No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F [Archive] - Page 3

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 11:16 AM

Sure he was. The whole intent of that p***age was that he was saved.

So? Who ever says that the thief was with God the Father just after he died? I really don't understand this argument. By this argument Abraham would not be saved either.

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

Today,You will be with me in paradise
March 25,2008—Rachel

Today,You will be with me in paradise
Good Friday Sermon presented by Kenton David
on 03/21/2008 at Miller Evangelical Christian Union Church

The Bible tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But,Jesus never sinned. The reason why he never sinned was because he was God in human flesh. That means he’s flawless,he’s holy,he’s perfect and he can never make a mistake. The question is why was he on the cross. Well its because he loved us. Jesus said in John 10 “I will sacrifice my life for my sheep. So not only did the thief fear god,not only did he see Jesus as a righteous man but the final reason that helped him get into paradise is that he saw Jesus as Lord. That was the difference between this thief and the first thief,the Roman soldiers and the leaders. Each one of them said if you be the Christ,If you are the Son of God. But this thief said Lord. Notice he did not say if you be Lord,notice he did not say if you get into your kingdom but he said Lord when you get into your kingdom remember me. I believe that the dying criminal had more faith than the rest of Jesus’ followers put together. I say this because although the disciples continued to love Jesus,their hopes for the Kingdom were shattered. Most of them had gone into hiding. As one of his followers sadly said two days later, “We had thought he was the Messiah who had come to rescue Israel” (Luke 24:21). By contrast, the criminal looked at the man who was dying next to him and said,“Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” Faith can move mountains church. This man’s faith made him see beyond the present shame and he saw the coming glory. Now what blew me away was the way Jesus answered.

http://called2ministry.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/christking_4c.gif

Notice Jesus did not tell him to enter my kingdom you have to be baptized. Notice he did not say that you have to have a position in the church. Jesus did not say anything like that but he said today. Not tomorrow,not next week or next month but TODAY you will be with me in paradise. That’s what you call ***urance of salvation. All because he saw Jesus as Lord. That’s important because Romans 10:9 says that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God,and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

I believe church that many of us are just like the thief who ridiculed Jesus. We always question God & we always say well if you are God you wont let this happen to me & God being who he is because of his grace and mercy still loves us even when we question him. We consistently sin and every time we sin we nail Jesus right back on the cross & God sits there and watches us sacrifice his son over and over and over again. So I ask you do you not fear God even when you are spiritually hungry and dying. The thief who made it into heaven is a great example letting us know that even at the last minute you can be saved you can make it to paradise but we must be sincere. But don’t make it a practice to wait for the last minute because you can save yourself from a lot of pain and misery. So I leave you with this question when are you going to stop mocking and ridiculing Jesus and recognize him for who he is? Are you aiming to be told “today,you will be with me in paradise?”

Called 2 Ministry Christian Youth Ezine,March 25,2008,You will be with me in paradise Good Friday Sermon presented by Kenton David on 03/21/2008 at Miller Evangelical Christian Union Church (http://called2ministry.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise-good-friday-meditation-by-kenton-david/)

Billyray

06-12-2010, 11:57 AM

The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.
That is absolutely true. So you must have a point, what is it?

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 02:30 PM

That is absolutely true. So you must have a point, what is it?

My previous post was pretty clear as to what my point was. You don't have an argument.

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 02:49 PM

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? I am quoting YOU directly. You are the one that made this list now you seem to be backing away. Make up your mind.

You seem to be avoiding answering this question. Why?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized

I listed the steps exactly like you in two prior posts. If someone does these steps and follows this order will they be exalted?

You seem to be avoiding doing this. Why? Let us see which pattern the conversion stories in THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES most closely follow.

Billyray

06-12-2010, 03:26 PM

You seem to be avoiding doing this. Why? Let us see which pattern the conversion stories in THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES most closely follow.

You seem to be avoiding answering this question. Why?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized

I listed the steps exactly like you in two prior posts. If someone does these steps and follows this order will they be exalted?
Are you afraid to answer the question Mesenja? (BTW--this is not about me and my conversion this is about following a list that you provided and whether or not a person can be exalted if they follow YOUR list)

Billyray

06-12-2010, 03:28 PM

My previous post was pretty clear as to what my point was. You don't have an argument.

It was completely unclear. That is why I asked you what was your point. Do you have one?

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 04:21 PM

It was completely unclear. That is why I asked you what was your point. Do you have one?

Can you read this or do I need to enlarge the font size? You don't have an argument. Read my previous post. It has the evangelical argument for this verse and my refutation of it.

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 04:29 PM

Are you afraid to answer the question Mesenja? (By the way--this is not about me and my conversion this is about following a list that you provided and whether or not a person can be exalted if they follow YOUR list)

First you asked if you would be exalted. Now you are asking if other people can be exalted. Are you special Billy? I gave a fits one fits all answer.

Billyray

06-12-2010, 04:37 PM

Can you read this or do I need to enlarge the font size? You don't have an argument. Read my previous post. It has the evangelical argument for this verse and my refutation of it.

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

I agree with you on this point. The thief on the cross was with Jesus in Paradise that day. So what is your point?

Billyray

06-12-2010, 04:39 PM

First you asked if you would be exalted. Now you are asking if other people can be exalted. Are you special Billy? I gave a fits one fits all answer.

Mesenja, you are the one who produced a list that you say is "blueprint for every conversion story in Acts". I gave you the exact list in my post. Here it is again

You seem to be avoiding answering this question. Why?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized

If someone does these steps and follows this order will they be exalted?

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 05:17 PM

Mesenja,you are the one who produced a list that you say is "blueprint for every conversion story in Acts". I gave you the exact list in my post. If someone does these steps and follows this order will they be exalted?

I'm not going to repeat my answer because you cant scroll up and read my post to the exact same question. And by the way Billy you can be saved and not exalted.

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132

17 For these angels did not abide my law;therefore,they cannot be enlarged,but remain separately and singly,without exaltation,in their saved condition,to all eternity;and from henceforth are not gods,but are angels of God forever and ever.

Billyray

06-12-2010, 05:27 PM

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132

17 For these angels did not abide my law;therefore,they cannot be enlarged,but remain separately and singly,without exaltation,in their saved condition,to all eternity;and from henceforth are not gods,but are angels of God forever and ever.

You seem to be avoiding answering this question. Why?

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized

So YOUR list that YOU gave me does not result in exaltation. OK. What does it offer me, ***uming that I follow your steps exactly and I am baptized (in a local Christian church Baptist etc.)?

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 07:04 PM

I agree with you on this point. The thief on the cross was with Jesus in Paradise that day. So what is your point?

You don't have an argument that this incident either proves salvation by faith alone or death bed repentance. If you have a disagreement with the re****al I gave then present it. Constantly repeating a question that I have already answered is both rude and counter-productive.

Billyray

06-12-2010, 07:37 PM

You don't have an argument that this incident either proves salvation by faith alone or death bed repentance.
Here is YOUR statement.

The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.
I agree with you. What is your point. Mesenja, this is getting real old. You seem to have a difficult time expressing yourself. Just spit it out it will make it easier on both of us.

Mesenja

06-12-2010, 09:00 PM

I agree with you. What is your point. Mesenja, this is getting real old. You seem to have a difficult time expressing yourself. Just spit it out it will make it easier on both of us.

You keep asking the same question that I have already answered in a previous post. Even Ray Charles can see the point I am trying to make. :rolleyes:

Billyray

06-12-2010, 09:05 PM

You keep asking the same question that I have already answered in a previous post. Even Ray Charles can see the point I am trying to make.
Mesenja, instead of trying open and honest dialogue you are vague and cryptic in your responses. You are not very clear in your posts and you come across in a very sneaky way. But you probably already knew that. Why not open up and be a little more direct? If you have the truth then you don't need to hide.

You said, "The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord."

Do you stand by that quote?

Mesenja

06-13-2010, 05:24 PM

You said:

The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

Do you stand by that quote?

Here's what I said Billy. Now you tell me why I should support an evangelical proof text as I am a Latter-day Saint and this goes against the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

Billyray

06-13-2010, 05:43 PM

Billyray

06-13-2010, 06:39 PM

Now you tell me why I should support an evangelical proof text as I am a Latter-day Saint and this goes against the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Are you asking me why you should believe a Biblical verse, especially one that conflicts with LDS teachings? That is a simple one. Because the LDS church is false and the Bible is true.

Mesenja

06-13-2010, 09:10 PM

Do you believe that the thief on the cross was with Jesus in Paradise?

Do you believe that this is right of you to do?

Billyray

06-13-2010, 09:46 PM

Do you believe that this is right of you to do?

I did not include the first sentence but the second sentence was word for word. In fact I copied it and pasted it so it was completely accurate. I have no idea what your position is that is why I have repeatedly asked you over and over again to explain your position. I have given you ample opportunity to clarify yourself and you could of taken that opportunity to correct me if you felt that I have misquoted you, but you didn't. I am still confused about your point even as we speak. Instead of belly aching about me misquoting you why don't you do something novel and tell us what your position is--which I have asked you over and over again. This seems to me to be a game you are playing rather than open and honest dialogue. You may think that you are communicating effectively but I am here to tell you that you are not and I am left to try and repeatedly guess what you are trying to say despite asking for clarification.

Mesenja

06-13-2010, 09:55 PM

Are you asking me why you should believe a Biblical verse,especially one that conflicts with LDS teachings? That is a simple one. Because the LDS church is false and the Bible is true.

I'm asking why you bore false witness. I am asking why you believe in sola scriptura when it refutes itself. I'm asking why you believe that the Bible is self explanatory?

Mesenja

06-13-2010, 10:05 PM

I did not include the first sentence but the second sentence was word for word. In fact I copied it and pasted it so it was completely accurate. I have no idea what your position is that is why I have repeatedly asked you over and over again to explain your position. I have given you ample opportunity to clarify yourself and you could of taken that opportunity to correct me if you felt that I have misquoted you,but you didn't. I am still confused about your point even as we speak. Instead of belly aching about me misquoting you why don't you do something novel and tell us what your position is--which I have asked you over and over again. This seems to me to be a game you are playing rather than open and honest dialogue. You may think that you are communicating effectively but I am here to tell you that you are not and I am left to try and repeatedly guess what you are trying to say despite asking for clarification.

That would be something very novel. You know that this is not my position at all. Yet you edited my quote to make it appear that I believe this. The only games that are being played here is by you. I gave my refutation of your position. Either deal with it or not. I don't care one way or the other.

Billyray

06-13-2010, 10:13 PM

That would be something very novel. You know that this is not my position at all. Yet you edited my quote to make it appear that I believe this. The only games that are being played here is by you. I gave my refutation of your position. Either deal with it or not. I don't care one way or the other.

You just can't express what you want to say can you? This is a big game or joke for you isn't it? I still am unclear what your point is. This is the same place we have been for the last several pages. I keep asking you what you have meant but you keep this game going on and on and on despite my inquiring what you have meant. There is no reason or gain that I can get by purposely misquoting your position because you simply can point out what your position is to correct me. But you have not done this despite my asking.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? PLEASE TELL US SO WE CAN STOP GUESSING. But my guess is that you will not do so. You will continue on with this little game of yours because you really do not want to talk about the issues.

Billyray

06-13-2010, 10:35 PM

That would be something very novel. You know that this is not my position at all.
I went back to go over our dialogue

That is absolutely true. So you must have a point, what is it?

Figure it out Einstein
My previous post was pretty clear as to what my point was. You don't have an argument.

It was completely unclear. That is why I asked you what was your point. Do you have one?

I've already told you
Can you read this or do I need to enlarge the font size? You don't have an argument. Read my previous post. It has the evangelical argument for this verse and my refutation of it.

I agree with you on this point. The thief on the cross was with Jesus in Paradise that day. So what is your point?

Finally I think this is your position after all of the useless banter

You don't have an argument that this incident either proves salvation by faith alone or death bed repentance. If you have a disagreement with the re****al I gave then present it. Constantly repeating a question that I have already answered is both rude and counter-productive.
But here is your original quote

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

Here is the whole issue. We both agree that the thief was "promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord" Just like your quote states--you may not agree with the word saved but you stated "saved or promised"

So do YOU believe your quote above?

Billyray

06-13-2010, 10:45 PM

You don't have an argument that this incident either proves salvation by faith alone or death bed repentance. If you have a disagreement with the re****al I gave then present it. Constantly repeating a question that I have already answered is both rude and counter-productive.
***uming that this is the point the you were trying to make.

The thief on the cross did go to Paradise that day to be with Jesus, a place were the righteous go after they die prior to the resurrection of Jesus.

Billyray

06-14-2010, 09:16 AM

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Mesenja--do you believe what you have written, which just so happens to be almost word for word from the scripture. Again I guess I am missing your point. Do you reject the scriptures?

Mesenja

06-14-2010, 11:00 AM

You just can't express what you want to say can you? This is a big game or joke for you isn't it? I still am unclear what your point is. This is the same place we have been for the last several pages.

I keep asking you what you have meant but you keep this game going on and on and on despite my inquiring what you have meant. There is no reason or gain that I can get by purposely misquoting your position because you simply can point out what your position is to correct me. But you have not done this despite my asking.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? PLEASE TELL US SO WE CAN STOP GUESSING. But my guess is that you will not do so. You will continue on with this little game of yours because you really do not want to talk about the issues.

I gave the evangelical position of what this verse means. Then I gave you my refutation of it. There is a reason for purposely misquoting my quote. But I wont call you a self serving liar as that is against the rules.

Mesenja

06-14-2010, 11:13 AM

Here is the whole issue. We both agree that the thief was "promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord" Just like your quote states--you may not agree with the word saved but you stated "saved or promised" So do YOU believe your quote above?

First of all this is not my quote. Second you are deliberately misquoting me and attributing this position to me. Third according to the evangelical position salvation is equated to being in Paradise. Fourth this is a scriptural proof text given by evangelicals to support salvation by faith alone and death bed repentance. Fifth I have refuted this argument by showing that the bodily ascension of Jesus had not yet taken place. Now you figure it out Einstein as to why the thief was not saved.

Billyray

06-14-2010, 11:36 AM

Too bad Einstein

I gave the evangelical position of what this verse means. Then I gave you my refutation of it. There is a reason for purposely misquoting my quote. But I wont call you a self serving liar as that is against the rules.

A liar?

Einstein?

Mesenja, you are a piece of work. This just shows your real intent here is not for ongoing dialogue but for gamesmanship. I asked on several occasions for clarification because I did not understand your point. If I don't understand your point then I don't understand your point. You basically quoted scripture in your original post which I agree with and I ***umed that you agreed with it--that is why I wanted further clarification.

Billyray

06-14-2010, 11:53 AM

First of all this is not my quote.

What do you mean it is not your quote?

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

And here is the Bible quote which is almost identical to your quote.
Luke 23
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Second you are deliberately misquoting me and attributing this position to me.

You were paraphrasing a Bible verse. I would think that you would agree with this position. AND my quote was word for word. Go back and check it

Third according to the evangelical position salvation is equated to being in Paradise.

Your quote stated
"The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord."

You used saved OR promised. The Bible clearly states that the thief was promised that he would be with Jesus in Paradise.

Fifth I have refuted this argument by showing that the bodily ascension of Jesus had not yet taken place. Now you figure it out Einstein as to why the thief was not saved.

You haven't refuted anything Mesenja, only in your own mind. You see you have to change the word Paradise to mean something else and/or you have to discount what Jesus really stated to come up with the LDS position. The Bible teaches that prior to the resurrection of Christ the believers and nonbelievers where in a separate location and that you could not go back and forth between the two, and this location was not necessarily with the Father. But clearly Abraham etc. were saved.

Mesenja, do you believe the Bible? Was the thief on the cross in Paradise with Jesus as Jesus promised?
Luke 23
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Mesenja

06-14-2010, 02:56 PM

What do you mean it is not your quote?

What words can't you understand? It was a quote from a Good Friday Sermon presented by Kenton David on 03/21/2008 at Miller Evangelical Christian Union Church.

Mesenja

06-14-2010, 03:20 PM

You keep deliberately attributing quotes to me that I did not make. My argument was also very simple. Here it is again. If you can't figure it out as of yet or be bothered to scroll up and see it that isn't my problem.

A liar?

Einstein?

Mesenja,you are a piece of work. This just shows your real intent here is not for ongoing dialogue but for gamesmanship. I asked on several occasions for clarification because I did not understand your point. If I don't understand your point then I don't understand your point. You basically quoted scripture in your original post which I agree with and I ***umed that you agreed with it--that is why I wanted further clarification.

No in my post Evangelicals say this 06-12-2010 (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=61587#post61587) I gave the evangelical Protestant argument for this verse. These are the relevant portions to the argument at hand.

Jesus did not say anything like that but he said today. Not tomorrow,not next week or next month but TODAY you will be with me in paradise. That’s what you call ***urance of salvation. All because he saw Jesus as Lord. That’s important because Romans 10:9 says that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God,and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.

The thief who made it into heaven is a great example letting us know that even at the last minute you can be saved you can make it to paradise but we must be sincere.

So I leave you with this question when are you going to stop mocking and ridiculing Jesus and recognize him for who he is? Are you aiming to be told “today,you will be with me in paradise?”

My refutation of this position was very simple. The thief was not given ***urance of salvation that day because he was not with Jesus in Paradise. Therefore Heaven does not equate to the same place as Paradise and consequently he was not saved.

Billyray

06-14-2010, 03:30 PM

My refutation of this position was very simple. The thief was not given ***urance of salvation that day because he was not with Jesus in Paradise. Therefore Heaven does not equate to the same place as Paradise and consequently he was not saved.

Luke 23
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

This verse clearly states that the thief will be with Jesus that day in paradise.

You disagree with the Bible on this point, correct? Why?

