No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F

[Mesenja]

You DID insert the word,EVEN if you're transcribing it from somewhere else... :rolleyes:


I have no clue as to what your objection is.



1 Peter 3:21
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not putting away of the filth of the flesh,but the answer of a good conscience toward God),by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Billyray]

---You mean like sola fide Evans do, inserting "only" into "It is by faith that we are saved" ???
It is not that we inserted an "only", but rather you forgot the rest of the quote.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[nrajeff]

It is not that we inserted an "only", but rather you forgot the rest of the quote.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.


---YOU forgot that "works" probably referred to the statutes of the Torah, NOT to the commandments that Jesus gave as part of the NEW covenant. NOWHERE in the NT does Jesus say "These are my suggestions, and you don't need to obey them."

And maybe you forgot to keep reading up to the verse in James
that says "not by faith only."

[Father_JD]

---You mean like sola fide Evans do, inserting "only" into "It is by faith that we are saved" ???

Hardly. When Paul says through GRACE, by FAITH...and NOT OF WORKS. He has exluded works, making it "sola fide".

Quit being obdurate, jeff. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Now that's Mormon wishful thinking, i.e. "works" in the OT mean ONLY "ceremonial" law, jeff.

[nrajeff]

Now that's Mormon wishful thinking, i.e. "works" in the OT mean ONLY "ceremonial" law, jeff.
---Actually, it's YOU is wishing--wishing that I'd said it ONLY means ceremonial law. :p

I did some research on the verses in question. What do you think of THIS guy's ****ysis, which seems to agree with the PRO-LDS position?

Catholics oftentimes will just quote Phil 2:12, which says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation was guaranteed there would be no need to fear and tremble. Indeed it is an important text that in and of itself shows that the Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 is impossible. However, v. 13 shows how we can work it out. It is because it is God at work within us. Thus, it is God’s grace that enables us to do so. Again, God’s grace is an active force within us, not a looking away from how horrible we really are. He calls us to be blameless and innocent, children of God (v. 15)....

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/ephesians2.html

[Libby]

---Actually, it's YOU is wishing--wishing that I'd said it ONLY means ceremonial law. :p

I did some research on the verses in question. What do you think of THIS guy's ****ysis, which seems to agree with the PRO-LDS position?

Catholics oftentimes will just quote Phil 2:12, which says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation was guaranteed there would be no need to fear and tremble. Indeed it is an important text that in and of itself shows that the Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 is impossible. However, v. 13 shows how we can work it out. It is because it is God at work within us. Thus, it is God’s grace that enables us to do so. Again, God’s grace is an active force within us, not a looking away from how horrible we really are. He calls us to be blameless and innocent, children of God (v. 15)....

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/ephesians2.html

I agree it's God's grace that enables the works. They are also HIS works that he prepared for us. I don't really disagree with what you said (I haven't read the article, though). He calls us to be blameless and innocent, through Jesus Christ (not of our own doing). The works do not cleanse us or "save" us. Only Christ's blood can do that. The works are as a result of salvation, not a means to salvation.

[nrajeff]

I agree it's God's grace that enables the works. They are also HIS works that he prepared for us. I don't really disagree with what you said (I haven't read the article, though). He calls us to be blameless and innocent, through Jesus Christ (not of our own doing).
---I don't care who gets the credit, the result--that the person ends up being a person who no longer commits a sin, and is therefore blameless--is the important thing. As you (should) know, LDS doctrine is that were it not for Jesus, NO good thing that any of us did would matter much.


The works do not cleanse us or "save" us. Only Christ's blood can do that.
----You should know that LDS doctrine is that none of us could be saved were it not for Jesus' sacrifice.


The works are as a result of salvation, not a means to salvation.
--Glad to read that you don't disagree with the conclusion that

"if salvation was guaranteed there would be no need to fear and tremble. Indeed it is an important text that in and of itself shows that the Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 is impossible"

[Libby]

---I don't care who gets the credit, the result--that the person ends up being a person who no longer commits a sin, and is therefore blameless--is the important thing. As you (should) know, LDS doctrine is that were it not for Jesus, NO good thing that any of us did would matter much.


----You should know that LDS doctrine is that none of us could be saved were it not for Jesus' sacrifice.


--Glad to read that you don't disagree with the conclusion that

"if salvation was guaranteed there would be no need to fear and tremble. Indeed it is an important text that in and of itself shows that the Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 is impossible"

Our differences are in my last sentence. I believe we are saved based solely on faith in Christ's sacrifice. You believe we need to do something more, in order to be saved.

[nrajeff]

Our differences are in my last sentence. I believe we are saved based solely on faith in Christ's sacrifice. You believe we need to do something more, in order to be saved.

----You might be interested in this article I found:

WHAT IS THE "GIFT OF GOD"?
A Study of Ephesians 2:8-9

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm

Let me know what you think.

[Libby]

----You might be interested in this article I found:

WHAT IS THE "GIFT OF GOD"?
A Study of Ephesians 2:8-9

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm

Let me know what you think.

This person believes faith comes from "works"? Wow. The Bible very clearly states that faith is a gift from God.

Heb 12:2.....Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith.

Romans 12:3.....as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

[Mesenja]

The apostle Paul said "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This does not mean that we are justified by faith alone. It only means that our justification excludes works of the law. Paul never said that we are justified apart from love or obedience.

[Mesenja]

Our differences are in my last sentence. I believe we are saved based solely on faith in Christ's sacrifice. You believe we need to do something more, in order to be saved.



James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God;thou doest well:the devils also believe,and tremble.

[Mesenja]

Hey,Mesenja. Apparently you haven't bothered to look at the Greek of ***us 3. "Water" DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE GREEK. You have NOT engaged the text other than to attempt to twist "washing" to mean WATER and loosely tie it to other verses which really don't make your case either. :rolleyes:


The word water also does not appear in the English translation of the text. So your objection is meaningless and besides the point. However the term washing of regeneration was always held by the early church to mean spiritual regeneration.



He who leads the person that is to be washed to the laver calls God by this name alone. And this washing is called illumination because those who learn these things are illuminated in their understanding. (Justin Martyr,First Apology 61)


And this food is called among us the Eucharist,of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true,who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and to regeneration,and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (Justin Martyr,First Apology 66)

[James Banta]

James 2:19
19 Thou believest that there is one God;thou doest well:the devils also believe,and tremble.

Yes isn't that strange. Mormons are taught by their prophet that there are three Gods not one.. This means that according to the Apostle James that you don't do well and know less than even the devils.. That indeed is a sorry state to have less knowledge of the nature of the Being that should be your Father than the devils that have never or will ever please Him.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

---Actually, it's YOU is wishing--wishing that I'd said it ONLY means ceremonial law. :p

I did some research on the verses in question. What do you think of THIS guy's ****ysis, which seems to agree with the PRO-LDS position?

Catholics oftentimes will just quote Phil 2:12, which says work out your salvation with fear and trembling. If salvation was guaranteed there would be no need to fear and tremble. Indeed it is an important text that in and of itself shows that the Protestant interpretation of Ephesians 2 is impossible. However, v. 13 shows how we can work it out. It is because it is God at work within us. Thus, it is God’s grace that enables us to do so. Again, God’s grace is an active force within us, not a looking away from how horrible we really are. He calls us to be blameless and innocent, children of God (v. 15)....

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/ephesians2.html


well, jeff...congrats in always finding some kind of division between RCs and Protestants. The question of justification by faith alone WAS THE RAISON D'ETRE FOR THE REFORMATION.

We already KNOW that the LDS position is close to the Mormon one. The citation IGNORES a plethora of scripture that attests to the CERTAINTY of salvation and the revelation knowledge of it. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

The apostle Paul said "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This does not mean that we are justified by faith alone. It only means that our justification excludes works of the law. Paul never said that we are justified apart from love or obedience.


WITHOUT the deeds of the law = sola Gratia, sola Fide.

We are justified by faith ALONE, but a justified faith is NEVER alone...there WILL be works as a result.

A living faith will be EVIDENCED BY GOOD WORKS.

Why can't you Mos understand this even when it's been explained to you dozens of times?? :eek:

[Father_JD]

I have no clue as to what your objection is.

My objection is your inclusion of the word, "water" when it doesn't appear anywhere in either the Greek OR English text. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Then WHY are you arguing for "washing of regeneration" meaning WATER BAPTISM???

I agree, washing of regeneration does indeed mean SPIRITUAL REGENERATION.

[Mesenja]

You would love to "keep to the doctrine in question and eliminate all personalities"? You can't even stick to the topic in question let alone try to elimanate bringing in personalities.




Yes isn't that strange. Mormons are taught by their prophet that there are three Gods not one. This means that according to the Apostle James that you don't do well and know less than even the devils. That indeed is a sorry state to have less knowledge of the nature of the Being that should be your Father than the devils that have never or will ever please Him. IHS Jim


So we are in such a sad state knowing less about the nature of God then even the devils who can't please him? Thank you Jim for telling us where the doctrine of Trinitarianism actually came from.

[Mesenja]

WITHOUT the deeds of the law=sola Gratia, sola Fide. We are justified by faith ALONE,but a justified faith is NEVER alone. There WILL be works as a result.

A living faith will be EVIDENCED BY GOOD WORKS. Why can't you Mos understand this even when it's been explained to you dozens of times?? :eek:


Everytime you see the word faith you have to add alone. If the apostle Paul wanted to teach faith alone he would have clearly stated it.

[nrajeff]

Everytime you see the word faith you have to add alone. If the apostle Paul wanted to teach faith alone he would have clearly stated it.

---Now hang on there a second, Mesenja: Romans (For we are saved by hope) was written by the same Paul who wrote Ephesians (by grace you are saved through faith).

If the Scolds are correct about Paul REALLY wanting "alone" to be added to his statement on faith, then they must think it's okay to add "alone" wherever the word "HOPE" appears, too. After all, it's the same Paul writing in both verses, so it must be okay to add to both of them.

So, we can conclude that the Bible teaches that salvation comes through HOPE ALONE, with the same amount of surety that it teaches FAITH alone.
If the Scolds object to that, and say that "alone" needs to be deleted from hope, then they have to delete "alone" from FAITH as well.

[Billyray]

Everytime you see the word faith you have to add alone. If the apostle Paul wanted to teach faith alone he would have clearly stated it.

Well I don't know how much clearer Paul could have written it. Mesenja give us your explanation of this verse.

Ephesians 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[James Banta]

You would love to "keep to the doctrine in question and eliminate all personalities"? You can't even stick to the topic in question let alone try to elimanate bringing in personalities.

So we are in such a sad state knowing less about the nature of God then even the devils who can't please him? Thank you Jim for telling us where the doctrine of Trinitarianism actually came from.

What does the verse say? It says " You believe that there is one God; that is correct. But even the devils know that much and they tremble"(James 2:19).. Do you hold that there is one God or do you believe the teaching of your prophet Joseph Smith who said "lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural".. According to James Joseph Smith was not doing well in that doctrine. He denied even knowing as much about the nature of God as the devils says the Apostle James. Do you follow the teaching of the Ancient Church, the teaching as it came from the Holy Spirit through the Apostles of Jesus in this matter or are you going with Joseph Smith that denied James, Moses (Deut 6:4) and even Jesus (Mark 12:29)... IHS jim

[Mesenja]

In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. However in the Greek that is used to translate "one" the gender of the word is neuter not masculine. The masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being,and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.




heis=numerically one

hen=we are together




The basic reason for this choice [of reading] is to be found in John 10:30:“The Father and I are one[” (hen). Note that Jesus is not saying,“The Father and I are numerically one” (heis),but uses a term meaning “we are together” (Greek hen,as used again in v.38:“The Father is in me and I am in the Father”). The union of the Father and Son does not blot out the difference and individuality of each. Union rather supposes differentiation. Through love and through reciprocal communion they are one single thing,the one God-love. [Leonardo Boff,Trinity and Society,trans. Paul Burns (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1988),5]

[RealFakeHair]

In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. However in the Greek that is used to translate "one" the gender of the word is neuter not masculine. The masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being,and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.

What is the reformed egyptain translation, is it masculine or weak girlyman?:confused:

[sunofmysoul]

In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. However in the Greek that is used to translate "one" the gender of the word is neuter not masculine. The masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being,and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.
Quote:
Quote:
heis=numerically one

hen=we are together

Quote:

The basic reason for this choice [of reading] is to be found in John 10:30:“The Father and I are one[” (hen). Note that Jesus is not saying,“The Father and I are numerically one” (heis),but uses a term meaning “we are together” (Greek hen,as used again in v.38:“The Father is in me and I am in the Father”). The union of the Father and Son does not blot out the difference and individuality of each. Union rather supposes differentiation. Through love and through reciprocal communion they are one single thing,the one God-love. [Leonardo Boff,Trinity and Society,trans. Paul Burns (Maryknoll,N.Y.:Orbis,1988),5]



.


What is the reformed egyptain translation, is it masculine or weak girlyman?:confused:

:confused: relevance to post?

If you have ever looked into the Greek, you will perhaps more understand the above post.
"weak girly man"? I suppose an attempt to be funny? (let's hope for nothing worse)

a tiny lesson for your benefit...:D


Grammatical Gender of Nouns
Gender, as it relates to nouns and other substantives in the Greek language, does not necessarily refer to "male" and "female". It refers to grammatical gender, which is determined purely by grammatical usage and must be learned by observation. Although nouns referring to people or animals that are obviously "male" or "female" would normally (but not always) be cl***ified as masculine or feminine accordingly, the gender of most nouns seems to be somewhat arbitrary. Every noun must fall into one of three categories of gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter. The fact of gender, when considering a word in isolation, is of little importance to the student of the Greek New Testament. But in ****yzing a sentence as a whole, gender may play a key role, especially when considered along with the adjectives, pronouns, and relative clauses that may be present. Taking note of the gender may alter altogether what a sentence may seem to be saying in English.
For example: "And receive...the sword of the spirit which is the word of God"( Eph 6:17). The word "sword" in Greek is feminine gender and the word "spirit" is neuter gender. So it is important in this sentence to find out what is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "which". (i.e. What is the "which" referring back to?) The word "which" in this sentence is neuter, therefore it is referring back to the word "spirit" and not "sword." Thus this sentence means: "And receive...the sword of the spirit which (spirit) is the word of God." from HERE (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/nouns1.htm)

happy to ***ist :cool:
with love,
soms

[Father_JD]

Everytime you see the word faith you have to add alone. If the apostle Paul wanted to teach faith alone he would have clearly stated it.

He did. He wrote several times NOT OF WORKS, NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. He stresses GRACE and FAITH, and if you subtract "works", which Paul consistently does, that MEANS SOLA FIDE.

Why the lame-O Mormon reindeer game of OBDURATENESS?? :rolleyes:

[RealFakeHair]

:confused: relevance to post?

If you have ever looked into the Greek, you will perhaps more understand the above post.
"weak girly man"? I suppose an attempt to be funny? (let's hope for nothing worse)

a tiny lesson for your benefit...:D


Grammatical Gender of Nouns
Gender, as it relates to nouns and other substantives in the Greek language, does not necessarily refer to "male" and "female". It refers to grammatical gender, which is determined purely by grammatical usage and must be learned by observation. Although nouns referring to people or animals that are obviously "male" or "female" would normally (but not always) be cl***ified as masculine or feminine accordingly, the gender of most nouns seems to be somewhat arbitrary. Every noun must fall into one of three categories of gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter. The fact of gender, when considering a word in isolation, is of little importance to the student of the Greek New Testament. But in ****yzing a sentence as a whole, gender may play a key role, especially when considered along with the adjectives, pronouns, and relative clauses that may be present. Taking note of the gender may alter altogether what a sentence may seem to be saying in English.
For example: "And receive...the sword of the spirit which is the word of God"( Eph 6:17). The word "sword" in Greek is feminine gender and the word "spirit" is neuter gender. So it is important in this sentence to find out what is the antecedent of the relative pronoun "which". (i.e. What is the "which" referring back to?) The word "which" in this sentence is neuter, therefore it is referring back to the word "spirit" and not "sword." Thus this sentence means: "And receive...the sword of the spirit which (spirit) is the word of God." from HERE (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/nouns1.htm)

happy to ***ist :cool:
with love,
soms

wrote all this over girly-man?
Boy, if only Joseph Smith jr had you as a scribe we wouldn't have had all them, it came to p***, in the Book of Mormon. Just think from 1200 or so it came to p***, to maybe 4 or 5, or perhaps 20 or so. Anyways, sunofyoursoul, you are a great trooper, and keep up the good work.
Don't ask, why this came to my mind, because I have no idea.:confused:

[Father_JD]

---Now hang on there a second, Mesenja: Romans (For we are saved by hope) was written by the same Paul who wrote Ephesians (by grace you are saved through faith).

If the Scolds are correct about Paul REALLY wanting "alone" to be added to his statement on faith, then they must think it's okay to add "alone" wherever the word "HOPE" appears, too. After all, it's the same Paul writing in both verses, so it must be okay to add to both of them.

So, we can conclude that the Bible teaches that salvation comes through HOPE ALONE, with the same amount of surety that it teaches FAITH alone.
If the Scolds object to that, and say that "alone" needs to be deleted from hope, then they have to delete "alone" from FAITH as well.


Word games which clarify NOTHING, jeff. In Paul's usage, "Hope" means by FAITH. When one has faith, that one HAS HOPE.

Sorry that Paul won't play your Mormon game, jeff.

He said, NOT BY WORKS, ergo it is necessarily By Grace ALONE, by Faith ALONE.

NOT of yourselves.

When are you gonna believe the Biblical text CONTEXTUALLY, and stop superimposing Mormon meaning onto the text thereby SKEWING your understanding?? :eek:

[James Banta]

In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. However in the Greek that is used to translate "one" the gender of the word is neuter not masculine. The masculine would be used to indicate a oneness of person or being,and neuter implies a oneness of purpose.

Haven't you seen that the Christians here have never said that God is one Person.. He is always been described as Being the three separate person of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.. Three persons one God and yes they are of the same essence..

The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I can give you Chapter and verse for every doctrine stated in the creed.. Can you do that for all the doctrines of mormonism? How about pointing out the verses that support all he points in the mormon creed? Lets look:


THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will dreign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal gglory.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, ilovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

So is the Father the only God? Who does this creed say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are? Do we still not all die because of Adam's sin? (1 Cor 15:22). You still say that we are saved by works though I have shown here again and again that salvation is not of works but only through God's grace by faith in Jesus..

There are no laws no ordinances in the Gospel.. Look for yourself it's found in 1 Cor 15:1-8. It's all about Jesus and His work not about what we must do..
No one is said to have laid hands on Peter or any of the other Apostles including Matthias to give them any authority.. The Holy Spirit often came at the touch of the Apostles but it was not a requirement. At Pentecost tongues of fire came onto those in the upper room, and then again to the household of Cornelius the centurion. No one even touched Cornelius or his household members (Acts 10:44)..

Have you ever heard of an office of pastor or evangelist.. Oh yes I know that it is said that a Bishop is the same thing as a pastor but they are NOT called so.. And what is a mormon evangelist? Is that a church calling or do people like you just take up that calling on their own? You have added the Priesthood of Aaron to what you teach the "Primitive Church" (We call it the 1st century Church). According to the writer to the Hebrews the priesthood was changed from Aaron's priesthood to that of Jesus'.. There we read that Jesus was of Judah of which nothing was said of Priesthood.. Read it (Heb 7:14)..

Jesus told us that His word would never p*** away but this creed says the word is mistranslated even in it's original language.. Ok it doesn't say that in the creed but every mormon I have ever spoken to seems to think that evil men changed the m****cripts of the Bible.. Because of the sheer number of m****cripts that would be an impossible task BTW.. Still mormonism points out that the Bible has been perverted but they can't point out where these perversions lay..

