God in mormonism

Clear said:

I also like your point regarding “free gifts” and the historical context. In a society where the rich acquired monetary “salvation” and “freedom” and their homes and lands and things generally associated with joy and peace because of money, it was important that the poor understood that the sorts of salvation and freedom and eternal joy and peace could be had “without price”. It was “free” and did not require money or position or power to obtain. This is NOT to say there were not conditions attached.

Click to expand...

Bingo!!!

Katzpur : Thank you for recognizing that religious texts must be viewed from their historical context in order to keep their historically accurate meaning. This new theory that individuals may, experience a momentary belief and acceptance of Jesus as a savior, perhaps when they are a youth, but then immediately disbelieve and even defy and blaspheme God and accept Satan as their God of worship and do despicable things such as torture and rape of Children and yet still be guaranteed to be taken to a heavenly reward by a God who remains a God of Justice is a modern theory that has very little to do with authentic early Christian doctrine. It is a doctrine created by men of a later age.


The theologians who developed such a theory cannot leave Pauls statements in the larger but specific historical contexts in which he spoke and still maintain a historically viable religious theory. For example, IF the theorist quote a small, "historically dyscontexted" portion of Pauls’ words to the Jews in his effort to convince them that their old covenant with its’ many, many “works” of its’ “schoolmaster” law could not save them once the new covenant was offered to them THEN Paul can be made to sound as though there are no ongoing conditions involved in the new covenant. For example, repentance and obedience to God and Jesus as base principles can be made to look obsolete to salvation. However, IF Pauls’ words are left in their greater context, THEN such silly, historically inaccurate theories cannot bear their own weight of illogic and irrationality and fall flat.

Paul may have tried to teach the Jews that many of the works of their laws were unnecessary to the New Covenant offered through the mediation of Christ, and that even their best obedience to the laws of Moses were insufficient to save them, however, he taught the Christians who accepted the New Covenant that they were to be steady, and continue faithful in the Covenant in order for the New Covenant to be completely valid.

Paul told the Colossians that Christ “22…has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him” 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached … 1 Colossians 1:2-23; 15 This is a conditional covenant.

Even Pauls’ unusual statement that “… woman will be saved through bearing children” carries the conditional phrase “… if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” . 1 Tim 2:15

Many of Pauls’ statements describe and underlie the early Christian doctrine of the New Covenant as a covenant that the Christians were to be faithful to if they wanted to receive it’s full blessings : “IF we endure, we shall also reign with him; IF we deny him, he also will deny us….” 2 Tim 12; The covenant carried conditional descriptors in the words "IF".

“...And we are his house IF we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope. “ Heb 3:6;

“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.....14 For we share in Christ, IF we only hold our first confidence firm to the end,...chapt 4...since therefor it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience ...vs 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. Heb 3:12-14 through 4:6&11;


Paul is not teaching the Christians the doctrine “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later.“ (Billiardsball, post # 196).

In fact, those who accepted the New Covenant and then totally repudiated it were NOT still promised salvation, but instead were punished for repudiation and denial of this greater knowledge they had received and then spurned. “ 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the spirit of grace? Heb 10:29 & “Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.....38 by my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls. Heb 10:35-39

The point is that the new religious theory that one can have a momentary sincere acceptance of Jesus as a savior but then immediately come to disbelieve and repudiate and deny that belief and act in deep and profound and despicable disobedience to the covenant that was offered and yet then still be guaranteed a holy and wonderful place in heaven as a despicable, unrepentant character, living beside holy and exalted beings is itself, a complete perversion of the original historical doctrine. This new theory It is not authentic early Christian doctrine and it is not supported in early the early historical context.

For examples, Billiardsballs’ Prior attempted use of Ephesians 1:13-14 is a good example of an attempt to use historical texts to support this new theory and, the attempt shows how this text can only apply to the new modern theory if the texts’ historical meaning is irrationally changed and it’s context removed FROM it’s actual greater historical context (if it is then to support the new theory at all). Thus, my point in post # 204, #213; and #216 (all three regarding Ephesians 1:14-15) is that the actual context does NOT and cannot support the new theory if left inside its’ original historical context.

Billairdsballs’ re-attempt to support this new theory by using Romans 3 (in his posts # 239 and again in #252) is another "dyscontexting" of Pauls actual speech. My rebuttal in Post #257 shows that the verses offered do NOT support this new theory that “momentary belief guarantees defiers of God, murderers, rapists, oppressors, pedophiles, etc. a heavenly reward”

Clear
δρακδρνεω

Clear said:

Orontes

Thank you, your summary was quite helpful and insightful. I think the realization that there can be so many different models of even the most basic, yet central point of the Christian atonement should be a humbling reminder of what few things we truly know about the details of the atonement. It was helpful and yes, I would like to read about the model of the atonement you feel is most correct and rational. Thank you in advance.