Billyray

06-14-2010, 03:40 PM

I mean what I say

I will not feed your bad behavior by taking your bait and going down dead end trails like I have done in the past.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 09:00 AM

Luke 23:43 "Jesus answered him,"I tell you the truth,today you will be with me in paradise."

Mesenja--do you believe what you have written,which just so happens to be almost word for word from the scripture. Again I guess I am missing your point. Do you reject the scriptures?

Why do you constantly bear false witness against me? I've already given you an answer as to your proof text. All I can say is if you are having difficulty understanding it tough.

Billyray

06-15-2010, 09:03 AM

Why do you constantly bear false witness against me? I've already given you an answer as to your proof text. All I can say is if you are having difficulty understanding it tough.

I am not going to continue to feed your bad behavior by taking the bait to go down a rabbit hole. Please address the question. Here is the question again.

Mesenja, do you believe the Bible? Was the thief on the cross in Paradise with Jesus as Jesus promised?
Luke 23
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 10:09 AM

What do you mean it is not your quote?
And here is the Bible quote which is almost identical to your quote Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth,today you will be with me in paradise."
You were paraphrasing a Bible verse. I would think that you would agree with this position. AND my quote was word for word. Go back and check it
Your quote stated that "The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord."
You used saved OR promised. The Bible clearly states that the thief was promised that he would be with Jesus in Paradise.

No Billy you go and check out what I posted. For your convenience it is found at "Evangelicals say this (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=61587#poststop)" I said quite clearly that I was giving the evangelical Protestant position as regards to this particular verse. Yet you like to continue to play your games.

Billy as you well know this is an evangelical proof text for salvation by faith alone. The thief was saved or promised that today he would be with Him in paradise after his confession that Jesus was Lord.

This is the last time I will address this issue. If you enjoy this gamesmanship of yours then from this time forward you will have to use it on another poster.

You haven't refuted anything Mesenja,only in your own mind. You see you have to change the word Paradise to mean something else and/or you have to discount what Jesus really stated to come up with the Latter-day Saint position. The Bible teaches that prior to the resurrection of Christ the believers and nonbelievers where in a separate location and that you could not go back and forth between the two,and this location was not necessarily with the Father,but clearly Abraham etc. were saved.

The thief was clearly not with Jesus in Paradise which equates to salvation according to evangelical Protestant thinking. And yes Billy it would necessarily mean that if the thief was saved today and not tomorrow then Paradise would have to equate with Heaven. If you have disagreements with this then take your concern to Kenton David of Miller Evangelical Christian Union Church.

Jesus did not say anything like that but he said today. Not tomorrow,not next week or next month but TODAY you will be with me in paradise. That’s what you call ***urance of salvation. All because he saw Jesus as Lord.
That’s important because Romans 10:9 says that “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God,and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.
The thief who made it into heaven is a great example letting us know that even at the last minute you can be saved you can make it to paradise but we must be sincere.
So I leave you with this question when are you going to stop mocking and ridiculing Jesus and recognize him for who he is? Are you aiming to be told “today,you will be with me in paradise?”

What does Kenton David equate Paradise to Billy. That's right he equates it with Heaven or salvation. Now ask yourself this question Billy if the thief did not go to paradise which is according to you a separate location in the spirit world where the believers go then was he saved?

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 10:20 AM

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him,"I tell you the truth,today you will be with me in paradise."

This verse clearly states that the thief will be with Jesus that day in paradise. You disagree with the Bible on this point,correct? Why

The reason for this being that it disagrees with what he told Mary after his bodily resurrection from the tomb.

John 20:17

17 Jesus saith unto her,Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren,and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God,and your God.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 10:29 AM

I will not feed your bad behavior by taking your bait and going down dead end trails like I have done in the past.

You asked for an explanation I gave it to you. Now you are accusing me of bad behavior. If you also don't want to reconcile these two statements then that is your choice.

Luke 23:43
43 And Jesus said unto him,Verily I say unto thee,To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her,Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren, and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God,and your God.

Billyray

06-15-2010, 10:30 AM

The thief was clearly not with Jesus in Paradise which equates to salvation according to evangelical Protestant thinking.

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 10:36 AM

I am not going to continue to feed your bad behavior by taking the bait to go down a rabbit hole. Please address the question. Here is the question again.

Mesenja,do you believe the Bible? Was the thief on the cross in Paradise with Jesus as Jesus promised?

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

You have repeatedly made false accusations against me and when I try to set the record straight you cry foul and say this is bad behavior and diversionary tactics. Now you are insinuating that I do not believe that the Bible is inspired writ because I dare to question that it's not inerrant.

Billyray

06-15-2010, 10:37 AM

You have repeatedly made false accusations against me and when I try to set the record straight you cry foul and say this is bad behavior and diversionary tactics. Now you are insinuating that I do not believe that the Bible is inspired writ because I dare to question that it's not inerrant.

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 10:39 AM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

However I've already answered this. Go and read my previous posts and find out the answer for yourself.

Billyray

06-15-2010, 10:39 AM

Go and read my previous posts and find out the answer for yourself.

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

RealFakeHair

06-15-2010, 11:04 AM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

There are no simple questions or answers in Mormonlandism.
Try this one; why are sacred oaths secret?:confused:

Father_JD

06-15-2010, 03:10 PM

I will only deal with your critique of Blake Ostler's comments on Calvinism. It should be posted sometime next week if not earlier.

Does this mean you're gonna IGNORE Romans 9 which demonstrates Ostler's ERROR? :eek:

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 07:20 PM

Does this mean you're gonna IGNORE Romans 9 which demonstrates Ostler's ERROR? :eek:

Blake Oslter wasn't trying to give a doctrinal refutation of Calvinism. Therefore no I am not going to deal with Romans 9. I've been there done that with Billy Ray. I'm just not interested.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 07:29 PM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

If you can't bother to read my post which answered this question it is not my problem.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 08:24 PM

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 You should know by now I get everything i post from Orthodox Christian sites. Do they hate the Bible as well?

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)

ST. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH (c. A.D. 181)

Moreover,those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God,so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration -- all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (To Autolycus 2:16)

ST. IRENAEUS (c. A.D. 190)

"And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old,when suffering from leprosy,was purified upon his being baptized,but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin,we are made clean,by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord,from our old transgressions,being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes,even as the Lord has declared:"Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit,he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Fragment 34)

TERTULLIAN (inter A.D. 200-206)

...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." (On Baptism 12:1)

Billyray

06-15-2010, 08:25 PM

If you can't bother to read my post which answered this question it is not my problem.
Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

Mesenja

06-15-2010, 08:44 PM

Billyray

06-15-2010, 08:48 PM

Now if you don't know my answer to your question then your just not trying hard enough.
Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus?

Yes or No?

Mesenja

06-16-2010, 02:39 AM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him,"I tell you the truth,today you will be with me in paradise." This verse clearly states that the thief will be with Jesus that day in paradise. You disagree with the Bible on this point,correct? Why?

The reason for this being that it disagrees with what he told Mary after his bodily resurrection from the tomb.

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? Yes or No?

Now if you don't know my answer to your question then your just not trying hard enough.

What do you think my position is Einstein if I disagree with the translation of Luke 23:43? Put your thinking cap on Billy and try real hard to connect the dots.

Mesenja

06-16-2010, 02:45 AM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

What part of the thief was clearly not with Jesus in Paradise do you not understand?

Mesenja

06-16-2010, 05:45 AM

I did not include the first sentence but the second sentence was word for word. In fact I copied it and pasted it so it was completely accurate. Instead of belly aching about me misquoting you why don't you do something novel and tell us what your position is--which I have asked you over and over again.

How big of you for quoting my second sentence word for word so that it is completely accurate. However this is meaningless as there is no proper context of what I said without the first sentence. When you deliberately twist my words again like the good Christian that you are I will in future stop my belly aching about you misquoting me. :rolleyes:

Billyray

06-16-2010, 08:28 AM

What part of the thief was clearly not with Jesus in Paradise do you not understand?
Mesenja says the thief on the cross was NOT with Jesus in Paradise

Bible says that the thief "will be with me in paradise."

Why should I believe you over the Bible?

Mesenja

06-16-2010, 02:40 PM

Mesenja says the thief on the cross was NOT with Jesus in Paradise. Bible says that the thief "will be with me in paradise." Why should I believe you over the Bible?

Except that Jesus said to Mary "Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren,and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God, and your God."

Billyray

06-16-2010, 02:54 PM

Except that Jesus said to Mary "Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren,and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God, and your God."

Why do you ***ume that the righteous spirits in paradise are with the Father prior to the ascension of Christ?

Sentinus

06-16-2010, 02:58 PM

Hey Messenja your truly loving and kind Christian at***ude is clearly on display in this thread, no doubt your father in heaven is pleased with your constant ribbing and insulting tone.. Way to represent, Monson would be proud.. You sir are part of the problem and not any part of the solution.

Regards,
Sentinus

Father_JD

06-16-2010, 06:33 PM

Blake Oslter wasn't trying to give a doctrinal refutation of Calvinism. Therefore no I am not going to deal with Romans 9. I've been there done that with Billy Ray. I'm just not interested.

ROFLMOL, M.

We all KNOW why you're not going to deal with Romans 9. The text can't be twisted to agree with Mormon theology. :p

Father_JD

06-16-2010, 06:35 PM

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, jeff. Do you really think water can "wash away sins"?

Billyray

06-16-2010, 06:40 PM

ROFLMOL, M.

We all KNOW why you're not going to deal with Romans 9. The text can't be twisted to agree with Mormon theology. :p

I certainly did not go over Romans 9 with Mesenja--that is a complete fabrication on his/her part.

Father_JD

06-16-2010, 06:41 PM

I certainly did not go over Romans 9 with Mesenja--that is a complete fabrication on his/her part.

I've spoon-fed a line by line exegesis for M and other LDS on this forum several times.

They run away every time, Billyray. :rolleyes:

Mesenja

06-17-2010, 08:05 AM

ROFLMOL,Mesenja.

We all KNOW why you're not going to deal with Romans 9. The text can't be twisted to agree with Mormon theology. :p

I am glad that you feel comfort in the false ***urance that the New Testament writings of Paul support your false doctrine. If you want to take this line of the thread off topic I will gladly do so but at a latter time. At the moment I am interested in debating some of the theoretical and philosophical problems of Calvinism that Ostler brought up.

Mesenja

06-17-2010, 08:11 AM

I certainly did not go over Romans 9 with Mesenja--that is a complete fabrication on his/her part.

We did debate the proper interpretation of Paul's statements of God saying that Jacob I loved,Esau I hated.

Mesenja

06-17-2010, 08:15 AM

I've spoon-fed a line by line exegesis for Mesenja and other LDS on this forum several times. They run away every time,Billyray. :rolleyes:

If only it was a proper one. You tried to spoon feed us the false doctrine of Calvinism. We run away from false doctrine every time Father-JD.

James Banta

06-17-2010, 08:16 AM

Why is it so hard to answer the question that Vlad asked you?

Messy, Sorry Vlad's question didn't register.. What %, ZERO.. If you don't agree with what God has revealed to us in His word the Bible about Himself then you can't be saved trusting in a god of your own imagination.. IHS jim

Mesenja

06-17-2010, 08:19 AM

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace,Jeff. Do you really think water can "wash away sins"?

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to.

Billyray

06-17-2010, 08:37 AM

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to..

Correct you do believe that, which is why Christians say that you believe in a works based religion. Maybe you should be spending more time working your way to exaltation, remember there are a lot of things that you are required to do and this isn't one of them.

James Banta

06-17-2010, 09:04 AM

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

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

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

If John's baptism was really capable of cleansing us of Sin then Jesus died in vain.. All we would have needed is John's baptism. But in act 19 We are told that the baptism of John is not even considered Christian baptism..

Acts 19:2-5
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
So who is right here, you saying that the water of John's baptism is agent by which sins are forgiven yet the Bible says that without the shedding of blood here is no remission (Hebrews 9:22).. That is one HUGE problem with mormonism, it teaches that baptism actually is the way to have sins forgiven. Christian insist that the blood of Jesus is required..

This shows in the way you see 1 Perter 3:21 You insist that baptism is more than a testimony of our salvation, again you put it on a level equal with the blood of Jesus. But right there in the verse it tells us that baptism doesn't put away the filth of the flesh but instead shows a good conscience toward God. It is shocking just how little respect you have for the blood Jesus shed to purchase salvation for all who would accept it..

So when Jim teaches what the Bible says, that forgiveness of sin is only possible through the life's blood of the sacrifice (Jesus) that is false? But again, if water could accomplish that, Jesus could have just died in His sleep and be raised again.. But I am wrong because the water of baptism is what saves us but Jesus is still needed to save us.. You are being contradictive in your words.. Instead of making the Bible contradict why don't you look for a interpretation that makes it all true?

BTW James (banta) 1:1 Is about the star of Bethlehem not baptism :) IHS jim

Father_JD

06-17-2010, 06:55 PM

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to.

Thereby making Mormon "salvation" of that of faith + WORKS. Thanks for admitting that. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

06-17-2010, 07:43 PM

If only it was a proper one. You tried to spoon feed us the false doctrine of Calvinism. We run away from false doctrine every time Father-JD.

LOL. Talk's cheap, dude. You don't have any kind of exegesis for Romans 9 because the chapter defies Mormon TWISTING.

Put up or shut up as they say, M. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

06-17-2010, 07:47 PM

I am glad that you feel comfort in the false ***urance that the New Testament writings of Paul support your false doctrine. If you want to take this line of the thread off topic I will gladly do so but at a latter time. At the moment I am interested in debating some of the theoretical and philosophical problems of Calvinism that Ostler brought up.

Put up or shut up, M. Amazing, NO re****al from you or your co-horts in religious crime, just your typical Mormon "Nuh-uh" response.

You're not fooling anyone here, M. You don't ever care to "take this line of the thread" because you have nothing but apolo-joke-tics and smoke-and-mirrors tactics. :p

jennieblue22

07-13-2010, 02:14 PM

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.

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. ...

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"...

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...

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. ...

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. ...

There is a HUGE problem with this belief. If God's election (were it to exist at all) is NOT "arbitrary", His reasoning for selection of the elect would stand alone and always make sense to stand true. That His reasons for elect selection are necessarily "known ONLY to Him" and applicable to only His own personal preference is actually the rather clear indicator of the arbitrary nature of the choosing of the elect.

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. ...

Not a case of "deserving". We're born in sin and tresp***. We're physically born DOA...dead on arrival SPIRITUALLY.
CONTRADICTION!!! You had just previously stated that the elect are selected ONLY by God Himself - without the individual taking ANY role in that selection, and that the non-elect are NEVER offered the chance to accept God's grace - a chance that may ONLY be offered by God Himself if He so chooses to offer it, and cannot be obtained by any other means or by any action on the part of the individual. In which case, the chance for election - and thus the ability to accept the grace of God and leave the state of ****ation - is ONLY within the power of God and NOT in the individual's domain of power; thus the non-elect COULD NOT have chosen to be in a state of ****ation, when they had NO control over the circumstances that kept them in, or would have allowed for their release from, that horrid state.

Merely his opinion. ...

His opinion, NOT based upon anything scriptural ...

Whoa. No one says God's election is "purely arbitrary and capricious". Ostler has NO biblical justification for this statement.

No, that is only an opinion insofar as the words " arbitrary and evil tyrant" are redefined to exclude the Abrahamic/Biblical God from such categorization. The fact remains that this God's judgment in regard to the selection of the elect is proven to be quite arbitrary by its very own nature, and only a truly heartless and uncomp***ionate soul could ever consider such a horrid thing as even allowing (let alone mandating) that One's own children/creation to forever burn in the hell of eternal ****ation - as supposed 'punishment' for an alleged 'mistake' committed by those who had NO POWER on their own to act differently - to be anything less than evil and tyrannical, and the One who does so as anything less than "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome." This is particularly true when one factually understands that God had FULL control over the circumstances that might have prevented it butactively CHOSE not to allow those circumstances to be modified to a more favorable position for arbitrary personal reasons. Even by Reformed Christian understanding the Bible makes it clear that the Judeo-Christian God's reasoning for such decision-making is not known to the people; it is so because it is only tailored to His personal preference and therefore certainly arbitrary.

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.

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

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

Still not convinced? Read on...

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

Now keep paying attention, M. ...

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.

The fact remains that the non-elect are NOT left behind by their choice. The decision was solely made arbitrarily by a God whose actions in this regard may indeed be thus be called "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome" as was previously stated.

... 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??
Paul is NOT God. He was a mere man. God is loving; man has at times been known to hate.

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"!! ...

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! ...

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 [it], 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, ...
The Abrahamic/Biblical God may be declared to show mercy to some, but He CANNOT be declared as truly merciful if He does not bestow His mercy to ALL; He would then be UNmerciful to those who were not so fortunate to receive His mercy, for NO fault of their own doing!

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

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"!!!!
Whether you believe the Bible supports or opposes Reformed belief is entirely your own opinion, based on your personal preferred interpretations of the Bible; nevertheless, the fact remains that [I]the TRUE God is, has always been, and will always be a God of love.

As said in the Bible (1 John 4:8, NIV) :
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

akaSeerone

07-13-2010, 02:28 PM

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.A couple of things here....we are not all created God's children. We are only children by adoption.

All of creation fell when Adam sinned, so by default we are enemies of God and must be called and adopted to become sons and daughters of God.

Being the God of Love is why some are chosen and some are not. Live with it or remain dead in your tresp***es and sins or repent and become Christians, otherwise you will remain lost and without hope.

Andy

RealFakeHair

07-13-2010, 02:34 PM

There is a HUGE problem with this belief. If God's election (were it to exist at all) is NOT "arbitrary", His reasoning for selection of the elect would stand alone and always make sense to stand true. That His reasons for elect selection are necessarily "known ONLY to Him" and applicable to only His own personal preference is actually the rather clear indicator of the arbitrary nature of the choosing of the elect.

