Thanda
Well-Known Member
Sorry to weigh in at this late stage in the conversation. In your opinion: does God have the power to make someone perfect? In other words does he have the power to make someone keep all his commandments all the time?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God in mormonism
- Thread starter Kristoffer
- Start date
Sorry to weigh in at this late stage in the conversation. In your opinion: does God have the power to make someone perfect? In other words does he have the power to make someone keep all his commandments all the time?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1. Post 83, I wrote "That all sounds good. Except I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me". I'm fairly clear on what words like no, only, before and after mean. Also, these clear kinds of terms have been employed by hundreds of Bible translators across hundreds of English Bible versions.
Do you know that quotations don't always indicate direct quotes?
2. I never claimed to be a god of any sort. I think it's obvious I've been repudiating such ideas as heretical to my way of thinking. However, I'm not the OP and this is an LDS page to which I've been invited as a guest, so I'm asking questions about this and other doctrines. I'm learning a lot and my misconceptions are falling away in part, I think.
3. Evidence that I'm a Christian? Let's not go there. I feel I've been far more Christian on this thread then you. Again, I'm a mere guest and not seeking to get banned from here, but I must say I've marked EVERY LDS member I've spoken with in the past 25 years or so as exceptionally soft spoken, kind and peacemaking, except one. I feel like you are trying to browbeat me with your intellectual prowess, as if God forbid I should only have one year of ancient Greek studies and one Bachelor's in Religion but don't know every reference you've quoted from the ancient Near East or Rome. Further, you are exceptionally rude and patronizing to me as a Jew. You claim to understand Halachic thought and ancient Jewish ways--I've lived them. I grew up with all the rabbinical nonsense of misinterpreting what Moses was to Pharaoh. Then I walked away in part from all I knew and loved to become a Christian. Instead of commending me and welcoming me as a saved, Christian brother, you insult my Jewish faith, my heritage, and then ask me if I'm some kind of a Poe rather than a Messianic Jew? How dare you...? Are we not here to witness our faith to others and be examples of people who discuss in loving terms and contexts? Is this what you want to put online for nonbelievers to read?
I suspect other members of this forum find you distasteful and rude, but fear your criticism because you would browbeat them also. Please stop being such a rude example of a "Christian". It's off-putting.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Good question. It seems to me that God does not have the power in this world/age to alter our free will and keep us utterly from sin. It seems rather that universal forgiveness is the rule now, and a changed nature in the next world.
Therefore, my gospel. Jesus only, not Jesus and works or trying my best or etc. I try my best because I'm saved and beloved and forgiven, not to be saved. If I rescued you from drowning, you'd thank me, not kick me, but thanking me for saving you doesn't make me go backwards in time to have saved you.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
So God can only change us when we're dead? Is he not omnipotent? Will our free will be taken from us in the next life?
Jesus said "except a man be born again" he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Are we not born again in this life? And if we are born again don't our natures change?
If God cannot keep a christian from sin then God can't keep a Christian from death since the wages of sin is death. Yet this can't be so since Jesus said in John 11:
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Sin and death go together. If a man sins he is the child of the devil and he will surely die (spiritually). But if a man is sinless then he is a child of Christ and has been blessed and saved by him through faith on his name. God is fair and just and he is no respector of persons. He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and no unclean thing can dwell in his presence. He is righteousness and he has all power necessary to save his children.
When a life guard goes out to save a drowning man does he keep the man in the water? No, he takes him completely out of the water and he will even take any water out of the man that he may have swallowed. So is God with regards to sin. Forgiving us of sin is only half the job of saving us. The real power and miracle lies in ridding us of every sin.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
I see. If you recognize the subject participates in their own salvation, why then do you hold to a penal substitution atonement model, despite the rational problems? Do you reject rationality?
Orontes
Master of the Horse
You mentioned you repudiate Calvinist doctrine, but the above sounds very much a product of Reformed Thought. What do you mean when you say you are saved? Does this mean you are heaven bound, independent of will?