What do mormons believe the gift of tongues are.. Yes to have many of different languages understand what you are teaching but Paul tells us of an unknown tongue.. Don't mormons make fun of what they call "Holy Rollers"? YES.. Then they deny the spiritual gift of tongues.. How is that?

Is not Jesus the full revelation of the Father? Did not Paul speaking though the Holy Spirit say he had FULLY PREACHED THE GOSPEL OF JESUS? YES and YES. What more in there than the Gospel. The salvation of our souls that needs to ever be added to? Jesus either did it all or we have no hope.. Heck Smith even called the BofM the FULLNESS of the EVERLASTING GOSPEL.. How can there be more than a FULLNESS?

The New City is said to come down from heaven on the same site as the present Jerusalem.. It is a city not built with hands.. It is NOT in the AMERICAS..

If you really believed in allowing all men to worship as they wish you wouldn't have so many missionaries out there to bring people into LDS membership.. And you wouldn't be calling our teachers corrupt and our beliefs an abomination in God's sight (JSH 1:19)


Mormonism from the time Joseph Smith took Fanny Alger as his polygamous wife until the Manifesto was breaking the law. So was Smith, Young, Taylor or Woodruff men to honored or sustained the law or even taught that the law should be obeyed?

And lastly look at how the mormons here on WM call me dishonest for saying things like Joseph Smith lied when I have proof that he did.. or that mormonism teaches that God the Father was once a man who had a God who had a God... Or that mormonism teaches contradiction. Saying that God commanded Adam to keep two laws that both couldn't possible be keep, and yet teach that God gives no commandment to man unless He prepares a way to accomplish what He commands. Sorry but your creed is NOT BIBLICAL or logical.. It is NOT of God but of man.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

Almost 70% of your post it is totally irrelevant. I never said that God is one Person. I said that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father. This means that they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are equally God.

[Mesenja]

Well I don't know how much clearer Paul could have written it. Mesenja give us your explanation of this verse.


Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.


That would have made it crystal clear however he didn't do so as that would have contradicted his fellow apostle James who said "Even so faith,if it hath not works,is dead, being alone. "

[Billyray]

That would have made it crystal clear however he didn't do so as that would have contradicted his fellow apostle James who said "Even so faith,if it hath not works,is dead, being alone. "

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

So what do you think about these two verses, what do they mean?

[Billyray]

---YOU forgot that "works" probably referred to the statutes of the Torah, NOT to the commandments that Jesus gave as part of the NEW covenant. NOWHERE in the NT does Jesus say "These are my suggestions, and you don't need to obey them."

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

Where does it specify the Torah as you describe?

[nrajeff]

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

Where does it specify the Torah as you describe?

Welcome to Sunday School. I will be your teacher today. Paul's epistles mention basically 3 different kinds of works: Evil deeds, aka sins; good works, aka charity for others, which he always spoke highly of; and "works of The Law," which have no salvific value.

Here are some examples of Paul mentioning the latter:

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Galatians 3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

If you study even basic ancient Judeo-Christian history, you should come across mention of the Torah--aka the Pentateuch or first 5 books of the Tanakh. Ancient Christians and Jews referred to the Torah as "The Law" because in it are found the Mosaic laws by which the Israelites were ruled. Basically, the part of the Tanakh that includes the books of Joshua through Malachi is called The Prophets. Thus, when you see New Testament mentions of "the Law" or "the Prophets," that's what they are talking about--those two parts of the Masoretic Jewish scriptures.


It was The Law--the legalistic rules of the Torah--that Jesus referred to in His Sermon on the Mount when He said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus declared that for Christians, The Law was superseded by His new commandments, ala "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."

[Billyray]

Welcome to Sunday School. I will be your teacher today. . .If you study even basic ancient Judeo-Christian history, you should come across mention of the Torah--aka the Pentateuch or first 5 books of the Tanakh. Ancient Christians and Jews referred to the Torah as "The Law" because in it is found the Mosaic laws by which the Israelites were ruled. Basically, the part of the Tanakh that includes the books of Joshua through Malachi are called The Prophets. Thus, when you see New Testament mentions of "the Law" or "the Prophets," that's what they are talking about--those two parts of the Masoretic Jewish scriptures.


It was The Law--the legalistic rules of the Torah--that Jesus referred to in His Sermon on the Mount when He said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus declared that for Christians, The Law was superseded by His new commandments, ala "Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."


Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

Your little lesson didn't really come together in the end. Give us the bottom line explanation for this verse.

[Billyray]

Welcome to Sunday School. I will be your teacher today. . .If you study even basic ancient Judeo-Christian history, you should come across mention of the Torah--aka the Pentateuch or first 5 books of the Tanakh. Ancient Christians and Jews referred to the Torah as "The Law" because in it are found the Mosaic laws by which the Israelites were ruled

Jeff, do you really think that I am unaware of this?

[nrajeff]

It's not that difficult to understand: Paul is saying that what makes grace salvifically efficacious for a person is living faith--not the observance of the rituals and superficial rules of the Torah. The Torah allowed you to hate your enemies, for example, but if you want to be saved, Jesus said you need to love not only your friends, but your enemies as well. In that sense, obeying Jesus' commandments is "harder" to do than doing the works of The Law.

If Paul had been saying that a person could get saved by mere belief, then he would have been saying that dead faith--faith devoid of charitible deeds (good works) for one's fellowman--could save a person. And that would have DIRECTLY contradicted what St. James taught in HIS epistle.

So obviously, Paul was NOT saying that a person could get saved by mere faith without charity--Paul was saying that faith that is ALIVE is what makes grace efficacious, and not the observance of the works of The Law (Torah).

[Billyray]

It's not that difficult to understand: Paul is saying that what makes grace salvifically efficacious for a person is living faith--not the observance of the rituals and superficial rules of the Torah. The Torah allowed you to hate your enemies, for example, but if you want to be saved, Jesus said you need to love not only your friends, but your enemies as well. In that sense, obeying Jesus' commandments is "harder" to do than doing the works of The Law.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

Wow Paul supposedly said a lot in those 2 verses. I guess I can't see the part that you are speaking about.

Here is what is said
1. Saved through faith
2. NOT of yourselves
3. NOT of works

Not of yourselves and Not of works is pretty inclusive. This verse is very clear as written and salvation is NOT of yourselves and NOT of works.


But I am still interested in you theory here. When it says NOT of works can you give me a specific list of the works that are being discussed in this scripture?

[nrajeff]

If you need to learn what all of the works of The Law entail, read the book of Exodus. It's part of that Bible from which your beliefs derive exclusively.

[Billyray]

If you need to learn what all of the works of The Law entail, read the book of Exodus. It's part of that Bible from which your beliefs derive exclusively.

Actually I just finished exodus a couple of months ago and in fact I just finished the Torah last week and I am getting ready to start Joshua. But back to the topic at hand. When it says NOT of works, what works are included and what works are excluded?

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

[nrajeff]

Actually I just finished exodus a couple of months ago and in fact I just finished the Torah last week and I am getting ready to start Joshua.
---Then you shouldn't need to keep coming to us LDS to learn the answers.



But back to the topic at hand. When it says NOT of works, what works are included and what works are excluded?

---The works of categories 1 and 3 would be included in the list of works that do NOT contribute toward one's salvation, obviously. CHARITY--good deeds done for one's fellowman out of love for God and love for others--HAS to be excluded, unless you think Paul lied when he said that even if you have all faith in the world, if you don't have charity, you are nothing, and that charity is greater than faith.

(It's okay if you don't know those verses--they are in the New Testament, and you are still in the Old Testament. There is a lot of good stuff to learn if you continue reading.)

[sunofmysoul]

wrote all this over girly-man?
Boy, if only Joseph Smith jr had you as a scribe we wouldn't have had all them, it came to p***, in the Book of Mormon. Just think from 1200 or so it came to p***, to maybe 4 or 5, or perhaps 20 or so. Anyways, sunofyoursoul, you are a great trooper, and keep up the good work.
Don't ask, why this came to my mind, because I have no idea.:confused:

well, while others might put such posts as what you wrote on ignore,
I decided to answer it. and draw attention to the irrelevance with some dedicated humor. :D
sooooo....
perhaps if one keeps to the topic at hand, and doesn't try to beat up the opposing side with ridiculous low **** irrelevance...

we could use my "great trooper" and hard working skills for better purposes...:D

with love,
silly soms

[Billyray]

---Then you shouldn't need to keep coming to us LDS to learn the answers.



It still amazes me at how different the Bible is compared to how Mormons portray the Bible. For example the priesthood issue. LDS believe that Adam had the Melchizedek priesthood. Where do you find that in the Bible?

[Billyray]

---The works of categories 1 and 3 would be included in the list of works that do NOT contribute toward one's salvation, obviously. CHARITY--good deeds done for one's fellowman out of love for God and love for others--HAS to be excluded, unless you think Paul lied when he said that even if you have all faith in the world, if you don't have charity, you are nothing, and that charity is greater than faith.



Paul's epistles mention basically 3 different kinds of works: Evil deeds, aka sins; good works, aka charity for others, which he always spoke highly of; and "works of The Law," which have no salvific value.

Reference verse
Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

I am still confused about your explaination. What works are required for salvation? And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to? Can you use the numbers that I have listed above which was taken from your previous post.

[James Banta]

Almost 70% of your post it is totally irrelevant. I never said that God is one Person. I said that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father. This means that they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are equally God.



That is what I am saying too.. And my post compares a creed of Christianity to that of the creed of mormonism.. I have pointed out that the Nicene creed is Biblical but that the mormon creed violates the Bible at every turn.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

That is what I am saying too. And my post compares a creed of Christianity to that of the creed of Mormonism. I have pointed out that the Nicene creed is Biblical but that the Mormon creed violates the Bible at every turn. IHS Jim

Most of it as I said completely off topic and therefore irrelevant. No Jim that was not all of what you were saying. You pointed out to me "that the Christians here have ever said that God is one Person." When I corrected you and pointed out that what I actually posted was that the "Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father" in other words meaning that "they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are therefore both "equally God" you tried to back peddle and say this was your position all along.



In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence.


Haven't you seen that the Christians here have never said that God is one Person. He is always been described as Being the three separate person of the Father,Son,and the Holy Spirit. Three persons one God and yes they are of the same essence. IHS Jim


I never said that God is one Person. I said that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father. This means that they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are equally God.



That is what I am saying too. IHS Jim


As you can see what you posted before is not your position now. Yes you believe in the Nicene Creed after i took the time to explain it to you. But you have totally misrepresented my position and as your past history shows will refuse to admit it. Surprise me Jim and admit your mistake. Oh wait that would be apologizing to a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) and admitting that you were wrong and they are right. My mistake Jim. How silly of me to even entertain this possibility.

[nrajeff]

Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

I am still confused about your explaination.
---That is okay--you are learning this for the first time I guess. Maybe you gave up too quickly on your learning by quitting the church when you did, and now your only knowledge base comes from Dark-Ages-vintage philosophy, alive and well (alive, at least) in the teachings of Calvinistic Protestantism.


What works are required for salvation?
----Why, the ones that Jesus said are inextricably connected with obeying His commandments, of course. I will try to make this really simple for you:

1. Suppose Jesus were to command you to do good for your fellow man (have charity, in other words).
2. Suppose you refused, mocking such a "work" as being unnecessary.
3. Suppose Jesus were to say that those who don't keep His commandments don't love Him, and don't know Him, and aren't His friends.
4. Suppose Jesus ALSO said that loving Him, knowing Him, and being His friend are requirements for eternal life.

Do you now see where your "I don't need no stinkin' charity to get eternal life" at***ude has you headed?

You believe that faith is necessary for salvation--great, wonderful, hurray for you.

St. Paul said that charity is of greater importance THAN FAITH, and more important than hope. IMO, it's more important that believing that God is merely one solitary being with a multiple personality disorder, too.

Where does that leave you, if you go around repeating "I have faith, I have faith, I've got it made according to the Bible" yet you place charity down the list as something of little worth? What would Paul say about your at***ude? Why would you really expect to be standing in the "eternal life receiving line" on Judgment Day?


And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to?

---Your re-asking for an answer I already handed to you is getting annoying. It feels like I am teaching my Primary cl***.

[Billyray]

---That is okay--you are learning this for the first time I guess. Maybe you gave up too quickly on your learning by quitting the church when you did, and now your only knowledge base comes from Dark-Ages-vintage philosophy, alive and well (alive, at least) in the teachings of Calvinistic Protestantism.

You did not answer the question.

Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

What works are required for salvation? And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to? Can you use the numbers that I have listed above which was taken from your previous post.

[nrajeff]

You did not answer the question.

---POST #294, Billy. My but you can be annoying. Thank goodness your behavior reflects on the Scold industry and not on those who are faithful LDS.

[Billyray]

Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

What works are required for salvation? And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to? Can you use the numbers that I have listed above which was taken from your previous post.

---The works of categories 1 and 3 would be included in the list of works that do NOT contribute toward one's salvation, obviously.

OK so you are saying that you don't have to keep 1 or 3 for salvation?

[James Banta]

[Mesenja;58399]Most of it as I said completely off topic and therefore irrelevant. No Jim that was not all of what you were saying. You pointed out to me "that the Christians here have ever said that God is one Person." When I corrected you and pointed out that what I actually posted was that the "Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father" in other words meaning that "they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are therefore both "equally God" you tried to back peddle and say this was your position all along.

If I am that off topic report me.. I think it's more like you don't like the direction of the discussion on the topic.. I am not back peddling at all I agree with the Creed 100%.. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.. They are of one and the same essence.. If you believe that saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are seperate persons you have not been seeing the countless posts I have made that inform mormons that they are.. God is three divine Persons in the one Being of God.. There is NOT one who is the Head God, and the other His servants.. Each is fully God.. I don't see any back peddling in that.. That has been my statement on the nature of God the full time I have been a Christian.. If you think that is in error ask any Christian on here if that isn't orthodox theology..


As you can see what you posted before is not your position now. Yes you believe in the Nicene Creed after i took the time to explain it to you. But you have totally misrepresented my position and as your past history shows will refuse to admit it. Surprise me Jim and admit your mistake. Oh wait that would be apologizing to a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) and admitting that you were wrong and they are right. My mistake Jim. How silly of me to even entertain this possibility.
Just because you think you were so wise as to explain my faith to me I am not seeing it.. I have held the Creeds (All of them ) to be the truth, condensed statements about who God is, who man is, and how salvation come to man.. I have explained the reason for the creed's existence many times..

If you can show to the world here how I have back peddled but actually show it not just say so then you would have cause to point out error in me.. I call on you to do so.. BUT remember not just say so but show it! IHS jim

[nrajeff]

I have held the Creeds (All of them ) to be the truth, condensed statements about who God is, who man is, and how salvation come to man.. I have explained the reason for the creed's existence many times..
---Jim, is the Athanasian Creed 100% accurate and true?



If you can show to the world here how I have back peddled but actually show it not just say so then you would have cause to point out error in me.. I call on you to do so..
---It may come to that soon, depending on your answer to the above question.

[James Banta]

The ordinance of baptism is part of the doctrine that Paul himself preached. [Hebrews 6:2] Paul was immersed in order to have his sins “washed away” [Acts 22:16] and taught that in order to have "redemption through his blood,the forgiveness of sins,in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding" we are to be baptized "into Christ”. [Ephesians 1:3;Romans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:27] Jesus spoke of being "born of water" and Paul clarifies exactly which birth is being referred to here by saying this is "the water of rebirth" [John 3:3-5,NRSV;***us 3:5,NRSV]

Mormons never tire of taking the scripture out of context to try to make their points.. That is what you did here.. But you were so bad at the context you didn't even finish the meaning found in the same verse..
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
So what did the Holy Spirit all that phrase? Because that is how the sins are washed away.. Mere water won't do the *** baptism is a symbol of the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit.. The Blood Jesus shed on the cross is the only cleansing agent with the power to cleanse us of sin..

There is no water in rebirth.. and since Jesus told us there are two births one a natural the other a spiritual, being born of water and spirit speaks to those two births.. The water is the natural, the spiritual is that which Jesus promised to those that receive Him..

John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The first context of John 3 does NOT speak of baptism while the next context in the same chapter isn't shy about the use of the word at all.. Sorry but baptism doesn't belong in the context of a p***age about birth..
Look at what he full sentance that is includes ***us 3:5 is included:
***us 3:4-7
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

You can't see that the p***age is telling us that this is 100% God's work? His kindness, His love, His mercy shown to us by washing, regenerating, and renewing us in the Holy Ghost.. All that given to us because of Jesus.. This all done by His grace making us heir of the hope of eternal life.. You see washing and think baptism.. That is sad that you throw away the meaning of scripture for what men teach to you.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Interesting: The same people who say there is nothing special about the water that baptizes a person, somehow say there is real magical power in the Eucharist's wafer and wine--to the extent that Jesus' actual blood and flesh materialize over and over, for each Eucharist ritual.

Apparently, "Mere water won't do the ***" but somehow, mere crackers and wine WILL do the ***.

Like I said: Interesting.

[Mesenja]

Interesting:The same people who say there is nothing special about the water that baptizes a person,somehow say there is real magical power in the Eucharist's wafer and wine--to the extent that Jesus' actual blood and flesh materialize over and over,for each Eucharist ritual.

Apparently,"Mere water won't do the ***" but somehow,mere crackers and wine WILL do the ***.

Like I said:Interesting.



Sorry friend but I am going to have to call you on this one. This post was totally uncalled for.

[nrajeff]

Sorry friend but I am going to have to call you on this one. This post was totally uncalled for.

---I am willing to listen to reasons why their mockery of the ordinance of baptism isn't inconsistent with their belief in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If someone can show me that my pointing out the double standard was totally uncalled for, I am willing to apologize.

[James Banta]

Interesting: The same people who say there is nothing special about the water that baptizes a person, somehow say there is real magical power in the Eucharist's wafer and wine--to the extent that Jesus' actual blood and flesh materialize over and over, for each Eucharist ritual.

Apparently, "Mere water won't do the ***" but somehow, mere crackers and wine WILL do the ***.

Like I said: Interesting.

Like baptism, the wine and bread of the Lord's supper are symbolic.. While baptism identifies the believer with the death and Restoration of the Lord, the Lord's supper identifies us with His sacrifice.. If there is anything ANYTHING we can do to bring salvation to ourselves then as the scripture says Christ is dead in vain.. Any one that is putting such power into the elements of the Lord's supper is doing so in error.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

---I am willing to listen to reasons why their mockery of the ordinance of baptism isn't inconsistent with their belief in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. If someone can show me that my pointing out the double standard was totally uncalled for, I am willing to apologize.

These are NOT Christian doctrine.. No Christian here has supported them.. You take some doctrines of the Catholic church and try to force it on Christians in general.. It isn't part of the Scripture.. When Jesus said take eat this is my body it was clear the statement was symbolic because He stood there before then in His body that He had NOT broken pieces off of.. Some intelligence is ***umed of the people reading about the ins***ution of the Lord's supper.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

These are NOT Christian doctrine.. No Christian here has supported them.. You take some doctrines of the Catholic church and try to force it on Christians in general.. It isn't part of the Scripture.. When Jesus said take eat this is my body it was clear the statement was symbolic because He stood there before then in His body that He had NOT broken pieces off of.. Some intelligence is ***umed of the people reading about the ins***ution of the Lord's supper.. IHS jim

---Thanks, Jim, for your opinion. I am glad to learn that when you quit the LDS, you didn't stop believing that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. (Only a minority of Christendom believes as you and the LDS do, I think)

But to say that any church that teaches that it's NOT just symbolic is teaching un-Christian doctrine, might make a lot of Christians angry--not just the Catholics, but the Orthodox too, as well as the Protestants who teach Consubstantiation.