CONTRADICTION!!! You had just previously stated that the elect are selected ONLY by God Himself - without the individual taking ANY role in that selection, and that the non-elect are NEVER offered the chance to accept God's grace - a chance that may ONLY be offered by God Himself if He so chooses to offer it, and cannot be obtained by any other means or by any action on the part of the individual. In which case, the chance for election - and thus the ability to accept the grace of God and leave the state of ****ation - is ONLY within the power of God and NOT in the individual's domain of power; thus the non-elect COULD NOT have chosen to be in a state of ****ation, when they had NO control over the circumstances that kept them in, or would have allowed for their release from, that horrid state.

No, that is only an opinion insofar as the words " arbitrary and evil tyrant" are redefined to exclude the Abrahamic/Biblical God from such categorization. The fact remains that this God's judgment in regard to the selection of the elect is proven to be quite arbitrary by its very own nature, and only a truly heartless and uncomp***ionate soul could ever consider such a horrid thing as even allowing (let alone mandating) that One's own children/creation to forever burn in the hell of eternal ****ation - as supposed 'punishment' for an alleged 'mistake' committed by those who had NO POWER on their own to act differently - to be anything less than evil and tyrannical, and the One who does so as anything less than "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome." This is particularly true when one factually understands that God had FULL control over the circumstances that might have prevented it butactively CHOSE not to allow those circumstances to be modified to a more favorable position for arbitrary personal reasons. Even by Reformed Christian understanding the Bible makes it clear that the Judeo-Christian God's reasoning for such decision-making is not known to the people; it is so because it is only tailored to His personal preference and therefore certainly arbitrary.

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.

The fact remains that the non-elect are NOT left behind by their choice. The decision was solely made arbitrarily by a God whose actions in this regard may indeed be thus be called "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome" as was previously stated.

Paul is NOT God. He was a mere man. God is loving; man has at times been known to hate.

The Abrahamic/Biblical God may be declared to show mercy to some, but He CANNOT be declared as truly merciful if He does not bestow His mercy to ALL; He would then be UNmerciful to those who were not so fortunate to receive His mercy, for NO fault of their own doing!

Whether you believe the Bible supports or opposes Reformed belief is entirely your own opinion, based on your personal preferred interpretations of the Bible; nevertheless, the fact remains that the TRUE God is, has always been, and will always be a God of love.

As said in the Bible (1 John 4:8, NIV) :
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

and I could be wrong and all, but, well you see, I mean you know it just seems you is a bit abrasive in your style of writing and all. Yeah, God is love and all, but IMHO sayin it with kindness is much more palatable.

jennieblue22

07-13-2010, 02:44 PM

A couple of things here....we are not all created God's children. We are only children by adoption.
In which case, as stated previously, we are indeed rejected by default according to this position - for no fault within our own control.

All of creation fell when Adam sinned, so by default we are enemies of God and must be called and adopted to become sons and daughters of God.
What did WE do to earn/share in this punishment that was meant to be given only for Adam's crime?! Absolutely NOTHING!! We had absolutely NO control over the situation (and wouldn't have even been around to see it) and thus we are being unfairly/unduly/unjustly punished by this Biblical/Abrahmic God for a crime that WE didn't commit and COULD NOT have prevented from occurring in ANY way.

Being the God of Love is why some are chosen
Yes, only for those lucky few ...

...and some are not. Live with it or remain dead in your tresp***es and sins or repent and become Christians, otherwise you will remain lost and without hope.

... but in what way is THIS attributable to a God who is truly a God of Love?! It simply is NOT within the character of a truly loving God.

akaSeerone

07-13-2010, 03:26 PM

... but in what way is THIS attributable to a God who is truly a God of Love?! It simply is NOT within the character of a truly loving God. Quite frankly you have no idea what God's Love is because you are lost and without God, being under the influence of mormonism and all.

You do not have the infilling of the Holy Spirit so your idea of love is from the fallen nature of man's view point, not the Biblical.

Andy

jennieblue22

07-13-2010, 05:44 PM

Quite frankly you have no idea what God's Love is because you are lost and without God, being under the influence of mormonism and all.

You do not have the infilling of the Holy Spirit so your idea of love is from the fallen nature of man's view point, not the Biblical.

Andy
i'm NOT a Mormon, actually. Just making an obvious valid point (on which Mormons may happen to agree :D). and i am grateful - by the good Lord's Mercy - to have known God's Love and His Mercy; He is most certainly not the unloving, uncomp***ionate, vengeful creature so many of His confused followers make Him out to be, and i pity those who have not given themselves the opportunity to know this beautiful Truth by forcing themselves to think otherwise.

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 08:18 AM

and I could be wrong and all, but, well you see, I mean you know it just seems you is a bit abrasive in your style of writing and all. Yeah, God is love and all, but IMHO sayin it with kindness is much more palatable.
i certainly didn't intend it to be written in an abrasive/hateful style; my sincere apologies to anyone who interpreted it as such and took offense. Certainly it would be quite hypocritical to push others to accept the Truth that God is Love in a hateful manner.

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 08:23 AM

LOL. Talk's cheap, dude. You don't have any kind of exegesis for Romans 9 because the chapter defies Mormon TWISTING.

Put up or shut up as they say, M. :rolleyes:
Romans 9 ***erts that God has the power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 08:27 AM

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 08:29 AM

Thereby making Mormon "salvation" of that of faith + WORKS. Thanks for admitting that. :rolleyes:
Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

RealFakeHair

07-14-2010, 09:13 AM

i certainly didn't intend it to be written in an abrasive/hateful style; my sincere apologies to anyone who interpreted it as such and took offense. Certainly it would be quite hypocritical to push others to accept the Truth that God is Love in a hateful manner.

Love is a mighty BIG word, and as a poet of low rank I can not attempt to write the words better than God put into St John 3:16.

bhuvana-mohan dasa

07-14-2010, 05:18 PM

Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

You'll see below, Jenn, that there at least appears to have been fundamental disagreement between the Antinomianism of Paul and the much more service-oriented and pragmatic approach of the apostle James on this issue of "easy-believism", by which today's Antinomian evangelicals have come to the interesting determination that they, and they alone are "true Christians":

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and des***ute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - New Testament James, 2 : 14 - 26 (NKJV)

Insofar as James had personal ***ociation with Jesus during the latter's actual lifetime and ministry (whereas Paul did not), it is not especially difficult for us to determine which of the two had originally over-emphasized the importance of mere belief- calling for a later clarification by the other.

ys,
bmd.

Father_JD

07-14-2010, 06:27 PM

There's NO contradiction between Paul and James, Bhakta-dude. Sorry.

Father_JD

07-14-2010, 06:31 PM

Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

I agree, but you don't appear to understand that "works" do NOT contribute to the salvific process.

They DO contribute to REWARDS, but that's NOT to be confused with salvation.

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 09:03 PM

I agree, but you don't appear to understand that "works" do NOT contribute to the salvific process.

They DO contribute to REWARDS, but that's NOT to be confused with salvation.
The faith that awards salvation is the faith that enables us to do works that contribute to spiritual growth. Those "works" grow and strengthen the faith required for salvation.

jennieblue22

07-14-2010, 09:06 PM

There's NO contradiction between Paul and James, Bhakta-dude. Sorry.
Actually, one has been pointed out here in the forum - namely, James' statement that "faith without works is dead" (per James 2:14-26; see BMD's post) vs. Paul's emphasis that faith alone (and not works at all) matters.

Father_JD

07-15-2010, 01:01 PM

Actually, one has been pointed out here in the forum - namely, James' statement that "faith without works is dead" (per James 2:14-26; see BMD's post) vs. Paul's emphasis that faith alone (and not works at all) matters.

WHY do you misrepresent the Apostle Paul? Where did he EVER declare that works "don't matter"??

Tts 3:8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Tts 3:14 And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

What every Mormon FAILS to grasp is that "works" do NOT contribute to the salvific process:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Father_JD

07-15-2010, 01:19 PM

Romans 9 ***erts that God has the power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

"...He doesn't necessarily do so..."???

Clearly you don't understand Romans 9:

Rom 9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Rom 9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

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

Uh, this is proof positive that God most certainly chooses to do so. And here Paul affirms that in the case of Jacob and Esau!!

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

In reality, ALL those who deny God's sovereign decrees (i.e. necessarily chooses) declare God as being "unrighteous". You have just done that, whether wittingly or NOT.

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.

Did you catch that?? God will have mercy on whom HE SO CHOOSES. Why? So that salvation is according to ELECTION (uh, remember Paul says that it wasn't according to their "works"?). Election is not dependent upon the one who "wills" it. It's not dependent upon one who "runs" (after it) but is SOLEY dependent upon God who "SHOWS MERCY".

Ya still wanna keep to your theology that "God doesn't necessarily so choose"??

If so, I suggest you continue to read and read Romans 9 IN CONTEXT until it sinks in. :rolleyes:

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.

What did Paul just write? Uh...something about His PURPOSE in rasing up Pharaoh in order to demonstrate His power? Could you please enlighten everyone here how THIS is NOT a case of God NOT "necessarily choosing"??

Sure sounds like God necessarily CHOOSING to me. Got any legitmate "interpretation" BASED UPON THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE?

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Catch that again? Paul declares that God WILL have mercy upon whom HE SO CHOOSES, and He will HARDEN those WHOM HE SO CHOOSES.

Sure ya wanna keep to your original thoughts here?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

And here Paul anticipates the objections of those who don't like God's SOVEREIGN CHOICE IN ELECTION. Count yourself included.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Paul just asked YOU who do you think you ARE that you can reply against Him. Serious stuff, here.

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?

But you've as much as said that isn't the case here. God doesn't necessarily "choose" one to be either a "vessel unto honor" and ANOTHER UNTO DISHONOR.

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,

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Father_JD

07-15-2010, 01:21 PM

Any belief system ***erting that - including Mormonism, if it does so - is not necessarily "twisting" belief.

LOL. I've already demonstrated YOUR "twisting" of Romans 9!:D

jennieblue22

07-15-2010, 02:02 PM

WHY do you misrepresent the Apostle Paul? Where did he EVER declare that works "don't matter"??

Christians often misinterpret the Bible (particularly using his words) to state that works "don't matter".

jennieblue22

07-15-2010, 02:03 PM

"...He doesn't necessarily do so..."???

Clearly you don't understand Romans 9:

Rom 9:9 For this the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Rom 9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

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

Uh, this is proof positive that God most certainly chooses to do so. And here Paul affirms that in the case of Jacob and Esau!!

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

In reality, ALL those who deny God's sovereign decrees (i.e. necessarily chooses) declare God as being "unrighteous". You have just done that, whether wittingly or NOT.

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.

Did you catch that?? God will have mercy on whom HE SO CHOOSES. Why? So that salvation is according to ELECTION (uh, remember Paul says that it wasn't according to their "works"?). Election is not dependent upon the one who "wills" it. It's not dependent upon one who "runs" (after it) but is SOLEY dependent upon God who "SHOWS MERCY".

Ya still wanna keep to your theology that "God doesn't necessarily so choose"??

If so, I suggest you continue to read and read Romans 9 IN CONTEXT until it sinks in. :rolleyes:

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.

What did Paul just write? Uh...something about His PURPOSE in rasing up Pharaoh in order to demonstrate His power? Could you please enlighten everyone here how THIS is NOT a case of God NOT "necessarily choosing"??

Sure sounds like God necessarily CHOOSING to me. Got any legitmate "interpretation" BASED UPON THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE?

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Catch that again? Paul declares that God WILL have mercy upon whom HE SO CHOOSES, and He will HARDEN those WHOM HE SO CHOOSES.

Sure ya wanna keep to your original thoughts here?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

And here Paul anticipates the objections of those who don't like God's SOVEREIGN CHOICE IN ELECTION. Count yourself included.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Paul just asked YOU who do you think you ARE that you can reply against Him. Serious stuff, here.

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?

But you've as much as said that isn't the case here. God doesn't necessarily "choose" one to be either a "vessel unto honor" and ANOTHER UNTO DISHONOR.

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,

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

LOL. I've already demonstrated YOUR "twisting" of Romans 9!:D

In what way does the quoted p***age contradict what i said in my post:

Romans 9 ***erts that God has the [I]power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

... or demonstrate my "twisting" of its meaning?!

Father_JD

07-15-2010, 02:43 PM

In what way does the quoted p***age contradict what i said in my post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jennieblue22
Romans 9 ***erts that God has the power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

... or demonstrate my "twisting" of its meaning?!

Did you bother to READ what Paul wrote? Or my exegesis of his statements that you can quite astonishingly NOT see that God DOES indeed CHOOSE based upon His PURPOSES and WILL.

It's NOT theoretical. It's NOT a case of "He could but doesn't necessarily choose". He MOST certainly did in the case of Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh and Paul extends this to EVERYONE in the nature of ELECTION.

How is it you don't comprehend? :eek:

bhuvana-mohan dasa

07-15-2010, 09:19 PM

Did you bother to READ what Paul wrote? Or my exegesis of his statements that you can quite astonishingly NOT see that God DOES indeed CHOOSE based upon His PURPOSES and WILL.

It's NOT theoretical. It's NOT a case of "He could but doesn't necessarily choose". He MOST certainly did in the case of Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh and Paul extends this to EVERYONE in the nature of ELECTION.

How is it you don't comprehend? :eek:

Perhaps an "election" on your own part to avoid capitalization of nearly every other word in your response would enhance your reader's perception of continuity in the thoughts you are interested in communicating, JD. Perhaps then, they might be regarded more seriously.

ys,
bmd.

jennieblue22

07-15-2010, 09:27 PM

Did you bother to READ what Paul wrote? Or my exegesis of his statements that you can quite astonishingly NOT see that God DOES indeed CHOOSE based upon His PURPOSES and WILL. ...

How is it you don't comprehend?
??!!?!?! All i ***erted was that God doesn't necessarily do all that He is capable of (or even all that He says He is capable of doing) - that's not in contradiction with ANYTHING given, nor is it "twisting" any scriptural p***age - how is it that YOU don't comprehend?!

Father_JD

07-15-2010, 09:50 PM

Perhaps an "election" on your own part to avoid capitalization of nearly every other word in your response would enhance your reader's perception of continuity in the thoughts you are interested in communicating, JD. Perhaps then, they might be regarded more seriously.

ys,
bmd.

Perhaps an "election" to engage with the scriputre on your own part to avoid the appearance of deflection of every exegeted verse in your response would enhance your readers' perception of an actual response of merit in the thoughts you are interested in communicating, bhakta-dude. Perhaps then, they might be regarded more seriously instead of being rightly judged as ex-Mormon smoke and mirrors tactics. ;)

jennieblue22

07-16-2010, 10:05 AM

Perhaps an "election" to engage with the scriputre on your own part to avoid the appearance of deflection of every exegeted verse in your response would enhance your readers' perception of an actual response of merit in the thoughts you are interested in communicating, bhakta-dude. Perhaps then, they might be regarded more seriously instead of being rightly judged as ex-Mormon smoke and mirrors tactics. ;)
The scriptural p***age in question was addressed in a previous post with a proper response; the last post to which you replied was in reference to your failure to properly answer to that response.

Mesenja

07-16-2010, 01:54 PM

Romans 9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one,[even] by our father Isaac; 11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,that the purpose of God according to election might stand,not of works,but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Paul makes reference to the two nations that descended from Jacob and Esau--Israel and Edom (see Malachi 1:2-5) and not individuals.

Uh,this is proof positive that God most certainly chooses to do so. And here Paul affirms that in the case of Jacob and Esau!

Uh no it is proof positive that you impose Calvinist doctrine on the Bible.

Libby

07-16-2010, 04:23 PM

*****Completely off topic******

I like the Ravi Zacharias quote in your signature, Mesenja. I even borrowed it to put on my Facebook page. :)

I have to say, I even agree with the Maxwell quote, except I think it's important what we elevate to the level of "scripture". But, in essence, I agree.

John Ruskin was a bit of a rebel and quite progressive for his time. What we do is important, but what we do always stems from what we "think" and "believe". Thought comes first, then action.

Mesenja

07-16-2010, 04:52 PM

I like the Ravi Zacharias quote in your signature,Mesenja. I even borrowed it to put on my Facebook page. :)

I have to say,I even agree with the Maxwell quote, except I think it's important what we elevate to the level of "scripture". But,in essence,I agree.

John Ruskin was a bit of a rebel and quite progressive for his time. What we do is important, but what we do always stems from what we "think" and "believe". Thought comes first, then action.

Yes what you do what you ultimately think and believe. But in the end it is not what you say it is what you do.

"Sow an act and you reap a habit.
Sow a habit and you reap a character.
Sow a character and you reap a destiny."

Charles Reade

Libby

07-16-2010, 07:05 PM

Yes what you do what you ultimately think and believe. But in the end it is not what you say it is what you do.

I agree.

We will do what our heart most desires.

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." Ezekiel 36:26

nrajeff

07-16-2010, 08:56 PM

I agree.We will do what our heart most desires.

---So, when we consider the people who spend every day attacking the LDS....they are doing what their hearts most desire.

Libby

07-17-2010, 03:51 PM

---So, when we consider the people who spend every day attacking the LDS....they are doing what their hearts most desire.

Have to admit, it bothers me that some who profess Christianity often forget to temper their words with the love of Christ. (That includes me, at times)

nrajeff

07-17-2010, 10:33 PM

Have to admit, it bothers me that some who profess Christianity often forget to temper their words with the love of Christ. (That includes me, at times)

---That is part of it but not the main point. The main point is that if we do what our heart most desires, and what we are doing is not telling people the good news that Jesus lives and is the savior and that He died for them, then telling people the good news that Jesus lives and is the savior and that He died for them is NOT what our heart most desires--mocking other people, trying to make them feel ashamed of their beliefs and experiences, and telling them NEGATIVE stuff, is what our heart most desires.