1) Regarding embellishments and misquotes :
Post #83 BilliardsBall quoted Isaiah 43:10 as : " "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me". "
Post # 87 : Clear said : “… the scripture you quoted (I alluded to it in post #80) doesn't exist in any english nor greek nor hebrew bible that I've been able to search on google. It doesn't even exist in the reference you provided us. I think your "scripture" as quoted is incorrect and represents yet one more embellished misquote
Post #89 BilliardsBall said : I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10. Here it is in several formats. (gives 19 examples)
Clear said : “ BilliardsBall now says : “I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10.” And then he offers us 19 examples of how he DID misquote Isaiah from different modern translations, NONE of which are the same as his quote of Isaiah 43:10! Congratulations BilliardsBall; you MUST have broken some sort of internet record. You have given us 19 more examples of interpretations which are different than your quote in post # 73. In doing so, yet again, you give readers even MORE evidence that your “quote” in 73 did NOT come from any known Bible, but was yet another personal embellishment…
BilliardsBall responded : “ Do you know that quotations don't always indicate direct quotes? ”
Is this really going to be your excuse for using a non-existent embellishment as a scripture in support of your theory? Really?
While is it true that quotes can be used to create irony or to indicate sarcasm and other purposes, the PRIMARY rule of quotations IS to indicate exact and direct quotes. You say you’ve been to university. Here is the rule for quotes from the Purdue University web site : (bolding is mine)
“The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. The quotation mark is also used to designate speech acts in fiction and sometimes poetry. Since you will most often use them when working with outside sources, successful use of quotation marks is a practical defense against accidental plagiarism and an excellent practice in academic honesty. The following rules of quotation mark use are the standard in the United States, although it may be of interest that usage rules for this punctuation do vary in other countries.
Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks. However, indirect quotations still require proper citations, and you will be commiting plagiarism if you fail to do so.”
So, yes BilliardsBall, it can be correct to use quotes for other reasons, but even then, there are rules to these exceptions and, there are reasons for such rules. Subtle changes, even in word order will change meaning.
For example, the five words "The ten men are brave" has a different meaning to the same five words written "Are the ten men brave?" In this example, the first sentence is a statement of fact, and the second sentence is a question that may include creating doubt as a context.
If you are going to make up a fictional text, or embellish and change an original text, then, if you are doing this inside of a HISTORICAL discussion, please indicate that you have embellished and/or changed the standard and expected text for some reason of your own.
2) BilliardsBall said : “I never claimed to be a god of any sort. I think it's obvious I've been repudiating such ideas as heretical to my way of thinking. “
When you were given the example (Exo 7:1) where Moses is given to be a God to Pharoah, you responded : “Moses was god to Pharaoh the same way I'm God to people…”.
You must take some blame for the misunderstanding since your response clearly says "I'm God to people..." (of an ambassadorial type). If this was simple sarcasm, or symbolic, then you should have explained this.
Historically, the early Jews believed this scripture from exodus as I have exampled from their early writings. Linguistically, אֱלֹהִים ("god/s") in Exod 7:1, never meant “ambassador” in this phrase as you want it to mean. (unless you want to offer argument regarding it’s translation in this phrase?). If you do not believe what this scripture says, then your belief and interpretation of this specific text is different than the writer of exodus and that of the early Jews in my example from 4q. (your religion and belief is not the same as theirs was)
3) BilliardsBall said : “Evidence that I'm a Christian? Let's not go there. I feel I've been far more Christian on this thread then you. “
Get off of your high horse. Your dignity has NOT suffered from simple meanness on my part, but rather your theories have fallen flat and have been shown NOT to represent the same religion as early Christian and Jews because they are bad historical theories. When your inflated claims to historical education fell flat, why simply blame me for shooting down your historical theories despite your claim to great historical knowledge?
I honestly do NOT care if you create unusual religious theories (such as your theory on instant perfection at the rapture). What I DO care about historically, is when you present such a theory as part of historical and ancient Christianity. It is not. I do not care if you want to represent yourself as "Jewish" or not. However, I DO care that you tried to represent YOUR “Judaism” as being the same Judaism of ancient prophetic Israel. I've given readers multiple examples showing this is historically, incorrect.
When you have said correct things, I have supported you. I honored you in post # 67 for you’re your attempt to inform your conscience with good data (I still do). In post # 100, I agreed with your rejection of strict predestination. However, it is mainly your claim to historically accurate theories that I have rejected and shown to be in error.
