Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2009 19:00:40 GMT -4
All the choices of unregenerate man are wrong and/or flawed, therefore God is not unjust in condemning them. Assuming you are correct, who made him that way? If the creation cannot change, is it not the fault of the creator, who desinged him so he cannot change? Are not the faults of the creation then the responsibility of the creator? Circular. Except the portions I quoted earlier, which make it clear that good works are important, and that even faith, without works, is dead. In any case, if you are correct that I am attempting to bypass the gospel, by your own doctrines it's not from any choice I made to do so - it is God who has made the decision that I will be condemned by choosing not to give me saving faith. We agree in this. We agree in this as well. The only difference is that you say that it is entirely up to an arbitrary decision of God as to who He saves, whereas I feel that God chooses to save those who strive their hardest to obey his commandments, and rejects those who will not. How does one identify what is scripture and what isn't? I didn't claim it was a good thing. I said it was a necessary part of the plan. Could Adam and Eve have chosen not to partake of the fruit? By your doctrines, didn't God predestine them to do so? God makes it clear to Cain that it was Cain's choice - "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Cain's offering was not accepted because he did it grudgingly and with the wrong intent, not because God was being arbitrary. I'm well aware you didn't say that - I did. And I disagree. Faith and repentence preceed the miracle of forgiveness. Though some are given the gift of faith from God outright, it can be sought out by those desirous to have faith. "Ask and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5 Without the water of baptism working with the Spirit it doesn't happen. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16 "...baptism doth also now save us." 1 Peter 3 Quite true, but God will not grant his grace to someone who is making no effort. I disagree that scripture teaches this exclusively and have provided many scriptures that do not teach this. You have demonstrated that your version of Christianity differs from mine in what it believes is required for salvation. You have not demonstrated, however, that your understanding must be the correct one. I suppose at this point we'll shelve the thread for another four or five months until you throw a bunch of quotations at me again, and we'll start over again as if I had never raised any salient points at all.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 23, 2009 4:39:05 GMT -4
I brought up election and predestination to emphasize that good works do not cause God to grant salvation and that faith is not precisely a work. What you believe about predestination or whether you think about it at all doesn't really matter. It seems only the Presbyterians think much on the topic these days. It doesn't even matter if you have no idea about what comes first. Many Christians are unknowledegeable on this subject, yet they still got saved right in the midst of their messed up lives.
Is there any group of people who worked harder than the Pharisees to keep the law? They did nothing but work, work, work, yet Christ condemned them. If anyone ever merited grace, these men did. We agree that God wants us to obey Him, yet Jesus is called the friend of sinners. Remember Mary who anointed Jesus with precious oil and cried at His feet? Where were her works? What about Paul who persecuted, imprisoned and murdered the church?
I maintain the scriptures support that we must first have a relationship with Jesus Christ before there can be any talk of work. No leaven in the bread, no garments mixed of wool and linen, no tools used in building an altar, no begetting the son of a slave in an attempt to "help" God.
Cain offered God an unbloody sacrifice even though he knew sin was forgiven only by blood sacrifice (Cain offered his works). That's why it wasn't accepted.
It was closer to a year that I dropped out of this conversation wasn't it? Did you forget I was ill? Chemo really does a number on the brain and it takes months or even years to recover and I've been through it twice in 3 years. It's had a devastating effect on my ability to think clearly and it's only been a few months since I've been able to finish a sentence without misspelling every other word--or finish one at all.
Be assured that I'm not dismissing what you've said and that I do recall your scripture quotes concerning good works and baptism and admit that I haven't commented on them with the depth to which they're entitled. One other reason I'm slow in answering you is that I'm comparing what you say with the bible and rechecking my own understanding to try to make sure that I'm not allowing any theological teachings I've been exposed to influence what the Word of God is actually saying. Finally, it is difficult for me to respond to you in depth considering how much ground you cover in every post. My time and energy are quite limited. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can bring down the focus?
