC folks simply strayed a bit
and needed some reforming instead of restoring what was lost.
I agree with Luther (in that the church had gone astray, and that
reformation was due),
DAVEH: Since you agree with the early Reformers, then perhaps you can
answer my questions about it......assuming you understand what I'm
asking. Forget about JS for a moment.....And consider the RCC folks.
Do you think they just had some bad doctrine that evolved over the
years? Or.....do you view them as apostates from the Primitive
Church? And, if they were Apostates....then wouldn't a restoration
have made sense from the Reformers' (or your) perspective? If not,
there must be some Biblical reason you/Reformers did not think a
restitution is/was necessary.....
but not JS.
DAVEH: Listen Perry.....I understand that few TTers have any sympathy
for JS. I'm not trying to promote him in TT. I'm not asking you to
believe him or his teachings. But, my curiosity is certainly biased by
what I know and believe about his teachings....forgive me for that.
What interests me though is what reasons (Biblical) you (and
Protestants in general) believe the way you do when it seems so odd to
me. I hope that makes sense. For instance, I see the Bible speak
about a falling away (apostasy) and the need for a restitution
(restoration) of all things, and it fits into my theological and
Biblical inclinations. I hear your thinking about the RCC having some
skewed doctrines that needed reformed, and then the Reformers making
some minor changes.....and I don't see that in the Bible. It is not
that I'm trying to hit you over the head with this.....I'm just trying
to figure out why you see it your way when I see it another way and we
both are viewing it from a Biblical perspective.
Perry
--
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
|