To all those Christians, anyone who believes that it's just symbolic, is the one with a false belief. You might even be accused of having a cultic doctrine.

[Father_JD]

That would have made it crystal clear however he didn't do so as that would have contradicted his fellow apostle James who said "Even so faith,if it hath not works,is dead, being alone. "

Coulda, shoulda...that's all you Mos have. SPECULATION.

It's CLEAR that it IS sola gratia, sola fide because Paul repeatedly states...

NOT OF WORKS!!

Why are you Mos so obdurate??

[akaSeerone]

That would have made it crystal clear however he didn't do so as that would have contradicted his fellow apostle James who said "Even so faith,if it hath not works,is dead, being alone. "So what....how does that back up what you are saying? James didn't say that Faith is a result of works.

Your are simply snatching a few words out of Scripture WITH NO REGARDS TO CONTEXT CONTEXT!!

Contrary to what you are implying, there is this:

Romans 10

17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Galatians 3

2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works lest any man should boast.

James is not saying works are required for Faith (Our Faith is not our own, it the Faith of Jesus) James is saying that works are a result of THE MEASURE OF FAITH WE RECEIVE FROM JESUS.

Romans 12

3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Andy

[Mesenja]

You alleged that my position was that the Christians in this forum believe that "God is one Person." That is not what I said. What I said was that "the "Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father." In other words "they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are therefore both "equally God." Here is what i said followed by what you said.





In John 10:30 this same argument is also made that Jesus and the Father are one in essence.





Haven't you seen that the Christians here have never said that God is one Person. He is always been described as Being the three separate person of the Father,Son,and the Holy Spirit. Three persons one God and yes they are of the same essence. IHS Jim





I never said that God is one Person. I said that Jesus and the Father are one in essence. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ****oúsios with God the Father. This means that they are of the "same substance" or "one in essence" and are equally God.





That is what I am saying too. And my post compares a creed of Christianity to that of the creed of Mormonism. I have pointed out that the Nicene creed is Biblical but that the Mormon creed violates the Bible at every turn. IHS Jim

[Billyray]

---That is okay--you are learning this for the first time I guess. Maybe you gave up too quickly on your learning by quitting the church when you did, and now your only knowledge base comes from Dark-Ages-vintage philosophy, alive and well (alive, at least) in the teachings of Calvinistic Protestantism.

You did not answer the question.

Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

What works are required for salvation? And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to? Can you use the numbers that I have listed above which was taken from your previous post.

[nrajeff]

You did not answer the question.

---Repeating a false accusation ad nauseam doesn't magically make it become a valid accusation, Willy.


Originally Posted by Billyray
Jeff's list of works

1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

What works are required for salvation?
---According to the New Testament? To those of us with the capacity to figure it out, the obvious answer is charity, since without it you are nothing, and since it's more important than your faith.

(It will be interesting to see how many more times you will embarr*** yourself by ***erting that I did not answer the question)


And when Paul says NOT of Works which ones is he referring to? Can you use the numbers that I have listed above which was taken from your previous post.

---Well, let's see:
Number One (the "works of evil" as the NT calls them) seem like the kinds of works that Paul would think DON'T result in salvation. Do you disagree?

And Number Three (the works of the Torah) were what Paul specifically says aren't good enough to result in salvation. So I'd agree with Paul there as well. I take you think he was wrong or lying?

[Billyray]

Billyray stated,
Jeff's list of works
1. Sins
2. Charity or helping others
3. Works of the Law

What works are required for salvation?

Jeff replies.
[COLOR="purple"]---Well, let's see:
Number One (the "works of evil" as the NT calls them) seem like the kinds of works that Paul would think DON'T result in salvation. Do you disagree?

And Number Three (the works of the Torah) were what Paul specifically says aren't good enough to result in salvation. So I'd agree with Paul there as well. I take you think he was wrong or lying?
So these are NOT required for salvation
1. Sins (control of sinful behavior)
3. Works of the Law (such as the 10 commandments)

And this IS required for salvation
2. Charity or helping others

Did I get your position correct?

[nrajeff]

So these are NOT required for salvation
1. Sins (control of sinful behavior)
3. Works of the Law (such as the 10 commandments)

And this IS required for salvation
2. Charity or helping others

Did I get your position correct?

---It's the BIBLE's position, and I agree with it.

[Billyray]

---It's the BIBLE's position, and I agree with it.

Which is what exactly?

[Libby]

Was going to ask exactly the same question. Where does it say "charity" is required for salvation?

[nrajeff]

Was going to ask exactly the same question. Where does it say "charity" is required for salvation?

-----If Paul had been saying that a person could get saved by mere belief, then he would have been saying that dead faith--faith devoid of charitible deeds (good works) for one's fellowman--could save a person. And that would have DIRECTLY contradicted what St. James taught in HIS epistle.

So obviously, Paul was NOT saying that a person could get saved by mere faith without charity--Paul was saying that faith that is ALIVE is what makes grace efficacious, and not the observance of the works of The Law

Paul says that we are saved by hope. (Romans 8:24) and that (1 Cor. 13):
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding br***, or a tinkling cymbal."

Are such people likely to get eternal life?

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Are people with ALL FAITH but NO CHARITY getting eternal life?

For now there are faith, hope, and love.
But of these three, the greatest is love (charity).

If a person only has faith and hope, but is lacking the greatest of the three
(charity), is that person likely to get eternal life?

Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: (1 Timothy 1:5)

Are you gonna get eternal life if you don't have charity?

[Father_JD]

1. There's NO such thing as "dead faith". It's NO "faith" AT ALL, jeff.
2. GRACE is unmerited favor, ergo, there's NOTHING to make it "efficacious".
3. You still think Grace is MERITED and or/EARNED.

[nrajeff]

1. There's NO such thing as "dead faith". It's NO "faith" AT ALL, jeff.
--You'd better hope that's not true, since you're betting your salvation on your belief that faith without works is good enough to save you. :D


2. GRACE is unmerited favor, ergo, there's NOTHING to make it "efficacious".
--But you guys have admitted that there ARE requirements a person MUST meet in order to be saved:

1. Believe that Trinitarianism describes God inerrantly.
2. Have faith in Jesus.
3. Not be LDS. :eek:

If person fails to "measure up" on ANY of those, can he be saved? If the answer is no, then those are de facto requirements for salvation.



3. You still think Grace is MERITED and or/EARNED.
----What does the Bible say about people who claim they know God but the things they do show that they disobey Him? (***us 1:16)

[Father_JD]

--You'd better hope that's not true, since you're betting your salvation on your belief that faith without works is good enough to save you. :D

Here it is for the umpteenth time, jeff:

A SAVING Faith WILL be demonstrated by works. The works in and of themselves do NOT JUSTIFY one.


--But you guys have admitted that there ARE requirements a person MUST meet in order to be saved:

1. Believe that Trinitarianism describes God inerrantly.
2. Have faith in Jesus.
3. Not be LDS. :eek:

If person fails to "measure up" on ANY of those, can he be saved? If the answer is no, then those are de facto requirements for salvation.

The only "must" Biblically, is that one must have faith in Jesus, i.e. the BIBLICAL one and not the Mormon construct of JS.



----What does the Bible say about people who claim they know God but the things they do show that they disobey Him? (***us 1:16)


That's an excellent argument for SAVING FAITH. Lip service doesn't save anyone, jeff...it's gotta be a LIVING, REAL FAITH which is DEMONSTRATED by works. ;)

And there you have it.

[nrajeff]

So do you subscribe to a belief-based soteriology? Or a grace-based one?

[Father_JD]

So do you subscribe to a belief-based soteriology? Or a grace-based one?

What do you THINK, jeff?

I subscribe to what the BIBLE SAYS:

BY Grace THROUGH FAITH (And faith entails "belief")

[nrajeff]

What do you THINK, jeff?
---Based on what you SAY half the time, I think you're part of a profession-based religion---if the person can just profess with his mouth that Trinitarianism makes sense, that TULIP doesn't really portray God as a capricious tyrant, and that the LDS are hellbound, then you guys will stamp that person with the "Yep, he's a born-again, OSAS Christian" label.


I subscribe to what the BIBLE SAYS:
BY Grace THROUGH FAITH (And faith entails "belief")
--That is the root of your problem: You subscribe ONLY to that proof text, to the exclusion of the rest of the New Testament's mentions of hope, charity, and obedience.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD
What do you THINK, jeff?



---Based on what you SAY half the time, I think you're part of a profession-based religion---if the person can just profess with his mouth that Trinitarianism makes sense, that TULIP doesn't really portray God as a capricious tyrant, and that the LDS are hellbound, then you guys will stamp that person with the "Yep, he's a born-again, OSAS Christian" label.

C'mon, jeff. This is merely a cheap shot and you know it and I won't even dignify it.

Quote:
I subscribe to what the BIBLE SAYS:
BY Grace THROUGH FAITH (And faith entails "belief")



--That is the root of your problem: You subscribe ONLY to that proof text, to the exclusion of the rest of the New Testament's mentions of hope, charity, and obedience.


Funny, i.e. your "projection" of your heremeneutical Mormon sins upon me, jeff. LOL.

If you would spend even a fraction of your time in the Bible instead of LDS publications, you might really begin to understand what's really taught in the Bible.

I suggest you read I John really, really close for your answer...
__________________

[nrajeff]

C'mon, jeff. This is merely a cheap shot and you know it and I won't even dignify it.
---You won't even dignify it with "That is almost as cheap a shot as us accusing LDS of believing in WORKS-BASED salvation" ???

Yes, now perhaps the lightbulb has come on above you, and you have realized that what is good for you geese is pretty good when us ganders use it back at you.

[Billyray]

accusing LDS of believing in WORKS-BASED salvation"

But Jeff you do realize that the LDS system IS works based don't you?

Give us the list of requirements for exaltation Jeff--please, pretty please.

[nrajeff]

But Jeff you do realize that the LDS system IS works based don't you?
---Why would I "realize" something that is FALSE? Time for another logic lesson: Even if LDS soteriology incorporated charity for others as one of many COMPONENTS of salvation, the charity would not be the BASIS for or of it. That is where your terrible reasoning broke down and died. If bread's ingredients include a pound of flour and a half-teaspoon of salt, YOUR "logic" would say that bread is a salt-based food.

You lose again.

[Billyray]

---Why would I "realize" something that is FALSE?

It is completely true that works are required for exhalation. The fact that you deny this does not change the fact that it is. Jesus is required but works are also required.

[Libby]

From Gospel Principles - Chapter 47 - Requirements for Exaltation

To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in him must be such that we repent of our sins and obey his commandments.

He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

We must be baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

We must receive the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We must receive the temple endowment.

We must be married for time and eternity.


In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord commands all of us to--

Love and worship God.

Love our neighbor.

Repent of our wrongdoings.

Live the law of chas***y.

Pay honest ***hes and offerings.

Be honest in our dealings with others and with the Lord.

Speak the truth always.

Obey the Word of Wisdom.

Search out our kindred dead and perform the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.

Keep the Sabbath day holy.

Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.

Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.

Have family and individual prayers every day.

Honor our parents.

Teach the gospel to others by word and example.

Study the scriptures.

Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to follow his direction in our individual lives.

[Libby]

That's quite a long list of "no works".

One of the things that struck me, deeply, one day, was that by the above reasoning, I could be kept out of the Celestial Kingdom for simply having a cup of coffee.

Just didn't seem right....definitely of man, IMO.

[Billyray]

That's quite a long list of "no works".

One of the things that struck me, deeply, one day, was that by the above reasoning, I could be kept out of the Celestial Kingdom for simply having a cup of coffee.

Just didn't seem right....definitely of man, IMO.
Thanks for the post Libby. I really don't understand how Jeff can state point blank that works are not required for exaltation.

[nrajeff]

It is completely true that works are required for exhalation.
--OBEDIENCE is required for salvation, and so is FAITH. Your laughable excuse for reasoning should then lead you to believe that LDS are an OBEDIENCE-based religion. Or is it a FAITH-based religion, since it is undeniable (unless you are in total denial, which you may be) that LDS doctrine is that faith IS required for salvation. But wait: AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, it's ALSO LDS doctrine that Jesus and His ATONEMENT are required for us to be saved. So, again using your "logic," the LDS believe in JESUS-based salvation.

After all, according to YOUR OWN REASONING, if it's required for salvation, then salvation is BASED ON IT.

So congratulations: You just proved that LDS believe in Jesus-based and faith-based salvation!
Once again you have been beaten by your own poor reasoning skills.

The fact that you deny this does not change the fact that it is so.

[Billyray]

So congratulations: You just proved that LDS believe in Jesus-based and faith-based salvation!
Once again you have been beaten by your own poor reasoning skills.

The fact that you deny this does not change the fact that it is so.
You can talk until you are blue in the face and the fact will remain--LDS religion IS a works based religion. It is OK Jeff, just admit it. You lose credibility where you try to deny what all of us know is true.

[nrajeff]

You can talk until you are blue in the face and the fact will remain--
---Yeah, the fact will remain that none are so blind as the Billyray who is too prideful, and too arrogant and addicted to arguing to WANT to see.


LDS religion IS a works based religion. It is OK Jeff, just admit it
---If you will "admit" that you, Billyray, are a sulfur-BASED being, then I will consider the possibility that your logic is valid.


See my new thread for details.

[Billyray]

---Yeah, the fact will remain that none are so blind as the Billyray who is too prideful, and too arrogant and addicted to arguing to WANT to see.

Jeff, list the requirements FOR exaltation. You can even copy and paste the list from Libby's post.

[Billyray]

-
-If you will "admit" that you, Billyray, are a sulfur-BASED being, then I will consider the possibility that your logic is valid.

Speaking of alien life. The lifecycle of the LDS person is completely alien to the Bible.

Intelligence----->God the Father incorporates this intelligence into his packaged and procreates with Heavenly mother----->spiritual child------>human----->God (potentially)

This is more like reincarnation than what the Bible speaks about that we were created by God.

[nrajeff]

Speaking of alien life.

---Are you DENYING that you are a sulfur-based being, Billyray? Or are you just admitting that you're an alien?

[Billyray]

---Are you DENYING that you are a sulfur-based being, Billyray? Or are you just admitting that you're an alien?

Stand back Jeff and look at what you have to do to try and prove Mormonism true. You have to completely avoid the facts and turn and instead try to discredit the deliverer. This is standard operating procedure for LDS. It is like you guys all take the same mind control cl*** in how to defend your beliefs. This fact alone should clue in any sane person that what you believe is a complete fabrication made up in the mind of a crafty person i.e. Joseph Smith the convict gl*** looker.

[nrajeff]

Stand back Jeff and look at what you have to do to try and prove Mormonism true. You have to completely avoid the facts and turn and instead try to discredit the deliverer.
---If The Great Deliverer's reasoning is flawed, shouldn't that be pointed out? Or are you a supporter of the theory that it's wrong to point out that the emperor isn't really wearing clothes?


This is standard operating procedure for LDS.
---You claim to have been LDS; was it SOP for YOU?


It is like you guys all take the same mind control cl***
---So you feel that YOU took such a cl***? What grade did you get?


in how to defend your beliefs.
---I don't recall having taken any formal cl*** in Exposing the Flawed, Fallacious Reasoning in Some People's Attacks. But it IS a fun pastime or hobby, and I think I'm getting pretty good at it!
:)


This fact alone should clue in any sane person that what you believe is a complete fabrication made up in the mind of a crafty person i.e. Joseph Smith the convict gl*** looker.
---So you're saying that if anyone dares to mention the fallacious reasoning upon which your accusations and attacks are based, it proves that person believes in "a complete fabrication made up in the mind of a crafty person i.e. Joseph Smith the convict gl*** looker" ???

Really? I think you are exhibiting more flawed reasoning. Would you like me to point out what's wrong with it?

[Billyray]

[COLOR="purple"]---So you're saying that if anyone dares to mention the fallacious reasoning upon which your accusations and attacks are based, it proves that person believes in "a complete fabrication made up in the mind of a crafty person i.e. Joseph Smith the convict gl*** looker" ???

My reasoning is with the facts, i.e. scripture. You take scripture and twist it and deny it. These facts can be pointed out to you but you have to make up some sort of excuse as to why they are not true. If these phony baloney excuses don't work for you--the next strategy is to try and discredit the deliverer. That is exactly what you have done. But the sad truth is that despite all of this, you will be the one who ends up holding the empty bag.

[Libby]

--OBEDIENCE is required for salvation, and so is FAITH. Your laughable excuse for reasoning should then lead you to believe that LDS are an OBEDIENCE-based religion. Or is it a FAITH-based religion, since it is undeniable (unless you are in total denial, which you may be) that LDS doctrine is that faith IS required for salvation. But wait: AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, it's ALSO LDS doctrine that Jesus and His ATONEMENT are required for us to be saved. So, again using your "logic," the LDS believe in JESUS-based salvation.

After all, according to YOUR OWN REASONING, if it's required for salvation, then salvation is BASED ON IT.

So congratulations: You just proved that LDS believe in Jesus-based and faith-based salvation!
Once again you have been beaten by your own poor reasoning skills.

The fact that you deny this does not change the fact that it is so.

Obedience is the result of salvation, Jeff. Not the cause. It's really that simple (and that is biblical).

[Libby]

Romans 3

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

*************************

It just does not get anymore clear than that. Justified by FAITH apart from observing (OBEYING) the law.

This is the Word of God. Read it and believe.

[nrajeff]

Obedience is the result of salvation, Jeff. Not the cause. It's really that simple (and that is biblical).

--It is ANTI-Biblical to subscribe to a belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do.

This is part of the insidiousness of Calvinism, and I am saddened to think that you have fallen for the following beliefs:

1. The false belief that God doesn't want to save all people because it's not the individual who decides to be saved--it's ALL GOD, so if some people aren't saved, it's because God didn't want them saved.
2. The false belief that God--not the individual whose salvation/ eternal destiny is on the line--is the one who chooses who will obey Him and who won't.
3. The false belief that therefore, God doesn't want all people to obey Him.

Jesus would be appalled that people claiming to be His disciples think He subscribed to such distorted ideas about His Father.

[Billyray]

Obedience is the result of salvation, Jeff. Not the cause. It's really that simple (and that is biblical).


-It is ANTI-Biblical to subscribe to a belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do.


Jeff, what you just did was typical of your apologetics. It is clearly a sleight of hand. Libby was saying works are not required for salvation but that they flow because of your salvation. Your statement "belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do" is completely false--a straw man argument and as noted earlier a sleight of hand on your part.

[nrajeff]

I stand behind my argument that she has fallen for the cart-before-horse heresy of Calvinism. I stand behind my claim that salvation is the result of OBEYING GOD'S WILL---not vice versa.

[Father_JD]

I stand behind my argument that she has fallen for the cart-before-horse heresy of Calvinism. I stand behind my claim that salvation is the result of OBEYING GOD'S WILL---not vice versa.

Believe this heresy as much as you like, jeff...but don't deny you've affirmed yet again:

Salvation comes through WORKS..,(with maybe a tad "faith" thrown in) :eek:

[Billyray]

I stand behind my argument that she has fallen for the cart-before-horse heresy of Calvinism. I stand behind my claim that salvation is the result of OBEYING GOD'S WILL---not vice versa.

But that is not what you said. Here is what you said

Your statement "belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do"

Who ever said what you claim in your statement?

[Father_JD]

---You won't even dignify it with "That is almost as cheap a shot as us accusing LDS of believing in WORKS-BASED salvation" ???


What?? You just affirmed that in another thread that "salvation is a result of obedience", jeff. How could this mean anything else other than "works" merit you salvation? I mean...c'mon, jeff. This is EXACTLY what you believe so how is that a "cheap shot"? Now on the other hand, I have patiently explained to you dozens of times the BIBLICAL "plan of salvation".