Scripture is what Jesus says is scripture. That would include what He inspired the apostles to write.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 23, 2009 12:58:39 GMT -4
I brought up election and predestination to emphasize that good works do not cause God to grant salvation and that faith is not precisely a work. Which is the crux of our disagreement. I think it's important because it seems so obviously wrong to me. That most of protestantism seems to believe in it is an indication to me that they may be on uncertain ground about other things as well. No, they weren't the prime example of good works. They were hypocrites. Jesus condemned them because they exercised the letter of the law merely to appear righteous in public without changing their behavior in private and without learning the lessons the law was designed to teach in the first place. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." This would be because Jesus went among sinners throughout his ministry. "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Churches should be, as I've said before, more like hospitals than like God's fanclubs. That may or may not have been Mary Magdeline - the woman is unnamed in the scripture. "And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon [the Pharisee, not one of the apostles], Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven." Her works were that she gave Jesus a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and she loved much. She showed by her works that she was obviously repentent, and so Jesus forgave her. In fact, Jesus is implicitely condemning Simon for omitting the hospitality rites of the day - in other words, for omitting good works. Paul thought he was doing God's work in persecuting and imprisoning Church members (he was a witness at Stephen's stoning, but probably did not actually murder anyone himself). He was not an evil man, merely misdirected. When God corrected his direction, he was the same Paul he had been before, only now he was on the right path, and he showed his quality in never varying from it even when it lead to his martyrdom. Paul deserves our respect and emulation because he chose to do the right thing when he was shown it and despite the consequences. There is something to be said for this idea, because you're right that good works will get us nowhere without a relationship with Jesus as well. That doesn't mean good works are completely unimportant, however. I agree in part. Cain offered the wrong offering, yes, but Abel made the correct offering and was blessed for his works; "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering." It wasn't the act of making an offering (works) that was condemned - it was the wrong sort of offering, given with the wrong motive, that was condemned. I did remember you said you had been ill. I hope you are feeling better. I cover a lot of ground because you do in your posts as well. If you wish to take individual points and explore them in depth that would probably tighten the focus of the thread. How about we focus on my questions after your next quote? Let's explore this for a bit. There are books of the Old Testament that Jesus and the apostles never quote from in the New: Judges, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, and Nahum. Are they scripture? How do we know that the apostles wrote what we have in our current Bible? How do we know that the books we have are the books Jesus and the Apostles were referring to when they quoted from them? Where Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude apostles? They aren't named as such in the scriptures themselves. Does scripture only come from apostles? Also, there are books mentioned in the scriptures that are not part of our current Bible: the book of the wars of the Lord, the book of Jasher, the book of the acts of Solomon, the book of Samuel the seer, the book of Gad the seer, the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah, the visions of Iddo the seer, the book of Shemaiah, the book of Jehu, the sayings of the seers, a missing epistle to the Corinthians, a missing epistle to the Ephesians, an epistle to the Church at Laodicia, and the prophecies of Enoch mentioned by Jude. Are they also scripture?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 24, 2009 19:44:01 GMT -4
I brought up election and predestination to emphasize that good works do not cause God to grant salvation and that faith is not precisely a work. Which is the crux of our disagreement. It certainly didn't have the effect I intended. Shouldn't it be important because it's a recurring theme in Scripture? Again, most of the churches I know about don't even teach on this topic. The gospel, however, is very, very clear. The rock on which the church stands is not the doctrine of election, which is why I said it isn't foundational to receiving salvation, but rather explains how it happens. But I want to know things. Why don't you take a stab at explaning why all those election verses are in the bible? We agree that they were hypocrites. Note that Jesus didn't tell them to stop keeping the law, in fact He tells them to keep on doing it, but chastizes them for not having loving hearts towards God or men that they should have done it. I think we're going to disagree where you say "without learning the lessons the law was designed to teach in the first place." Could you explain what lesson that is? How about both? I think this verse upholds my position that works don't merit salvation. That's actually not too bad Jason. I submit a slightly different interpretation. Reading from Luke chapter 7, Jesus had been preaching in the marketplace. Simon, the pharisee, heard him and invited Him to His house. In the middle of that dinner, Mary, a known sinner, came in and annointed Jesus's feet. Obviously Mary didn't just wander in by accident. She too, at some point, had heard Jesus teach and believed He not only