Clear
δρδρσεσιω

Click to expand...

Clear,

I adhere to the Compassion Theory of the atonement. The key element of the position can be seen in the label. Compassion is a cognate. The prefix 'com' means to be with. Passion is to feel or suffer. The purpose of the atonement is to overcome our alienation from God by creating a inter-shared expansive relationship of love (compassion). The mechanic is the following:

1) We begin as moral beings, alienated from God.

2) Our alienation is compounded by our wrong choices. This compounding alienation is because, rather than face the pain, guilt, shame etc. for the wrong(s) done, we self-justify and delude ourselves into a false view or things. Thus, we become stuck in a stagnate delusion of our own making. Think of the film Groundhog Day with Bill Murray where there is no moving forward, one is endlessly repeating the same cycle: damnation.

3) Christ sees through the delusion and facade for what we are, warts and all, and yet loves us. He reaches into our hearts and offers a way out. This is a literal reaching into our core self where Christ takes on our sins and pain to Himself and all that darkness is transformed by His love into light. The reason Christ is willing to take this pain and suffering is because each of us is unique. In all that exists, there is only one 'me'. There is something only we can add to the celestial equation. Thus, the shepherd will search of the lost sheep.

4) Christ reaches into our self and provides a way out of the false world we create, by sharing our experience: all the pain, isolation, fear...everything by taking the full brunt of it all so we don't have to suffer it. This is dependent on repentance, if we turn to God and accept the relationship offered. If we do not, then we will ultimately have to suffer the full measure of our actions. (D&C 19: 16-19)


That is a simple summery. Look it over and let me know what questions you have and I'll flush those points out further.

BilliardsBall said:

Ah, I see. My issue is that as some have suggested, there may be multiple purposes to the atonement. The penal model has room for other models to be included, but I fear those opposing the penal model are relying on works and personal morality rather than relying on Jesus Christ for salvation.

When you have more time to respond, please know that Master Billiards repudiates all five points of Calvinism as anathema, and does not believe in the Calvinist perseverance of the saints model. And Master Billiards doesn't want to hear any more that just because Calvin got lucky with a penal model and got lucky describing the Bible, that his idea is invalid because it is modernist. While I'd be delighted if Jesus appeared post-resurrection to a native American group, I recognize that I cannot find such an occurrence in any Christian theology prior to the advent of LDS theology, which is several hundred years after Calvin.

Please understand my kind intent in this last--I appreciate that you and Clear are excited about early church sources for all doctrine, but that seems unfair if you are going to allow for revelation to occur and be distributed to us as Christians 1,500 years later or longer.

Thank you.

PS. You may feel Rom 3 does not support the penal model, but it does disallow works as salvific and it does say that God offered Jesus as propitiation specifically to satisfy justice even as He justified those who trust Christ. What is your interpretation of this?


"...Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Click to expand...

In post 263 I note an alternate atonement model that I hold to.

I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other models. You say you repudiate all five points of Calvinism, yet appeal to Calvin's atonement model that informs all those same points. Earlier, you recognized in your bus analogy that you got on the salvation bus. That Master Billiards, is a work. You weren't drug onto the bus or kidnapped. It was your choice. This alone indicates you are a participant in your own salvation, not an automaton, or slave. Since you got on the bus of your own accord, you could also get off, which I think you also recognized. If these are you feelings, then you aren't really a follower of the penal model. You can't defend it on logical grounds as we've noted, and it appears your personal ideas also run counter to it, so why do you offer loyalty to a irrational, immoral position, that doesn't even completely mesh with your own thoughts?


Per modernism: Calvin's theology is an innovation, and this is a massive problem. Why is that different from Mormon unique stances? Calvin never claimed his ideas were revelations, he never claimed prophet status. They are simply his poor misreading of scripture. Mormonism recognizes revelation and prophets and new doctrine can arise. The heavens are open under Mormon Thought, this is not the case for Calvin, therefore positions he argues that have no historical corollary is a contradiction that condemns his theology.

Per Romans 3:26: it has nothing to do with a penal substitution model. Verse 26 should be read in the larger context:



The point Paul is making is that justification comes through Christ as the mediator of the relationship with God. We cannot earn this relationship per a standard client-patron protection or glory/honor on our own. I want you to note that in Greek righteousness and justification have the same range of meaning. To whit, these are not personal traits, but refer to how one is viewed by others. Christ applies a righteousness, and justification on us, the same way He does love, not because we are righteous or just or loveable, but because of who He is. It is part of Christ's willingness to reach out to us. It then falls on us to believe, repent etc. You see, there is nothing there about a penal model where Christ innocently suffers and we are off the hook with no obligation.