4) BilliardsBall said : “you are exceptionally rude and patronizing to me as a Jew."
While I probably was rude in showing the historical errors in your theories (for which I now apologize), I was never “patronizing” to you as a Jew. I love and honor the ancient Jews to whom we all owe a tremendous gratitude for preserving the many textual witnesses we have of God and his dealings with them.
However, YOU, are NOT an ancient Jew.
YOUR Judaism is a different religion with different beliefs and different practices than their ancient religion as I have already pointed out. For example, when you claimed that “as a Messianic Jew”, you “know Paul’s words” (as though this is, somehow, logical reasoning?), I pointed out that your modern religion is not the same as ancient Judaism. :
“Their religion was temple centered whereas your religion has no temple but instead, you have synagogues. Their religion had a priesthood with priests as did the early Jewish religion, but your religion has no priesthood, instead, you have rabbis (teachers who have no priesthood). Their religion had prophetic revelation as guidance, but your religion has no such gift as prophetic revelation, but instead has rabbinical theologians who create doctrine and then explain and spread it among the masses. Their pre-Massoretic Torahs were not the same as your post massoretic text as the Massorah tell us. Your textual interpretations are not the same as ancient Judaism (OR ancient Christianity). “
Whether it is really and truly “rude” to tell you these things, readers may certainly judge for themselves. However, I will try to be kinder in the way that I show error in your historical claims and I appreciate your observation that I should do so.
5) Billiardsball said : “You claim to understand Halachic thought and ancient Jewish ways--I've lived them. I grew up with all the rabbinical nonsense of misinterpreting what Moses was to Pharaoh."
I have NOT claimed to understand ancient Halachic thought and ancient Jewish ways. I do not think ANY modern person can understand them the same way that the ancients themselves understood them. I simply understood more about the specific issues we've discussed than you have. There are other areas of discussion that you may better grasp than myself.
Your claim to have “lived” ancient Jewish Ways is, however, another example of your habit to overstate and embellish your qualifications. YOU are NOT an “ancient Jew” and you have NOT lived the “ancient Jewish ways” that we are having a historical discussion of. Readers have already become aware of many differences between your Judeo-Christianity and it’s beliefs and the early Judeo-Christianity the early Judeo-Christians themselves described in their own words, in their own texts, and from their own time periods. This mantra you tell yourself about being the same as the ancient Jews is fictional.
6) BilliardBall said : “Instead of commending me and welcoming me as a saved, Christian brother, you insult my Jewish faith, my heritage, and then ask me if I'm some kind of a Poe rather than a Messianic Jew? How dare you...? “
If your purpose incoming to the LDS dir was to commend them for being saved and to be commended by them for being saved, you could have pointed this out in the beginning, since, you seemed instead, to want to define their faith for them and discuss things other than "mutual commendations".
If you are “saved” (though you have not defined this term yet as per Orontes question in post # 106), then this is wonderful and you are to be commended and welcomed. However, this is the first time you have intimated that you wanted to BE commended and welcomed, and, neither have you commended the LDS nor welcomed them as being "saved". Your point that we’ve not commended nor welcomed one another seems irrelevant since it has only been brought up since you’ve come under increasing stress. That being said, I DO honor you for coming from one level of truth to another, higher level of truth and I hope you continue gaining greater levels of truth and understanding throughout your life and beyond. I hope your spiritual journey is good.
7) BilliardBall said : “Are we not here to witness our faith to others and be examples of people who discuss in loving terms and contexts? Is this what you want to put online for nonbelievers to read?”
Try to remember that YOU were the one who came to the LDS dir and pursued the current theme we are discussing by trying to tell the LDS what they believed. If you wanted to bring up witnessing our faith then you could have brought that up instead of the use of the terms "gods" and "god-like", etc. Why don't you start an OP on the witness of your faith?
Having said that, I think that we are first, to simply learn what the real and authentic teachings were, rather than to simply teach incorrect personal modern theories to non-believers in the place of authentic, ancient, Christian theory. I believe that having non-believers having access to historically accurate and honest Christianity is more important than offering them heretical and false Christian theory in kindness. If truth as a priority sounds rude, you are welcome to offer a rational for another priority (e.g. "kindness in debate", etc) . In fact, if it is really important to you to examine, could you find 4 entire posts of mine that you thought were rude and we can discuss them if you’d like.