had the power to forgive her sins, but that He had already done so. She knew who He was. That's why she went and got the oil to annoint Him. Meanwhile Simon is thinking to himself that Jesus doesn't know who Mary really is. That demonstrates to me that Simon doesn't know who Jesus is, which also explains why he failed to show proper hospitality. Jesus then tells Simon the parable of the 2 debtors. When Jesus stated that Mary loved much, He meant that she loved Him much--because He had forgiven her sins. She didn't love Him so much because she hoped He would forgive her--that wouldn't make sense. She loved Him because she believed He had already done so as demonstrated by the parable. Christ went on to make it clear to His audience by saying it out loud. He also gave His personal statement to Mary. She was no more forgiven because she washed His feet (a good work) than Simon was for giving Him dinner (also a good work). Jesus then reaffirmed to Mary that her sins were forgiven--He wasn't telling her something she didn't already know. Also note in the parable that the debtors had nothing with which to pay. And isn't it true that despite all Paul's good works, he didn't find favor with God until Christ actually revealed Himself to him? And isn't it also clear that Paul wasn't repentent for his sins against the elect until after Christ appeared to him? I don't say we shouldn't repect Paul, but we need to recognize, as Paul did, that all the glory is Christ's who worked through him. Paul didn't do what he did in his own power. And allowing that power to work through you is how you do works acceptable to God. Works done in your own power are dead works. Paul speaks extensively on this topic. When you read all the scriptures together, paying close attention to the deails, a definite picture emerges. Failing to read everything in context with everything else leads to errors. We're in complete agreement. Correct. Cain knew better, too. Abel obeyed God and offered the correct substitutionary atonement, therefore his sacrifice was accepted (his sins were forgiven). Thanks. It's been a frustratingly slow recovery. Sounds good. This is huge. Let me post just one quote, but I do have answers to all those questions. I'd like to see where you want to go in your next response. But we can do this. I'd love to. Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Oops! Don't take me there yet! We know from history that Jesus most likely used the Septuagint version. I'll just wait to see what you want to do before I go on.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 24, 2009 19:59:00 GMT -4
Sorry I messed up the quotes and can't fix it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 24, 2009 22:52:54 GMT -4
You can fix it - click on "modify" near the top of your post and you'll be able to edit the text and fix the quote tags.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 24, 2009 23:22:50 GMT -4
Shouldn't it be important because it's a recurring theme in Scripture? Again, most of the churches I know about don't even teach on this topic. The gospel, however, is very, very clear. The rock on which the church stands is not the doctrine of election, which is why I said it isn't foundational to receiving salvation, but rather explains how it happens. But I want to know things. Why don't you take a stab at explaning why all those election verses are in the bible? I'm going to break my responses up a bit to make them a little easier to digest. The verses in the Bible that speak about some sort of "election" or "predestination" are in fact speaking of what LDS doctrine calls God's foreknowledge and the concept of foreordination. God knows each of us intimately before we are born into this mortal life. He knows what each of us is capable of and what we will do in given circumstances. As such, He has foreordained some individuals to tasks that will forward his work. These people have designated roles to play. God orchestrates things so that they will find themselves in the right place at the right time, with the knowledge and talents they need to fulfill their role. This foreordination in no way compells them, however. It is still entirely the individual's choice whether to accept the role God has foreordained for them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 24, 2009 23:32:07 GMT -4
We agree that they were hypocrites. Note that Jesus didn't tell them to stop keeping the law, in fact He tells them to keep on doing it, but chastizes them for not having loving hearts towards God or men that they should have done it. I think we're going to disagree where you say "without learning the lessons the law was designed to teach in the first place." Could you explain what lesson that is? "34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The Pharisees were condemned because they obeyed the visible strictures of the law, and indeed built on them with layers of tradition that made it even more burdensome and visible - enlarging the borders of their robes, making great show of their fasting and daily prayers, casting large amounts of coin into the temple vaults for all to see, all while forgetting the two great commandments that all the law hangs on. They made ostentatious piousness their existence, while ignoring the true purpose of the law.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 25, 2009 2:11:36 GMT -4
I'm listening. Do you want to add some more before I respond? And I fixed the quotes and bolded mine for ease of reading. No text was changed.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2009 19:07:41 GMT -4