Libby

07-17-2010, 10:44 PM

---That is part of it but not the main point. The main point is that if we do what our heart most desires, and what we are doing is not telling people the good news that Jesus lives and is the savior and that He died for them, then telling people the good news that Jesus lives and is the savior and that He died for them is NOT what our heart most desires--mocking other people, trying to make them feel ashamed of their beliefs and experiences, and telling them NEGATIVE stuff, is what our heart most desires.

Yes, I get your point, Jeff.

Is that what you do on these boards most of the time?

Not meaning to sound accusing. I'm just saying, I don't think any of us are completely above it (saved or not).

What ARE we doing here? lol <sigh>

Seriously, I've been asking myself that quite a lot, lately. I'm not sure I'm knowledgable enough about the truth, myself, to be lecturing others on the truth.

I do have an abiding faith in Jesus Christ. That's all I can really tell you for sure.

nrajeff

07-17-2010, 11:15 PM

Yes, I get your point, Jeff.
Is that what you do on these boards most of the time?
Not meaning to sound accusing. I'm just saying, I don't think any of us are completely above it (saved or not).
----What I do most of the time is point OUT the mocking. When I am not doing that, I am usually pointing out fallacious logic behind the accusations.
Is what I do evangelizing? Of course not. I never made any pretensions otherwise.

What ARE we doing here? lol <sigh>
---I think you are aware of what goes on here and at the other place. And it's about as close to proclaiming the good news, as the Muppet Show is.

Seriously, I've been asking myself that quite a lot, lately. I'm not sure I'm knowledgable enough about the truth, myself, to be lecturing others on the truth.
---That is a very commendable thing to say.

I do have an abiding faith in Jesus Christ. That's all I can really tell you for sure.
---I believe you, and I have no intention of mocking your faith. I wish more people would just make the POSITIVE profession or confession that you just did, and leave out the negativity.

Libby

07-18-2010, 02:56 PM

----What I do most of the time is point OUT the mocking. When I am not doing that, I am usually pointing out fallacious logic behind the accusations.
Is what I do evangelizing? Of course not. I never made any pretensions otherwise.

That's what I mean, though. You seem to be wanting others to simply evangelize (bring the Good News) but that's not what you do, either. Also, you clearly do not like Calvinism. I think you like it even less than some here like Mormonism. :)

---I think you are aware of what goes on here and at the other place. And it's about as close to proclaiming the good news, as the Muppet Show is.

Hey, the Muppet Show is entertaining, at least. ;) I know what goes on. Some good, some not so good, IMO...both sides.

---That is a very commendable thing to say.

Thanks. Just being honest.

---I believe you, and I have no intention of mocking your faith. I wish more people would just make the POSITIVE profession or confession that you just did, and leave out the negativity.

That would be nice, but I don't think it would stimulate much conversation. :) I really believe it's okay to have honest differences...and even discuss them. It's just that if we are all professing Christians, it would be nice to remember to keep Christ in the conversations.

Father_JD

07-19-2010, 12:18 AM

The scriptural p***age in question was addressed in a previous post with a proper response; the last post to which you replied was in reference to your failure to properly answer to that response.

And just when was it addressed...especially by you? I demonstrated that Romans 9 is NOT teaching about God "not necessarily choosing" but His election (which measn CHOOSING) of Jacob over Esau...his choosing of Moses over Pharoah...His choosing some and NOT choosing others because election is not based upon the "one who runs after it...or wills it", but strictly upon God who shows mercy. You Mos are amazing. It's you guys who don't respond, and then project your failure onto those who DO prove their cases. I wonder what psychologists would say about typical Mormon behavior!

mod edit - No personal attacks

Father_JD

07-19-2010, 12:23 AM

??!!?!?! All i ***erted was that God doesn't necessarily do all that He is capable of (or even all that He says He is capable of doing) - that's not in contradiction with ANYTHING given, nor is it "twisting" any scriptural p***age - how is it that YOU don't comprehend?!

It's directly in contradiction with Romans 9...a chapter which is apparently "sealed" from any comprehension on your part. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

07-19-2010, 12:39 AM

It's not a case of making people "ashamed" of their beliefs, jeff. It IS a case of loving you enough to tell you the TRUTH: You've believed a LIE called, "Mormonism".

Mesenja

07-19-2010, 08:46 AM

Rebeka was told by the Lord that "Two nations are in thy womb" not that God hated the individual Esau but Jacob I loved.

Genesis 25:23

23 And the Lord said unto her [Rebeka] Two nations are in thy womb,and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;and the elder shall serve the younger.

Malachi used the names Jacob and Esau in a metaphoric sense to refer to the nations of Israel and Edom as was common practice to do so.

Genesis 36:1,8,16
1 Now these are the generations of Esau,who is Edom.
• • •
8 Thus dwelt Esau in mount Seir:Esau is Edom.

Jeremiah 30:10
10 ¶ Therefore fear thou not,O my servant Jacob,saith the Lord;neither be dismayed,O Israel:for,lo,I will save thee from afar,and thy seed from the land of their captivity;and Jacob shall return,and shall be in rest,and be quiet,and none shall make him afraid.

Amos 1:11
11 ¶ Thus saith the Lord;For three transgressions of Edom,and for four,I will not turn away the punishment thereof;because he did pursue his brother with the sword,and did cast off all pity,and his anger did tear perpetually,and he kept his wrath for ever:

Obadiah 1:10,12
10 ¶ For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee,and thou shalt be cut off for ever.
• • •
12 But thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother in the day that he became a stranger;neither shouldest thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction;neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.

Paul is referring to two nations just as it was written when he quotes Malachi and says “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated”.

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

Father_JD

07-19-2010, 10:03 AM

Mesenja

07-19-2010, 06:27 PM

Sorry,Charlie. Although Jacob and Esau did indeed become fathers of "nations",the context of Romans 9 is about INDIVIDUAL ELECTION. Why do you ignore Paul's words about Moses being "elected" and Pharaoh NOT? Context defeats Mormon arguments every single time.

Lately all you have been doing is giving "nuh uh" responses. Either make a proper argument or stay home. Paul was quoting Malachi who used the names Jacob and Esau to refer to the nations of Israel and Edom.

Malachi 1:1-5

1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
Israel Beloved of God
2 “ I have loved you,” says the LORD.

“ Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the LORD.

“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3 But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”

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

Father_JD

07-31-2010, 02:31 AM

Lately all you have been doing is giving "nuh uh" responses. Either make a proper argument or stay home. Paul was quoting Malachi who used the names Jacob and Esau to refer to the nations of Israel and Edom.

LOL. WHY wont you address the FACT that Paul specifies election of INDIVIDUALS such as Moses and NOT PHARAOH?? The CONTEXT of Romans 9 is about INDIVIDUAL ELECTION but in typical Mormon fashion you refuse to address the text in favor of some other you think proves your case.

Methinks youre the nuh uh guy here M.

nrajeff

08-01-2010, 03:20 PM

LOL. WHY wont you address the FACT that Paul specifies election of INDIVIDUALS such as Moses and NOT PHARAOH??
----Well, DUH: of COURSE Pharaoh couldn't have been elected---ancient Egypt was a dynastic monarchy, not a democracy. :D

Father_JD

08-02-2010, 05:07 AM

----Well, DUH: of COURSE Pharaoh couldn't have been elected---ancient Egypt was a dynastic monarchy, not a democracy. :D

You KNOW I like and appreciate your humor but could I get a straight "answer" once in a while, jeff? :p

nrajeff

08-02-2010, 10:13 AM

Father_JD

08-02-2010, 01:09 PM

Here is the huge error in Calvinism regarding election:

Calvinism claims that God "elects" some people and REFUSES to elect others, and that God uses no discernible rational system for deciding who gets elected and who does not.

A FAIR God would elect those who have demonstrated sufficient faith and obedience.

To LDS, God is fair. That is a big reason I believe LDS theology and reject Calvinism.

Too bad your idea of what is fair does NOT conform to scripture, jeff. God certainly has His reasons whether they are discernable to humans or not.

Please go back and read regarding the election of Jacob and NOT Esau in Romans 9 because your thoughts are very far from what the Bible teaches which is UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.

nrajeff

08-04-2010, 12:05 AM

Too bad your idea of what is fair does NOT conform to scripture, jeff.

---Look, FJD: You need to pick a side.

Side A: God is unfair and the Bible is the proof because it characterizes Him as being unfair and it is never wrong. If you don't like the fact that God is unfair, too bad--He doesn't have to be fair because He is God.

Side B: God IS fair, so even though the Bible portrays Him as horribly unfair, you just gotta have faith that He is really not like that.

I hope you realize that you can't pick both sides.

God certainly has His reasons whether they are discernable to humans or not.
---No one is saying He doesn't have REASONS. The issue is whether they are GOOD ones or not.
If God is sending Person A to heaven (but not because of ANYTHING A did) and He is sending Person B to hell (but not because B did anything different from what A did) then God may have a reason all right, but it can't be a good, valid, rational, fair one. THAT is the problem with Calvinism.

Please go back and read regarding the election of Jacob and NOT Esau in Romans 9 because your thoughts are very far from what the Bible teaches which is UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
----LDS can reconcile such apparent problems because LDS believe in a premortal world where people displayed varying degrees of obedience to God--just like people do HERE on Earth--and were promised blessings of varying worth. If the contradictions and illogic of your Calvinism ever bother you too much, you can always come back to the LDS where sane, God-glorifying doctrines reside.

Father_JD

08-04-2010, 04:35 AM

God is ALWAYS FAIR, jeff. He simply refuses to conform to unregenerate mankind's opinion of what fairness is.

Your argument is not really with me, but with Paul as cited in Romans 9. You have yet to engage the scripture or his revelation given.

One point might help you:

ALL human beings are fallen and deserve eternal death. ALL human beings are in this state unless God reaches down and rescues those whom He has predestinated for eternal Life. God doesn't owe anyone "Grace". This is something you continue to misunderstand.

Father_JD

08-04-2010, 04:53 AM

There is a HUGE problem with this belief. If God's election (were it to exist at all) is NOT "arbitrary", His reasoning for selection of the elect would stand alone and always make sense to stand true. That His reasons for elect selection are necessarily "known ONLY to Him" and applicable to only His own personal preference is actually the rather clear indicator of the arbitrary nature of the choosing of the elect.

Sorry, but your "reasoning" is faulty. Just because God's reasons are known only to Him do NOT make them "arbitary". That's a "non-sequitur".

CONTRADICTION!!! You had just previously stated that the elect are selected ONLY by God Himself - without the individual taking ANY role in that selection, and that the non-elect are NEVER offered the chance to accept God's grace - a chance that may ONLY be offered by God Himself if He so chooses to offer it, and cannot be obtained by any other means or by any action on the part of the individual. In which case, the chance for election - and thus the ability to accept the grace of God and leave the state of ****ation - is ONLY within the power of God and NOT in the individual's domain of power; thus the non-elect COULD NOT have chosen to be in a state of ****ation, when they had NO control over the circumstances that kept them in, or would have allowed for their release from, that horrid state.

And just how is this a "contradiction". You ***ert such, but give no evidence. Hence this is merely a knee-**** emotional response on your part. Fallen people are indeed content to REMAIN in their falleness...which so far has been your own CHOICE, hasn't it?

No, that is only an opinion insofar as the words " arbitrary and evil tyrant" are redefined to exclude the Abrahamic/Biblical God from such categorization. The fact remains that this God's judgment in regard to the selection of the elect is proven to be quite arbitrary by its very own nature, and only a truly heartless and uncomp***ionate soul could ever consider such a horrid thing as even allowing (let alone mandating) that One's own children/creation to forever burn in the hell of eternal ****ation - as supposed 'punishment' for an alleged 'mistake' committed by those who had NO POWER on their own to act differently - to be anything less than evil and tyrannical, and the One who does so as anything less than "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome." This is particularly true when one factually understands that God had FULL control over the circumstances that might have prevented it butactively CHOSE not to allow those circumstances to be modified to a more favorable position for arbitrary personal reasons. Even by Reformed Christian understanding the Bible makes it clear that the Judeo-Christian God's reasoning for such decision-making is not known to the people; it is so because it is only tailored to His personal preference and therefore certainly arbitrary.

We're NOT God's "children" by nature. This is one of the prime errors of Mormon thinking. We are His CREATION. One becomes a "child of God" BY ADOPTION. And again, just because God has CHOSEN NOT to reveal His divine purposes to human beings that that makes his choices "arbitrary". Bad logic yet again. :rolleyes:

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.

Blame Adam and Eve for our inheriting the sin nature after The Fall. Btw...when are you going to ENGAGE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE instead of pontificating what you FEEL is right or wrong about God's election of the saints? :rolleyes:

The fact remains that the non-elect are NOT left behind by their choice. The decision was solely made arbitrarily by a God whose actions in this regard may indeed be thus be called "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome" as was previously stated.

You're CHOOSING RIGHT NOW TO BE CONDEMNED and to remain in the darkness called, "Mormonism"! You're CHOOSING to believe in a FALSE "gospel", a FALSE "christ" and a FALSE "prophet". Ultimately, you will only have yourself to BLAME. I suggest you really read Romans 9 and PRAY to understand what lies therein.

Paul is NOT God. He was a mere man. God is loving; man has at times been known to hate.

Was Paul AN APOSTLE, divinely called to preach the TRUE gospel as well as receive REVELATION from God...or NOT??

Now the truth comes out. You CHOOSE NOT to believe the Bible. You CHOOSE NOT to believe Paul's teaching. :eek:

The Abrahamic/Biblical God may be declared to show mercy to some, but He CANNOT be declared as truly merciful if He does not bestow His mercy to ALL; He would then be UNmerciful to those who were not so fortunate to receive His mercy, for NO fault of their own doing!

You don't know the meaning of either "grace" or "mercy". He sovereignly chooses JUSTICE (which is something everyone DESERVES) for some and has "mercy" on others. He's God. You are NOT...although YOU think you know better than God Himself.

Whether you believe the Bible supports or opposes Reformed belief is entirely your own opinion, based on your personal preferred interpretations of the Bible; nevertheless, the fact remains that the TRUE God is, has always been, and will always be a God of love.

As said in the Bible (1 John 4:8, NIV) :
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Why don't you give viable SCRIPTURAL reasons as to WHY you don't believe the Bible teaches "Reformed" doctrine?

So far, we're only getting your OPINIONS. God is indeed "love", but love is NOT "god" which in effect is YOUR understanding of the verse. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

08-04-2010, 09:50 AM

God is ALWAYS FAIR, jeff. He simply refuses to conform to unregenerate mankind's opinion of what fairness is.
----That is your conjecture. What if Western civilization's concept of fairness was given BY GOD? Do you REALLY think that God doesn't imbue His own sense of right and wrong to enlightened societies? Hello? U.S. Cons***ution? What about your own "Christian" church--are you saying that when it hands out decisions and judgments it claims to be FAIR, that they are actually nothing of the kind? If so, then what good is your church, if its sense of fairness contradicts GOD's? Why would you even call it a Christian church, if you believe that its idea of right and wrong is totally different from Christ's?

Logic wasn't your strong area at seminary, was it?

Your argument is not really with me
--Yes it is

but with Paul as cited in Romans 9.
---My argument is with your eisgesis of Paul as cited in Rom. 9.

God doesn't owe anyone "Grace".
---Ah, you're trying the old

"We ALL deserve hell, so if God saves a few of us--me, but not you, sorry--then how dare you complain that it's not fair? If God were fair, we'd ALL be in hell, not just you but me as well, so quit whining that it's not fair!"

el lame-o attempt at justifying the patent unfairness of Calvinism. Nice try, but it's more transparent than the Emperor's non-existent clothes.

If the fake god of Calvinism were fair, then it would not arbitrarily pick Person A for heaven (but not because of anything A did) and hypocritically pick Person B for hell (even though B did NOTHING different from what A did).

Time for my parable again:

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

10 kids, all of them 5 years old, walk into FJD's Candy Store. Each of them shoplifts one Tootsie Roll and each is caught. FJD imperiously yells "You all deserve to be executed for the capital crime of petty theft! Don't bother whining that the punishment doesn't fit the crime--this is MY store, so I get to make the rules--I am sovereign so what I say goes! But I am a merciful candy store owner, so I will only kill 9 of you. I will magnanimously let one of you---Jimmy--live, even though you did the same crime as the other 9 and you have done nothing deserving of mercy."

The 9 ask "Don't we deserve a second chance or something?"

Father JD roars: "I don't OWE you ANYTHING--not even an explanation for my actions, let alone some grace!"
So FJD, the God of the Candy Store, takes out a shotgun and kills 9 of the 10 terrified kids. Then he takes Jimmy under his arm and says, "Jimmy, not only will I spare your life, I am going to give you this entire candy store--not because you have done anything at all to deserve it of course--this is a completely unearned, unconditional free gift of my grace. Now NO ONE can accuse me of being unfair, right?"

Jimmy is still scared and nervous and confused as he looks over his 9 dead friends, but he is intimidated so he doesn't point out some flaws in Father JD's reasoning.

Well, in a few days there are 9 funerals, and the parents of those 9 kids that
the God of the Candy Store 'righteously' killed want some answers. They are "complaining" that what Father JD did was not fair on several levels. Father JD imperiously roars: "What are you talking about? I let ONE kid LIVE, didn't I? I could have killed them all! How dare you nine families claim that my system of justice isn't fair! Why, just ask little Jimmy here--HE thinks it's fair, right Jimmy?"

Which leaves those nine families wondering, not only where Father JD got his idea of what is fair, but also about his sanity if he thinks that a 5-year-old's one-time petty shoplifting is a capital crime.