Billiardsball said (post 252) : “Ah, I see. My issue is that as some have suggested, there may be multiple purposes to the atonement. The penal model has room for other models to be included, but I fear those opposing the penal model are relying on works and personal morality rather than relying on Jesus Christ for salvation.”

Orontes replied (post 264) : “I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other model. “


I actually agree with Billiardsball on his specific point that any theory he creates may be mixed and created as he desires, especially if it is a personal theory he is creating in his attempt to understand what the atonement it and what it does (from his own perspective).

I’ve already mentioned to Billiardsball that almost all historical models are tentative and incomplete and are continually modified as we gain better data. That is, the base model may be correct but there are usually errors in the model and the data is incomplete in even the most common historical events.

We may know that President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. We may know the Day. But there are almost always data that are missing that forces us to make incomplete historical models of details of the event. For example, we may not be clear on all persons and motives and underlying circumstances regarding the event.

I assume the same historical problems are inherent in religious history as well. While I may have a more correct take on a very specific point, Billiardsball may have a better take on multiple other certain points of the Gospel than I do. I may have a specific piece of knowledge about Jesus while his relationship WITH Jesus may be deeper and more profound than my own. My point is that our personal theories and all other aspects and characteristics are personal and may vary widely. I am perfectly comfortable with Billiardsball “mixing and matching” principles in creating his beliefs (and agree with him that he should do) as he learns more and more. While my disagreements with him usually regarding what is "historical", still, his comments are insightful and they affect me just as my comments affect him.



Billiardsball said : “ I appreciate that you and Clear are excited about early church sources for all doctrine, but that seems unfair if you are going to allow for revelation to occur and be distributed to us as Christians 1,500 years later or longer. “

The underlying concept is that the concept of personal revelation to all individuals, is, and has been, a principle of authentic religion in all ages of time and will be in all future ages. While an individual may read a history book about religion, this may involve bare accumulation of facts, i.e. a study of theology. Religion however, involves some sort of communication between God and mankind, in all the various forms that communication may take. Revelation, personal enlightenment through the spirit of God may come to anyone at any time and in various forms. Mormon theology allows that all men may receive such enlightenment in various forms and in various degrees.



Regarding “Mormon” religion :

The Mormon claim is that they are a restoration of a version of early Christian theology which occurred, partly, through prophetic revelation. IF this is correct, then it only makes sense that one should be able to make a study of early Christian descriptions and find the same parallel doctrines and descriptions of “Mormon” doctrines in the early Judeo-Christians texts as the early converts describe the gospel they were taught. (As the Christian movement experienced
greater schizm and doctrinal "shifts" occurred, then greater theological diversity and doctrinal "distance" from the earliest doctrines occurred)

However, as an example, for me, as a Mormon, I am perfectly comfortable reading about early pre-creation themes concerning spirits of mankind existing before the creation of the earth in either modern Mormon texts such as the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, etc, or in the earliest versions of these same books that existed among early Judeo-Christians (before or after the peri c.e. era) and have been discovered AFTER Joseph Smith revealed them by revelation (but were undiscovered and unknown to the rest of the world until later years).

It makes no difference to me to read about the gospel from a revealed text from 1840s or whether I read the same gospel from a dead sea scroll discovered in the 1940s. IF the LDS theology IS a restoration of these theological base doctrines, then one should simply find such parallels as a matter of course.

As an adult convert to LDS theology, I was, early on, continually amazed and shocked that the historical parallels existed in such depth and frequency. Now I take it as a matter of fact and it no longer surprises me to read texts from papyri from Oxyrynchus, or text from the Nag Hamadi library, or from texts from the Qumran library and simply see textual themes that one could take to an LDS Sunday School and read without any doctrinal ripples being noticed. It is a singular thing to LDS theology and I think it is difficult for other Christian sects to even imagine doing the same thing. This is simply my opinion and my experience of LDS theology as a convert and it may differ greatly from that of a life-long member.

In any case Billiardsball and Orontes, I hope your spiritual journeys are good.

Clear
δρνετζσιω

P.S. Orontes, I'll have to take a day or so to think about your atonement model while I'm working and get back with you on questions.

Clear said:

Billiardsball said (post 252) : “Ah, I see. My issue is that as some have suggested, there may be multiple purposes to the atonement. The penal model has room for other models to be included, but I fear those opposing the penal model are relying on works and personal morality rather than relying on Jesus Christ for salvation.”

Orontes replied (post 264) : “I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other model. “


I actually agree with Billiardsball on his specific point that any theory he creates may be mixed and created as he desires, especially if it is a personal theory he is creating in his attempt to understand what the atonement it and what it does (from his own perspective).