How about both? I think this verse upholds my position that works don't merit salvation. "Calling to repentence" to me means that Jesus extends the call and then the person answers. That would mean that a work is involved. I really think you shouldn't assume that the woman was named Mary. Good so far. Undoubtably Simon did not regard Jesus as the Messiah, but why he omitted the customs of hospitality is open to debate. The parable of the debtors implies that Simon was not a bad guy, just that he hadn't been forgiven from as severe a set of sins as the woman had committed. Except that he hadn't yet forgiven them. It is at the end of his lesson to Simon that Jesus tells her that her sins are forgiven. She loved him much before she was forgiven. I walk away with the opposite interpretation. She loved him first, and believed that he would forgive her sins. The purchasing of the ointment and her acts of anointing him and washing his feet were acts of contrition and love on her part with the hope that she might be forgiven. The scripture says that the reason she was forgiven was because she loved much. Is loving much not a work? Do you think that Paul was not sorry for what he had done to the Church, and that he did not repent of them? Paul speaks extensively to people who's previous example were hypocrites who gloried in nothing but works, and who made a great show of obeying the letter of the law. It's understandable that he went a little overboard in teaching them to rely more on faith and grace. Luther also lived in a time of outward observance of the law, and he grabbed onto Paul's writings and twisted them even further - to decry works completely. Luther went too far. Yes he was right when he said donating money to the church won't mean you can do what you want, but he took it too far. I agree. In fact, I have three more books of scripture than you do to help me find the complete picture.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2009 19:08:42 GMT -4
This is huge. Let me post just one quote, but I do have answers to all those questions. I'd like to see where you want to go in your next response. But we can do this. I'd love to. Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Oops! Don't take me there yet! We know from history that Jesus most likely used the Septuagint version. I'll just wait to see what you want to do before I go on. I'm not sure of your intent in quoting that particular scripture, or how it answers the questions I posed. You'd best elaborate a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 26, 2009 21:13:23 GMT -4
How about both? I think this verse upholds my position that works don't merit salvation. "Calling to repentence" to me means that Jesus extends the call and then the person answers. That would mean that a work is involved. This is where we keep butting heads. Agreed that the answering person does something. If you want to define answering the call and repenting as a work, provided you don't want to throw in any other "work," I can go along with that for the sake of moving this discussion along and just chalk it up to your scrupulousness. I'm assuming it was Mary of Bethany because of John 11:2: (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) True, we don't know what was going on with Simon on that one. Maybe he was just a rude guy. And maybe he held Jesus in a little contempt and only had him over because He was the current rage. Jesus described "debtors" in the parable--not "bad guys." Simon might have been a pretty good guy. He could have been a great guy. But he was a debtor and like the debtors in the parable, had nothing to pay. Verse 37 shows Simon wasn't sure Jesus was even a prophet so it's extremely unlikely that Simon was saved prior to Jesus speaking. We agree that it's Jesus that Mary loved so much. We disagree as to when she started loving Him. So why did Mary love Him? I think Jesus was reiterating the fact. Do you think Compean and Ramos loved W while they were in prison, or is it more likely they loved him (bear with me), after their sentences were commuted? No, not in the way you want to use it. It's interesting that Jesus used "loved" -- past tense. I don't think He was referring to her washing His feet. What is your take on this? I have to stop right now. Let me finish with the rest of your post before your reply, okay?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 27, 2009 2:23:08 GMT -4
Yes. Paul was very sorry. But not until after he was saved on the road to Damascus.
I'd like scripture clarification for your statement that Paul spoke extensively to hypocrites who gloried in works. It also appears you're saying Paul's teachings were twisted, and then Luther twisted them further.
Well, we'll just have to see about that, won't we?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jan 27, 2009 2:55:59 GMT -4
Would you mind telling me a little bit about your background? Like, were you raised in the Mormon faith or are you a convert? Do you have any formal theological training? Are you a teacher in your church?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 27, 2009 12:58:22 GMT -4
This is where we keep butting heads. Agreed that the answering person does something. If you want to define answering the call and repenting as a work, provided you don't want to throw in any other "work," I can go along with that for the sake of moving this discussion along and just chalk it up to your scrupulousness. So will you agree that God will not save those who do not repent, and that the choice to repent or not is ours? That may have refrence to Matt. 26:6-13, an entirely seperate incident of anointing at Simon the leper's house in Bethany. Incidently, in that scripture Jesus says "why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me." Because she knew he was the messiah? The scripture is unclear as to why or when she loved him much. I believe it wasn't the anointing and washing that caused her to be forgiven, it was her contrite spirit and faith and love in him reflected in the anointing and washing. Those were the works that allowed him to forgive her. Don't stumble over my use of the word "works" here - feeling sorrow over your sins and forsaking them is certainly something you have to work at.
|
|