JustMe

08-04-2010, 10:18 AM

----That is your conjecture. What if Western civilization's concept of fairness was given BY GOD? Do you REALLY think that God doesn't imbue His own sense of right and wrong to enlightened societies? Hello? U.S. Cons***ution? What about your own "Christian" church--are you saying that when it hands out decisions and judgments it claims to be FAIR, that they are actually nothing of the kind? If so, then what good is your church, if its sense of fairness contradicts GOD's? Why would you even call it a Christian church, if you believe that its idea of right and wrong is totally different from Christ's?

Logic wasn't your strong area at seminary, was it?

--Yes it is

---My argument is with your eisgesis of Paul as cited in Rom. 9.

---Ah, you're trying the old

"We ALL deserve hell, so if God saves a few of us--me, but not you, sorry--then how dare you complain that it's not fair? If God were fair, we'd ALL be in hell, not just you but me as well, so quit whining that it's not fair!"

el lame-o attempt at justifying the patent unfairness of Calvinism. Nice try, but it's more transparent than the Emperor's non-existent clothes.

If the fake god of Calvinism were fair, then it would not arbitrarily pick Person A for heaven (but not because of anything A did) and hypocritically pick Person B for hell (even though B did NOTHING different from what A did).

Time for my parable again:

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

10 kids, all of them 5 years old, walk into FJD's Candy Store. Each of them shoplifts one Tootsie Roll and each is caught. FJD imperiously yells "You all deserve to be executed for the capital crime of petty theft! Don't bother whining that the punishment doesn't fit the crime--this is MY store, so I get to make the rules--I am sovereign so what I say goes! But I am a merciful candy store owner, so I will only kill 9 of you. I will magnanimously let one of you---Jimmy--live, even though you did the same crime as the other 9 and you have done nothing deserving of mercy."

The 9 ask "Don't we deserve a second chance or something?"

Father JD roars: "I don't OWE you ANYTHING--not even an explanation for my actions, let alone some grace!"
So FJD, the God of the Candy Store, takes out a shotgun and kills 9 of the 10 terrified kids. Then he takes Jimmy under his arm and says, "Jimmy, not only will I spare your life, I am going to give you this entire candy store--not because you have done anything at all to deserve it of course--this is a completely unearned, unconditional free gift of my grace. Now NO ONE can accuse me of being unfair, right?"

Jimmy is still scared and nervous and confused as he looks over his 9 dead friends, but he is intimidated so he doesn't point out some flaws in Father JD's reasoning.

Well, in a few days there are 9 funerals, and the parents of those 9 kids that
the God of the Candy Store 'righteously' killed want some answers. They are "complaining" that what Father JD did was not fair on several levels. Father JD imperiously roars: "What are you talking about? I let ONE kid LIVE, didn't I? I could have killed them all! How dare you nine families claim that my system of justice isn't fair! Why, just ask little Jimmy here--HE thinks it's fair, right Jimmy?"

Which leaves those nine families wondering, not only where Father JD got his idea of what is fair, but also about his sanity if he thinks that a 5-year-old's one-time petty shoplifting is a capital crime.

I like that ****ogy, Jeff. And if we were made in God's likeness and image (as the Bible says we were), and if we're to KNOW God (as the Bible says we should), His fairness (at least according to how the Calvinists believe it) wouldn't be so foreign to almost everybody with a normal sense of right and wrong.

nrajeff

08-04-2010, 11:19 AM

I like that ****ogy, Jeff. And if we were made in God's likeness and image (as the Bible says we were), and if we're to KNOW God (as the Bible says we should), His fairness (at least according to how the Calvinists believe it) wouldn't be so foreign to almost everybody with a normal sense of right and wrong.

---Exactly. One of the gulfs between LDS and "traditional" fundie Christianity is the issue of how much of a spark of deity human beings can have. Fundies, with their Jonathan Edwards, Calvinist, Dante, and Augustine-influenced "hatred" of humanity, think that humans are lower and more alien to God than the herpes virus is to Mother Teresa. So OF COURSE they think that it is IMPOSSIBLE for our concepts of right and wrong to be anything like God's concepts of right and wrong.

When you think about it, their position is illogical, even by their own doctrines. Adam and Eve ended up knowing good from evil AS THE GODS did, right? And we, their descendants, "INHERITED" that knowledge, correct? So the fundie Evangelicals, if they were consistent with their own beliefs, should admit that people are able to have a sense of right and wrong--FAIR and UNFAIR--that is similar to God's. Not totally, 180 degrees, opposite.

Some day I will write an article on the many illogical ideas that are in "traditoinal" Evangelicalism. It will be a long article.

theway

08-04-2010, 11:21 AM

Time for my parable again:

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

10 kids, all of them 5 years old, walk into FJD's Candy Store. Each of them shoplifts one Tootsie Roll and each is caught. FJD imperiously yells "You all deserve to be executed for the capital crime of petty theft! Don't bother whining that the punishment doesn't fit the crime--this is MY store, so I get to make the rules--I am sovereign so what I say goes! But I am a merciful candy store owner, so I will only kill 9 of you. I will magnanimously let one of you---Jimmy--live, even though you did the same crime as the other 9 and you have done nothing deserving of mercy."

The 9 ask "Don't we deserve a second chance or something?"

Father JD roars: "I don't OWE you ANYTHING--not even an explanation for my actions, let alone some grace!"
So FJD, the God of the Candy Store, takes out a shotgun and kills 9 of the 10 terrified kids. Then he takes Jimmy under his arm and says, "Jimmy, not only will I spare your life, I am going to give you this entire candy store--not because you have done anything at all to deserve it of course--this is a completely unearned, unconditional free gift of my grace. Now NO ONE can accuse me of being unfair, right?"

Jimmy is still scared and nervous and confused as he looks over his 9 dead friends, but he is intimidated so he doesn't point out some flaws in Father JD's reasoning.

Well, in a few days there are 9 funerals, and the parents of those 9 kids that
the God of the Candy Store 'righteously' killed want some answers. They are "complaining" that what Father JD did was not fair on several levels. Father JD imperiously roars: "What are you talking about? I let ONE kid LIVE, didn't I? I could have killed them all! How dare you nine families claim that my system of justice isn't fair! Why, just ask little Jimmy here--HE thinks it's fair, right Jimmy?"

Which leaves those nine families wondering, not only where Father JD got his idea of what is fair, but also about his sanity if he thinks that a 5-year-old's one-time petty shoplifting is a capital crime.
There are two small bits of evidence that you left out of your ****ogy (not that it will change the outcome).

First, the free gracer FJD knew long before the kids got there, that they were going to steal the Tootsie Rolls. He could have set out a guard to stop them (like he did in his Garden of Eden Store) or he could have removed the temptation; But he choose to do neither. After all, FJD had already decided long before they got there, that he was going to kill 9 of them and spare one, and it really didn’t matter whether they stole the candy or not, After all, he was in charge and couldn’t let some 5 year old decide his own fate. He wasn’t going to be dissuaded by any crying or calls for mercy either. But which one would he save? FJD decided that the only thing to do was to put their names in a hat and draw out one name before they got there. What could be fairer than that?

Second; I believe the 10th kid decided he couldn’t live with such a store owner as FJD, let alone mind his store. He told FJD that he thought he was evil, and didn’t want his store, or have anything to do with him. “I don’t care” said FJD, you’re going to be chained to the floor and love it! “Oh and by the way I’ll be expecting a hand written, thank you card, every day and twice on Sunday”

theway

08-04-2010, 11:31 AM

---Exactly. One of the gulfs between LDS and "traditional" fundie Christianity is the issue of how much of a spark of deity human beings can have. Fundies, with their Jonathan Edwards, Calvinist, Dante, and Augustine-influenced "hatred" of humanity, think that humans are lower and more alien to God than the herpes virus is to Mother Teresa. So OF COURSE they think that it is IMPOSSIBLE for our concepts of right and wrong to be anything like God's concepts of right and wrong.

When you think about it, their position is illogical, even by their own doctrines. Adam and Eve ended up knowing good from evil AS THE GODS did, right? And we, their descendants, "INHERITED" that knowledge, correct? So the fundie Evangelicals, if they were consistent with their own beliefs, should admit that people are able to have a sense of right and wrong--FAIR and UNFAIR--that is similar to God's. Not totally, 180 degrees, opposite.

Some day I will write an article on the many illogical ideas that are in "traditoinal" Evangelicalism. It will be a long article. But to a true believer of free grace; right and wrong, are not germane to your salvation. Your salvation is based on some unknown criteria, that apparently even God is unable to reveal.

nrajeff

08-04-2010, 11:52 AM

There are two small bits of evidence that you left out of your ****ogy (not that it will change the outcome).

First, the free gracer FJD knew long before the kids got there, that they were going to steal the Tootsie Rolls. He could have set out a guard to stop them (like he did in his Garden of Eden Store) or he could have removed the temptation; But he choose to do neither. After all, FJD had already decided long before they got there, that he was going to kill 9 of them and spare one, and it really didn’t matter whether they stole the candy or not, After all, he was in charge and couldn’t let some 5 year old decide his own fate. He wasn’t going to be dissuaded by any crying or calls for mercy either. But which one would he save? FJD decided that the only thing to do was to put their names in a hat and draw out one name before they got there. What could be fairer than that?
----Yes, good catch. Predestination means that FJD knew those meddling kids would be coming, and instead of installing a theft-PREVENTION system, FJD did the opposite: He put a sign out front saying "Delicious candy inside!" Then he PLACED the kids in his store and he also placed Satan in the store, knowing that Satan would tempt the kids to steal some candy.

Second; I believe the 10th kid decided he couldn’t live with such a store owner as FJD, let alone mind his store. He told FJD that he thought he was evil, and didn’t want his store, or have anything to do with him. “I don’t care” said FJD, you’re going to be chained to the floor and love it! “Oh and by the way I’ll be expecting a hand written, thank you card, every day and twice on Sunday”
---Well, the story actually goes that FJD will invade the kid's mind and FORCE the kid to be happy there. The kid will be UNABLE to resist FJD's grace. It will be impossible for The Chosen Kid to resist being chosen to be the Elect Kid.

Welcome to the Calvinism Candy Store, where it's all fair because God said so and quit asking so many troubling questions, you meddling kid.

RealFakeHair

08-04-2010, 11:53 AM

But to a true believer of free grace; right and wrong, are not germane to your salvation. Your salvation is based on some unknown criteria, that apparently even God is unable to reveal.

Kobol!:eek:

Mesenja

08-06-2010, 01:17 AM

LOL. WHY wont you address the FACT that Paul specifies election of INDIVIDUALS such as Moses and NOT PHARAOH?

The CONTEXT of Romans 9 is about INDIVIDUAL ELECTION but in typical Mormon fashion you refuse to address the text in favor of some other you think proves your case.

Methinks you're the nuh uh guy here Mesenja.

Let us have a look at your scriptural silver bullet shall we that supposedly proves Unconditional Election. I will post your proof text without comment. It will then be shown from the scriptures that Paul was not referring to individuals but to nations.

Romans 9:15-18 (New American Standard Bible)

15 For He says to Moses,"I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY,AND I WILL HAVE COMP***ION ON WHOM I HAVE COMP***ION."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs,but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,"FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP,TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU,AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires,and He hardens whom He desires.

First Paul starts off by quoting the Old Testament verse Exodus 33:19. If this scripture is viewed in it's proper context it is talking about nations not individuals. Not once in Romans 9 does Paul talk about individual election or is it mentioned in Exodus 33 the very chapter he quotes from.

Romans 9:15 (New American Standard Bible)
15 For He says to Moses,"I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY,AND I WILL HAVE COMP***ION ON WHOM I HAVE COMP***ION"
Exodus 33:19 the very verse he quotes from(New American Standard Bible)
19 And He said,"I Myself will make all My goodness p*** before you,and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you;and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,and will show comp***ion on whom I will show comp***ion."

Exodus 33:13-20 (New American Standard Bible)

13"Now therefore,I pray You,if I have found favor in Your sight,let me know Your ways that I may know You,so that I may find favor in Your sight Consider too,that this nation is Your people."
14 And He said,"My presence shall go with you,and I will give you rest."
15 Then he said to Him,"If Your presence does not go with us,do not lead us up from here.
16 "For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Your sight,I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us,so that we,I and Your people,may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?"
17 The LORD said to Moses,I will also do this thing of which you have spoken;for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name."
18 Then Moses said,"I pray You,show me Your glory!"
19 And He said,"I Myself will make all My goodness p*** before you,and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you;and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,and will show comp***ion on whom I will show comp***ion."

God promised Moses that "My presence shall go with you,and I will give you rest." It is God's sovereign will to show kindness to what ever nation he will show kindness to,and comp***ion to any nation God will have comp***ion on by choosing them to have the lineage through which the Messiah will come.

19 "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,and will show comp***ion on whom I will show comp***ion."

Next Paul tells us that it is not dependent on him who is willing,nor of him who is running to have his nation be the one that is chosen to have the Messiah come through. It is strictly according to God's mercy which he showed Israel by having his presence with them,finding favor with them and showing his glory to them.

16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs,but on God who has mercy.

God raised up Pharaoh as a demonstration of his power and by this made his name known to all other nations. This was shown when the nations of Philistia,Edom,Moab and Canaan let Israel p*** over without challenge because they saw what God did to the Egyptians.

Romans 9:17 (New American Standard Bible)

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,"FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP,TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU,AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
Exodus 15:14-16 (New American Standard Bible)

14 "The peoples have heard,they tremble;
Anguish has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia.
15 "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed;
The leaders of Moab,trembling grips them;
All the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away.
16 "Terror and dread fall upon them;
By the greatness of Your arm they are motionless as stone;
Until Your people p*** over,O LORD,
Until the people p*** over whom You have purchased.

When Pharaoh saw that Aaron's rod became a serpent and swallowed up the snakes that the wise men and the sorcerers,and also the magicians of Egypt tried to duplicate he made the choice to harden his own heart. God not only allowed Pharaoh to suffer the consequences of his own stubbornness and hard heart but helped him along the path he had chosen by making his heart even more stubborn.

Exodus 7:13-14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Yet Pharaoh's heart was hardened,and he did not listen to them,as the LORD had said.
14 Then the LORD said to Moses,"Pharaoh's heart is stubborn;he refuses to let the people go.

Father_JD

08-07-2010, 02:02 PM

First Paul starts off by quoting the Old Testament verse Exodus 33:19. If this scripture is viewed in it's proper context it is talking about nations not individuals. Not once in Romans 9 or Exodus 33 does Paul talk about individual election.

Who's talking about Exodus 33?? I'm talking about Romans 9. Paul bases his arguments upon other scripture AS HIS SPRINGBOARD.

Romans 9: Individual election of Jacob over Esau. No mention of "nations", but of two individuals and "election" NOT AS A RESULT OF WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. And yet this is exactly how you argue!! God "chose" Moses and NOT Pharoah BECAUSE PHAROAH WAS A BAD DUDE, HARDENING HIS HEART. Remember Paul says regarding Jacob and Esau, "NOT HAVING DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR EVIL" so that election can stand. You've destroyed the whole meaning of election, btw.

Moses over Pharoah. God elects Moses but NOT PHAROAH. Pharoah was created indeed for God's demonstration of power as a "vessel unto wrath". Vessel NOT vessels.

Clearly from the context of Romans 9, it isn't the ONE who runs after, or wills ELECTION, but God ALONE who shows mercy.

You refuse to engage the context of Romans 9 because it destroys your "nations" election argument.

Father_JD

08-07-2010, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
God is ALWAYS FAIR, jeff. He simply refuses to conform to unregenerate mankind's opinion of what fairness is.

----That is your conjecture. What if Western civilization's concept of fairness was given BY GOD? Do you REALLY think that God doesn't imbue His own sense of right and wrong to enlightened societies? Hello? U.S. Cons***ution? What about your own "Christian" church--are you saying that when it hands out decisions and judgments it claims to be FAIR, that they are actually nothing of the kind? If so, then what good is your church, if its sense of fairness contradicts GOD's? Why would you even call it a Christian church, if you believe that its idea of right and wrong is totally different from Christ's?

Here's my response. Please pay close attention, jeff:

Mankind is FALLEN. Sin has corrupted every area of our being. Unregenerate man can NOT fully grasp the nature of God's "fairness" or "justice", etc.

But BECAUSE human beings were created "Imago Dei" there remains a semblance or basic understanding of what cons***utes "fairness"...to a degree but only to a degree but is NOT and can NOT be complete or perfect. There's your answer, jeff, so please don't turn around and say it wasn't addressed, etc.

Logic wasn't your strong area at seminary, was it?

Biblical understanding wasn't your strong area at Mormon seminary, was it, jeff? ;)

Quote:
Your argument is not really with me

--Yes it is

Nope.

Quote:
but with Paul as cited in Romans 9.

---My argument is with your eisgesis of Paul as cited in Rom. 9.

This cons***utes the typical "nuh-uh" Mormon response, jeff. I would hope you could do better and actually put your money where your mouth is, i.e. actually demonstrate just "how" I "eisegeted" Romans 9. Where's your viable alternative "interpretation"? :rolleyes:

Quote:
God doesn't owe anyone "Grace".

---Ah, you're trying the old

"We ALL deserve hell, so if God saves a few of us--me, but not you, sorry--then how dare you complain that it's not fair? If God were fair, we'd ALL be in hell, not just you but me as well, so quit whining that it's not fair!"

el lame-o attempt at justifying the patent unfairness of Calvinism. Nice try, but it's more transparent than the Emperor's non-existent clothes.

If the fake god of Calvinism were fair, then it would not arbitrarily pick Person A for heaven (but not because of anything A did) and hypocritically pick Person B for hell (even though B did NOTHING different from what A did).

Ya know what, jeff. You're right. God is simply not "fair" from the human standpoint, so I'll cease and desist on insisting He's "fair". God chooses justice for some, and mercy for others. ALL deserve justice, but God sovereignly decrees MERCY for others.