Click to expand...

If this is Master Billiards atonement theory, then it's an open book: anything he fancies can apply. If however, he is claiming loyalty to the Penal Substitution Model of Calvin, which seems to be the case, then there are parameters.

Clear said:

Billiardsball said (post 252) :
P.S. Orontes, I'll have to take a day or so to think about your atonement model while I'm working and get back with you on questions.

Click to expand...

Oki Doki

Orontes

I understand now that you are differentiating a strict penal atonement theory versus a relaxed, personal use of principles from the penal atonement theory. Your clarification makes perfect sense and I agree with your point. I had simply assumed Billiardsball was speaking in relative terms.

Clear

Clear said:

billiardsball said (post 252) : “ You may feel Rom 3 does not support the penal model, but it does disallow works as salvific and it does say that God offered Jesus as propitiation specifically to satisfy justice even as He justified those who trust Christ. What is your interpretation of this?

"...Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

1) Your claim disallowing works as salvific is irrelevant since no one is arguing that works themselves are salvific (so far...).

2) Romans 3 does not make the work of moral repentance obsolete nor does it guarantee salvation to murderers and those who torture and rape children or others who may have temporarily believed in Jesus as their savior and then turned to defy, dishonor and repudiate God.



Since you brought up Ephesians in support of this modern theory and then as we looked closer at it, discovered it also did not support this theory, perhaps we can take a close look at your quote of Romans 3 24-26 and see if it supports your theory. Since you say you have been trained in Greek, I include the Greek below (NA-27)

Νυνι δε χωρις νομου δικαιοσυνη θεου πεφανερωται μαρτθρουμενη υπο του νομου και των προφη των δικαιοσθνηδε θεου δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου εις παντας και επι παντας(א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) τους πιστεθοντας ου γαρ εστιν διστολη παντες γαρ ημαρτον και υστερουνται της δοξης του θεου δικαιουμεν οι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι δια της απολυτρωσεως της εν χριστω Ιησου ον προεθετο ο θεος ιλαστηριον δια πιστεως εν τω αυτο αιματι εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτο δια την παρ εσιν / εν τω νυν αιωνι (1908) / εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν(1875) των προγεγονοτων αμαρτηματων εν τη ανχη του θεου προς την εν δειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου εν τω νυν καιρω εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως Ιησου.


21 But now, God’s justice has been manifest without law as the law and the prophets bear witness [to] Justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all (א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) of the believing. Indeed, [it] does not distinguish. For all sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)


24 measured justice is given by him (God), [and] grace through the fulfillment that [is] in Christ Jesus who God chose as an appeasement, through faith [in the present season because of [your] hardness 1875] in his blood, to demonstrate his justice in the current season through the remission (of punishment) of former sins.
If the point is that God himself gives a measured justice and that this justice is mercifully tempered through the fulfillment of Christs mission, where in these sentences does it support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

26 Gods’ delay in demonstrating his justice in the present season [serves] to be himself just, and [to] justify those of faith in Jesus.
If God delays meting out justice for a time, how does this point support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?



Clear
δρσιτζτωω

Click to expand...

I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature.

Thanda said:

Of course - we do not disagree that trusting God is important. We appeared to disagree with how long we would have to trust in God. You suggested that Paul believed we would not have to trust God when we are in Heaven. I suggested that unless we become like God we will always have to trust him even in Heaven.



Yes



No what I am saying is that trust in Jesus automatically leads to works. But I am also saying that the kind of trust in Jesus that leads to perfect works (that is sinlessness) is developed over time. It is something to work at. Therefore the work of this life is to attain to that level of trust or faith. Works therefore become a measure of that level of trust. The more we keep his commandments the more it means we trust him. Furthermore works play another role - they help us gain more trust. Since we are both agreed that trust in God is the essential ingredient to salvation then I'm sure it won't be difficult to agree that anything that helps increase our trust is not only good but necessary. And if you agree that works (keeping God's commandments, doing good) help us gain more trust in God then you must agree that works are necessary for salvation. We don't get salvation because of our works, we get it because of our faith. But we get our faith because of our works and the gift of God.

I think perhaps this is where the problem might lie. You assume that if a person (who believes he has not yet been saved) decides to do good works his motivation must be doing so because he relies on himself and doesn't quite trust God. But this is not necessarily the case. Jesus commanded to do good works. He commanded us not to commit adultery. He commanded us not be angry. He commanded us to give to the poor. How can a person who trusts Jesus fail to do those and many other things which he has commanded? Surely if faith is the central saving principle in the gospel then it follows that Jesus gave those commandments so that we could both show and develop our faith. So what evil is there in a person doing those things that his Master commanded him to do? "If ye love me keep my commandments" Jesus said. "How knoweth a man the Master whom he has not served" He said again. "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent". Clearly without serving Jesus by keeping his commandments we can never know him and we therefore can never have eternal life.