Yes, now perhaps the lightbulb has come on above you, and you have realized that what is good for you geese is pretty good when us ganders use it back at you.

All I know is you're still a master of equivocation, jeff...:(

[nrajeff]

But that is not what you said. Here is what you said

Your statement "belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do"

Who ever said what you claim in your statement?

---It's Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion. I outlined the syllogism already. Read it. If Libby does not subscribe to Belief One and Belief Two, she is quite free to say so. Why don't you stop intefering long enough to give her a chance?

[Billyray]

-It's Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion.

So nobody made that claim--you just made it up and attributed it to the Christians on this board.

[Billyray]

Jeff, tomorrow is Sunday. Why don't you ditch the false LDS church and try a real one. Just do it.

[Libby]

--It is ANTI-Biblical to subscribe to a belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do.

This is part of the insidiousness of Calvinism, and I am saddened to think that you have fallen for the following beliefs:

1. The false belief that God doesn't want to save all people because it's not the individual who decides to be saved--it's ALL GOD, so if some people aren't saved, it's because God didn't want them saved.
2. The false belief that God--not the individual whose salvation/ eternal destiny is on the line--is the one who chooses who will obey Him and who won't.
3. The false belief that therefore, God doesn't want all people to obey Him.

Jesus would be appalled that people claiming to be His disciples think He subscribed to such distorted ideas about His Father.

Can we please just deal with the scriptures, Jeff, and stop detering-deflecting to your idea of Calvinism?

What do those scriptures say? Please interpret. (Not that interpretation is really even necessary, but what do YOU think they are saying?).. Seems to me they are saying exactly the opposite of what you have been claiming here, about obedience.

[nrajeff]

So nobody made that claim--you just made it up and attributed it to the Christians on this board.

---Just the ones who subscribe to Calvinism. I didn't attribute it to the LDS Christians on this board, nor did I attribute it to the Arminian Christians on this board. Stop committing the overgeneralization fallacy. You already have enough other fallacies on your record.

[Billyray]

---Just the ones who subscribe to Calvinism.

What Calvinist on this board believes ""belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do" ?

[nrajeff]

What Calvinist on this board believes ""belief system where obedience to God's will is NOT one of the things that God wants all people to do" ?

---You can take the test if you want to. Just state whether you subscribe to the two false beliefs I listed. If you don't subscribe to them, then you don't have to worry.

[Billyray]

1. The false belief that God doesn't want to save all people because it's not the individual who decides to be saved--it's ALL GOD, so if some people aren't saved, it's because God didn't want them saved.
2. The false belief that God--not the individual whose salvation/ eternal destiny is on the line--is the one who chooses who will obey Him and who won't.
3. The false belief that therefore, God doesn't want all people to obey Him.


All loaded questions Jeff--

1. People are free to choose to follow God or to reject God. Looking at you--you have rejected the true and living God to follow a false god, a false Jesus, and a false gospel. Nobody is forcing you against your will. You could leave your false religion today--but in reality you choose not to. Now the reason that you freely choose to follow a false god is because you have not been born again, but that does not mean that you did not choose of your own free will to reject God.

2. God clearly elects some people and does not elect others. This is a Biblical principle so your premise again is false. God does want everybody to follow him and obey the commandments but those who are not born again choose of their own free will to disobey God.

[Russianwolfe]

Billy,

You believe in the scriptures but you seem to have forgotten what Christ has said about salvation and works. I am here to remind you:


Matthew 7:21-23
21 ¶ 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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Do you think that Christ believed in a faith based salvation (saith unto me, Lord, Lord) or a works based salvation (but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven]. But works alone were not enough just a faith alone is not enought. Even those with the proper works, Christ would say he never new.

Do you believe the words of Christ or your understanding of the words of Paul. You make the call.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Do you think that Christ believed in a faith based salvation

Yes



or a works based salvation

No



Do you believe the words of Christ or your understanding of the words of Paul. You make the call.

You are incorrectly ***uming that Paul and Christ differed in beliefs on salvation. If you believe that the Bible is inspired, then you can't possibly believe that God would give conflicting directives.

[Russianwolfe]

Yes


No


You are incorrectly ***uming that Paul and Christ differed in beliefs on salvation. If you believe that the Bible is inspired, then you can't possibly believe that God would give conflicting directives.

And yet you have no comment or reference at all to the scripture I gave you that supported my point. Funny, it seems when confronted by the scriptures, you run and hide behind ***ertions that have no basis in scripture.

Billy, don't you believe in the scriptures?

Marivn

[Billyray]

And yet you have no comment or reference at all to the scripture I gave you that supported my point. Funny, it seems when confronted by the scriptures, you run and hide behind ***ertions that have no basis in scripture.

Billy, don't you believe in the scriptures?

Marivn

Marvin did you miss some of my posts?

I think you are speaking about this verse in Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

This person NEVER knew the true and living Christ. Those who follow the wrong Christ NEVER truly knew him. And what is the will of the Father?

John 6
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.


What are the works of God?

John 6
28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin did you miss some of my posts?

Did you miss my point and the point of Christ's statement? Christ very clearly said that faith (Lord, Lord) was not enough and only those obeyed the Father would be saved.

You used the scripture to make a completely different point. And missed half of Christ's message. What Christ was saying was that it was not enough to have faith and works alone were not enought. If we listen to James the Apostle (not Banta), it requires faith and works to be saved. Or else Christ was wrong. You tell me which is correct.

Marvin

[Libby]

Marvin, as has already been said hundreds of times on this board, works and obedience are the FRUIT of salvation, NOT the cause. Your proof text does not say that works will bring you salvation. Only that a saving faith will produce good works and obedience.

I'll post Romans 3 again and maybe you will read it. I don't think Jeff did.

Romans 3

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

*************************

It just does not get anymore clear than that. Justified by FAITH apart from observing (OBEYING) the law.

[Libby]

More scripture:

Romans 5:1

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

Romans 4:5

5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Romans 11:6

6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Galatians 2:16

16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be

Galatians 2:21

21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

[Libby]

The Bible is very clear on this point of salvation by grace through faith. It is a theme that is repeated over and over.

[Billyray]

Did you miss my point and the point of Christ's statement? Christ very clearly said that faith (Lord, Lord) was not enough and only those obeyed the Father would be saved.
Marvin

It doesn't say that faith was not enough for salvation. That was YOUR revision.

[James Banta]

I don't think it is "clearly laid out" that Jesus CREATED Satan.

So does that mean if someone believed the Father created Satan, yest believed all the other things about Jesus as found in scripture, that God would send him to everlasting Hell and torment?

Seems kind of harsh, donchathink?

I agree Jesus (God) didn't create Satan.. He did however create a beautiful angel name Lucifer.. Jesus (God) created this being with a free will and allowed him to make a decision between goodness and error.. What does the Bible say he chose.

Isaiah 14:12-14
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
This would tell us that Lucifer change himself in to being Satan. He was created pure and sinless and existed in the presence of God until sin was found in him. IHS jim

[Russianwolfe]

The Bible is very clear on this point of salvation by grace through faith. It is a theme that is repeated over and over.

I challenge you to read first the Gospels and find out what it was that Christ preached. This then is the foundation upon which Paul built, whether the Gospels were written at the time or not. Now with that as a sure foundation, reconcile what Christ taught with what Paul teaches. Remember, they both taught the truth, so you cannot elevate one over the other they must be reconciled and not compromised.

I read the Gospels and Christ teaches a Gospel of action not of idle belief. In the verses that I quote, Christ very pointedly says:


21 ¶ 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.

Christ is addressing very clearly and directly those who claim faith as their salvation when he talks of those who say 'Lord, Lord'. But Christ points out that that is not enough, obedience is required or else faith is nothing at all. And these people even claim to have faith to perform miracles:


22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And they did it all in the name of the one who they claim to have faith in. But Christ denies them



23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Because, while they had faith to perform miracles, they did not obey the Father. Obedience was not part of their faith.

So it is clear to me that the works do not only follow salvation if others can imitate them like they did in the scripture I quoted.

In other places, Christ refers to the two groups and offers one salvation because they helped their fellow men and denies salvation to others because they did not. The first group wondered when they helped Christ or visited Christ and were told that when they had done it to the least of Christ's brethern, they were doing it to Him, which is echoed in the Book of Mormon as 'When you are in the service of your fellow men, you are only in the service of your God.'

I know that faith without works never saved anyone and will not. So if faith without works cannot save you, of what good is teacher who tells that salvation is by faith alone, when the scriptures clearly teach otherwise.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

It doesn't say that faith was not enough for salvation. That was YOUR revision.

That is what the scripture says. You might deny it but that is how I read it. Your saying 'Nuh-huh' doesn't make for a good re****al.

Marvin

[Billyray]

That is what the scripture says. You might deny it but that is how I read it. Your saying 'Nuh-huh' doesn't make for a good re****al.

Marvin

Matthew 7:21-23
21 ¶ 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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Show me the word faith.

Marvin, I think a key part of this p***age is in the last line where Jesus says "I never knew you". Clearly there are people who say they follow Jesus, or in the case of LDS they follow the wrong Jesus, and they may think that they are but they clearly do not have a relationship at all and NEVER had a relationship with the true Jesus of the Bible, that is why Jesus can say I NEVER KNEW YOU. Notice he does not say I knew you but you did not pull your own weight, he says I NEVER KNEW YOU.

[Billyray]

I think you are speaking about this verse in Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

And what is the will of the Father?

John 6
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

First off Marvin you did not address John 6

What is the will of the Father according to the p***age in John 6?

[Billyray]

You incorrectly ***ume that Jesus and Paul are in conflict. But lets see what Jesus has to say about faith and salvation.

NIV
John 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 18:42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."

[James Banta]

The ordinance of baptism is part of the doctrine that Paul himself preached. [Hebrews 6:2] Paul was immersed in order to have his sins “washed away” [Acts 22:16] and taught that in order to have "redemption through his blood,the forgiveness of sins,in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding" we are to be baptized "into Christ”. [Ephesians 1:3;Romans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:27] Jesus spoke of being "born of water" and Paul clarifies exactly which birth is being referred to here by saying this is "the water of rebirth" [John 3:3-5,NRSV;***us 3:5,NRSV]

You really believe now that that baptism of John is the same baptism that Paul was teaching in Acts 22:16? Paul had commanded men that knew only the Baptism of John to be rebaptized in Acts 19:1-6.. so John's baptism is NOT acceptable to the Church!!! What dose the p***age in acts 22 mean.. Lets look..

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Let put is in monder language.. Why do you put of obedience to Jesus? get up be baptized and call on His Name so that He can cleanse you of your sin.. Unless you ask Him to become His child you will not be forgiven:

John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Roman 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

These p***ages teach that you are totaly out of agreement with God in His word.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

What?? You just affirmed that in another thread that "salvation is a result of obedience", jeff.

---Yeah, I affirmed it 'cause it's something found in the Bible.


How could this mean anything else other than "works" merit you salvation?
---Gee...maybe because "works" and "OBEDIENCE" aren't synonymous, perhaps?

It's really quite funny to watch: I say something Biblical, such as that salvation results from obeying God's will. Then you and your protege, Billyray, accuse something Biblical of being unBiblical. And the way you do that is: You put words in the Bible's mouth that it never said: "WORKS-based salvation! WORKS-based salvation!" like a trained parrot. But since you don't want to be seen attacking what the BIBLE says, you try to claim that it's ME who said it, when, if you will actually stop the ridiculing and CHECK, I never said. What I said was what the Bible actually says. So that's a fairly clever straw man variation, but it's still transparent to people who watch carefully. OK, about 24 hours since the last time one of you told one us what we believe.....


I mean...c'mon, jeff. This is EXACTLY what you believe
---Right on schedule.


so how is that a "cheap shot"?
---What a pity, all that schooling and you still don't see that accusing someone who supports obedience to God and the Sermon on the Mount of supporting the WORKS OF THE LAW is a patent fallacy.

[nrajeff]

Questions for Jim: The verse you quoted:

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Is that verse saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation, since you don't get salvation if your sins haven't been washed away?

Or is the verse saying that baptistm is a requirement for becoming a Christian?

Or is it saying BOTH, since the requirements for becoming a Christian are ALSO the requirements for salvation?


And, final question: What kind of baptism is being to referred to in this verse?
Water baptism? Or a non-water "baptism into Jesus" ?

[Russianwolfe]

Great, are we having red herring for dinner? You seem to be serving it up quite heartily.

From what I read in the p***age cite, the Lord was referring to those who held the belief that all they had to say was Lord, Lord and they would be save. Christ, who was never one to mince words, clearly and directly refutes this idea by declaring quite clearly ' but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven'. Now, no matter what you might believe about faith, you cannot deny that Christ states very clearly here that obedience is a requirement to 'enter into the kingdom of heaven.' So again I have to ask, will you agree with Christ or on your understanding of what Paul is suppose to teach? You decide.

Marvin


Matthew 7:21-23
21 ¶ 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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Show me the word faith.

Marvin, I think a key part of this p***age is in the last line where Jesus says "I never knew you". Clearly there are people who say they follow Jesus, or in the case of LDS they follow the wrong Jesus, and they may think that they are but they clearly do not have a relationship at all and NEVER had a relationship with the true Jesus of the Bible, that is why Jesus can say I NEVER KNEW YOU. Notice he does not say I knew you but you did not pull your own weight, he says I NEVER KNEW YOU.

[Billyray]

From what I read in the p***age cite, the Lord was referring to those who held the belief that all they had to say was Lord, Lord and they would be save. Christ, who was never one to mince words, clearly and directly refutes this idea by declaring quite clearly ' but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven'. Now, no matter what you might believe about faith, you cannot deny that Christ states very clearly here that obedience is a requirement to 'enter into the kingdom of heaven.' So again I have to ask, will you agree with Christ or on your understanding of what Paul is suppose to teach? You decide.

Marvin
What is the will of his Father in John 6?

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."


Marvin says,
you cannot deny that Christ states very clearly here that obedience is a requirement to 'enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Bible says,
21 ¶ 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.

[Billyray]

So again I have to ask, will you agree with Christ or on your understanding of what Paul is suppose to teach? You decide.

Paul and Christ cannot teach conflicting theology if you accept the fact that the Bible is inspired scripture. One can't say you are saved by faith + Works whereas the others says you are saved by faith NOT your works. I have already given you multiple scriptures from Jesus that state clearly that your salvation is based on your faith.


You incorrectly ***ume that Jesus and Paul are in conflict. But lets see what Jesus has to say about faith and salvation.

NIV
John 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

[Russianwolfe]

Paul and Christ cannot teach conflicting theology if you accept the fact that the Bible is inspired scripture. One can't say you are saved by faith + Works whereas the others says you are saved by faith NOT your works. I have already given you multiple scriptures from Jesus that state clearly that your salvation is based on your faith.

Please note that I did not attempt to even suggest that they were contradictory. I clearly stated that it is either what Christ said or what you think Paul said.

You might have given me one or two scriptures but all you have done is show that you are using statements by Christ to contradict Christ. You have yet to show how your understanding of them is correct. It is obviously not correct because you keep trying to use these scriptures to contradict my scriptures without any attempt to show how they can be reconciled. All you do is ask your pointless questions without providing any sort of answer.

So again I ask, do you believe what Christ said or what you think you understand Paul to have said? You decide.

Marvin

[Billyray]

So again I ask, do you believe what Christ said or what you think you understand Paul to have said? You decide.

Marvin

I believed that we are saved by faith and not by works, and this concept is clearly taught by both Christ and Paul.

"23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

I believe that there are many who say that they follow Christ like the LDS, but in the end Christ will say to them "I never knew you"

[Russianwolfe]

I believed that we are saved by faith and not by works, and this concept is clearly taught by both Christ and Paul.

"23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

I believe that there are many who say that they follow Christ like the LDS, but in the end Christ will say to them "I never knew you"

So, from what you have said, you deny the words of Christ. Is that your final decision?

Marvin

[Billyray]

So, from what you have said, you deny the words of Christ. Is that your final decision?

Marvin
I believed that we are saved by faith and not by works, and this concept is clearly taught by both Christ and Paul.

I affirm that we are to "doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

[Billyray]

Matthew 7
A Tree and Its Fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Marvin, look at the whole p***age in context. First it speaks of false prophets, then it moves on to other false believers who claim to know Jesus and claim to do things in his name but these folks clearly are NOT known by Jesus because they are not his true disciples. This in my opinion nails Mormonism to a tee. First it is speaking about Joseph Smith, next it is speaking about the other leaders and teachers within the false organization. These run of the mill members claim miraculous healing in the name of Jesus via their phony priesthood authority. But in the end Jesus will simply say get away from me because I never knew you.

[Russianwolfe]

And don't forget Billy, if there are false prophets, there must also be true prophets. Otherwise all that is needed is to say beware of prophets. You seem to know a lot about false prophets, but if you don't know about true prophets, then what can you know of the True Christ? Since you can only give me half of the message of the Gospel, then I must ***ume that you don't know the other half. I already have the whole message of the Gospel because I can see the false prophets and I know where to look for the true prophets. And all of this is affirmed to me by a witness of the Holy Spirit.

Marvin


Matthew 7
A Tree and Its Fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Marvin, look at the whole p***age in context. First it speaks of false prophets, then it moves on to other false believers who claim to know Jesus and claim to do things in his name but these folks clearly are NOT known by Jesus because they are not his true disciples. This in my opinion nails Mormonism to a tee. First it is speaking about Joseph Smith, next it is speaking about the other leaders and teachers within the false organization. These run of the mill members claim miraculous healing in the name of Jesus via their phony priesthood authority. But in the end Jesus will simply say get away from me because I never knew you.

[Billyray]

And don't forget Billy, if there are false prophets, there must also be true prophets.

Marvin

BTW there are true prophets, read the OT. But forward speaking that is an ***umption on your part Marvin.

[Russianwolfe]

BTW there are true prophets, read the OT. But forward speaking that is an ***umption on your part Marvin.

So then, again, you are comprimising the the words of Christ!!! I wonder about your belief in the scriptures, Billy. It is looking more and more like you only believe your interpretation of the scritpures and not what they actually say.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

BTW there are true prophets, read the OT. But forward speaking that is an ***umption on your part Marvin.

But Christ was not talking about false prophets of the past, Billy, he was talking about false prophets of the future. Your statement here does nothing to contradict my statement.

Marvin

[Billyray]

So then, again, you are comprimising the the words of Christ!!! I wonder about your belief in the scriptures, Billy.
Marvin
Marvin, just because you can't address my response you are left to repeat yourself over and over again. Your repeating yourself over and over again does not make it so. Marvin, you can't ignore all of the rest of the Bible to try and prove your point. In order for your proof text to work (which it clearly does not IMO) would mean that you would have to throw out all of the verses that I posted from Jesus and all of the verses that Paul wrote about salvation by faith.

Marvin please tell us what the following verse means. Do you believe Jesus in the following verse?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[Russianwolfe]

Considering that you have not even once addressed in any way the text that I used as my base, only shows that you have no argument to contradict mine. Just because you can cite scriptures that seem to contradict does nothing to show that my argument has no merit. You have yet to address my point or to explain how my point is wrong by showing that your argument is correct. Showing scriptures that seem to contradict what I have cited, is not answering my point. And not providing a counter argument shows that you don't have a valid logical argument and does not show that my argument is wrong.

All of the scriptures that you have cited refer to a time before my scripture. Christ is not addressing those who are about to believe in the Gospel. Christ is addressing those who are already faithful believers and think that they have a right to enter the kingdom. But Christ first reminds them that obedience as well as faith are required even if they have perform miracles in the name of Christ.