Again, I hope your spiritual Journey is Good BilliardsBall
ειφιτωφυω
Post #83 BilliardsBall quoted Isaiah 43:10 as : " "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me". "
Post # 87 : Clear said : “… the scripture you quoted (I alluded to it in post #80) doesn't exist in any english nor greek nor hebrew bible that I've been able to search on google. It doesn't even exist in the reference you provided us. I think your "scripture" as quoted is incorrect and represents yet one more embellished misquote
Post #89 BilliardsBall said : I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10. Here it is in several formats. (gives 19 examples)
Clear said : “ BilliardsBall now says : “I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10.” And then he offers us 19 examples of how he DID misquote Isaiah from different modern translations, NONE of which are the same as his quote of Isaiah 43:10! Congratulations BilliardsBall; you MUST have broken some sort of internet record. You have given us 19 more examples of interpretations which are different than your quote in post # 73. In doing so, yet again, you give readers even MORE evidence that your “quote” in 73 did NOT come from any known Bible, but was yet another personal embellishment…
BilliardsBall responded : “ Do you know that quotations don't always indicate direct quotes? ”
Is this really going to be your excuse for using a non-existent embellishment as a scripture in support of your theory? Really?
While is it true that quotes can be used to create irony or to indicate sarcasm and other purposes, the PRIMARY rule of quotations IS to indicate exact and direct quotes. You say you’ve been to university. Here is the rule for quotes from the Purdue University web site : (bolding is mine)
“The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else. The quotation mark is also used to designate speech acts in fiction and sometimes poetry. Since you will most often use them when working with outside sources, successful use of quotation marks is a practical defense against accidental plagiarism and an excellent practice in academic honesty. The following rules of quotation mark use are the standard in the United States, although it may be of interest that usage rules for this punctuation do vary in other countries.
Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks. However, indirect quotations still require proper citations, and you will be commiting plagiarism if you fail to do so.”
So, yes BilliardsBall, it can be correct to use quotes for other reasons, but even then, there are rules to these exceptions and, there are reasons for such rules. Subtle changes, even in word order will change meaning.
For example, the five words "The ten men are brave" has a different meaning to the same five words written "Are the ten men brave?" In this example, the first sentence is a statement of fact, and the second sentence is a question that may include creating doubt as a context.
If you are going to make up a fictional text, or embellish and change an original text, then, if you are doing this inside of a HISTORICAL discussion, please indicate that you have embellished and/or changed the standard and expected text for some reason of your own.
2) BilliardsBall said : “I never claimed to be a god of any sort. I think it's obvious I've been repudiating such ideas as heretical to my way of thinking. “
When you were given the example (Exo 7:1) where Moses is given to be a God to Pharoah, you responded : “Moses was god to Pharaoh the same way I'm God to people…”.
You must take some blame for the misunderstanding since your response clearly says "I'm God to people..." (of an ambassadorial type). If this was simple sarcasm, or symbolic, then you should have explained this.
Historically, the early Jews believed this scripture from exodus as I have exampled from their early writings. Linguistically, אֱלֹהִים ("god/s") in Exod 7:1, never meant “ambassador” in this phrase as you want it to mean. (unless you want to offer argument regarding it’s translation in this phrase?). If you do not believe what this scripture says, then your belief and interpretation of this specific text is different than the writer of exodus and that of the early Jews in my example from 4q. (your religion and belief is not the same as theirs was)
3) BilliardsBall said : “Evidence that I'm a Christian? Let's not go there. I feel I've been far more Christian on this thread then you. “
Get off of your high horse. Your dignity has NOT suffered from simple meanness on my part, but rather your theories have fallen flat and have been shown NOT to represent the same religion as early Christian and Jews because they are bad historical theories. When your inflated claims to historical education fell flat, why simply blame me for shooting down your historical theories despite your claim to great historical knowledge?
I honestly do NOT care if you create unusual religious theories (such as your theory on instant perfection at the rapture). What I DO care about historically, is when you present such a theory as part of historical and ancient Christianity. It is not. I do not care if you want to represent yourself as "Jewish" or not. However, I DO care that you tried to represent YOUR “Judaism” as being the same Judaism of ancient prophetic Israel. I've given readers multiple examples showing this is historically, incorrect.