Both of us are saving me. Jesus cannot save me against my will. When Naaman came to Elisha to be healed Elisha commanded him to go and wash in the water seven times and he would be healed. Do you suppose he would have been healed had he not followed the prophets counsel?

Jesus said "And I know that his commandment is life everlasting". Jesus proclaimed that keeping God's commandments leads to eternal life.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. I have been shown on this thread some Bible verses to demonstrate there are more gods than the traditional triunified God. Do you have Bible verses that support this assertion:

"I suggested that unless we become like God we will always have to trust him even in Heaven."

I presented a Bible verse that says the opposite, that faith and hope will not endure, though love shall.

Thanda said:

I have a question: What have you been saved from?



I believe there is no true faith, and never has been nor ever will be, that is not accompanied by works. Romans Chapter three was referring to a specific set of works - the Law of Moses. Paul was stressing that the Law of Moses was given to the Jews in addition to the gospel. And he was asserting that while the Jews were expected to keep the Law of Moses, the were only saved if the had faith in God according to the gospel. That is, if they only went through the motions of the law of Moses and had no actual faith in God or did not keep the law out of faith in God, then they would not be saved even if they kept the law of Moses.
This is consistent with what Jesus had to say about giving to the poor. He said we should do it out of faith in God and not to get recognition. He warned that if we gave for recognition and not out of faith, then we would not get a reward from God. Note this, Jesus said "I would that ye should do alms". He gave us a commandment to do good works. Do you suppose that anyone can have faith in Jesus and not do alms when he has the means to do so?



Knowing that salvation is not a one time event it would never be prudent to go around telling people "Say xxx and you will be saved". You would be better served telling anyone that asks "This is the road to salvation: You start by choosing to trust Jesus (have faith). As you grow in your faith Jesus will eventually give you power so you can forsake all your sins. When you have forsaken all your sins then you will be saved" Because ultimately salvation means to be free from sin and all its effects.

And yes there is no free gift except in the sense that we don't need to pay money for it. If salvation was free (in that it required no effort on our part) then everyone would be saved.

Click to expand...

If salvation is not a decision but a road, I'm trying to better understand what your road is and how to follow it. I already pointed out that you, like me, seem to believe that salvation rests on a decision(s).

Romans 3 says: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."

Do you interpret Romans 3:28 differently? Because a lot of what you wrote seems counter to this verse.

Clear said:

Thanda said to Billiardsball : (post # 258) “Of course - we do not disagree that trusting God is important. We appeared to disagree with how long we would have to trust in God. You suggested that Paul believed we would not have to trust God when we are in Heaven. I suggested that unless we become like God we will always have to trust him even in Heaven. "
Thanda, I think your point is important. Faith, as a motivating force will always be operative in all intelligent beings that make future plans and attempt to carry them out. While the specific Faith in God’s existence will be replaced by knowledge of his existence when one is in his presence, faith in other points and principles will continue to exist and operate.



Thanda said to Billiardsball : (post # 258) “I am also saying that the kind of trust in Jesus that leads to perfect works (that is sinlessness) is developed over time. “
This is yet another profoundly important point you are making Thanda.

“Lightswitch theology” (i.e. salvation by a simple, momentary decision” - i.e. a "switch") is inconsistent with “process reality” (where individuals and personal traits change gradually, over time and with experience and insight).

Also, your point that “works plays [other] roles” is profoundly important as well. The attempt to artificially separate religious belief from religious actions creates a multitude of logical and rational and historical religious errors within the modern theories that ignore logical relationships.



Billiardsball claimed : “….I am already saved”.

Thanda asked Billiardsball : (post # 259) “ What have you been saved from?”

This is an interesting question you have asked Billiardsball (I've also asked him this same question on a different thread). Obviously Billiardsball is not in heaven and others who are not yet “saved” have the spirit in their lives and are given spiritual “gifts”, etc.



Also, : Regarding your points made regarding the Law of Moses versus the Gospel (post # 259). I also think this distinction you made is, historically, another point of historical importance. If the version of the Law of Moses the Jews of Jesus’ time were living was not the uncontaminated gospel of Jesus Christ, (but was instead, a version of Moses' “schoolmaster law” meant to prepare the Jews for greater spiritual truths) and Pauls’ comments were made in this context, then it affects the base context of Pauls teachings; it affects their meaning; it affects his motives for saying the things he said; and it affects his expectations regarding the effect of his teachings on the specific hearers he spoke to.