Your scriptures address those who are about the become believers. What I have cited is somewhere in the future of your scriptures. Yes, first is belief and then from that will evolve faith and following faith will be works if the believer keeps the commandments. Of course my scripture points out that obedience is not enough and agrees with James that faith without works is dead. But all of that is after the believer has started his journey by believing and following Christ. The scriptures you cited do not address in any way the same subject as mine and thus have no merit in this discussion.

Marvin


Marvin, just because you can't address my response you are left to repeat yourself over and over again. Your repeating yourself over and over again does not make it so. Marvin, you can't ignore all of the rest of the Bible to try and prove your point. In order for your proof text to work (which it clearly does not IMO) would mean that you would have to throw out all of the verses that I posted from Jesus and all of the verses that Paul wrote about salvation by faith.

Marvin please tell us what the following verse means. Do you believe Jesus in the following verse?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

[Billyray]

Considering that you have not even once addressed in any way the text that I used as my based, only shows that you have no argument to contradict mine. Just because you can cite scriptures that seem to contradict does nothing to show that my argument has no merit. You have yet to address my point or to explain how my point is wrong. Showing scriptures that seem to contradict what I have cited, is not answering my point.
Marvin
Marvin, I have repeatedly responded to your specific verses on multiple posts. The section of scripture speaks of false prophets and it speaks of those who never knew the real Christ--either they were following a false Christ or they were simply giving lip service such as the Benny Hinn's of the world. The section of scripture says "but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." You have ***umed that this means works but I have provided you with the verse in John 6 which says "4For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Why do you believe that the will of the Father is works rather than coming to the Son as it states in John 6? Plus your ***umption contradicts multiple other verses that clearly state the we are saved by faith and not by works.


Now back to the question that I had for you.

Marvin please tell us what the following verses means. Do you believe Jesus and Paul in the following verses?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[Libby]

I challenge you to read first the Gospels and find out what it was that Christ preached. This then is the foundation upon which Paul built, whether the Gospels were written at the time or not. Now with that as a sure foundation, reconcile what Christ taught with what Paul teaches. Remember, they both taught the truth, so you cannot elevate one over the other they must be reconciled and not compromised.

I read the Gospels and Christ teaches a Gospel of action not of idle belief. In the verses that I quote, Christ very pointedly says:



Christ is addressing very clearly and directly those who claim faith as their salvation when he talks of those who say 'Lord, Lord'. But Christ points out that that is not enough, obedience is required or else faith is nothing at all. And these people even claim to have faith to perform miracles:



And they did it all in the name of the one who they claim to have faith in. But Christ denies them



Because, while they had faith to perform miracles, they did not obey the Father. Obedience was not part of their faith.

So it is clear to me that the works do not only follow salvation if others can imitate them like they did in the scripture I quoted.

In other places, Christ refers to the two groups and offers one salvation because they helped their fellow men and denies salvation to others because they did not. The first group wondered when they helped Christ or visited Christ and were told that when they had done it to the least of Christ's brethern, they were doing it to Him, which is echoed in the Book of Mormon as 'When you are in the service of your fellow men, you are only in the service of your God.'

I know that faith without works never saved anyone and will not. So if faith without works cannot save you, of what good is teacher who tells that salvation is by faith alone, when the scriptures clearly teach otherwise.

Marvin

Faith alone saved the thief on the cross.

Real faith...saving faith..is all that's necessary. All of the verses I've quoted (and many, many more) say exactly that. You can't just throw those out, Marvin, and pretend they don't exist. No one is saying works are not necessary (or that works will not follow a saving faith). They will, most definitely, if time permits. But, it is not the works that have the power to save. Works are the fruit of salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice, has the power to save.

[Libby]

You incorrectly ***ume that Jesus and Paul are in conflict. But lets see what Jesus has to say about faith and salvation.

NIV
John 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 18:42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."

Good verses, Billy....and all from the Gospels. :)

[Billyray]

Good verses, Billy....and all from the Gospels. :)

They are good verses and they are all from Christ. I saw them on a post a short while back from from the other unnamed board. I can't recall the poster or I would of given him or her credit.

[nrajeff]

You are half right, Libs. If a person wants to--but is UNABLE to--help his fellowman, then God isn't going to be like a Pharisee or Calvinist and say "Too bad, you must go to hell even if it's not your fault."

The "thief" while on the cross, about to die, was obviously unable to do much in the way of good deeds for his fellowmen.

The good news from the LDS is that God is fair, and WILL NOT punish people for things they failed to do that were beyond their control. Such as not accepting Jesus due to their living in a time and place where no one had heard of Jesus. And God won't be holding anyone but Adam accountable for Adam's transgression.

So your point actually is a reason to abandon Calvinism and the Athanasian Creed, and come back to LDS, since LDS theology portrays God as a much more fair and understanding being than the compe***ion does.

[James Banta]

Questions for Jim: The verse you quoted:

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Is that verse saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation, since you don't get salvation if your sins haven't been washed away?

Or is the verse saying that baptistm is a requirement for becoming a Christian?

Or is it saying BOTH, since the requirements for becoming a Christian are ALSO the requirements for salvation?


And, final question: What kind of baptism is being to referred to in this verse?
Water baptism? Or a non-water "baptism into Jesus" ?

The verse says our sins our washed away as we call on the name of the Lord.. You won't allow God to apply the Blood of Jesus to those He wills.. Or are you denying that it is the blood that cleanse us of sin? If we could gain a cleansing of sin by mere water baptism why did Jesus have to die? So why would prayer be brought up in the p***age at all it is was baptism that cleanses of sin? Try reading now with these new eyes..

I don't see any reason in the text to say this isn't physical baptism.. I still don't see any reason for Jesus to have to suffer at all if a person can be cleansed of sin by water baptism.. And that would also make God a liar when He told us that without shedding of Blood there in no remission.. So what is the blood for anyway? It seems very unimportant in mormonism.. What was it for anyway? IHS jim

[nrajeff]

The verse says our sins our washed away as we call on the name of the Lord..

---I thought it said "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

I saw TWO things in there--not just calling on Jesus' name.

How many did you count?


You won't allow God to apply the Blood of Jesus to those He wills..
---YOU won't allow Jesus to use baptism as part of the process by which sins are remitted.


Or are you denying that it is the blood that cleanse us of sin? If we could gain a cleansing of sin by mere water baptism why did Jesus have to die? So why would prayer be brought up in the p***age at all it is was baptism that cleanses of sin?
---I guess you missed the lessons on baptism where they teach that if it weren't for Jesus' atonement, all the baptizing in the world would not remit even one sin.


Try reading now with these new eyes..
---How about YOU try reading it now, with the new understanding I just taught you.


I don't see any reason in the text to say this isn't physical baptism..
---Thanks. I agree.


I still don't see any reason for Jesus to have to suffer at all if a person can be cleansed of sin by water baptism..
----It is THANKS to Jesus' atonement that baptism can be an efficacious ordinance. Same as with the Eucharist's potential to help sanctify a person.

[Libby]

You are half right, Libs. If a person wants to--but is UNABLE to--help his fellowman, then God isn't going to be like a Pharisee or Calvinist and say "Too bad, you must go to hell even if it's not your fault."

The "thief" while on the cross, about to die, was obviously unable to do much in the way of good deeds for his fellowmen.

The good news from the LDS is that God is fair, and WILL NOT punish people for things they failed to do that were beyond their control. Such as not accepting Jesus due to their living in a time and place where no one had heard of Jesus. And God won't be holding anyone but Adam accountable for Adam's transgression.

So your point actually is a reason to abandon Calvinism and the Athanasian Creed, and come back to LDS, since LDS theology portrays God as a much more fair and understanding being than the compe***ion does.

You seem to have this terrible need to make God in the image of what you consider to be "fair". It really gets in the way of your "seeing" God's truth, IMHO. God is completely and perfectly just in all of His ways, whether we see it or understand it or not. That's who He is...one of His main attributes (justice), which is how we ended up in so much trouble, to begin with.

[Mark Beesley]

Faith alone saved the thief on the cross.

Real faith...saving faith..is all that's necessary.
That is not what Jesus taught. He taught that whosover believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16) You believe that, do you not?

[Billyray]

That is not what Jesus taught. He taught that whosover believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16) You believe that, do you not?

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not (and is OR is not baptized) shall be ****ed.

This is comparing "belief" on the one hand verses "belief not" on the other. Plus what do you do with all of the other p***ages that do not mention baptism. If baptism is required then the following are not true as written.



You incorrectly ***ume that Jesus and Paul are in conflict. But lets see what Jesus has to say about faith and salvation.

NIV
John 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 18:42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."

[Libby]

That is not what Jesus taught. He taught that whosover believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. (Mark 16:16) You believe that, do you not?

I know that people must believe, yes. Baptism is a matter of obedience, IMO, but not a matter of salvation. It is not necessary for salvation.

Billy already addressed this very well.

[Mark Beesley]

There is no question that the Savior said, as recorded in Mark, that those who believe AND are baptized will be saved. There are undoubtedly numerous p***ages in the scriptures where the Lord provides discrete elements necessary for salvation. As our Evangelical friends are constantly reminding us, we must read the scriptures as a whole in order to get the whole picture. The whole picture is that there are a lot of things that we have to do for salvation. We must do the will of the Father. We must have faith in Christ. We must keep the commandments. We must forgive one another. We must be peacemakers. We must be meek. And the list goes on.

We cannot in good conscience simply count up the number of times that Christ articulated one of the requirements for salvation, and conclude that it is the only thing required. Indeed, as I will show below, there is a very good reason why a single element, faith in Christ, is emphasized above other requirements. But in the meantime, remember that John himself said,

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

John 21:25
In other words, it is foolhardy to think that each of the writers of the Gospel, in reciting the words of the Savior, would try to make a comprehensive list of the requirements for salvation every time they mention one of the requirements.

The requirement of baptism is not simply a matter of obedience. No where does the Holy Bible diminish the importance of baptism from a requirement for salvation to merely an optional expression of obedience. Although, even if one wants to try and make the argument that "aptism is a matter of obedience," do they seriously want to argue that one can be saved without being obedient? What did Christ say?

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.

Matthew 7:21
According to the Savior of the World, salvation comes only to those who are obedient. That places baptism squarely in the the column of requirements for salvation; to argue otherwise is to make Christ out to be a liar.

Christ Himself set the example, showing with undeniable force the necessity of baptism, when He, the Savior of the World, humbled Himself and submitted to baptism at the hand of John the Baptist:

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, [B]Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3
Christ did not do this to establish a broad gate wherein one may enter for salvation. He did it to show how narrow the way is by doing it Himself. HE SHOWED US THE WAY!

We are indebted to Nephi for expounding on why Christ submitted to baptism.

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

2 Nephi 31
Obedience is an inescapable theme in every single volume of scripture, beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden and ending with the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The disobedient can not be saved.

Christ's final charge to the Apostles, as he ascended into heaven was,

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Matthew 28
For Christ, the most important things He wanted His Apostles to do in His absence was to teach obedience and to baptize. Why would anyone want to take away from the Word of God by saying that baptism is not required for salvation? Such a creed is rightly called an abomination and corruption by our Savior.

After the ascension, as the Apostles went about preaching Christ, baptism was taught as a necessary companion to faith.

37 Now when they heard this, they were *****ed in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2

Peter did not say, Just have faith. He didn't say, Ya gotta believe. NO! He said, Repent and be baptized. How difficult is that to understand?

Now, I should say a word about the emphasis that John seems to place on Christ's words to the effect that those who believe will be saved. John was very pointed about what he thought about people who claimed they had faith but were not obedient:

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 2
For John, it was simple. If you have faith, you will be obedient. You will be baptized. It was unnecessary for John, in reciting the words of Christ, to go beyond declaring the necessity of faith because true faith would lead to obedience to the other commandments, like baptism. For John, baptism was not optional. It was a self-evident requirement for salvation because it would naturally follow true faith.

One of the plain and precious things that I have no doubt the Savior taught in Galilee, but which has been lost in the Holy Bible, has been restored in the Book of Mormon. One of the very first thing the Savior taught the Nephites and Lamanites who were gathered at Zarahemla when He visited them was the necessity of baptism.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be ****ed.

3 Nephi 11
The Book of Mormon contains the words of Christ. It testifies of Him, and is a testimony of the great love the Father has for His children, in that He preserved to come forth in the last days to stand as a witness for truth and to persuade men to come unto Christ and baptized. By the same token it will stand as a witness against the ungodly and those who despise His power to their everlasting shame.

[nrajeff]

You seem to have this terrible need to make God in the image of what you consider to be "fair".
----YOU seem to have this terrible need to make your new-found Calvinistic belief that God is UNfair, into a GOOD thing. It's like Bizzarro World, where if God randomly hands out eternity in heaven to a FEW, and hands out eternity in hell to MANY--and does so in a manner that is totally arbitrary and capricious, with no discernable morality involved--it is the "REAL" concept of fairness. It's the rest of the world that has the wrong definition of fairness, and the RE-definition of "fair" invented by this little group of extremist Evangelicals, is REALLY the correct one. Isn't that kind of thinking a symptom of cult mentality? (Our redefinition is the correct one, and the rest of the world is wrong and are against us becausae they aren't among the Chosen Ones who were chosen to understand) Your pals usually use terms that refer to drinking Kool-Aid and expecting a ride to heaven on a comet when THEY are attacking the kind of mentality that you are exhibiting right now.


It really gets in the way of your "seeing" God's truth, IMHO.
---See above, under "cult mentality." My using the widely-accepted dictionary definition of "fair" gets in the way of seeing the correctness of your re-definition of it? okay.....


God is completely and perfectly just in all of His ways, whether we see it or understand it or not. That's who He is...one of His main attributes (justice), which is how we ended up in so much trouble, to begin with.
---You don't seem to comprehend the implications of the standard Calvinist mantra you are repeating--it doesn't even make sense, but first consider this:

If God is your idea of total, uncompromising, rock-hard justice, then that makes Him a being with ZERO % comp***ion, mercy, and empathy. Are you sure that's the kind of God who deserves to be worshiped? So a 5-year-old kid takes a penny from the "take one, leave one" dish in the checkout aisle, so your God sends her to an eternity in hell because He's all about justice. Not too impressive. Another example of the insidiousness with which Calvinistic soteriology has painted God to be a punitive tyrant.

Okay, now let's talk about how the mantra you have learned makes no sense:

The god of Calvinism sends that ONE penny-taking kid to hell, but he doesn't send ALL of them to hell--he picks and chooses among the 5-year-old penny-takers, and he decides to send a FEW of them to heaven. "Oh, that proves that He IS worthy of our worship, because He COULD have sent them ALL to hell but He DIDN'T!" And you say that the god of Calvinism is 100% JUST, right? WHERE is the justice in only sending SOME of those kids to hell? That's not justice. Just ask the kids who are in hell, who are trying to figure out what made the other penny-taking kids less deserving of hell than themselves. "Oh, those kids didn't deserve hell any less--Calvinistic God just decided, in his "sovereignty," to save THEM but not YOU."

And the kids in hell are wondering "How does that make any sense to then claim that He is JUST?"

And you reply "Well, you should just be grateful that He didn't send ALL the penny-taking kids to hell !! "

And the kids in hell are thinking "Yeah, right, we are SOOOO grateful."


The god of Calvinism is NOT just because he doesn't honor one of the hallmarks of the word justice: Punishing ALL people who are in similar circumstances SIMILARLY.

[Billyray]

. There are undoubtedly numerous p***ages in the scriptures where the Lord provides discrete elements necessary for salvation. As our Evangelical friends are constantly reminding us, we must read the scriptures as a whole in order to get the whole picture. The whole picture is that there are a lot of things that we have to do for salvation.
You are correct and here is the requirement for salvation.


NIV
John 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Luke 7:50 Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Luke 18:42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight; your faith has healed you."
Either these verses are true as they stand or they are false as they stand. These are statements from Jesus. If baptism is required for salvation--and Jesus would clearly know--then these statement by Jesus are false. Mark nobody is arguing that we should keep the commandments, because we should but these are not requirements FOR salvation.

[James Banta]

[nrajeff;60519]---I thought it said "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

I saw TWO things in there--not just calling on Jesus' name.

How many did you count?

---YOU won't allow Jesus to use baptism as part of the process by which sins are remitted.



Yes I count two way that could be seen a way to wash your sins away.. One is by water in baptism and one is having God do it because we call on His name.. Which makes more sense? If we can become clean before him in the waters of baptism than Christ is dead in vain. BUT if this is a task that only He can do wouldn't he use the blood of the sacrifice of His Lamb? That is the message that comes through is the whole Bible. GOD spilled blood in the garden to make cloths for Adam that covered his sin. The Patriarchs offered blood sacrifice in their worship. Aaron offered blood as a sacrifice for sin on the alter of the Tabernacle. Jesus offered the true sacrifice. The blood He shed on the cross cleanses from all sin.. Water just is not the agent needed to cover sin, it must be blood.. That is why baptism, though a beautiful way to identify with Jesus in His death and resurrection, is NOT the means where by sin can be forgiven.. So the only reasonable interpretation of the verse is God washes away our sin because we call on Him for the blood of Jesus to make us clean..


---I guess you missed the lessons on baptism where they teach that if it weren't for Jesus' atonement, all the baptizing in the world would not remit even one sin.

I guess I missed the one that holds Baptism as more than a symbol of the cleansing that God gives us though the blood of Jesus.. If a man never undergoes physical baptism but believers in God trusting Him to keep all His promises and other around him see the change in him and the newness of life, the new man he has become, is he not the same new creature in Jesus with or without the symbol of baptism? YES, he is because whether or not he was baptized by men, he was baptized by the Holy Spirit..


---How about YOU try reading it now, with the new understanding I just taught you.

I always could see your meaning in the verse.. I tell you that it is mistaken. It must be that we are cleased by God and not water. The sacricice of jeus is too important too dear to make it replaceable by mere water. You can symbolize a connection with the death and resurection of Jesus in baptism but it will NEVER cleanses a person one even the smallest most insignificant of sins.. No can you see that "Calling on the name of the Lord" is the way real way that cleansing comes or are you going to insist that he sacrifice of Jesus wasn't really important and that water in the real agent to cleanses a person of sin? Last time I looked the Blood of Jesus is NOT in the font it's only water..


----It is THANKS to Jesus' atonement that baptism can be an efficacious ordinance. Same as with the Eucharist's potential to help sanctify a person.


And it is again just a symbol to help us remember the sacrifice of our Lord. We don't do it for any other reason.. You have to know what He said. "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME".. He never told us to do that to be sanctified.. Again we can ONLY become holy though Jesus. A symbol we use to remember Him won't do it.. You have turned to idols of water, and bread to replace the True and living God. That is an element of the other gospel Paul warned the Church to avoid.. It's time to put those idols away and turn to the real object of the Christian faith.. JESUS and only JESUS.. Then when your mind is filled with Him then you can understand the element of memorial and again use baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are meant by God to be used.. IHS jim

[Mark Beesley]

Either these verses are true as they stand or they are false as they stand.
So, you reject the approach to scriptural interpretation known as hermeneutics? The many divergent beliefs of Evangelicals make my head spin. :p


These are statements from Jesus. If baptism is required for salvation--and Jesus would clearly know--then these statement by Jesus are false.
No, not false, simply incomplete. Read the WHOLE Bible to get the WHOLE story. Remember, as far as John was concerned, faith without obedience was no faith at all. (Probably got that from spending so much time with the Master.)


Mark nobody is arguing that we should [not] [sic] keep the commandments, because we should but these are not requirements FOR salvation.
Show me a scripture which says that obedience is optional.