When you have said correct things, I have supported you. I honored you in post # 67 for you’re your attempt to inform your conscience with good data (I still do). In post # 100, I agreed with your rejection of strict predestination. However, it is mainly your claim to historically accurate theories that I have rejected and shown to be in error.
4) BilliardsBall said : “you are exceptionally rude and patronizing to me as a Jew."
While I probably was rude in showing the historical errors in your theories (for which I now apologize), I was never “patronizing” to you as a Jew. I love and honor the ancient Jews to whom we all owe a tremendous gratitude for preserving the many textual witnesses we have of God and his dealings with them.
However, YOU, are NOT an ancient Jew.
YOUR Judaism is a different religion with different beliefs and different practices than their ancient religion as I have already pointed out. For example, when you claimed that “as a Messianic Jew”, you “know Paul’s words” (as though this is, somehow, logical reasoning?), I pointed out that your modern religion is not the same as ancient Judaism. :
“Their religion was temple centered whereas your religion has no temple but instead, you have synagogues. Their religion had a priesthood with priests as did the early Jewish religion, but your religion has no priesthood, instead, you have rabbis (teachers who have no priesthood). Their religion had prophetic revelation as guidance, but your religion has no such gift as prophetic revelation, but instead has rabbinical theologians who create doctrine and then explain and spread it among the masses. Their pre-Massoretic Torahs were not the same as your post massoretic text as the Massorah tell us. Your textual interpretations are not the same as ancient Judaism (OR ancient Christianity). “
Whether it is really and truly “rude” to tell you these things, readers may certainly judge for themselves. However, I will try to be kinder in the way that I show error in your historical claims and I appreciate your observation that I should do so.
5) Billiardsball said : “You claim to understand Halachic thought and ancient Jewish ways--I've lived them. I grew up with all the rabbinical nonsense of misinterpreting what Moses was to Pharaoh."
I have NOT claimed to understand ancient Halachic thought and ancient Jewish ways. I do not think ANY modern person can understand them the same way that the ancients themselves understood them. I simply understood more about the specific issues we've discussed than you have. There are other areas of discussion that you may better grasp than myself.
Your claim to have “lived” ancient Jewish Ways is, however, another example of your habit to overstate and embellish your qualifications. YOU are NOT an “ancient Jew” and you have NOT lived the “ancient Jewish ways” that we are having a historical discussion of. Readers have already become aware of many differences between your Judeo-Christianity and it’s beliefs and the early Judeo-Christianity the early Judeo-Christians themselves described in their own words, in their own texts, and from their own time periods. This mantra you tell yourself about being the same as the ancient Jews is fictional.
6) BilliardBall said : “Instead of commending me and welcoming me as a saved, Christian brother, you insult my Jewish faith, my heritage, and then ask me if I'm some kind of a Poe rather than a Messianic Jew? How dare you...? “
If your purpose incoming to the LDS dir was to commend them for being saved and to be commended by them for being saved, you could have pointed this out in the beginning, since, you seemed instead, to want to define their faith for them and discuss things other than "mutual commendations".
If you are “saved” (though you have not defined this term yet as per Orontes question in post # 106), then this is wonderful and you are to be commended and welcomed. However, this is the first time you have intimated that you wanted to BE commended and welcomed, and, neither have you commended the LDS nor welcomed them as being "saved". Your point that we’ve not commended nor welcomed one another seems irrelevant since it has only been brought up since you’ve come under increasing stress. That being said, I DO honor you for coming from one level of truth to another, higher level of truth and I hope you continue gaining greater levels of truth and understanding throughout your life and beyond. I hope your spiritual journey is good.
7) BilliardBall said : “Are we not here to witness our faith to others and be examples of people who discuss in loving terms and contexts? Is this what you want to put online for nonbelievers to read?”
Try to remember that YOU were the one who came to the LDS dir and pursued the current theme we are discussing by trying to tell the LDS what they believed. If you wanted to bring up witnessing our faith then you could have brought that up instead of the use of the terms "gods" and "god-like", etc. Why don't you start an OP on the witness of your faith?