I also like your point regarding “free gifts” and the historical context. In a society where the rich acquired monetary “salvation” and “freedom” and their homes and lands and things generally associated with joy and peace because of money, it was important that the poor understood that the sorts of salvation and freedom and eternal joy and peace could be had “without price”. It was “free” and did not require money or position or power to obtain. This is NOT to say there were not conditions attached.



Thanks for your common sense points on these issues Thanda

Clear
δρσιφινεω

Click to expand...

Sorry--forgot to answer. I have been saved from perishing--the second death, in Hell. John 3:16. I have been saved to eternal life. Eternal life is knowing Jesus and His Father.

BilliardsBall said:

"I suggested that unless we become like God we will always have to trust him even in Heaven."

Click to expand...

At this time I'm not sure I would like to mine through the Bible to find the verses - at a later time I might. But this was more of a logical conclusion. In any quality relationship (whether business or marriage or whatever) there always needs to be trust. And in any relationship where one is a teacher to another, the learner must exercise faith. Angels for example have to trust and obey God voice. Those who failed to do so (like Lucifer) were cast out of heaven. Indeed what would be the point of the Lord stressing to us the importance of faith if faith was only an earthly principle and not an eternal one?

BilliardsBall said:

If salvation is not a decision but a road, I'm trying to better understand what your road is and how to follow it. I already pointed out that you, like me, seem to believe that salvation rests on a decision(s).

Click to expand...

Salvation is neither a decision nor a road - it is a state of being. And that state of being is reached by consistently making the right choices throughout your life. Take God and the angels as an example. In order for God and the angels to call themselves righteous and good they always have to do good and righteous things. God can't say, "I once did good things therefore I can be evil now but people must still consider me good." He always has to live up to the standard of righteousness he himself has set.

If you don't like the idea of salvation being gained by multiple decisions then you are welcome to think of it as one decision you make once in your life and which you stick to for the rest of your life.

BilliardsBall said:

Romans 3 says: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."

Do you interpret Romans 3:28 differently? Because a lot of what you wrote seems counter to this verse.

Click to expand...

I have already explained what Romans 3 is about. It is about the law of Moses. Furthermore I have already agreed with you that we are saved by faith. But you yet to challenge my assertion that there is any true faith that exists which doesn't automatically and intrinsically have works attached to it. Can you name five people that you know of in the Bible who had faith but had no works to show for their faith?

Your argument appears to be a bit of a contradiction - firstly you extol the great importance of faith above everything else. Then when I agree with you that faith is important and we should always have it and develop it you turn around and say no faith is only important at one point in time (when we accept Jesus) and is not necessary at any other point in time after that both in this life and the next. Now for a principle that we only need at one point in time it sure is emphasised a lot in the Bible - perhaps the Bible writers erred. Perhaps they should have spent more time speaking about other principles that are more useful than faith.

BilliardsBall said:

Sorry--forgot to answer. I have been saved from perishing--the second death, in Hell. John 3:16. I have been saved to eternal life. Eternal life is knowing Jesus and His Father.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that you already have eternal life? Do you know Jesus and God in the way that Abraham, Seth, Enoch, Elijah and the likes knew him?

Post # 257

Billiardsball Said (post # 269) “I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature. “



Be at peace Billiardsball, my post # 257 did not affirm you are "lost" by deathbed recantation of faith, rather the post was meant to show that the specific scripture you offered us (Romans 3) to support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief does NOT support your theory. I quoted each verse and asked how the verse supported your theory. When you read post # 257 (below), do you actually see evidence that the text supports this theory? Does anyone else see evidence to support this theory?

My post # 257 reads : QUOTE :

"1) Your claim disallowing works as salvific is irrelevant since no one is arguing that works themselves are salvific (so far...).

2) Romans 3 does not make the work of moral repentance obsolete nor does it guarantee salvation to murderers and those who torture and rape children or others who may have temporarily believed in Jesus as their savior and then turned to defy, dishonor and repudiate God.

Since you brought up Ephesians in support of this modern theory and then as we looked closer at it, discovered it also did not support this theory, perhaps we can take a close look at your quote of Romans 3 24-26 and see if it supports your theory. Since you say you have been trained in Greek, I include the Greek below (NA-27)

Νυνι δε χωρις νομου δικαιοσυνη θεου πεφανερωται μαρτθρουμενη υπο του νομου και των προφη των δικαιοσθνηδε θεου δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου εις παντας και επι παντας(א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) τους πιστεθοντας ου γαρ εστιν διστολη παντες γαρ ημαρτον και υστερουνται της δοξης του θεου δικαιουμεν οι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι δια της απολυτρωσεως της εν χριστω Ιησου ον προεθετο ο θεος ιλαστηριον δια πιστεως εν τω αυτο αιματι εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτο δια την παρ εσιν / εν τω νυν αιωνι (1908) / εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν(1875) των προγεγονοτων αμαρτηματων εν τη ανχη του θεου προς την εν δειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου εν τω νυν καιρω εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως Ιησου.