[theway]

I guess I missed the one that holds Baptism as more than a symbol of the cleansing that God gives us though the blood of Jesus.. If a man never undergoes physical baptism but believers in God trusting Him to keep all His promises and other around him see the change in him and the newness of life, the new man he has become, is he not the same new creature in Jesus with or without the symbol of baptism? YES, he is because whether or not he was baptized by men, he was baptized by the Holy Spirit..

"No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Tertullian: Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).



And it is again just a symbol to help us remember the sacrifice of our Lord. We don't do it for any other reason.. You have to know what He said. "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME".. He never told us to do that to be sanctified.. Again we can ONLY become holy though Jesus. A symbol we use to remember Him won't do it.. You have turned to idols of water, and bread to replace the True and living God. That is an element of the other gospel Paul warned the Church to avoid.. It's time to put those idols away and turn to the real object of the Christian faith.. JESUS and only JESUS.. Then when your mind is filled with Him then you can understand the element of memorial and again use baptism and the Lord's Supper as they are meant by God to be used.. IHS jim"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).

[nrajeff]

"No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Tertullian: Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).

---"B-b-but my handlers at DownWithMormons Ministries told me those ideas were invented by Joe Smith in the 1830s! And that NO Christian has believed or would believe such doctrines! And that Evangelicalism's doctrines are error-free, and straight from the Bible alone!

What is going on here !??"

[theway]

---"B-b-but my handlers at DownWithMormons Ministries told me those ideas were invented by Joe Smith in the 1830s! And that NO Christian has believed or would believe such doctrines! And that Evangelicalism's doctrines are error-free, and straight from the Bible alone!

What is going on here !??"What the critics here would have you believe is that the early Christians understood Christ teachings, but very quickly fell into some type of heresy and started believing all types of extra Biblical theologies (such as water baptism being a requirement), to the point where the original doctrine was lost and all preacher’s were in error on the doctrine.
But then along comes someone inspired by God, many hundreds of years latter, to restore the original meaning of the scripture.
So in essence, DownWithMormons want you to believe:

The original gospel as taught by Christ was pure.
Christianity quickly fell into heresy and apostasy.
After hundreds of years, in the later days, a man is called to restore the original gospel message.
This restored message is the true gospel of Christ…….nah…..
…..sorry…… there is no way anybody would believe such a silly made-up story.;)

[James Banta]

[the way;60574]"No one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’" (Tertullian: Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Unless there is a natural birth there can be no natural life.. The Bible tells us of only two births in John 3, one being a natural birth one being a spiritual birth.. Unless there are three births and you want to point to them, natural birth isn't one of the births mentioned in John 3 but then you have a real problem wth verse 6..

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26 [A.D. 240]).

Instead of changing the meaning of the p***age I'll just go by what is in the Bible in:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Since verse 6 speaks of only two births the meaning of being born of the water must be either if the first birth, flesh or of the second birth, Spirit. Which then is baptism of the flesh or of the Spirit? I personally don't see baptism in this p***age. I see a natural birth of water and a new birth of the spirit.. The lord's supper I see as just what Jesus said it was to be a memorial to REMEMBER HIM.. I have already quoted the suport p***age to make that point and what you did was to say that the Bible is wrong and statement of the Testimonies Concerning the Jews .. What I have to say about that is WOW you really hate the word of God!!! IHS jim

[nrajeff]

....you really hate the word of God!!! jim

---Jim, you won't mind if someone says that to you, right? It's not inappropriate, or insulting, or out of line, or presumptuous. Correct?

[James Banta]

---Jim, you won't mind if someone says that to you, right? It's not inappropriate, or insulting, or out of line, or presumptuous. Correct?

I didn't go outside the word of God to show that it was in error either.. I would only say such a thing to someone who isn't willing to submit to it and go about looking in other documents to support your own pet interpretations.. IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

---Jim, you won't mind if someone says that to you, right? It's not inappropriate, or insulting, or out of line, or presumptuous. Correct?
Your problem is Jim has the Word of God, you sir have nothing but the vain imaginations of you hell bound mind.

Andy

[Compinche]

Your problem is Jim has the Word of God, you sir have nothing but the vain imaginations of you hell bound mind.

Andy


One more thing, do not post in a thread to mock someone else--this is called "baiting," which is against the rules. You will be warned once and then your account will be suspended--possibly indefinitely. If you have to resort to making fun of people and their ideas, you have nothing valuable to contribute here.
.................

[akaSeerone]

How do you figure that from what I said.

You should have said that to Jeff, not me.

Andy

[theway]

Unless there is a natural birth there can be no natural life.. The Bible tells us of only two births in John 3, one being a natural birth one being a spiritual birth.. Unless there are three births and you want to point to them, natural birth isn't one of the births mentioned in John 3 but then you have a real problem wth verse 6..

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Tertullian, or any of the other Christian fathers. Almost to a man stated that the meaning of John 3:5 is that; to be born of the water means water baptism, and that it is essential for salvation.
You seem perfectly willing to throw them under the bus, just to hang onto your misinterpretation



Instead of changing the meaning of the p***age I'll just go by what is in the Bible in:

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Since verse 6 speaks of only two births the meaning of being born of the water must be either if the first birth, flesh or of the second birth, Spirit. Which then is baptism of the flesh or of the Spirit? I personally don't see baptism in this p***age. I see a natural birth of water and a new birth of the spirit.. The lord's supper I see as just what Jesus said it was to be a memorial to REMEMBER HIM.. I have already quoted the suport p***age to make that point and what you did was to say that the Bible is wrong and statement of the Testimonies Concerning the Jews .. What I have to say about that is WOW you really hate the word of God!!! IHS jimYou should know by now I get everything i post from Orthodox Christian sites.
Do they hate the Bible as well?

[Father_JD]

Yes, jeff...salvation doesn't come through either "obedience" or "works" or any kind of "good deed" You can do.

But it is NOT "biblical"...NOT when BOTH Jesus and Paul clearly taught that it was BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH and NOT OF YOURSELVES...NOT OF WORKS LEST ANYONE BOAST.

And then again, Paul in Romans 9 clearly states it's not the one who "wills" or "runs" after it, but GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY

[Billyray]

No, not false, simply incomplete. Read the WHOLE Bible to get the WHOLE story. Remember, as far as John was concerned, faith without obedience was no faith at all. (Probably got that from spending so much time with the Master.)

Mark, the Bible is clear that salvation is by faith and not by works. A verse can't say that salvation is by faith and not of works if works are required. I don't know how much more clear a verse can be. Are we suppose to ignore the commandments? No Should we be baptized? Yes. But these are not requirements for salvation.

[Libby]

----YOU seem to have this terrible need to make your new-found Calvinistic belief that God is UNfair, into a GOOD thing. It's like Bizzarro World, where if God randomly hands out eternity in heaven to a FEW, and hands out eternity in hell to MANY--and does so in a manner that is totally arbitrary and capricious, with no discernable morality involved--it is the "REAL" concept of fairness. It's the rest of the world that has the wrong definition of fairness, and the RE-definition of "fair" invented by this little group of extremist Evangelicals, is REALLY the correct one. Isn't that kind of thinking a symptom of cult mentality? (Our redefinition is the correct one, and the rest of the world is wrong and are against us becausae they aren't among the Chosen Ones who were chosen to understand) Your pals usually use terms that refer to drinking Kool-Aid and expecting a ride to heaven on a comet when THEY are attacking the kind of mentality that you are exhibiting right now.

You are attacking a strawman, because those are not my beliefs. Never were, never will be. Those are your own perceptions about Calvinism.

I'm not discussing Calvinism here. It's not the place and I am just not going to get into a long convoluted argument about it. If you really want to understand, take your questions to the experts over on CARM.

[nrajeff]

You are attacking a strawman, because those are not my beliefs. Never were, never will be.
---If you, like me, have a problem with this fallacious system that is Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion, then what are you doing immersing yourself in it?


Those are your own perceptions about Calvinism.
----Well, they are "perceptions" I got from your new friends--it's what they have been telling me, for years, is God's system of saving a few and ****ing many.


I'm not discussing Calvinism here.
---But if the LDS doctrine on how God decides who's been naughty and who's been nice is wrong, and if Calvinism is the REAL truth about how it works, then why aren't you willing to "share the truth of it in love" ?


It's not the place and I am just not going to get into a long convoluted argument about it.
---Unwillingness to share the joyous truth? How then can I be saved?


If you really want to understand, take your questions to the experts over on CARM
---LOL--that's where I GOT the scoop on Calvinism in the FIRST place! If my impresion of Calvinism is messed up and don't really reflect what Calvinism teaches, then it's your buddies to messed me up! THEY are the ones who told me stuff like "You should be GRATEFUL that God doesn't send the ALL to hell!" and "You should be GRATEFUL that GOD ISN'T fair!" and "The ****ed didn't do anything different from us elect saved people--it's all God, not anything WE do" and "The only reason why it's this way--that YOU need to know--is 'Because God SAID SO' ! "

[Libby]

---If you, like me, have a problem with this fallacious system that is Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion, then what are you doing immersing yourself in it?

I believe in the Bible, Jeff. I hold to Reformed theology insofar as it is in sync with the Bible. Period.


----Well, they are "perceptions" I got from your new friends--it's what they have been telling me, for years, is God's system of saving a few and ****ing many.

Yes, and it's true, insofar as it is in sync with the Bible.


---But if the LDS doctrine on how God decides who's been naughty and who's been nice is wrong, and if Calvinism is the REAL truth about how it works, then why aren't you willing to "share the truth of it in love" ?

I'm more than willing to "share the truth in love" with people who are really interested. I think, at this point, you are only interested in mocking.


---Unwillingness to share the joyous truth? How then can I be saved?

Case in point.


---LOL--that's where I GOT the scoop on Calvinism in the FIRST place! If my impresion of Calvinism is messed up and don't really reflect what Calvinism teaches, then it's your buddies to messed me up! THEY are the ones who told me stuff like "You should be GRATEFUL that God doesn't send the ALL to hell!" and "You should be GRATEFUL that GOD ISN'T fair!" and "The ****ed didn't do anything different from us elect saved people--it's all God, not anything WE do" and "The only reason why it's this way--that YOU need to know--is 'Because God SAID SO' ! "

I don't want to discourage you or anything, but it appears as though you failed the course. Please try again.

[Billyray]

-----But if the LDS doctrine on how God decides who's been naughty and who's been nice is wrong, and if Calvinism is the REAL truth about how it works, then why aren't you willing to "share the truth of it in love" ?
"

We have shared this with you Jeff, over and over and over again, but it does not seem to sink in. Give us a specific concern and we can take these one by one for you and maybe this time it might sink in.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, the Bible is clear that salvation is by faith and not by works. A verse can't say that salvation is by faith and not of works if works are required. I don't know how much more clear a verse can be. Are we suppose to ignore the commandments? No Should we be baptized? Yes. But these are not requirements for salvation.
There is no verse that says we are saved by faith, not works. I'm waiting for a reference to a verse that says obedience is optional.

[Billyray]

There is no verse that says we are saved by faith, not works. I'm waiting for a reference to a verse that says obedience is optional.
Come on Mark--mod edit

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[Mark Beesley]

Come on Mark--try to be honest here.

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
And since we apparently disagree on the appropriate interpretation of a verse, I am being dishonest? I at least have provided a reasoned explanation of what Ephesians 2:8-9 means. No on has given a reasoned response challenging what I said. Y'all just revert to your mantra of Faith, not Works, relying on a verse that DOES NOT SAY THAT.

Now, I personally think it impossible that you missed my explanation earlier. After all, you posted more than once in the thread in which it appears, and it is not a lengthy thread. But in order to make it convenient for you, I will post it once again.


I was lying in bed thinking of the issue that Jeff raised in the opening post, i.e. whether the gift spoken of in Ephesians 2:8 is faith or salvation, and it occurred to me that both Lyons and Nebeker made it more complicated than it needed to be.

It is really quite a simple task to determine whether faith or salvation is the gift referenced by Paul. One simply needs to look at the Greek word for gift that is used in verse 8.

There are essentially 3 Greek words that are translated into the English as gift: doron, dorea, and charisma. Throughout the New Testament, whenever a sacrificial offering is called a gift, the Greek word used is doron.

On the other hand, when spiritual gifts are referenced in the New Testament, as in 1 Corinthians 12, the Greek word used is charisma, a free gift, or as Strongs describes it "a favour which one receives without any merit of his own." Charisma (free gift) is NEVER used to describe the gift of salvation.

Faith is referred to as a free gift (charisma) in 1 Corinthians 12:9. So it is really a rather simply matter to look at Ephesians 2:8 to see whether the Greek word from which gift is translated is charisma or doron. Not surprisingly, the word Paul used in Ephesians 2:8 is doron, in stark contrast to his use of the word charisma in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

Thus, we can say that the gift of salvation is Christ's sacrificial offering for us, and not the unmerited free gift that some Christians erroneously call it. Christ has laid His sacrifice on the altar, and it is our responsibility to accept it. We show this acceptance throught doing those things which Christ commanded, i.e. love God, love our neighbor, enter the waters of baptism, and so forth. The ****able heresy of the Calvinists, that God determines who may accept this offerering of Christ, is rightly called an abomination.
What this boils down to, Billyray, is this. Salvation ultimately is a gift that Christ offers us, but no one is compelled to accept it. The gift spoken of in Ephesians 2 is grace, not faith. That is clear from the Greek. Now, without this gift of grace, works cannot save us. But unless we accept that gift, by doing those things Christ commanded, grace cannot save us either. Without works, we have rejected the gift Christ offers. We accept Christ's offer of grace through our works, through obedience.

Now then, don't bother reciting your mantra again. If you want to respond, please provide something supported by the Scpritures showing that what I have explained cannot be true.

[Billyray]

But unless we accept that gift, by doing those things Christ commanded, grace cannot save us either. Without works, we have rejected the gift Christ offers. We accept Christ's offer of grace through our works, through obedience.


Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[Mesenja]

You are correct and here is the requirement for salvation.

Either these verses are true as they stand or they are false as they stand. These are statements from Jesus. If baptism is required for salvation--and Jesus would clearly know--then these statement by Jesus are false. Mark nobody is arguing that we should keep the commandments,because we should but these are not requirements FOR salvation.



Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well. Even though Jesus was sinless he set the example for us to follow by being baptized and fulfilling all righteousness. John did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until after he was baptized when it was revealed Himself as belonging to God.



Matthew 3:13-16
13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying,I have need to be baptized of thee,and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him,Suffer it to be so now:for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16And Jesus,when he was baptized,went up straightway out of the water:and,lo,the heavens were opened unto him,and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven,saying,This is my beloved Son,in whom I am well pleased.



John 1:29-34
29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him,and saith,Behold the Lamb of God,which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said,After me cometh a man which is preferred before me:for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not:but that he should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying,I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not:but he that sent me to baptize with water,the same said unto me,Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending,and remaining on him,the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw,and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Also when the New Testament writers speak of being saved by believing,they are using "believe" to represents the whole response to the gospel.To “believe in Jesus” means to believe the gospel message,and baptism is a part of that gospel message.

[Billyray]

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well.

I agree with you, I think that we should be baptized. I was baptized by a Christian pastor after leaving the LDS church. So does this mean that I am OK?

(please note that even though I think that we should be baptized this does not mean that I think that baptism is required for salvation)

[Billyray]

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well.

Here are the five elements that forms the blueprint for every conversion story in Acts. What is consistent in all of them is the ordinance of baptism.

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized (fully immersed) in water for the forgiveness of our sins.
Born Again
Hear the gospel message
Faith (place my trust in Christ)
Repent (turn away from my sins)
Baptism (after my conversion)

Lets test your theory Mesenja. I have done the following steps. Will I be exalted?

[Mesenja]

You are attacking a strawman,because those are not my beliefs. Never were,never will be. Those are your own perceptions about Calvinism.

I'm not discussing Calvinism here. It's not the place and I am just not going to get into a long convoluted argument about it. If you really want to understand,take your questions to the experts over on CARM.


You should seriously reconsider your views on Calvinism Libby. Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.



For Calvinists,God’s prevenient grace moves the human will to accept God’s efficacious grace. According to Calvin,persons can accept the saving grace only because God has predestined them to salvation and causally determined their will to accept efficacious grace through his prevenient grace. Moreover,God’s prevenient grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will. Those who do not accept God’s efficacious grace,or grace that accomplishes their salvation,fail to do so because God has decided in his arbitrary election to leave them to ****ation. That is,in the Calvinist view God has decided not to grant irresistible prevenient grace to some and thus has decided to abandon them to ****ation.

This concept of prevenient grace makes God an arbitrary and evil tyrant. He could save all persons,but he has decided not to. This is not the God of love taught by Jesus. This view of grace makes God unjust, unfair,unloving, and loathsome. Blomberg adopts a notion of salvation by grace alone (by which he apparently means that human will has no role in salvation);God’s election alone explains who is saved and who is ****ed. Blomberg responds to the argument that (at least this view of) grace is unfair in the same way as did Augustine,Aquinas,Calvin, and Luther:to ****ation because we all fall so short of God’s holy standard that we cannot hope to make it on our own. According to Calvinists, because of sin all persons (including little children) “deserve eternal death”.

But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation? It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.

What would we think of a parent who could pull both her children safely from a burning car,but decides arbitrarily to save one and not the other? We should be morally outraged. We should be even more outraged if we learn that the parent’s decision is based on the judgment that the child who burned deserved it because the child supposedly was guilty for sins of an ancient ancestor—even though she was only three years old! Of course,the child who was saved deserved salvation or ****ation equally,so this supposed justification is not the reason for salvation or ****ation at all—the decision is purely arbitrary and capricious. I cannot worship such a “god.” I wouldn’t even want to spend the weekend with such a person—let alone an eternity

[Bridging the Gulf Blake T. Ostler FARMS Review: Volume-11,Issue-2,Pages:103-77 A review of "How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation." by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson Provo,Utah:Maxwell Ins***ute,1999 (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2&id=319)]

[akaSeerone]

But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation? It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us. The answer to why is because that what the Bible says God chooses to do.

Who do you think you are to question God?

Who do you think you are to tell God what He can and cannot do?

Who do you think you are to question the Bible?

Andy

[Billyray]

Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.
The article was full of loaded language by appealing to emotion to win the argument, using examples such as little children burning to death in a car. Shame on him for such a low ball trick.

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as emotive language or high-inference language) is wording that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language


What is your specific question Mesenja? Election? What?

[Father_JD]

In a word:

Nonsense. Ostler doesn't know squat regarding "Calvinism".

Only the tired, mischaracterization that p***es for a "critique" of "Calvinism" which is DEVOID of scriptural justification.

[Mesenja]

In a word:Nonsense. Ostler doesn't know squat regarding "Calvinism".

Only the tired,mischaracterization that p***es for a "critique" of "Calvinism" which is DEVOID of scriptural justification.


If you think Ostler does not correctly describe Calvinism,and what,if any,objections you may have to what he wrote please tell me.

[Libby]

You should seriously reconsider your views on Calvinism Libby. Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.

Ostler so obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, Mesenja, because Calvinists never speak in terms of "prevenient grace". That is an Arminian term.

As for whom God saves, that is simply an unknown, in the end. I honestly don't know but what God does not have in mind to save "all". All I know is that none of us deserve His grace and mercy and yet He is gracious to give it anyway. Even just this life (if that is all there is) is a precious gift. He is a God of Love, a God of mercy and benevolence that is beyond human understanding. Painting Calvinists as believing in a monster of a God is simply inaccurate and the result of faulty understanding (in many areas, including the Bible).

[Libby]

Btw, I read Robinson's book some time ago. He makes it all sound very reasonable, but where he gets tripped up is in the definition of terms. LDS and Christians use the same terms, but they mean such different things that they are actually NOT talking about the same things, in most cases. The divide is, actually, quite wide.