Time for my parable again:

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

10 kids, all of them 5 years old, walk into FJD's Candy Store. Each of them shoplifts one Tootsie Roll and each is caught. FJD imperiously yells "You all deserve to be executed for the capital crime of petty theft! Don't bother whining that the punishment doesn't fit the crime--this is MY store, so I get to make the rules--I am sovereign so what I say goes! But I am a merciful candy store owner, so I will only kill 9 of you. I will magnanimously let one of you---Jimmy--live, even though you did the same crime as the other 9 and you have done nothing deserving of mercy."

LOL. Not even close to the reality, jeff. Your "parable" is NOT ****ogus:

Here's the REAL scenario:

10 kids, all of them 5 years old, are already DEAD as having SINNED by shoplifitng the tootsie rolls. God chooses 4 to become ALIVE again according to His own wisdom and sovereign choice.

The rest of your "****ogy" fails and doesn't require a response...

What you also FAIL to understand, jeff...is that even the most "trivial" sin is worthy of eternal death. Why? Because God is HOLY and can NOT look upon sin. If you knew your Bible as well as your spurious Mormon writings, you would have KNOWN this. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

08-07-2010, 02:27 PM

So are you denying God's OMNISCIENCE? I mean, that's the only point I can derive from your skewed understanding regarding "grace" and "mercy".

nrajeff

08-09-2010, 08:41 AM

Here's my response. Please pay close attention, jeff:
---I ALWAYS pay close attention to what you say, because I want to pick out every error that I can.

Mankind is FALLEN.
---But not as far as you Calvin types think it has. You think that mankind fell from total, 100% perfection to total, 100% evilness and depravity. There is plenty of space between those 2 extremes that mankind could have fallen to. But Calvinism is all about extremes. No gray areas for Calvinism. It's one of its hugest flaws.

Sin has corrupted every area of our being. Unregenerate man can NOT fully grasp the nature of God's "fairness" or "justice", etc.
---Nice try changing the goal posts from "God's ideas of fair and unfair are totally opposite ours" to "We can't FULLY grasp God's ideas on the issue."

But BECAUSE human beings were created "Imago Dei" there remains a semblance or basic understanding of what cons***utes "fairness"...to a degree but only to a degree but is NOT and can NOT be complete or perfect.
--I never said our understanding was 100%. A person with only an 80% understanding of right and wrong, fair and unfair could still easily tell that Calvinism is totally messed up.

There's your answer, jeff, so please don't turn around and say it wasn't addressed, etc.
--I won't say you didn't address it. I might say you did only a mediocre *** of addressing it.

Biblical understanding wasn't your strong area at Mormon seminary, was it, jeff? ;)
---True. But thanks to all the errors (from Calvinists and Trinitarians) I have been exposed to since then, I have a much better understanding now.

....put your money where your mouth is, i.e. actually demonstrate just "how" I "eisegeted" Romans 9.
---Let me finish trashing your original claim that God's ways are TOTALLY not our ways first.

Ya know what, jeff. You're right.
--About time you realized that. :)

God is simply not "fair" from the human standpoint, so I'll cease and desist on insisting He's "fair".
--But WAIIIT a second: You just got finished equivocating that "we can't COMPLETELY understand His sense of fair and unfair" and now you're going back to "God is totally unfair according to our ideas of fair and unfair"?? Pick a position and stay with it. I am not so good at hitting moving targets.

God chooses justice for some, and mercy for others. ALL deserve justice, but God sovereignly decrees MERCY for others.
---You are really invested in denying that God could use a meritocracy system for handing out rewards and punishments, aren't you? WHY? Why won't you accept the possibility that God is fair in how He deals with people, based upon the choices they make in the circumstances they're in???? Why must Calvinism always go with the LEAST logical, LEAST fair of the possibilities, and pronouce "THAT is the way things really are" ??? Is it just "holdover logic" from the Dark Ages ("If the accused floats, it proves she is a witch and shall be burned to death--if she drowns, then she wasn't a witch and her soul that we just killed will go to heaven so it's all good either way") and it dies hard like old habits do?

Mesenja

08-09-2010, 09:35 AM

Who's talking about Exodus 33? I'm talking about Romans 9. Paul bases his arguments upon other scripture AS HIS SPRINGBOARD. You refuse to engage the context of Romans 9 because it destroys your "nations" election argument.

I have engaged the context of Romans 9 and demonstrated to you that the context of this chapter is about nations not individuals. Every Old Testament scripture he quotes is from chapters not dealing with individual election but oif nations. If Paul based his argument on other scriptures as his springboard to teach your Calvinist claptrap then why does the scriptures he quotes from make no mention of it?

Mesenja

08-10-2010, 10:19 AM

You have done no such thing. The context of Romans 9 is about INDIVIDUALS:Jacob and Esau.
Moses and Pharoah.

Besides this,you must understand that nations are comprised of <gasp> INDIVIDUALS. Duh,Mesenja-dude.

Even your vaunted "proof-texts" aren't really about election of nations. As explained before,you do the Mormon "thing" IGNORE and DISMISS the context of the given p***age and appeal to OTHER scripture you hope makes your case or at least obfuscates the issue at hand.

Wanna another typical "bait and switch" Mormon trick like this one of yours?

Here ya go,Mesenja.

The CONTEXT of John 10:30 is DIFFERENT from the context of John 17,but when the Mormon is shown that Jesus words,"I and my Father ARE ONE" from John 10 is NOT about "one in purpose, blah,blah, blah",the Mormon knee ****s to John 17 because the Mormon "thinks" or "feels" this somehow negates the CLEAR CONTEXT of John 10.

You Mormons are just chock-full of little bad hermeneutical tricks. :rolleyes:

You lost your case only your too Mormons proud to admit it.

I have shown you exactly what Old Testament citations that the apostle Paul is quoting from. He is clearly referring to nations and not individuals. All you can do is accuse me of bait and switch tactics and bad hermeneutical tricks. Is this the best you can do Father_JD? Wait I forgot you repeat your knee **** nuh-uh response. Finishing off with a flourish of false bravado was a nice touch.

nrajeff

08-10-2010, 11:51 AM

I have shown you exactly what Old Testament citations that the apostle Paul is quoting from. He is clearly referring to nations and not individuals. All you can do is accuse me of bait and switch tactics and bad hermeneutical tricks. Is this the best you can do Father_JD? Wait I forgot you repeat your knee **** nuh-uh response. Finishing off with a flourish of false bravado was a nice touch.

---He could add an Andyism, for good measure: "Your post is totally irrelevant." :)

Vlad III

08-10-2010, 12:44 PM

---He could add an Andyism, for good measure: "Your post is totally irrelevant." :)

"so what's your point?"

Amen.

Father_JD

08-10-2010, 02:33 PM

I have shown you exactly what Old Testament citations that the apostle Paul is quoting from. He is clearly referring to nations and not individuals. All you can do is accuse me of bait and switch tactics and bad hermeneutical tricks. Is this the best you can do Father_JD? Wait I forgot you repeat your knee **** nuh-uh response. Finishing off with a flourish of false bravado was a nice touch.

All you`ve done is obfuscate Romans 9 by appealing to OTHER verses which do NOT jibe with the CONTEXT AT HAND.

Yes. You`re the master of bait and switch just like how LDS refuse to engage the CONTEXT of John 10 but choose instead to OBFUSCATE by knee****ing to John 17. :rolleyes:

Mesenja

08-10-2010, 03:03 PM

All you've done is obfuscate Romans 9 by appealing to OTHER verses which do NOT jibe with the CONTEXT AT HAND.

Yes. You`re the master of bait and switch just like how LDS refuse to engage the CONTEXT of John 10 but choose instead to OBFUSCATE by knee ****ing to John 17. :rolleyes:

Please consider the answers that FatherJD has giving me in this part of the thread as opposed to my response and then think long and hard if you want to engage him in a debate on Romans 9 his so called Calvinist stronghold.

Father_JD

08-10-2010, 03:05 PM

Why absolutely! Let NRA jeff think TWICE before challenging Romans 9 after I have provided a LINE BY LINE EXEGESIS without your phony-Moroni-baloney EISEGESIS.

Here ya go, M. The exegesis was on another thread...

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=65516#post65516

Father_JD

08-10-2010, 03:15 PM

This alone nullifies your argument, jeff:

FJD: Mankind is FALLEN.

---But not as far as you Calvin types think it has. You think that mankind fell from total, 100% perfection to total, 100% evilness and depravity. There is plenty of space between those 2 extremes that mankind could have fallen to. But Calvinism is all about extremes. No gray areas for Calvinism. It's one of its hugest flaws.

No such belief as "100 percent evilness and depravity". You've demonstrated yet again your appalling ignorance of Reformation beliefs. How many times do I have to correct you only for you to come back with a straw man like this?

nrajeff

08-10-2010, 03:36 PM

This alone nullifies your argument, jeff:
---Nuh-uh, no it doesn't.

No such belief as "100 percent evilness and depravity". You've demonstrated yet again your appalling ignorance of Reformation beliefs. How many times do I have to correct you only for you to come back with a straw man like this?
--Oh, it's no straw man, as I can prove by asking you a few questions:

1. How much does a person who ends up being saved, participate in the decision of whether or not he gets saved?

FJD: ZERO.

2. How much righteousness is in an unsaved person?

FJD: ZERO.

3. How far, measured as a percentage of righteousness, or even the ABILITY to be righteous, did mankind FALL after the Forbidden Fruit Incident?

FJD: 100%

If my guesses as to what your answers will be are wrong, feel free to put in the right answer.

Father_JD

08-11-2010, 02:16 AM

You confuse spiritual DEATH with the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity which teaches that sin has tainted every avennue of man`s being. I wasn`t addressing man`s inability to save himself, but that because man IS created Imago Dei, he possesses some semblance of right and wrong. In other words, you`ve equivocated the argument once more, The reason is that you think you understand BIBLICAL, Reformed theology but don't really. You possess a skewed version of it.

nrajeff

08-11-2010, 11:08 AM

You confuse spiritual DEATH with the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity which teaches that sin has tainted every avennue of man`s being.
--What's the diff? Aren't the two interrelated? Doesn't EITHER ONE prevent a person, TOTALLY, from having ANY part in the decision as to whether he gets saved or not?

I wasn`t addressing man`s inability to save himself, but that because man IS created Imago Dei, he possesses some semblance of right and wrong.
--This is interesting. So YOU believe that ADAM AND EVE were NOT created in God's image, since THEY were NOT created with any knowledge of good and evil. Yet you believe that their DESCENDANTS ARE created in God's image. Does the Bible back you up on all that?

See how messed-up Calvinism gets?

Father_JD

08-11-2010, 02:20 PM

Well, jeff...I always have you to thank for your novel (and sometimes bizarre) way of looking at things.

The diff is that FALLEN man has "bios" but NOT "zoe". In our "bios" sphere (pun intended!), we still think, reason, etc. WHY? Because we have all been created "Imago Dei". Remember, that Adam and Eve (and they too are created "Imago Dei") DID partake of the "Tree of Knowledge" but before that, they were completely INNOCENT, not knowing...such as that they were "naked". It was AFTER haven partaken, they then KNEW they had SINNED.

I'd say that "Total Depravity" and "Spiritual Death" are interrelated, but you're still confusing the categories. Spiritual death is the specific culprit for one NOT being able to choose to save himself, NOT "Total Depravity" per se.

nrajeff

08-11-2010, 03:39 PM

Father_JD

08-12-2010, 07:42 AM

So who is more like the gods, knowing good from evil?

a) Adam and Eve, pre-fall

b) their descendants

Your reasoning leads to the conclusion that God made US more in His image than He did Adam and Eve, since THEY were given NO knowledge of good and evil, while WE, by your own admission, have SOME portion of such knowledge. I am not saying you are wrong on this, since it sounds LDSish. Just saying it's interesting to see you saying it.

Like I say, jeff...I can always count on you for your novel, but sometimes bizarre way of looking at things. :p

The question is MOOT, jeff. Adam and Eve FELL. They were created directly by God. We are NOT created directly, but are Adam and Eve's posterity who inherited a fractured form of "knowing good from evil" thanks to our FALLENESS. Knowing "good from evil" did NOT make either them or us "like God" as you try to make it out to be, or into "gods", but only gained one small attribute of His and this was done by SINNING.

akaSeerone

08-12-2010, 08:13 AM

Like I say, jeff...I can always count on you for your novel, but sometimes bizarre way of looking at things. :p

The question is MOOT, jeff. Adam and Eve FELL. They were created directly by God. We are NOT created directly, but are Adam and Eve's posterity who inherited a fractured form of "knowing good from evil" thanks to our FALLENESS. Knowing "good from evil" did NOT make either them or us "like God" as you try to make it out to be, or into "gods", but only gained one small attribute of His and this was done by SINNING.
According to Jeff's ****ogy, knowing good and evil are the only attributes that make God, God.

One thing for sure, the mormons posting here with their blind mormon rhetoric have to learn that context is not a four letter word.

Of course reading the Bible in context would destroy their defense of mormonism and the way they are programed, they can't allow anything into their minds that would do that.

Andy

Father_JD

08-12-2010, 08:24 AM

Thanks, Andy. I've typed this till my fingers have almost bled (Ohhh, I guess that's my own form of redemption instead of the garden, on the keyboard!) that CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING. LDS pay all sorts of lip service to context, but then readily ignore context because of exactly what you wrote:

Context would destroy their defense of Mormonism.

nrajeff

08-16-2010, 09:15 AM

According to Jeff's ****ogy, knowing good and evil are the only attributes that make God, God.
---Hey, congrats, Andy--this is one of the most cogent, on-topic, (relatively) vitriol-free statements I have EVER seen you type. But of course it's a false ***ertion because the conclusion is fallacious. I never said or implied that having the ability to know good from evil is a deity's ONLYattribute. Here, let me list some others for you, to prove it:

1. The ability to perform what the average human would call a miracle, such as the healings and corpse-rescusitating and weather-control that Jesus did.

2. The ability to know future events.

3. The ability to create galaxies and the suns and planets they contain.

4. More wisdom and knowledge and love and fairness than humans are currently capable of.

The rest of your post was your usual irrelevant rambling rhetoric and does not merit a response, but hey, about 25% of your post was thoughtful, so I award it a "D-MINUS" instead of the usual "F."

James Banta

08-16-2010, 09:37 AM

Allow me to look at your statements and critique them as you have done to ANDY..

[nrajeff;65778][COLOR="Purple"]---Hey, congrats, Andy--this is one of the most cogent, on-topic, (relatively) vitriol-free statements I have EVER seen you type. But of course it's a false ***ertion because the conclusion is fallacious. I never said or implied that having the ability to know good from evil is a deity's ONLYattribute. Here, let me list some others for you, to prove it:

Normally your posts are clear and understandable but as you have falsely said of Andy's posts they are filled with errors and false statements.. Your additions to his list make it clear that you have no idea about the nature of God or resurrected man.

1. The ability to perform what the average human would call a miracle, such as the healings and corpse-rescusitating and weather-control that Jesus did.

The Bible is clear on healing and their source. It is NOT in someone's phony priesthood that the sick are raised. That takes the Glory of healing away from where it belongs.. It is the pray said in faith that God used to do such miracles.

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

2. The ability to know future events.
While man can live forever with God in his Kingdom only God is the YHWH.. That is He and only He is the timeless omnipresent God.. No one else will ever obtain that position.. (Isaiah 43:10)

3. The ability to create galaxies and the suns and planets they contain.
God has already created ALL things.. The position of creator is filled and nothing and no one can ***ume that
place.. (Isaiah 43:10)

4. More wisdom and knowledge and love and fairness than humans are currently capable of.

Yes because we will continue learning of God and in so doing we grow in wisdom, knowledge, love, and fairness..

I award you the usual "F" because of your lack of understanding and knowledge of God's word.. IHS jim

nrajeff

08-18-2010, 01:37 PM

Allow me to look at your statements and critique them as you have done to ANDY..
---Um, okay, but I wasn't attacking a post YOU had made, but ANDY WAS attacking a post that I had made. So I critiqued his attack on ME. You are just plain ****ing into something that does not concern you. But as I said, that is OK, as long as you don't mind the scathing re****al that I am about to give your attack on my post.

Normally your posts are clear and understandable
---Thanks! I try quite hard to make them so. Glad you recognized their clarity and understandability.

but as you have falsely said of Andy's posts they are filled with errors and false statements..
----If you are referring to 99% of Andy's posts, yes, I agree: they ARE filled with errors and false statements, such as "Your post is irrelevant because you are not a Christian." See his fallacy (aka ERROR) there? Whether or not a poster meets Andy's criteria for being a Christian is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the poster's comments are relevant to the topic in question. A cl***ic logical fallacy there. And thus, a false statement. And since many of Andy's posts contain his trademarked "Your post is irrelevant" accusation, many or most of his posts contain false statements. Q.E.D.

Your additions to his list make it clear that you have no idea about the nature of God or resurrected man.
---It is so obvious that you don't know what you are even talking about or addressing, so I need again to remind you to FOCUS, Jim. Focus on what it is you really think you are attacking, so you will appear less foolish. Here is what was going on before you ****ed in:

1. Andy's accusation was: That my mentioning that knowledge of good-evil and fair-unfair is one of God's attributes, means that I was saying that this is
"the only attributes that make God, God."

Which is totally false, of course. So my re****al to Andy included a list of some of the OTHER attributes that God has, to show Andy that I believe that God's attributes number FAR MORE than just one.

Some of God's other attributes that I listed were:
1. The ability to perform what the average human would call a miracle, such as the healings and corpse-rescusitating and weather-control that Jesus did.

2. The ability to know future events.

3. The ability to create galaxies and the suns and planets they contain.

4. More wisdom and knowledge and love and fairness than humans are currently capable of.

...which are indisputably some of God's attributes, as the vast majority of all Christians would agree. So your attacks on my post are bewilderingly illogical, Jim. It's like you weren't sober when you read my post, so you ended up attacking things that I didn't even say.