21 But now, God’s justice has been manifest without law as the law and the prophets bear witness [to] Justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all (א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) of the believing. Indeed, [it] does not distinguish. For all sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)

24 measured justice is given by him (God), [and] grace through the fulfillment that [is] in Christ Jesus who God chose as an appeasement, through faith [in the present season because of [your] hardness 1875] in his blood, to demonstrate his justice in the current season through the remission (of punishment) of former sins.
If the point is that God himself gives a measured justice and that this justice is mercifully tempered through the fulfillment of Christs mission, where in these sentences does it support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

26 Gods’ delay in demonstrating his justice in the present season [serves] to be himself just, and [to] justify those of faith in Jesus.
If God delays meting out justice for a time, how does this point support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

END QUOTE


Now, the questions I asked you in post # 257 are still yet to be answered.

Do you actually see evidence in this specific text that supports your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

Clear
δρνεακσιω

Katzpur said:

Bingo!!!

Click to expand...

There are certainly conditions attached. Some that come to mind:

*It is apart from works (Romans 3)

*Abraham's faith wasn't credited as righteousness when he offered Issac upon the altar, it was credited while he was yet uncircumcised, trusting in God's promise to make him and Sarah the progenitors of many nations (Romans 4)

*Foolish people believe that salvation comes by works of the Law. These people may have also been placed under a demonic spell

Thanda said:

At this time I'm not sure I would like to mine through the Bible to find the verses - at a later time I might. But this was more of a logical conclusion. In any quality relationship (whether business or marriage or whatever) there always needs to be trust. And in any relationship where one is a teacher to another, the learner must exercise faith. Angels for example have to trust and obey God voice. Those who failed to do so (like Lucifer) were cast out of heaven. Indeed what would be the point of the Lord stressing to us the importance of faith if faith was only an earthly principle and not an eternal one?

Click to expand...

There are many things that are important in the Bible. Faith is stressed in the Bible, I believe, in part so that non-believers could read the Bible and be converted. But in addition to your question:

Why would the Bible speak so often of faith?

We can ask:

Why would the Bible say faith and hope are temporary entities?

God doesn't need faith or hope, right?

Thanda said:

Salvation is neither a decision nor a road - it is a state of being. And that state of being is reached by consistently making the right choices throughout your life. Take God and the angels as an example. In order for God and the angels to call themselves righteous and good they always have to do good and righteous things. God can't say, "I once did good things therefore I can be evil now but people must still consider me good." He always has to live up to the standard of righteousness he himself has set.

If you don't like the idea of salvation being gained by multiple decisions then you are welcome to think of it as one decision you make once in your life and which you stick to for the rest of your life.



I have already explained what Romans 3 is about. It is about the law of Moses. Furthermore I have already agreed with you that we are saved by faith. But you yet to challenge my assertion that there is any true faith that exists which doesn't automatically and intrinsically have works attached to it. Can you name five people that you know of in the Bible who had faith but had no works to show for their faith?

Your argument appears to be a bit of a contradiction - firstly you extol the great importance of faith above everything else. Then when I agree with you that faith is important and we should always have it and develop it you turn around and say no faith is only important at one point in time (when we accept Jesus) and is not necessary at any other point in time after that both in this life and the next. Now for a principle that we only need at one point in time it sure is emphasised a lot in the Bible - perhaps the Bible writers erred. Perhaps they should have spent more time speaking about other principles that are more useful than faith.

Click to expand...

**

If you don't like the idea of salvation being gained by multiple decisions then you are welcome to think of it as one decision you make once in your life and which you stick to for the rest of your life.

Click to expand...

I see... we agree that salvation is a decision, but you add that if one doubts at any time through one's life one is lost. How does Jesus offer us temporary life that is eternal?

Thanda said:

Are you saying that you already have eternal life? Do you know Jesus and God in the way that Abraham, Seth, Enoch, Elijah and the likes knew him?

Click to expand...

If I'm never to perish and have been given eternal life (John 3:16) then yes, I need not fear the second death. Atheists tend to think of life and death in terms of function and cessation of function, however, the Bible is explicit that their consciousness after death, at least at the resurrections of the righteous and wicked to Heaven, the new Earth and universe, and Hell.

Since I have Jesus's promise that I have eternal life, I have it presently, forever going forward. I would mess up Heaven if I went today, for perfection will be mine after the resurrection, but I'm yet imperfect. The next thing I know after death will be immediate, conscious fellowship with Christ.