[Father_JD]

If you think Ostler does not correctly describe Calvinism,and what,if any,objections you may have to what he wrote please tell me.

Ok, M. fair enough...I'll demonstrate his SKEWED understanding...

Ostler writes:


For Calvinists,God’s prevenient grace moves the human will to accept God’s efficacious grace. According to Calvin,persons can accept the saving grace only because God has predestined them to salvation and causally determined their will to accept efficacious grace through his prevenient grace.


"Methodists" talk about "prevenient grace"...not many Reformed do...at least not those I've read.

Otherwise, no complaint here but hold on...



Moreover,God’s prevenient grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will.

Huh? Not sure exactly what he MEANS here, M. Grace (prevenient or otherwise) is indeed REJECTED BY AN EVIL WILL...hence the NEED for "regeneration" which MUST take place FIRST.

So, I'd consider this the first skewing of Reformed doctrine.



Those who do not accept God’s efficacious grace,or grace that accomplishes their salvation,fail to do so because God has decided in his arbitrary election to leave them to ****ation.


Uh, some serious problems with this statement so here's the correction:

1. ALL who are elect WILL accept "God's efficacious grace" that's WHY it's called "Irresistable Grace". It's NOT a matter of it being offered at all to the non-elect.
2. God's election is NOT "arbitrary". He has His reasons which are known ONLY to Him.




That is,in the Calvinist view God has decided not to grant irresistible prevenient grace to some and thus has decided to abandon them to ****ation.

As seen from my response, this is NOT the "Calvinist view". Also...what's lacking is an understanding that people are not "abandon(ed)...to ****ation", they are already in a state of ****ation and FULLY CHOOSE TO BE IN THIS STATE. This point is generally lost on ALL non-Reformed people who think they understand the "Calvinist" view.




This concept of prevenient grace makes God an arbitrary and evil tyrant.


Merely his opinion.




He could save all persons,but he has decided not to.


Finally a non-skewed statement! Bravo, Ostler!! :rolleyes:



This is not the God of love taught by Jesus.


LOL. NO scriptural justification for this view and it demonstrate Ostler really doesn't know Jesus' teachings:


Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Get that? It's the FATHER who draws the elect one to Jesus, otherwise NO ONE can "come" to Him. And again...

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Still not convinced? Read on...

Jhn 17:1 ¶ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:


Jhn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

It is a sovereign act of the Father who has "given" Jesus those whom He will give eternal life.

Now keep paying attention, M.


Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Hmmm. Jesus doesn't pray "for the world", but for THEM WHOM THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM. So it's apparent that God elects SOME to life, and some He leaves in their unregenerate state.




This view of grace makes God unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome.


His opinion, NOT based upon anything scriptural, so what does Paul say?


Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Oooh. Ostler sure wouldn't like this statement by Paul, would he??


Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? unrighteousness with God? God forbid.


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Now granted, the immediate narrow context is regarding "election", but please note!! It's NOT a case that one can WILL "election", nor one who can RUN after it, meaning seek it on his own, but it is only GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Romans 9 alone destroys Ostlers "critique" for he has indeed called God "unrighteous"!!




[I]Blomberg adopts a notion of salvation by grace alone (by which he apparently means that human will has no role in salvation);

Another skewed understanding. God FREES the will so that one WILL accept salvation...but God's regeneration is strictly His work and is NOT dependent upon human beings. Remember now, "Not of him who WILLS, or RUNS after"...



God’s election alone explains who is saved and who is ****ed.


Uh...no duh! And based upon Jesus' OWN statements and Paul's in Romans 9, this is an accutrate statement. Hooray for Ostler yet again!



Blomberg responds to the argument that (at least this view of) grace is unfair in the same way as did Augustine,Aquinas,Calvin, and Luther:“We should not want God to be fair” because we all fall so short of God’s holy standard that we cannot hope to make it on our own. According to Calvinists, because of sin all persons (including little children) “deserve eternal death”.


Not a case of "deserving". We're born in sin and tresp***. We're physically born DOA...dead on arrival SPIRITUALLY.



But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation?


Too bad Ostler thinks he knows more than the omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the universe! Again, a skewed statement. God doesn't "desire to save everyone", but ONLY THE ELECT. CF Romans 9 yet again...




It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.


Of course it "will do" because THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES despite Ostler's dislike for biblical teaching, M.




What would we think of a parent who could pull both her children safely from a burning car, but decides arbitrarily to save one and not the other? We should be morally outraged.


A false ****ogy, because we're not ontologically God's "children" and God is NOT by nature our "parent". Ostler misses the fact that it's NOT a case of someone pulling a child from a burning car, but IS a case of both already burnt up and dead and THEN chooses one to eternal life, but not the other.




We should be even more outraged if we learn that the parent’s decision is based on the judgment that the child who burned deserved it because the child supposedly was guilty for sins of an ancient ancestor—even though she was only three years old!


This is obfuscating the issue besides skewing the Reformed understanding that ALL DESERVE TO BE BURNED. No one is more "guilty" than another. "All have fallen short of the glory of God". Ostler does NOT understand the nature of spiritual death which resulted from the Fall, M.



Of course,the child who was saved deserved salvation or ****ation equally,so this supposed justification is not the reason for salvation or ****ation at all—the decision is purely arbitrary and capricious.


Whoa. No one says God's election is "purely arbitrary and capricious". Ostler has NO biblical justification for this statement. I'll let Paul answer Ostler:


Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

(Oh, but Ostler finds fault! Calling God "arbitrary and capricious"!!)


Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed , Why hast thou made me thus?

Ostler says to God, "Yeah, God. I'm replying against you!!



Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


How God dare do this!! What a meanie God!!!


Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,




[I]I cannot worship such a “god.” I wouldn’t even want to spend the weekend with such a person—let alone an eternity


Ostler cannot "worship such a god" because the God of the Bible has declared the above which Ostler just doesn't like!! Ostler would prefer a FALSE god of JS' fetid imagination and NOT the God of the Bible!!


Like I said, Ostler can't begin to provide an iota of biblical scripture to justify his "opinions"!!!!

[Billyray]

To “believe in Jesus” means to believe the gospel message,and baptism is a part of that gospel message.
If baptism is part of the gospel why did Paul say "Christ did not send me to baptize"?

1Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

[Russianwolfe]

Billy,

There is no reason to address your questions until you have properly answered mine. So far you have not. You might think you have but you haven't.

As I pointed out before, the verses that I cite concern the judgement. Both groups were believers and thought that they were going to be accepted into the kingdom. None of your verses address that phase of a believer's life. Until you address this verse in context, I will not address your pointless questions that you have no interest in the answers.

Marvin



Marvin, I have repeatedly responded to your specific verses on multiple posts. The section of scripture speaks of false prophets and it speaks of those who never knew the real Christ--either they were following a false Christ or they were simply giving lip service such as the Benny Hinn's of the world. The section of scripture says "but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." You have ***umed that this means works but I have provided you with the verse in John 6 which says "4For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Why do you believe that the will of the Father is works rather than coming to the Son as it states in John 6? Plus your ***umption contradicts multiple other verses that clearly state the we are saved by faith and not by works.


Now back to the question that I had for you.

Marvin please tell us what the following verses means. Do you believe Jesus and Paul in the following verses?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[nrajeff]

Libs, remember when you said my summary of Calvinism was a straw man and not at all accurate, and how no Calvinist you know believes what I attributed to extremist Calvinistic Evangelicals? Well, just read down thru these here posts from your buds, starting with Andy's "Because God said so" post, and continue reading through to FJD's post, and you will see most of my "straw men" on display. That's because it's like I said: My ideas of Calvinism's implications CAME FROM your pals. Think about that the next time you are tempted to scoff at my observations regarding what Calvinism says about God.

[Libby]

Libs, remember when you said my summary of Calvinism was a straw man and not at all accurate, and how no Calvinist you know believes what I attributed to extremist Calvinistic Evangelicals? Well, just read down thru these here posts from your buds, starting with Andy's "Because God said so" post, and continue reading through to FJD's post, and you will see most of my "straw men" on display. That's because it's like I said: My ideas of Calvinism's implications CAME FROM your pals. Think about that the next time you are tempted to scoff at my observations regarding what Calvinism says about God.

What I "scoff at", Jeff, is your mischaracterizations of Calvinism as being "unfair" and presenting God as a "monster". Let's me know you don't really understand it or it's foundation (which is in the Bible).

[Billyray]

Billy,

There is no reason to address your questions until you have properly answered mine. So far you have not. You might think you have but you haven't.

As I pointed out before, the verses that I cite concern the judgement. Both groups were believers and thought that they were going to be accepted into the kingdom. None of your verses address that phase of a believer's life. Until you address this verse in context, I will not address your pointless questions that you have no interest in the answers.

Marvin

Marvin, if you choose not to engage that is your choice. I can't force you into dialogue. I have gone over this a number of times. For some reason you think that if I go over this again that my answer will somehow change. BTW my questions are directly relevant to this specific p***age. You stated, "Both groups were believers", but if Christ states that he NEVER knew them, were they ever true believers? No. If they were true believers in any sort of way then Christ would be incorrect to say that he NEVER knew them, rather it would be more accurate to say that they were believers but did not cut the mustard. Also note that this follows immediately after the false prophet statement, which needs to be taken into context.


Marvin stated "Now, no matter what you might believe about faith, you cannot deny that Christ states very clearly here that obedience is a requirement to 'enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

Matthew 7:21-23
21 ¶ 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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

You say "obedience". Obedience to what?

[Libby]

---What if I could quote some of your fellow Scolds saying "Of COURSE God is unfair, and you should be grateful that He IS !!!" ????

I guess you'd come up with some kind of equivocation-based excuse for them, right?

My fellow what? I wish you would drop the namecalling, Jeff.

As for saying that God is not fair, yes, I have heard that, but it is not meant in the way you use it. You really do believe that God is being unfair in not saving everyone, even though no one deserves it.. (the "others" of which you speak are saying we don't want him to be absolutely "fair" or we're ALL going to hell).

It is, of course, impossible, for God to be unfair. That's why it was necessary to send to us His Son, to atone for our sins. If He had the ability to be "unfair", that would not have been necessary. He can now grant us grace and pardon in His Son, Jesus Christ.

[Mark Beesley]

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Perhaps you can provide an alternative ****ysis to the one I provided, addressing the Greek words doron and charisma which are translated into the English word gift and apply that ****ysis to reach a conclusion as to why Paul calls savation by grace the doron type of a gift instead of a chrisma type of gift.

Following that, perhaps you could continue with an alternative ****ysis to John's words in 1 John 2:3-4, which I did, wherein John and I concluded that someone who claims to have faith but is not obedient to the commandments (such as Be Baptized), is a liar, and thus works become as necessary as faith in the salvic equation.

Thank you.

[Billyray]

Perhaps you can provide an alternative ****ysis to the one I provided, addressing the Greek words doron and charisma which are translated into the English word gift and apply that ****ysis to reach a conclusion as to why Paul calls savation by grace the doron type of a gift instead of a chrisma type of gift.

Hey Mark, mod edit, try just reading the p***age and telling us what it actually says.

BTW my question still stands, you completely avoided answering it. Don't try to say that I have not tried to engage you or avoided discussing this with you. You are the one who is trying to avoid the discussion.


Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[Mark Beesley]

Hey Mark, mod edit try just reading the p***age and telling us what it actually says.

BTW my question still stands, you completely avoided answering it. Don't try to say that I have not tried to engage you or avoided discussing this with you. You are the one who is trying to avoid the discussion.
So, I guess the answer is, No, you will not do the ****ysis. Fine.

The ****ysis I did of Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 2:3-4 explains how the conclusion is reached that works are the required mechanism for accepting the sacrificial offering of Christ. Stemelbow also began a thread where he provided a good ****ysis of the mechanism of accepting Christ's gift, though I see where you have not done any ****ysis there either.

[Billyray]

So, I guess the answer is, No, you will not do the ****ysis. Fine.

So I guess your answer is NO--you don't want to address my question. Thats fine.

[Mark Beesley]

So I guess your answer is NO--you don't want to address my question. Thats fine.
:rolleyes: You question was, Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

Answer: No where. So, tell me what do I do with 1 John 2 that I now have to tear out of my Bible, because 1 John 2 says that if we claim to know Christ (have accepted Christ's gift) but we are not obedient in keeping the commandments (those are works), then we are liars.

[Billyray]

You question was, Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?


But you are also leaving out the fact that it does NOT that we are to work to accept Christ's' GIFT, it specifically states "not from yourselves" and "not by works".

[Mark Beesley]

But you are also leaving out the fact that it does NOT [say] [sic] that we are to work to accept Christ's' GIFT, it specifically states "not from yourselves" and "not by works".
Stemelbow's ****ysis and my own address that. I have answered your question. You have not answered any of mine.

[Billyray]

because 1 John 2 says that if we claim to know Christ (have accepted Christ's gift) but we are not obedient in keeping the commandments

Mark, we have gone over this on this board hundreds of times. Yet you seem to not understand. Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

[Billyray]

Stemelbow's ****ysis and my own address that. I have answered your question. You have not answered any of mine.

It absolutely does not address the question. The verse clearly states it in not of yourselves and not of works. It couldn't be any clearer. You just don't like what it says so you are trying to make a fancy pants explanation around the clear meaning of the text.

[nrajeff]

My fellow what? I wish you would drop the namecalling, Jeff.
---I am trying to use accurate descriptions of the people who are attacking the LDS church and/or its leaders and doctrines & what the members stand for. Acronyms save a lot of typing. Just like "Mormons" seems to be less work for YOU than typing "Faithful Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But hey, if you're willing to type the whole thing each time you refer to US, then I am willing to type "Self-appointed Critics and attackers of the LDS Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, and what they stand for."

What do you say? Do we have a deal? Or do you want to allow YOURSELF to continue to be a name-caller--the old Double Standard thing?


As for saying that God is not fair, yes, I have heard that, but it is not meant in the way you use it.
---And my prediction about equivocation/excuse comes to p***....



You really do believe that God is being unfair in not saving everyone, even though no one deserves it..
---What? You are wrong as you are so frequently since you defected. I don't believe that, and I have NEVER seen or heard ANY LDS person say THEY believed it either. Might be time for yet another "Jeff is right" poll.

LDS posters: Do you believe that if some people end up not being saved, that it means that God is unfair?

1st vote, cast by me: NO.

I believe that it will be VERY fair if some people don't get saved. In fact, if some people--the ones who deliberately, knowingly refuse to obey God and continue to rebel against Him in the most reprehensible ways, right up till the end--DO get saved, THAT would unfair. The devil would have cause for a lawsuit, since he was and is such a person and HE didn't get saved.


(the "others" of which you speak are saying we don't want him to be absolutely "fair" or we're ALL going to hell).
--If ALL of us really deserved an eternity in hell, equally, then I WOULD want all of us to go there, silly. If ALL TEN of the shoplifting 5-year-olds deserved to be shot by the store owner, then it would be unfair of him to only shoot
8 or 9 of them.


It is, of course, impossible, for God to be unfair.
----If so, then it's impossible that Calvinistic soteriology could be correct.


That's why it was necessary to send to us His Son, to atone for our sins.
---God sent His Son to be the author of salvation to all who would obey Him. If you don't want to obey Him, then it would be unfair for God to save you. It would mean that the Bible is wrong, and that God REALLY sent His Son to be the author of salvation for those who REFUSE to obey Him. Which makes no sense. Like Calvinism.


It's hard to believe that you still misunderstand what I find unfair about Calvinism's portrayal of God: It makes Him out to be a being who is UNJUST. Yesterday, Glenn Beck mentioned that justice is equal, fair application of the law. If all 1st-degree murderers deserve the death penalty, then the governer's executing all but one, and letting that one go free, and handing him a limo and mansion and cash, is UNJUST.

(As Foxworthy might say: "You know your governor's a Calvinist if....")

Your response to anyone who sees a lack of fairness or sense in the governor doing that, is "He's the governor--this is how thingsare done because he said so, and if you don't like it, tough!" or "It's fair because the governor said so!" or "The governor's idea of what's fair will differ from our idea of what's fair." None of those excuses is satisfactory.

[nrajeff]

Mark, we have gone over this on this board hundreds of times. Yet you seem to not understand. Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.

[Billyray]

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.
It could be works lead to salvation OR salvation leads to works as you say. But the Bible teaches the latter.

[Mark Beesley]

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.
I applaud and thank you for applying an ****ytical tool (an ****ogy) to make your argument. Let's explore this a bit, shall we? But before we get too far into it, perhaps we should get clarification on a couple of things, because I don't want to make any unwarranted ***umptions.

1. What does the tree represent in your ****ogy?
2. What does the fruit represent in your ****ogy?

I have to leave for a few hours, but I will return this afternoon to continue.

And again, thank you.

[Libby]

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.

This is the worst possible ****ogy and also proof that you DO believe salvation is based on works (so let's not further pretend that you believe differently).

Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT given according to our "works". It's right there in the Bible, hundreds of times. Read it and believe.

[Billyray]

I applaud and thank you for applying an ****ytical tool (an ****ogy) to make your argument.

Why thanks Mark for your applause. But keep your applause to yourself if you don't mind.



1. What does the tree represent in your ****ogy?

Living tree represents Born again----->Faith----->Salvation



2. What does the fruit represent in your ****ogy?

Works

[Billyray]

And again, thank you.
No Mark, thank you.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.

[akaSeerone]

No Mark, thank you.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.Another thing I like about the second chapter of Ephesians is that it also shows us that Jesus is the head of His Church eliminating the need of Prophets making Smith, without any doubt whatsoever, a false prophet....Amen

Bottom line....IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED....AMEN

Andy

[Mark Beesley]

Why thanks Mark for your applause. But keep your applause to yourself if you don't mind.
Do you want to carry on a civil discussion or not? Chill brother, my compliment was sincere.


Living tree represents Born again----->Faith----->Salvation
Ok, it's a good thing I didn't ***ume what the tree was supposed to represent. Christ said,

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew 7
So, I've always understood the tree to be a person. There are good trees (good people) and bad trees (bad people). But if I understand your ****ogy, the tree is a process rather than a person. Is that correct?


Works
Ok, good. This one I understand.

If you want, we can continue with this discussion, and I'll try not to compliment you any more.

[Mark Beesley]

No Mark, thank you.

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.
Would it be ok with you if we work through your ****ogy before moving on to additional questions, please?

[Billyray]

So, I've always understood the tree to be a person. There are good trees (good people) and bad trees (bad people). But if I understand your ****ogy, the tree is a process rather than a person. Is that correct?

I was simply using an ****ogy to explain that when a person is truly saved he will do works, but these works do not contribute to the salvation itself but are a natural fruit of salvation just like fruit are a natural product of a living tree. BTW the tree could be salvation or faith or a saved person (good person), as I said it was simply an illustration.

[theway]

Another thing I like about the second chapter of Ephesians is that it also shows us that Jesus is the head of His Church eliminating the need of Prophets making Smith, without any doubt whatsoever, a false prophet....Amen

Bottom line....IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED....AMEN

AndyReally!!!!
Then what about all the prophets mentioned in the Bible, that were around after Christ set up his church? Amen. Or what about he Prophets that were prophesized will come in the last days; also spoken of in the Bible? Amen.

[Mark Beesley]

I was simply using an ****ogy to explain that when a person is truly saved he will do works, but these works do not contribute to the salvation itself but are a natural fruit of salvation just like fruit are a natural product of a living tree. BTW the tree could be salvation or faith or a saved person (good person), as I said it was simply an illustration.
I understand what you are trying to do. Let's see if it works. Let's take your ****ogy and plug in the words that you say tree and fruit represent.