I award you the usual "F" because of your lack of understanding and knowledge of God's word.. IHS jim
---But you just finished PRAISING my usual posts, Jim, for their clarity and understandability. Remember?

Father_JD

08-18-2010, 01:44 PM

Christians often misinterpret the Bible (particularly using his words) to state that works "don't matter".

For example...?

Father_JD

08-18-2010, 01:50 PM

The faith that awards salvation is the faith that enables us to do works that contribute to spiritual growth. Those "works" grow and strengthen the faith required for salvation.

First of all, it must be pointed out that God awards salvation. It is God ALONE who gives faith tha brings about salvation.

Works do NOT grow or strengthen faith at all. The works are a DEMONSTRATING of FAITH at work.

Yours is a perfect example of a "circular argument".

Billyray

09-07-2010, 06:05 PM

What part of the thief was clearly not with Jesus in Paradise do you not understand?
Can you explain it again for me why you do not believe the Bible which clearly states that the thief on the cross will be with Jesus in Paradise?

Mesenja

09-08-2010, 06:08 AM

Here is your post first to Jeff and then to me. You are obviously citing this as a proof text for salvation by faith alone.

Look at the thief on the cross who had faith and NO works yet he was saved.
Oh how soon you forgot about the thief on the cross. What works did he do?

Can you explain to me then if this is an example of salvation without works and the basis of the thief's justification is by faith alone then why did Jesus say the following to to Mary?

"Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren,and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God, and your God."

This forms in part the reason for my previous reply to you that on this basis the thief was not with Jesus in paradise or what you equate with heaven.

Can you explain it again for me why you do not believe the Bible which clearly states that the thief on the cross will be with Jesus in Paradise?

The thief on the cross must have been in the world of spirits where he was taught the gospel.

akaSeerone

09-08-2010, 06:28 AM

You have taken what Jesus said to Mary out of context.

He was simply referring to His physical body. His Spirit had already been in the presence of the Father as seen in other Scripture.

Salvation is by Grace alone through Faith and FOLLOWED by works.

***us 3

3For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

4But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5Not 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;

6Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

7That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

8This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

And of course Ephesians 2:8-9 agrees.

You Mormons simply have it wrong and need to repent, get in line with the Bible and leave that pagan cult you are in.

Andy

nrajeff

09-08-2010, 07:05 AM

This forms in part the reason for my previous reply to you that on this basis the thief was not with Jesus in paradise or what you equate with heaven. The thief on the cross must have been in the world of spirits where he was taught the gospel.

---I think what confused Billy earlier was that you didn't make it clear that you were saying that the Bible doesn't say the thief went to his final destination--heaven--right after he died.
Hopefully, now Billy realizes that you were refuting his belief that the Paradise mentioned in that p***age is synonymous with the heaven where "Our Father who art in heaven" dwells. Billy may think that heaven is synonymous with the Paradise mentioned to the thief, but if Billy thinks that, then of course Billy is mistaken.

Billyray

09-08-2010, 07:48 AM

. . .the thief was not with Jesus in paradise. . .

So you believe that the thief was NOT with Jesus in Paradise that day despite this clearly being written in the Bible?

Where was the thief that day?

Mesenja

09-08-2010, 07:50 AM

---I think what confused Billy earlier was that you didn't make it clear that you were saying that the Bible doesn't say the thief went to his final destination--heaven--right after he died. Hopefully,now Billy realizes that you were refutinghis beliefthat the Paradise mentioned in that p***age is synonymous with the heaven where "Our Father who art in heaven" dwells. Billy may think that heaven is synonymous with the Paradise mentioned to the thief,but if Billy thinks that,then of course Billy is mistaken.

What other reason would Billy use this as a proof text for salvation by faith alone if he did not equate paradise with where God lives?

akaSeerone

09-08-2010, 08:55 AM

Not only where was he.....what did he do to earn to get there?

That is the bigger issue that these Mormons have perverted in thinking they can work their way to Heaven.

Andy

Mesenja

09-08-2010, 09:47 AM

Words have meaning Billy. You take the meaning of the word Paradise to mean Heaven. Otherwise you wouldn't use this example as a proof text for salvation by faith alone.

Look at the thief on the cross who had faith and NO works yet he was saved.

Oh how soon you forgot about the thief on the cross. What works did he do?

Now unless you have a different interpretation of where those that are saved will spend their eternity then the premise of your argument is faulty and therefore the conclusion that you draw is in error.

So you believe that the thief was NOT with Jesus in Paradise that day despite this clearly being written in the Bible? Where was the thief that day?

Jesus said to Mary on the day of his resurrection that he had not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven. Yet he told the thief that he would be with him today in Paradise.

And he said unto him,Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

"Touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father:but go to my brethren,and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father,and your Father;and to my God,and your God."

Taking all this into account the thief could not be in the concept of Paradise that you envision. Also as I have stated in my previous post I believe that the thief was in the world of spirits being taught the gospel.

The thief on the cross must have been in the world of spirits where he was taught the gospel.

Billyray

09-08-2010, 10:04 AM

So you believe that the thief was NOT with Jesus in Paradise that day despite this clearly being written in the Bible?

Where was the thief that day?

I am trying to illustrate a point which you do not seem to get yet. PS Jeff was attempting to help you out.

Can you please address the questions?

akaSeerone

09-08-2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mesenja View Post

The thief on the cross must have been in the world of spirits where he was taught the gospel.No, actually like Abraham, the thief believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Why do you Mormons constantly try to pervert what the bible plainly teaches us?

You would be much better off to reject Mormonism and the false prophet Smith and line up with what the Bible so plainly teaches.

Andy

Mesenja

09-08-2010, 02:43 PM

I am trying to illustrate a point which you do not seem to get yet. PS Jeff was attempting to help you out. Can you please address the questions?

See my post:Your beating a dead horse (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=66917&highlight=mesenja#post66917)

Billyray

09-08-2010, 02:46 PM

Your beating a dead horse

So you believe that the thief was NOT with Jesus in Paradise that day despite this clearly being written in the Bible?

Where was the thief that day?

Billyray

09-08-2010, 05:45 PM

What do you think my position is Einstein if I disagree with the translation of Luke 23:43. . .

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him,"I tell you the truth,today you will be with me in paradise."

What is your translation of Luke 23:43? How did YOU come up with a different translation for this verses?

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 07:31 AM

No,actually like Abraham,the thief believed God,and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Why do you Mormons constantly try to pervert what the bible plainly teaches us?

You would be much better off to reject Mormonism and the false prophet Smith and line up with what the Bible so plainly teaches.

Andy

Where does the Bible plainly teach that the thief believed God and like Abraham it was credited to him as righteousness?

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 07:39 AM

What is your translation of Luke 23:43? How did YOU come up with a different translation for this verses?

You keep saying you have one so just come out and sat it.

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 07:53 AM

So you believe that the thief was NOT with Jesus in Paradise that day despite this clearly being written in the Bible?

Where was the thief that day?

I've already answered your question.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 07:55 AM

You keep saying you have one so just come out and sat it.

I have several points, some depend on your answer to my questions that you have not yet provided, but let me start with this one. You said that you have a different translation for Luke 23:43. On what basis or on what authority do you have that gives you the right to change God's word?

Billyray

09-09-2010, 08:06 AM

I've already answered your question.

No you have not answered those questions. I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 08:25 AM

I have several points,some depend on your answer to my questions that you have not yet provided,but let me start with this one. You said that you have a different translation for Luke 23:43. On what basis or on what authority do you have that gives you the right to change God's word?

What I said was that I disagree with the translation. They are not consistent in the usage of the word paradise in this particular instance. I believe that a better rendition of this verse would be “Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits.” First let me preface this part of my reply by stating the following. Whether you agree with the Protestant or Latter-day Saint interpretation of the usage of the word paradise in this particular instance the scriptures do not align with the idea that he was ever there. The thief for one did not qualify to be there. Second if you agree with the Protestant position that paradise equates itself with heaven then what Jesus said to Mary contradicts what he promised the thief.

BIBLE DICTIONARY
Paradise

However,the scriptures are not always consistent in the use of the word,especially in the Bible. For example,when Jesus purportedly said to the thief on the cross,“To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43),the Bible rendering is incorrect. The statement would more accurately read,“Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits” since the thief was not ready for paradise (see HC 5:424-25).

Billyray

09-09-2010, 08:40 AM

What I said was that I disagree with the translation. I believe that a better rendition of this verse would be “Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits.”

OK, so the basis for you stating that the Bible is translated incorrectly is based on the LDS Bible Dictionary.

LDS Bible Dictionary
"The statement would more accurately read,“Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits” since the thief was not ready for paradise (see HC 5:424-25)."

What is the basis for the LDS Bible Dictionary to state that this section of scripture is translated incorrectly? Did they base this on any ancient m****cripts or on the JST?

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 09:24 AM

In it I stated quite clearly two reasons why I believe that this verse would more accurately read “Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits.”

OK,so the basis for you stating that the Bible is translated incorrectly is based on the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary.

LDS Bible Dictionary

"The statement would more accurately read,“Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits” since the thief was not ready for paradise (see HC 5:424-25)."

What is the basis for the Latter-day Saint Bible Dictionary to state that this section of scripture is translated incorrectly? Did they base this on any ancient m****cripts or on the Joseph Smith Translation?

I only cited the BIBLE DICTIONARY as a reference to give support to my argument. No m****cript or the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is cited as evidence for what they say.

They base their argument both on what Joseph Smith said about this verse and the the Bible not always being consistent in the use of this word. The evidence given for this last point is the fact that the thief was not ready for paradise.

Revelation 2:7

7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life,which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 09:29 AM

LDS Bible Dictionary
"The statement would more accurately read,“Today shalt thou be with me in the world of spirits” since the thief was not ready for paradise (see HC 5:424-25)."

The evidence given for this last point is the fact that the thief was not ready for paradise.
So there is no evidence that the translation is incorrect based on any ancient m****cript or even the JST? Correct?

The whole basis for your belief that there is a mistranslation is that is simply disagrees with your preconceived theology. Isn't that correct?

BTW, who says that the thief was not ready for Paradise? Christ or Joseph Smith?

nrajeff

09-09-2010, 03:56 PM

So there is no evidence that the translation is incorrect based on any ancient m****cript or even the JST? Correct?:D

---Contemporary English Version:

Footnotes:
Luke 23:43 paradise: In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word is used for the Garden of Eden. In New Testament times it was sometimes used for the place where God's people are happy and at rest, as they wait for the final judgment.

Are all Bibles in agreement over what the Greek word paradeisos means?

New Century Version Footnotes:
paradise-- Another word for heaven.

From Blue Letter Bible:

1) among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters

2) a garden, pleasure ground

a) grove, park

3) the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

4) the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

5) heaven

How sure are you that the definition YOU believe in, is the correct one? Seems that real Bible experts aren't even sure.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 04:03 PM

---Luke 23:43 (Contemporary English Version)
43Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise." [a]

Footnotes:
Luke 23:43 paradise: In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this word is used for the Garden of Eden. In New Testament times it was sometimes used for the place where God's people are happy and at rest, as they wait for the final judgment.

I am not sure how you think that this explains that the translation of the ancient m****cript was incorrect. Especially given the fact that the JST is consistent with the official LDS KJV Bible which states Paradise. Do you know something that the the translators of the Bible did not know OR that Joseph Smith didn't know? Is this based on your personal revelation?

James Banta

09-09-2010, 05:39 PM

I am not sure how you think that this explains that the translation of the ancient m****cript was incorrect. Especially given the fact that the JST is consistent with the official LDS KJV Bible which states Paradise. Do you know something that the the translators of the Bible did not know OR that Joseph Smith didn't know? Is this based on your personal revelation?

Isn't this the place that Jesus took captive as He gave gifts to men? Doesn't Paul tell us that his ***urance was to be with Jesus when he died? Is not Jesus sitting at the right site of the Father? Is not the Father in heaven? Seems to me all this is sat aside by mormonism because it doesn't match up with the lies of Joseph Smith.. Why believe the Bible when you have a living prophet? It's all so blasphemous.. IHS jim

Billyray

09-09-2010, 06:00 PM

How sure are you that the definition YOU believe in, is the correct one? Seems that real Bible experts aren't even sure.

My beef with Mesenja was not necessarily with several points that he brought up in prior posts, some of which I actually happened to agree with, which I have already given several reasons in other older posts that explain my position if he would of even bothered to go back and read. The disagreement was in his attempt to change a very clear Bible verse because it did not conform to his preconceived theology. Thus the whole reason for the supposedly mistranslated verse was not because of mistranslation of ancient m****cripts or because of revelation by Joseph Smith in his JST but simply because it did not agree with his expected theology. In addition to this he quoted the LDS Bible Dictionary which is not even considered scripture by you or him.

An example to help illustrate my point. Here are several facts for this example

1. I am wearing a red shirt
2. I am wearing blue pants
3. I am wearing white shoes

Mesenja's preconceived idea is that I am wearing a blue shirt. Because of his preconceived ideas that I am wearing a blue shirt his argument would likely be. You are not wearing a red shirt, that is mistaken despite the fact that this is clearly a known fact. Maybe your white shoes are reflecting the sun off of your blue pants giving an optical illusion that your shirt is red but in reality it is clearly blue.

nrajeff

09-09-2010, 08:52 PM

I am not sure how you think that this explains that the translation of the ancient m****cript was incorrect.
---I am not sure you are familiar with Bible Translation 101: Some words are transliteratations of the foreign word, not translations. Examples include apostasy (from apostasia) and apostle (ultimately from apostolos) and paradise (ultimatey from paradeisos) .

I didn't say that the ancient ms was incorrect. But I am willing to say that some of you Self-Appointed Attackers of the LDS have a defective understanding of what the word MEANS.

Here is Merriam-Webster:

1. a : eden

b : an intermediate place or state where the souls of the righteous await resurrection and the final judgment

c : heaven

Note that "heaven" is not the primary definition of paradise. It's not even the secondary definition of it.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 09:05 PM

-- But I am willing to say that some of you Self-Appointed Attackers of the LDS have a defective understanding of what the word MEANS.
But yet it is still the same word not a different word. That is the point. If the word is red then the word is red not blue even if you are color blind.

Mesenja

09-09-2010, 09:18 PM

My beef with Mesenja was not necessarily with several points that he brought up in prior posts,some of which I actually happened to agree with,which I have already given several reasons in other older posts that explain my position if he would of even bothered to go back and read.

The disagreement was in his attempt to change a very clear Bible verse because it did not conform to his preconceived theology. Thus the whole reason for the supposedly mistranslated verse was not because of mistranslation of ancient m****cripts or because of revelation by Joseph Smith in his JST but simply because it did not agree with his expected theology. In addition to this he quoted the LDS Bible Dictionary which is not even considered scripture by you or him.

An example to help illustrate my point. Here are several facts for this example

1. I am wearing a red shirt
2. I am wearing blue pants
3. I am wearing white shoes

Mesenja's preconceived idea is that I am wearing a blue shirt. Because of his preconceived ideas that I am wearing a blue shirt his argument would likely be. You are not wearing a red shirt, that is mistaken despite the fact that this is clearly a known fact. Maybe your white shoes are reflecting the sun off of your blue pants giving an optical illusion that your shirt is red but in reality it is clearly blue.

Either reconcile your doctrines about salvation with what Jesus taught concerning our final judgment or just don't waste my time.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 09:20 PM

[COLOR="Purple"] Note that "heaven" is not the primary definition of paradise. It's not even the secondary definition of it.

If you or Mesenja would have read any of my posts on this subject you would probably have a better idea of my position. First the word is Paradise NOT Spirit Prison which is where you think that the thief would of been sent (per LDS theology). Second those who died prior to the death and resurrection of Christ went to Hades not with God the Father. Why? Because Christ had not paid for the penalty for sin yet, they could not be in the presence of a Holy God. Hades was divided into to two sections: one for the righteous and a separate area for the unrighteous. The area for the righteous has a couple of names, one was Abraham's bosom or Paradise. When the thief died after Christ but before Christs' resurrection he went to the Paradise side of Hades. After the resurrection Christ took the Paradise section and those in it directly to Heaven. When those have faith in Christ today (post resurrection of Christ) they go directly to live with the Father.

Below is my post from May of this year that discussed this very issue.

Hey Novato. Prior to the resurrection of Christ the dead were separated into two separate locations as noted in Luke 16 (The Rich Man and Lazarus). I don't usually cut and paste but I am going to cut and paste in efforts to answer your question which is explained towards the end of the quote by Charles Swindoll. (Note the second highlighted sentence by Swindoll "He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven." would have to occur after John 20:17 that you noted in your quote, i.e. after his resurrection.)

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll.
Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?"

Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. This concept comes primarily from the Apostles' Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the “place of the dead” or the “place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is “hades,” which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to hell because hell is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

Sheol/hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), the abodes of the saved and the lost. The abode of the saved was called “paradise” and “Abraham's bosom.” The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus ascended to heaven, He took the occupants of paradise (believers) with Him (Ephesians 4:8-10). The lost side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Some of the confusion has arisen from such p***ages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption....Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation of this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”
end of cut and paste.

LDS perspective
Lets look at it from the LDS point of view of Paradise and Spirit Prison. According to this quote from the recent Gospel Principles the thief would likely have gone to Spirit Prison NOT Paradise because his ordinances were not done. Some LDS say that his ordinances could of been done the day of his death or that he was already baptize prior to his death but I think that this is a stretch and simply grasping to twist things to match their theology.

“Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World,” Gospel Principles, (2009),240–44
Spirit Prison
The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.

nrajeff

09-09-2010, 10:36 PM

First the word is Paradise NOT Spirit Prison which is where you think that the thief would of been sent (per LDS theology).