Having said that, I think that we are first, to simply learn what the real and authentic teachings were, rather than to simply teach incorrect personal modern theories to non-believers in the place of authentic, ancient, Christian theory. I believe that having non-believers having access to historically accurate and honest Christianity is more important than offering them heretical and false Christian theory in kindness. If truth as a priority sounds rude, you are welcome to offer a rational for another priority (e.g. "kindness in debate", etc) . In fact, if it is really important to you to examine, could you find 4 entire posts of mine that you thought were rude and we can discuss them if you’d like.
Again, I hope your spiritual Journey is Good BilliardsBall
ειφιτωφυω
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
All, thanks for your many thoughtful comments. I apologize for being away on a missions trip overseas and then I came home to have to travel to a funeral.
Answering some of the questions:
I do not think the person participates in their own salvation. They must rely on Christ for salvation. I also do not reject rationality, and try to employ logic and rationale when discussing any doctrine.
Yes, salvation is a one-time act, following which, the saved may regret or doubt their choices but will be saved, per John 3:16, John 5:24, etc. I'm not a Calvinist in that I do not belief in their differing doctrine of perseverance, indeed, I would go against all five Calvinist points. But I'm also not an Arminian, in that I do not believe they once-saved may lose their salvation.
God will change us at the Rapture. We will have free will but a new nature. However, there is death and then judgment, and when the parties are separated, there will not remain an after-death opportunity to change one's path.
Amen to that! I believe all sin is forgiven once one "gets into the lifeguard's boat".
That sounds super to me. I admit my bias is that when we review ancient sources outside the Bible, some of which align with Bible doctrines and some of which don't, my predisposition is to say the Bible is true and the standard for all doctrine.
Thank you all and thanks for your patience with me.
Answering some of the questions:
I do not think the person participates in their own salvation. They must rely on Christ for salvation. I also do not reject rationality, and try to employ logic and rationale when discussing any doctrine.
Yes, salvation is a one-time act, following which, the saved may regret or doubt their choices but will be saved, per John 3:16, John 5:24, etc. I'm not a Calvinist in that I do not belief in their differing doctrine of perseverance, indeed, I would go against all five Calvinist points. But I'm also not an Arminian, in that I do not believe they once-saved may lose their salvation.
God will change us at the Rapture. We will have free will but a new nature. However, there is death and then judgment, and when the parties are separated, there will not remain an after-death opportunity to change one's path.
Amen to that! I believe all sin is forgiven once one "gets into the lifeguard's boat".
That sounds super to me. I admit my bias is that when we review ancient sources outside the Bible, some of which align with Bible doctrines and some of which don't, my predisposition is to say the Bible is true and the standard for all doctrine.
Thank you all and thanks for your patience with me.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Welcome back.
Earlier you stated you believe in free will. In your bus analogy (where the Lord is taking riders to salvation) you mentioned you got on the bus. You then also stated the agent does not participate in their own salvation. Is your position you were forced onto the bus? If so, that rings of determinism. Determinism is antithetical to morality as morality requires free will. If you got on the bus of you own accord, then that is a participatory act. You can't have both.
If you believe once one is saved, there is nothing that can change that, then morality has been divorced from the equation. If morality does not apply, then the equation is simply about power. This means the thing saving is either immoral or amoral. Whichever it may be, it is contra the good and a danger.
You say you are neither Reformed or Arminian in your thinking, yet your go to explanations all swim in Calvinist waters.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I can understand your viewpoint. But let's look at it from a Bible perspective:
1. There is no way to interpret or understand what an NT "good work" is apart from this--that it is a lawful (Mosaic Law) work.
2. Trusting Jesus for salvation/getting on the bus/using one's faith is not a work of the 613 Mosaic Laws.
3. Either one is saved per the NT by trusting Jesus's death and resurrection or one is saved by trusting Jesus's death and resurrection plus doing good works.
4. Many such good works are impossible to perform now--for example, there is no current Temple or Levitical priesthood to receive sacrifices.
5. LDS members have temples and the opportunity for ones to perform priestly duties.
6. Jesus was not a Levite and so could not do priestly duties or be in the Temple beyond the courts for Jewish men (the innermost court).