Your ****ogy is as follows:

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

If will now plug in the other words, this is what we would read:

Salvation or faith or a saved person (good person) naturally produces works. The works do not cause the salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person) to have life of salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person) but are a result of the life of that salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person). If salvation or faith or a saved person (good person) does not produce works it is dead or not really a works salvation or faith or a saved person (good person).
I don't know about you, but it doesn't really work for me, and it doesn't really seem to be consistent with what Christ said, cause Christ said there were good trees and bad trees, but He never the bad trees weren't really trees.

How about we try a little experiment, if you will bear with me? Let's call the tree in your ****ogy a saved person, and let's call the fruit good works. Your ****ogy then would read as follows:

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.

Does that work for you?

[James Banta]

I understand what you are trying to do. Let's see if it works. Let's take your ****ogy and plug in the words that you say tree and fruit represent.

Your ****ogy is as follows:


If will now plug in the other words, this is what we would read:

I don't know about you, but it doesn't really work for me, and it doesn't really seem to be consistent with what Christ said, cause Christ said there were good trees and bad trees, but He never the bad trees weren't really trees.

How about we try a little experiment, if you will bear with me? Let's call the tree in your ****ogy a saved person, and let's call the fruit good works. Your ****ogy then would read as follows:


Does that work for you?

I really do wish you could hear what a Christian hears when you made these comments.. Yes a Good tree isn't a Good tree because it produces fruit.. Fruit is produced by Good trees.. It was a very good allegory.. IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

Really!!!!
Then what about all the prophets mentioned in the Bible, that were around after Christ set up his church? Amen. Or what about he Prophets that were prophesized will come in the last days; also spoken of in the Bible? Amen.
First off you are not taking into consideration Luke 16:16 and Hebrews 1:1-10.

The "prophets" spoken of in the New Testament are not like the Prophets of the Old Testament and that is the kind of prophet Smith claimed to be.

The prophets of the NT Church are simply people that prophesy.

The two "Prophets" in Revelation are in a special cl*** and are only sent to Israel.

It is obvious from reading the second chapter of Ephesians that Jesus has replaced the OT type Prophet being that He is the head of His Church/Body on the earth.

AMEN!!

Andy

[Billyray]

Does that work for you?
I am not sure what the whole point of your post was. Care to elaborate?

[Mark Beesley]

I am not sure what the whole point of your post was. Care to elaborate?
Well, unless the point of your ****ogy was to demonstrate that trees bear fruit, I am trying to make sure I understand the relationship between your ****ogy and the topic that we are discussing. It may be self-evident to you, but I am learning not to ***ume anything in discussions with people on discussion boards. Because let me tell you right now, we may well be in agreement.

So, let me ask you once again, does my restatement of your ****ogy fairly represent what you are arguing? I will restate it once again for you:

"A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

[Billyray]

"A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person.
This is true. Salvation is not by works. However works will follow after salvation. A person becomes more and more Christ life over time, a process called sanctification. The thief on the cross had no works and was saved. However if he lived instead of died his life would eventually of produced good works, which was clearly lacking at the time of his salvation.

[Mark Beesley]

This is true. Salvation is not by works. However works will follow after salvation. A person becomes more and more Christ life over time, a process called sanctification. The thief on the cross had no works and was saved. However if he lived instead of died his life would eventually of produced good works, which was clearly lacking at the time of his salvation.

Before continuing, I need to understand if there is a reason why, in quoting me, you did not include the final sentence of my restatement, the sentence which reads: "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

Putting aside the question of the thief on the cross, or other deathbed-type confessions, does that final sentence accurate portray the intent of your ****ogy? Just as refresher, that sentence in your ****ogy stated:
"If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree."

So, is "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person" a fair restatement?

[Billyray]

Before continuing, I need to understand if there is a reason why, in quoting me, you did not include the final sentence of my restatement, the sentence which reads: "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

Putting aside the question of the thief on the cross, or other deathbed-type confessions, does that final sentence accurate portray the intent of your ****ogy? Just as refresher, that sentence in your ****ogy stated:
"If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree."

So, is "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person" a fair restatement?

My sentence is true ""If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree." However I am simply trying to anticipate your objection before you raise it. The thief on the cross did not have any fruit or works. The reason is that he did not live long after his conversion to produce fruit. Likewise a young living tree may not have fruit--YET. The bottom line Mark is that works are not a requirement for salvation. Does that mean that we shouldn't follow the commandments? Of course not. Is there a way for a person to know if he is truly saved? One way is to see the fruit or works in his life. If one thinks that he is saved and lives like the devil he is unlikely saved. But the works are not what saves only indicative of the fact that one is saved.

[Mesenja]

The article was full of loaded language by appealing to emotion to win the argument, using examples such as little children burning to death in a car. Shame on him for such a low ball trick. In rhetoric,loaded language (also known as emotive language or high-inference language) is wording that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion. Wikipedia:Loaded language (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language) What is your specific question Mesenja? Election? What?

If God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation? It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.

[Mark Beesley]

My sentence is true ""If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree." However I am simply trying to anticipate your objection before you raise it.
You are ***uming that I am going to object, probably not a good idea. So, at this point I will defer addressing the other points you made in your post until such time as I do object, if I do. And if I don't object, well then, maybe we can move on. Fair enough?

So, back to your complete ****ogy and my restatment thereof. Your ****ogy was this:

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

My restatement was this:

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.
So again, ignoring the case of the thief on the cross or other deathbed conversions, does my restatement accurately reflect what you are arguing with your ****ogy?

[Mesenja]

Ostler so obviously doesn't know what he's talking about,Mesenja,because Calvinists never speak in terms of "prevenient grace". That is an Arminian term.

As for whom God saves,that is simply an unknown,in the end. I honestly don't know but what God does not have in mind to save "all". All I know is that none of usHere is the definition for the words prevenient and irresistible from the deserve His grace and mercy and yet He is gracious to give it anyway. Even just this life (if that is all there is) is a precious gift. He is a God of Love,a God of mercy and benevolence that is beyond human understanding. Painting Calvinists as believing in a monster of a God is simply inaccurate and the result of faulty understanding (in many areas,including the Bible).



The terminology is a Christian theological concept rooted in Augustinian theology and embraced mainly by Arminian Christians who are influenced by the theology of John Wesley.




Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision. It exists prior to and without reference to anything humans may have done. As humans are corrupted by the effects of sin,prevenient grace allows persons to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that salvific offer. Whereas Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted,Wesleyan Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure,personal acceptance of the gift of salvation. [Wikipedia:Prevenient Grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace#In_other_sources)]

Does it make any difference if the term prevenient grace and not irresistible grace (or efficacious grace) was used? You are quibbling over irrelevancies.




Irresistible Grace (or efficacious grace) is a doctrine in Christian theology particularly ***ociated with Calvinism,which teaches that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect) and in God's timing,overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel,bringing them to faith in Christ. [Wikipedia:Irresistible Grace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace)]

Ostler does say that for Calvinists,grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will because the elect were predestined to salvation and in God's timing,overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of efficacious grace.


For Calvinists,God’s prevenient grace moves the human will to accept God’s efficacious grace. According to Calvin,persons can accept the saving grace only because God has predestined them to salvation and causally determined their will to accept efficacious grace through his prevenient grace. Moreover,God’s prevenient grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will. Those who do not accept God’s efficacious grace,or grace that accomplishes their salvation,fail to do so because God has decided in his arbitrary election to leave them to ****ation. That is,in the Calvinist view God has decided not to grant irresistible prevenient grace to some and thus has decided to abandon them to ****ation. [Bridging the Gulf Blake T. Ostler FARMS Review: Volume-11,Issue-2,Pages:103-77 A review of "How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation." by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson Provo,Utah:Maxwell Ins***ute,1999 (http://maxwellins***ute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=11&num=2&id=319)]

As for answering that "As for whom God saves,that is simply an unknown,in the end. I honestly don't know but what God does not have in mind to save 'all'" it is a dodge. It should bother you enough to find out the answer or at least seriously question that God according to Calvinism can save everyone out of love but has decided to leave some to ****ation.

Once again the question by Blake Ostler is "If God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation?"

[Father_JD]

Might I ask WHY you haven't deigned to answer my point by point re****al of Ostler's skewed understanding of so-called "Calvinism"????

[Mesenja]

Might I ask WHY you haven't deigned to answer my point by point re****al of Ostler's skewed understanding of so-called "Calvinism"?


I didn't know anything about this. Sorry for any hurt feelings I may have caused you. My delay in responding has nothing to do with the fact that you posted it.

[Billyray]

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.


So again, ignoring the case of the thief on the cross or other deathbed conversions, does my restatement accurately reflect what you are arguing with your ****ogy?
A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation. If a saved person does not produce good fruit eventually produce fruit then it is likely that he in not truly saved. However, the bottom line is that we are saved by faith and not by works.

[Mark Beesley]

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation. If a saved person does not produce good fruit eventually produce fruit then it is likely that he in not truly saved. However, the bottom line is that we are saved by faith and not by works.
I understand and appreciate your eagerness to move the discussion forward, and I promise that it will. But before moving on to the matter of what you call the "bottom line," I want to make sure we are on the same page with regard to the restatement of your ****ogy.

I believe we are very close to being in full agreement, I just need clarification on one small detail. Originally, the last sentence of my restatement (based on your ****ogy) said,
If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.

You have altered the last sentence slightly to read,
If a saved person does not [] eventually produce fruit then it is likely that he in not truly saved.
Can you explain to me the significance of the changes you made, particularly the insertion of the words eventually and likely?

Thanks.

[Libby]

The terminology is a Christian theological concept rooted in Augustinian theology and embraced mainly by Arminian Christians who are influenced by the theology of John Wesley.

I just noticed I hadn't replied to this. Honestly, I don't want to spend too much time on this.




Does it make any difference if the term prevenient grace and not irresistible grace (or efficacious grace) was used? You are quibbling over irrelevancies.

Actually, the terms are very different and not irrelevant. Prevenient grace is used to mean more of an "enabling" (as you mentioned) and efficacious grace is...effective.


As for answering that "As for whom God saves,that is simply an unknown,in the end. I honestly don't know but what God does not have in mind to save 'all'" it is a dodge. It should bother you enough to find out the answer or at least seriously question that God according to Calvinism can save everyone out of love but has decided to leave some to ****ation.

Once again the question by Blake Ostler is "If God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation?"

Consider it a "copout" if you wish, but I have told you the truth. I really don't know (nor do I have any way of knowing) who all God will save, in the end....and neither do you.

[Mesenja]

I just noticed I hadn't replied to this. Honestly,I don't want to spend too much time on this.


Consider it a "cop out" if you wish,but I have told you the truth. I really don't know (nor do I have any way of knowing) who all God will save, in the end....and neither do you.


Don't try to find the answers to any such troubling questions. All you have to do is just believe and everything will be just fine.

[Mesenja]

By the way,I read Robinson's book some time ago. He makes it all sound very reasonable,but where he gets tripped up is in the definition of terms. LDS and Christians use the same terms,but they mean such different things that they are actually NOT talking about the same things,in most cases. The divide is,actually,quite wide.


When you get to the point where you overuse this same disingenuous argument then take a fresh approach and say we don't believe in the same Jesus. :rolleyes:

[akaSeerone]

And when you have something other than an ad hominem get back with us, otherwise stay away.

You have no argument.....whether you like it or not it is a proven fact that mormonism has a Jesus that is not God, not the Jesus of the Bible so once again your post is irrelevant and just shows your hatred for everything Godly and everything Christian.

Andy

[Billyray]

I understand and appreciate your eagerness to move the discussion forward, and I promise that it will. But before moving on to the matter of what you call the "bottom line," I want to make sure we are on the same page with regard to the restatement of your ****ogy.

I believe we are very close to being in full agreement, I just need clarification on one small detail. Originally, the last sentence of my restatement (based on your ****ogy) said,

You have altered the last sentence slightly to read,
Can you explain to me the significance of the changes you made, particularly the insertion of the words eventually and likely?

Thanks.
Because not ALL people will have fruit in their life--prime example the thief on the cross, and yet be saved. Just like a very young tree--clearly alive and growing yet has not produced fruit--but the tree is still alive.

[Mark Beesley]

Because not ALL people will have fruit in their life--prime example the thief on the cross, and yet be saved. Just like a very young tree--clearly alive and growing yet has not produced fruit--but the tree is still alive.
Ok, great. We agree. I can say, without reservation, and without the qualifiers of eventually and likely that I the believe the following:

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.
So now I've had to ask myself: What have we accomplished with the ****ogy and subsequent ****ysis? So I went back to where the ****ogy was first offered to see what premise you were supporting with the ****ogy. This was your original post, edited to eliminate unnecessary verbiage.

Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.
From what I can tell, the ****ogy does not fully support the premise because it does not deal with the following question: How does the fruit tree become a fruit tree in the first place? In other words, How does a saved person become a saved person in the first place? The ****ogy only tells us how we can tell if it is a fruit tree, or said another way, how we can tell if a person is saved.

So now, in furtherance of our discussion, l think there are two question that we need to ask:
1. What is salvation?
2. At what what point in time can a person say, I am saved?

I suggest we deal with only one of these questions at a time. What do you think, and do you have a preference?

[akaSeerone]

If you study Ephesians the second chapter you will get your answer.

There is no reason to deal with your fabricated questions one at a time because the answers you are seeking are right there in the second chapter of Ephesians.

And I am sure with just a short study of the second chapter of Ephesians you will have to agree that mormonism has it all wrong.

Andy

[Mesenja]

1. Born Again
2. Hear the gospel message
3. Faith (place my trust in Christ)
4. Repent (turn away from my sins)
5. Baptism (after my conversion)

Lets test your theory Mesenja. I have done the following steps. Will I be exalted?


Also that is not the New Testament pattern of salvation. Why don't you test your theory out on the conversion stories in THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES and see if it aligns with the steps given there?

[Mesenja]

I agree with you, I think that we should be baptized. I was baptized by a Christian pastor after leaving the LDS church. So does this mean that I am OK?

(please note that even though I think that we should be baptized this does not mean that I think that baptism is required for salvation)


Baptism according to you is a work and this is contrary to your belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

[Mesenja]

You really believe now that that baptism of John is the same baptism that Paul was teaching in Acts 22:16? Paul had commanded men that knew only the Baptism of John to be re-baptized in Acts 19:1-6. so John's baptism is NOT acceptable to the Church!!! What dose the p***age in acts 22 mean.. Lets look.


Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Let put this in modern language. Why do you put of obedience to Jesus? Get up be baptized and call on His Name so that He can cleanse you of your sin. Unless you ask Him to become His child you will not be forgiven:


John 1:12-13
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born,not of blood,nor of the will of the flesh,nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 10:10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

These p***ages teach that you are totally out of agreement with God in His word. IHS Jim


This can only be done in the waters of baptism. Our sins are not remitted by calling on the name of Jesus Christ.


Acts 22:16
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise,and be baptized and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 6:11
11 And such were some of you:but ye are washed,but ye are sanctified,but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus,and by the Spirit of our God.

***us 3:5
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done,but according to his mercy he saved us,by the washing of regeneration,and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

[Mesenja]

Justin Martyr believes in baptism--I believe in baptism. But baptism does not save. Salvation is by faith in Christ.




The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus
JUSTIN MARTYR

Chapter XIII.—Isaiah teaches that sins are forgiven through Christ’s blood.


“For Isaiah did not send you to a bath,there to wash away murder and other sins,which not even all the water of the sea were sufficient to purge;but,as might have been expected,this was that saving bath of the olden time which followed those who repented,and who no longer were purified by the blood of goats and of sheep,or by the ashes of an heifer,or by the offerings of fine flour, but by faith through the blood of Christ,and through His death, who died for this very reason,as Isaiah himself said,when he spake thus:‘The Lord shall make bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations,and all the nations and the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God. "



ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (inter A.D. 148-155)



Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth,and professes to be able to live accordingly,is instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins,while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water;and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn:In the name of God,the Lord and Father of all,and of our Savior Jesus Christ,and of the Holy Spirit,they receive the washing with water. For Christ said,"Unless you be reborn,you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ...The reason for doing this,we have learned from the Apostles. (The First Apology 61)

[Father_JD]

I didn't know anything about this. Sorry for any hurt feelings I may have caused you. My delay in responding has nothing to do with the fact that you posted it.

Thanks, M...er, I guess so. I'll patiently await your studied response from my point by point re****al of Ostler's remarks. ;)

[Billyray]

because 1 John 2 says that if we claim to know Christ (have accepted Christ's gift) but we are not obedient in keeping the commandments

Mark, we have gone over this on this board hundreds of times. Yet you seem to not understand. Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

From what I can tell, the ****ogy does not fully support the premise because it does not deal with the following question: How does the fruit tree become a fruit tree in the first place? In other words, How does a saved person become a saved person in the first place? The ****ogy only tells us how we can tell if it is a fruit tree, or said another way, how we can tell if a person is saved.
I have tracked back the quotes. You are wrong on this point Mark. That was never a question that YOU raised but now you are acting like I did not answer one of your questions.

[Billyray]

1. What is salvation?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-doctrine-salvation.html
More often, the word “salvation” concerns an eternal, spiritual deliverance. When Paul told the Philippian jailer what he must do to be saved, he was referring to the jailer’s eternal destiny (Acts 16:30-31). Jesus equated being saved with entering the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24-25).

What are we saved from? In the Christian doctrine of salvation, we are saved from “wrath,” that is, from God’s judgment of sin (Romans 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9). Our sin has separated us from God, and the consequence of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Biblical salvation refers to our deliverance from the consequence of sin and therefore involves the removal of sin.

[Billyray]

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well.

Here are the five elements that forms the blueprint for every conversion story in Acts. What is consistent in all of them is the ordinance of baptism.

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized (fully immersed) in water for the forgiveness of our sins.
Born Again
Hear the gospel message
Faith (place my trust in Christ)
Repent (turn away from my sins)
Baptism (after my conversion)

Lets test your theory Mesenja. I have done the following steps. Will I be exalted?


Also that is not the New Testament pattern of salvation. Why don't you test your theory out on the conversion stories in THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES and see if it aligns with the steps given there?
I am quoting YOU directly. You are the one that made this list now you seem to be backing away. Make up your mind.

[Billyray]

Baptism according to you is a work and this is contrary to your belief in the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
That did not address my question.


I agree with you, I think that we should be baptized. I was baptized by a Christian pastor after leaving the LDS church. So does this mean that I am OK?

(please note that even though I think that we should be baptized this does not mean that I think that baptism is required for salvation)

[Mesenja]

That did not address my question:"So does this mean that I am OK?"


Give me a specific and clear question and I will see if I can give you an answer. I have no idea what you mean by asking me if you are okay. If you are alluding to the question of your baptism being valid then no it is not. Baptism must be performed by one who has proper priesthood authority.

[Mesenja]

Faith alone saved the thief on the cross. Real faith...saving faith..is all that's necessary. All of the verses I've quoted (and many, many more) say exactly that. You can't just throw those out, Marvin,and pretend they don't exist. No one is saying works are not necessary (or that works will not follow a saving faith). They will,most definitely if time permits. But,it is not the works that have the power to save. Works are the fruit of salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice,has the power to save.


The only place in the Bible where it uses the term faith alone is in a refutation of this false doctrine.

[Billyray]

Give me a specific and clear question and I will see if I can give you an answer.

You stated below in reference to salvation (LDS exaltation)

Here are the five elements that forms the blueprint for every conversion story in Acts. What is consistent in all of them is the ordinance of baptism.

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent (turn away from my old ways)
4. Confess (profess faith in Christ)
5. Be baptized

I have done the above 5 after leaving Mormonism and having my named removed from the LDS church. Will I be exalted if I follow your 5 steps above?