Clear said:

Post # 257

Billiardsball Said (post # 269) “I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature. “



Be at peace Billiardsball, my post # 257 did not affirm you are "lost" by deathbed recantation of faith, rather the post was meant to show that the specific scripture you offered us (Romans 3) to support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief does NOT support your theory. I quoted each verse and asked how the verse supported your theory. When you read post # 257 (below), do you actually see evidence that the text supports this theory? Does anyone else see evidence to support this theory?

My post # 257 reads : QUOTE :

"1) Your claim disallowing works as salvific is irrelevant since no one is arguing that works themselves are salvific (so far...).

2) Romans 3 does not make the work of moral repentance obsolete nor does it guarantee salvation to murderers and those who torture and rape children or others who may have temporarily believed in Jesus as their savior and then turned to defy, dishonor and repudiate God.

Since you brought up Ephesians in support of this modern theory and then as we looked closer at it, discovered it also did not support this theory, perhaps we can take a close look at your quote of Romans 3 24-26 and see if it supports your theory. Since you say you have been trained in Greek, I include the Greek below (NA-27)

Νυνι δε χωρις νομου δικαιοσυνη θεου πεφανερωται μαρτθρουμενη υπο του νομου και των προφη των δικαιοσθνηδε θεου δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου εις παντας και επι παντας(א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) τους πιστεθοντας ου γαρ εστιν διστολη παντες γαρ ημαρτον και υστερουνται της δοξης του θεου δικαιουμεν οι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι δια της απολυτρωσεως της εν χριστω Ιησου ον προεθετο ο θεος ιλαστηριον δια πιστεως εν τω αυτο αιματι εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτο δια την παρ εσιν / εν τω νυν αιωνι (1908) / εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν(1875) των προγεγονοτων αμαρτηματων εν τη ανχη του θεου προς την εν δειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου εν τω νυν καιρω εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως Ιησου.

21 But now, God’s justice has been manifest without law as the law and the prophets bear witness [to] Justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all (א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) of the believing. Indeed, [it] does not distinguish. For all sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)

24 measured justice is given by him (God), [and] grace through the fulfillment that [is] in Christ Jesus who God chose as an appeasement, through faith [in the present season because of [your] hardness 1875] in his blood, to demonstrate his justice in the current season through the remission (of punishment) of former sins.
If the point is that God himself gives a measured justice and that this justice is mercifully tempered through the fulfillment of Christs mission, where in these sentences does it support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

26 Gods’ delay in demonstrating his justice in the present season [serves] to be himself just, and [to] justify those of faith in Jesus.
If God delays meting out justice for a time, how does this point support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

END QUOTE


Now, the questions I asked you in post # 257 are still yet to be answered.

Do you actually see evidence in this specific text that supports your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?

Clear
δρνεακσιω

Click to expand...

I see no need, still, to discuss in the Greek what does not exist in the English. The English does not say "momentary" in Romans 3. It also does not say anything regarding "sincerity".

However, "present tense in Greek equals continuous action" is unsupported in Romans 3, as I understand it. There are numerous present tense verbs in the Bible which are clearly one-time events with ongoing consequences.

Further, I do not wish to sound assumptive, but I'm sure you would agree that saving faith is sincere, not insincere faith. Where we may disagree is on the issue of how long one must have sincere faith to receive justification. Our God, who made all we know in six days, probably could have done so in six seconds--or six billion years. Why do you believe He is unable to save someone with a small, brief spark of bright faith? His eyes roam the world looking for such persons. Surely if we had faith even mustard seed size, we could tell a mountain to remove itself.

Abraham was justified by faith, not while sacrificing Issac when both were circumcised as in James 2, but while Issac was yet unborn and Abraham, yet uncircumcised. Romans 4 explains how Abraham believed a great promise--an awesome promise of many nations, after first considering his motility dead since he was about one hundred years old and also the deadness of Sarah's womb, yet his strong faith assumed that what God had promised, He was also able to perform, therefore his faith was credited to him as righteousness. In the same way, if someone has faith strong enough to assert that Jesus Christ's atoning death on the cross and His resurrection are able to perform salvation, and they wish to receive the gift of salvation, they may have the gift of salvation.

And if I am being vulnerable and honest, I would have to admit that my faith is sincere on any given issue, but also and often, temporary. The logical end of "present tense in Greek equals continuous action" is Thanda's concept (if I understand it) that faith has to be 27/7 or it cannot be salvific faith. I just had a conversation with a Christian (didn't know he was one before the conversation) because I witnessed to him and he said, "I'm not perfect, and I stumble, but I rely on Jesus for salvation."