7. We are to come to Jesus another, non-priestly way, though He is our High Priest.
I'm not determinist regarding salvation. I believe one must use their free will to trust Jesus, and one is saved trusting Jesus apart from any good (or bad) works. That would probably place me closer to Arminian than Calvinist.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You are making an assumption about what "good works" are. They are not part of the Mosaic Law at all, although it is true that sacraments/ordinances such as baptism, marriage, etc. can also be considered works. Consider Matthew 25:31-46:
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, taking in the stranger, visiting the sick. All of these are "good works." Surely you wouldn't deny that. And they clearly do matter to the Lord. By themselves, they cannot save us, but we are expected to show our faithfulness to Christ by treating our fellow men as we would treat Him. And if we don't, no amount of trust in Him is going to matter.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
1. Do you have a biblical statement listing any of the above as works?
2. You do--for it is in the Torah stated, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".
3. Loving your neighbor is a work of the Mosaic Law.
4. We are indeed expected to show our faithfulness via works. However, like the children we are, sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail.
But consider, I'm drowning, Jesus comes up in a boat to rescue me. So, when I get safely to shore, do I kick and punch him? No, I try to both thank him and live my life going forward accordingly.
But do I do works/show faithfulness so that Jesus can go backwards in time and save me with the boat again, in the past? Of course not. Likewise, the Christian is do works from a place of gratitude, but they have no bearing on the reality of salvation. Works do have a bearing on Heavenly/next world rewards, yes, but not the fact of (I already had received) permanent salvation.
My overarching concern here is that I understand Christianity to teach salvation by trusting Jesus's death and resurrection as substitutionary atonement.
Here are some groups that teach faith plus works. They also teach that one may lose or remit one's salvation:
* The RCC
* JW's
* Islam
* Judaism
etc.
Where would you place LDS in their stance? Do you believe you are saved by trusting Jesus or by trusting Jesus plus doing things?
Thanks!
BilliardsBall said : “ Here are some groups that teach faith plus works. They also teach that one may lose or remit one's salvation : “
To this list we should add the earliest Christian religious movement, since, in their earliest sacred textual interpretations, they describe belief in Jesus plus obedience to him, including doing repentance and efforts/works his followers were directed to do.
Thus, a more accurate historical list might include :
* The RCC
* JW's
* Islam
* Judaism
* Early Christianity
I am not sure at what point in history the interpretation and doctrine of “easy believe-ism” of "belief without repentance" first appears and becomes a popular religious movement apart from the more original doctrines, but this “easy believeism” interpretation does not appear in the earliest textual descriptions of Christian interpretation. For example, in early Judeo-Christianity, BilliardsBall could NOT BE saved with the greatest reward from God without attempting to be obedient to God's directives. Those who were willfully disobedient and defied God were not given the same reward as those believers who willfully attempted obedience to God in the early Christian worldviews. It is only in modern interpretation and religious theory, that one can be disobedient, unrepentant and defiant to God, and yet, still be rewarded by God with the same reward as those who were willfully obedient to God.
Clear
εισεφυακω
To this list we should add the earliest Christian religious movement, since, in their earliest sacred textual interpretations, they describe belief in Jesus plus obedience to him, including doing repentance and efforts/works his followers were directed to do.
Thus, a more accurate historical list might include :
* The RCC
* JW's
* Islam
* Judaism
* Early Christianity
I am not sure at what point in history the interpretation and doctrine of “easy believe-ism” of "belief without repentance" first appears and becomes a popular religious movement apart from the more original doctrines, but this “easy believeism” interpretation does not appear in the earliest textual descriptions of Christian interpretation. For example, in early Judeo-Christianity, BilliardsBall could NOT BE saved with the greatest reward from God without attempting to be obedient to God's directives. Those who were willfully disobedient and defied God were not given the same reward as those believers who willfully attempted obedience to God in the early Christian worldviews. It is only in modern interpretation and religious theory, that one can be disobedient, unrepentant and defiant to God, and yet, still be rewarded by God with the same reward as those who were willfully obedient to God.
Clear
εισεφυακω
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Your post does not address the dilemma. The Biblical appeal is also flawed. Two simple examples:
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. - James 4:17
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. - Matt 26: 34-40
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. - Matt 26: 34-40
The James reference applies sin to a failure to do good. This is not a legal position. It is a moral one. One is judged as a moral being, not as part of a taxonomy of legal strictures.
Per the Mathew references: the righteous are designated by their actions. Note: there is no qualification on these people being Jews, disciples or members of the Church. Their actions alone are the qualifier.
In a subsequent post you state there are some who believe faith plus works is the way and you try to contrast this with a faith only stance You should be aware: only creatures of the Reformed Tradition (which is the Calvinism you say you reject) hold to a faith only model. The rest of the Christian World rejects such because it is illogical and unbiblical and would force one to adopt a metaphysic where Deity is an evil or amoral being.
To the point on faith: faith itself is a work. Any action taken on the part of the subject qualifies as a work. This is why your bus example is so telling. If you got on the bus (through an assertion of belief or faith etc.) you are thereby a willing participant. If you were forced onto the bus you are not a free agent and morality is divorced from the equation.
You state one must use their free will to trust Jesus. That statement alone is a repudiation of much of your earlier postings.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
No, I don't, but I do have a brain and a conscience.
I do what?
And it's also a commandment of Jesus Christ.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Just based on your comments so far, I'd say that you have completely understood the LDS position. We do not have a list of works to check off. We have no quotas to meet. We don't focus on whether or not we've "done enough" and can finally stop trying. We simply believe, as the Bible teaches, that Jesus Christ is "the author of salvation unto all them that obey him." We also believe, as Jesus Christ himself said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Well, you've apparently disregarded a lot of what the Bible actually teaches then.
Well, you could probably many Protestant groups to your list. It looks like the only folks left who think that all you have to do is believe in Christ and your home free are the conservative Christian denominations (i.e. most Calvinist Churches, Evangelical Baptists and Lutherans and some non-denominational Christians). I'd happily add the LDS to the groups who believe that we must have a genuine change of heart, as evidenced by the way in which we live our lives in order to be the recipients of God's grace in its fullness.
Honestly, it's not that simple. Salvation can mean a number of different things. A person is "saved" from the permanence of death without doing a single thing. Christ's Atonement promises them that. Obedience and faithfulness are required for the "fullness of salvation," which is at the other end of the spectrum.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Hi, you've made this point already on this thread. My response would include:
* The earliest texts also included apocrypha, which conservatives recognize as demonic attempts on sound doctrine.
* You keep writing things like, "I am not sure at what point in history the interpretation and doctrine of “easy believe-ism” of "belief without repentance" first appears..." but it appears in the scriptures. There are over 150 invitations to trust Jesus in the NT. Read all of them and see how many make statements like "He who trusts in me will have eternal life" (the last is a paraphrase, my own) without statements regarding repentance.
Repentance, by the way, in the Greek, means to change one's mind. Of course one would have to change one's mind to trust Jesus. If I don't trust Jesus, I can only trust myself to enter Heaven. Thus, the problem.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I understand:
* Sin is defined in the Bible as more than a failure to do good, but as any wrongdoing. Yes.
* Faith is not a work, nor is grace. See Romans 11:5.
* Making a free will choice is not listed in any of the 613 Mosaic Laws.
* I believe I chose to ride the bus in my analogy. I was not forced to do so.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
"...The author of salvation unto all them that obey him..." I would say "that obey Him, by trusting in his atonement"... is that your position?
"Obedience and faithfulness are required for the "fullness of salvation," which is at the other end of the spectrum." - what is the fullness of salvation? I would say "rewards besides eternal life" and that those falling short of this are still saved. Is the fullness of salvation a Bible statement or LDS canon verse or statement?
Thanks!
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Can I ask something.
In your opinion, What is a saved being? What are the characteristics of those who are saved in heaven? If I took a saved being and a being who is damned - what differences would I notice between them, in your opinion.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Romans 11:5 does not help your cause.
Free will is a moral position, not a legal one. Appeals to Mosaic Law is to commit a category mistake.
Per work: A work (if you use the Koine Greek: prasso) is simply to do something. It is an act, a base verb. Faith (pisteuo) is to trust. If you try and confine the meaning of such terms by their abstract noun and then draw conclusions from the same, you fail to understand the base meaning. Both concepts are at their core actions. They are the acts of a subject, they do not exist absent the subject.
If you admit you freely choose to get on the bus (per your analogy), why are you not free to leave it? Are you a captive?