--That is not what I believe. I think there is a definite possibility that the theif went to the PARADISE side of the world of departed spirits, also known as hades. He is probably there right now, waiting for Resurrection Day and Judgment Day, and if he has been faithful to the end, he will end up in God's kingdom. If you think he is in God's presence right now, because you think Ressurection and Judgment Day already came and went, then I think you have a defective eschatology.

Billyray

09-09-2010, 10:45 PM

I think there is a definite possibility that the theif went to the PARADISE side of the world of departed spirits, also known as hade

“Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World,” Gospel Principles, (2009),240–44
Spirit Prison
The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise."

But note from the Gospel Principles quote ("If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise"), that certain things are required (according to LDS theology) prior to entrance into Paradise which would of not likely been done that day. Second the quote from Mesenja out of the LDS Bible dictionary stated ". . . the fact that the thief was not ready for paradise."

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 07:00 AM

No you have not answered those questions. I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

I've already said that it was besides the point whether the verse in question is translated correctly.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 07:13 AM

Did the thief on the cross go to Paradise with Jesus? This is a simple question.

You have repeated the same question to me numerous times. Yet you have never provided a definition of Paradise. What is your definition of Paradise? This is also a simple question.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 07:39 AM

I am not sure how you think that this explains that the translation of the ancient m****cript was incorrect. Especially given the fact that the Joseph Smith Translation is consistent with the official Latter-day Saint King James Version Bible which states Paradise. Do you know something that the the translators of the Bible did not know OR that Joseph Smith didn't know? Is this based on your personal revelation?

What I believe Jeff is arguing is that the proper usage of the term is more consistent with the idea of Paradise being "the place where God's people are happy and at rest,as they wait for the final judgment."

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 07:58 AM

But yet it is still the same word not a different word. That is the point. If the word is red then the word is red not blue even if you are color blind.

In this particular case Jeff is trying to get you to see this. Just restating your position that the word paradise is used in this verse is quite meaningless without defining how the word is used here.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 08:57 AM

I've already said that it was besides the point whether the verse in question is translated correctly.

I think that this is an very important point. LDS and Christians differ in defining just about every term so this is not an issue with how you or I would define things. Defining a word differently is one thing but changing a word completely is something entirely different. This is the issue that I have tried to bring to light. The LDS KJV translates the word "Paradise" AND Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible translates the word "Paradise", on what basis or on what authority do you have to simply change the Bible in this case?

Billyray

09-10-2010, 09:00 AM

. . .Paradise being "the place where God's people are happy and at rest,as they wait for the final judgment."
I would agree with this definition. As noted above these are God's people who are at rest. Before the resurrection this is located away from the presence of God because their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ. After the resurrection their sins would be paid for and then they could enter the presence of God. Today when a believer dies his spirit goes immediately into the presence of God. For the unbeliever this is not the case.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 09:27 AM

“Chapter 41:The Postmortal Spirit World,” Gospel Principles,(2009),240–44
Spirit Prison

The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise."

But note from the Gospel Principles quote ("If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise"),that certain things are required (according to LDS theology) prior to entrance into Paradise which would of not likely been done that day. Second the quote from Mesenja out of the LDS Bible dictionary stated ". . . the fact that the thief was not ready for paradise."

The thief had to have accepted the ordinances of the gospel and lived by it's principles. That is the reason that Jesus as a spirit organized the preaching of the gospel to those who are dead so that they may be judged by the standards set by God for the living but live according to God in the spirit.

5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
6 For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,that they might be judged according to men in the flesh,but live according to God in the spirit.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 09:37 AM

The thief had to have accepted the ordinances of the gospel and lived by it's principles.

First off this requires that you change the word "Paradise" to "Spirit Prison" to be consistent with your ideas. Second you do realize that this is a Mormon concept that states that the thief has to have ordinances done in order for Jesus to be allowed to let this guy into heaven.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 09:56 AM

I would agree with this definition. As noted above these are God's people who are at rest. Before the resurrection this is located away from the presence of God because their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ. After the resurrection their sins would be paid for and then they could enter the presence of God. Today when a believer dies his spirit goes immediately into the presence of God. For the unbeliever this is not the case.

The atonement is timeless. The atonement is retroactive. The atonement is proactive.

Please present your argument that "before the resurrection this [paradise] is located away from the presence of God because their [the righteous i.e. Gods people] sins have not of yet [been] paid for by Christ."

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:11 AM

Billyray stated
I would agree with this definition. As noted above these are God's people who are at rest. Before the resurrection this is located away from the presence of God because their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ. After the resurrection their sins would be paid for and then they could enter the presence of God. Today when a believer dies his spirit goes immediately into the presence of God. For the unbeliever this is not the case.

The atonement is timeless. The atonement is retroactive. The atonement is proactive
You misquoted me in the post above and attributed the last sentence to me that I clearly did not write. Perhaps you are quoting someone that I was quoting? Could you clarify that for me so at least I can read the original quote and in what reference it was quoted?

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:17 AM

Please present your argument that "before the resurrection this [paradise] is located away from the presence of God because their [the righteous i.e. Gods people] sins have not of yet paid for by Christ."

Did you miss post #697 just a few posts back that spoke a little about this? Anyway I will repost it for you again below which is a direct quote from my post earlier this year.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll.
Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?"

Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. This concept comes primarily from the Apostles' Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the “place of the dead” or the “place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek word that is used for hell is “hades,” which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place. So, no, Jesus did not go to hell because hell is a future realm, only put into effect after the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

Sheol/hades is a realm with two divisions (Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23; Acts 2:27-31), the abodes of the saved and the lost. The abode of the saved was called “paradise” and “Abraham's bosom.” The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus ascended to heaven, He took the occupants of paradise (believers) with Him (Ephesians 4:8-10). The lost side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Some of the confusion has arisen from such p***ages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption....Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation of this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” [B]Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to the “paradise” side of sheol/hades. He then removed all the righteous dead from paradise and took them with Him to heaven. Unfortunately, in many translations of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”
end of cut and paste.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:24 AM

The thief had to have accepted the ordinances of the gospel and lived by it's principles. That is the reason that Jesus as a spirit organized the preaching of the gospel to those who are dead so that they may be judged by the standards set by God for the living but live according to God in the spirit.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism--Spirit World
"Bruce R. McConkie explained, "Until the death of Christ these two spirit abodes [paradise and hell] were separated by a great gulf, with the intermingling of their respective inhabitants strictly forbidden (Luke 16:19-31). After our Lord bridged the gulf between the two (1 Pet. 3:18-21; Moses 7:37-39), the affairs of his kingdom in the spirit world were so arranged that righteous spirits began teaching the gospel to wicked ones" (MD, p. 762)."

According to LDS theology what was the criteria for entrance into Paradise or Spirit Prison PRIOR to the death and resurrection of Christ?

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 10:25 AM

First off this requires that you change the word "Paradise" to "Spirit Prison" to be consistent with your ideas. Second you do realize that this is a Mormon concept that states that the thief has to have ordinances done in order for Jesus to be allowed to let this guy into heaven.

First as I have stated previously the accuracy of the translation is not the issue. What is relevant for me is how this word is used. The question therefore is a matter of context and usage. You are isolating this verse in order to be able to read into it your theology. Second it is not only a Mormon concept that states that the ordinances of the gospel are vital for our salvation. The Catholics support this view as well.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:31 AM

First as I have stated previously the accuracy of the translation is not the issue.
It is not an issue to you but it is certainly an issue to me. The word clearly is translated to "Paradise" NOT "Spirit Prison or "outer darkness".

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Spirit_World
"They are then ***igned to a place of paradise or a place of hell and "outer darkness," depending on the manner of their mortal life (Alma 40:12-14)."

President Joseph F. Smith discussed this subject further: The spirits of all men, as soon as they depart from this mortal body, whether they are good or evil,…are taken home to that God who gave them life, where there is a separation, a partial judgment, and the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they expand in wisdom, where they have respite from all their troubles, and where care and sorrow do not annoy. The wicked, on the contrary, have no part nor portion in the Spirit of the Lord, and they are cast into outer darkness, being led captive, because of their own iniquity, by the evil one. And in this space between death and the resurrection of the body, the two cl***es of souls remain, in happiness or in misery, until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall come forth and be reunited both spirit and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works. This is the final judgment [p. 448].

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 10:33 AM

Encyclopedia of Mormonism--Spirit World

"Bruce R. McConkie explained,"Until the death of Christ these two spirit abodes [paradise and hell] were separated by a great gulf,with the intermingling of their respective inhabitants strictly forbidden (Luke 16:19-31). After our Lord bridged the gulf between the two (1 Peter 3:18-21;Moses 7:37-39),the affairs of his kingdom in the spirit world were so arranged that righteous spirits began teaching the gospel to wicked ones" (Mprmon Doctrine,p. 762)."

According to Latter-day Saint theology what was the criteria for entrance into Paradise or Spirit Prison PRIOR to the death and resurrection of Christ?

As you have access to Gospel Principles and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism then what is the point of asking me this question? Instead of employing these tiresome question and answer tactics just state your argument and have done with it.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:36 AM

The question therefore is a matter of context and usage.

Here is the difference

1. Definition difference (Lets use the word God as an example)

LDS--a man who worked his way up the ladder and became a god and has many wives in heaven and procreates spirit babies. . .

Christian--one God manifest in three persons that has existed from everlasting to everlasting

2. Different word--you are completely changing the word to a new word not simply changing the definition like noted above.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 10:38 AM

As you have access to Gospel Principles and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism then what is the point of asking me this question? Instead of employing these tiresome question and answer tactics just state your argument and have done with it.
Can you give us a short run down on the requirements so not only I will know but others will know as well. Thanks

Requirements for Paradise--pre Christ.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 10:57 AM

You misquoted me in the post above and attributed the last sentence to me that I clearly did not write. Perhaps you are quoting someone that I was quoting? Could you clarify that for me so at least I can read the original quote and in what reference it was quoted?

All I did was correct your grammar to make it easier for people to understand. I was quoting you Billy. Yes I was at fault and attributed a quote given by Robert Millet to you by mistakenly inserting it into the quote I gave to you. However this unintentional error on my part does not take away from the fact that you said " their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ" If I misrepresented your position then who are you referring to here?

I would agree with this definition. As noted above these are God's people who are at rest. Before the resurrection this is located away from the presence of God because their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ. After the resurrection their sins would be paid for and then they could enter the presence of God. Today when a believer dies his spirit goes immediately into the presence of God. For the unbeliever this is not the case.

Jesus is called the lamb slain from the foundation of the world,whatever that means. The Atonement takes effect on earth from what day? Does it take effect in a.d. 30. No,it takes effect in 4000 b.c. Adam and Eve and their children repented in the name of the Son,who would come in 4000 years. In fact,look at the language in the Book of Mormon,if you will. Alma,chapter 39,I think it is. The message of Alma in chapter 39 is to his son Corianton. This is the chapter where Alma has called his son to repentance,and now he's going to teach him some pretty interesting doctrine.

Verses 17-19: "And now I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold,you marvel why these things [that is, the redemption of Christ] should be known so long beforehand. Behold,I say unto you,is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be at the time of his coming?

"Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be made known unto this people as well as unto their children?

"Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to send his angel to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or as after the time of his coming?"

Do you see the nature of the timelessness of it? The issue wasn't,essentially,when Jesus would come. The issue is that he would come and the people in the Book of Mormon functioned,to use the language of the Book of Mormon,as though he had already come. And so it's timeless. It is retroactive. It is proactive. So,it overcomes death. It is timeless.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 11:02 AM

However this unintentional error on my part does not take away from the fact that you said " their sins have not of paid for yet by Christ" If I then who are you referring to here?

I am not sure of your exact question, so I am guessing and will address what I think is your question. Prior to Christ's' live and death on the cross the penalty for sin was not paid. Just like a fine for any legal violation is not paid until it is paid. Hope that answers your question.

nrajeff

09-10-2010, 12:39 PM

The requirements for eternal life have not changed, regardless whether a person lived B.C. or A.D. : Have faith and OBEY God's will to the best of your ability in the circumstances you're in. That's why Abraham and Mother Teresa can both get eternal life. The requirement was essentially the same for both.

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 01:52 PM

I am not sure of your exact question,so I am guessing and will address what I think is your question. Prior to Christ's' life and death on the cross the penalty for sin was not paid. Just like a fine for any legal violation is not paid until it is paid. Hope that answers your question.

Is the atonement retroactive? Now to respond to your post. First off the model of justification is based on a familial not legal framework. Second due to the eternal nature of the atonement it's effects are retroactive otherwise it could not be said that God is "the God of Abraham,the God of Isaac,and the God of Jacob."

Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him,whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Exodus 3:15 Moreover God said to Moses,"Thus you shall say to the children of Israel:'The Lord God of your fathers,the God of Abraham,the God of Isaac,and the God of Jacob,has sent me to you. This is My name forever,and this is My memorial to all generations.'

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 02:05 PM

Here is the difference

1. Definition difference (Lets use the word God as an example)

LDS--a man who worked his way up the ladder and became a god and has many wives in heaven and procreates spirit babies. . .

Christian--one God manifest in three persons that has existed from everlasting to everlasting

2. Different word--you are completely changing the word to a new word not simply changing the definition like noted above.

It isn't about your faulty understanding of how we define God. Stick to the topic please.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 03:44 PM

Is the atonement retroactive? Now to respond to your post. First off the model of justification is based on a familial not legal framework. Second due to the eternal nature of the atonement it's effects are retroactive otherwise it could not be said that God is "the God of Abraham,the God of Isaac,and the God of Jacob."

I am still not sure what you are really asking. Maybe you could rephrase it for me.

Billyray

09-10-2010, 03:45 PM

The subject is paradise. . .It isn't about your faulty understanding of how we define God. Stick to the topic please.

You are right it is about the thief going to Paradise. You do believe that the thief went to Paradise, don't you?

Father_JD

09-10-2010, 04:44 PM

Why do you quote (out of context of course!) the ECF...I mean, the GREAT APOSTASY had taken place already according to Mormons.

Ah, but leave it to the Mo to want it both ways...ALWAYS.

Don't forget now, Augustine lived between 354 AD and 430...plenty of time for baptismal regeneration to creep into that ***** OF BABYLON, the CATHOLIC CHURCH as you Mos are wont to call it!!

Mesenja

09-10-2010, 07:38 PM

Why do you quote (out of context of course!) the ECF...I mean,the GREAT APOSTASY had taken place already according to Mormons. Ah,but leave it to the Mormon to want it both ways...ALWAYS. Don't forget now,Augustine lived between 354 AD and 430...plenty of time for baptismal regeneration to creep into that ***** OF BABYLON,the CATHOLIC CHURCH as you Mormonss are wont to call it!

Quit with all your impotent posturing and show me where I took any of my previous quotes out of context.

Father_JD

09-11-2010, 05:41 PM

Quit with all your impotent posturing and show me where I took any of my previous quotes out of context.

You guys ONLY know how to selectively read the ECF. You're masters at cherry-picking, M. Who ya tryin to fool here?

You guys would have us believe C. S. Lewis was a nice Irish Mormon lad...:rolleyes:

Give me a more detailed bibliography, or better yet link me to the very works online. But then again, chances ARE, you haven't read them at all in context, M. You just did the down and dirty thing and cut and paste from some Mormon apologetic website (because the "thinking has been done" for you as your "Prophet" Ezra Taft Benson advised Mormons years ago) like Jeff Lindsey, FARMS, or FAIR...or "Brother" Barry Bickmore whom I caught in his brazen cherry-picking act years ago from the ECF and who wouldn't respond to my providing him with the CONTEXT. Why? It destroyed his Mormon contentions, M. That's WHY! :rolleyes:

Mesenja

09-12-2010, 02:49 PM

The First Apology (http://http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm) (St. Justin Martyr)
Chapter 61. Christian baptism

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ;lest,if we omit this,we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true,and undertake to be able to live accordingly,are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting,for the remission of their sins that are past,we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water,and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For,in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe,and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,and of the Holy Spirit,they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said,"Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." John 3:5 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/john/3-5.html) Now,that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs,is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins,is declared by Esaias the prophet,as I wrote above;he thus speaks:"Wash you,make you clean;put away the evil of your doings from your souls;learn to do well;judge the fatherless,and plead for the widow:and come and let us reason together,says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet,I will make them white like wool;and though they be as crimson,I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel,the sword shall devour you:for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it." Isaiah 1:16-20 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/nas/isaiah/p***age.aspx?q=isaiah+1:16-20)

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice,by our parents coming together,and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training;in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance,but may become the children of choice and knowledge,and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed,there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again,and has repented of his sins,the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe;he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God;and if any one dare to say that there is a name,he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination,because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ,who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,and in the name of the Holy Ghost,who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Father_JD

09-12-2010, 04:24 PM

Three things:

Firstly, insufficient context. Yes, you heard me.

Secondly, the link doesn't work.

Thirdly, water is NOT magic. It can NOT regenerate anyone. The act signifies the REGENERATION, hence it can rightly be called, "the waters of regeneration".

nrajeff

09-12-2010, 05:26 PM

Thirdly, water is NOT magic.
--Neither is faith. Just ask any demon you happen to meet. Demons may actually believe in Calvinism and Trinitarianism, but does that faith save them?

Water is just as magical as faith is: It is possible for miraculous things to happen if a person USES them correctly. Water can be used to make dirty dishes clean, to make a steam engine move a train, to preserve a mammoth for 10,000 years, and to make a dehydrated person hydrated.

Faith can RESULT in the miracle of efficacious grace being applied to a person, IF the person uses that faith correctly and doesn't just announce "I believe in Anglican Jesus, so now I have guaranteed eternal life. Now let's party." Faith is something you need to exercise on a daily basis and prove you have it by your OBEDIENCE, until the end.

Father_JD

09-13-2010, 04:29 AM

--Neither is faith. Just ask any demon you happen to meet. Demons may actually believe in Calvinism and Trinitarianism, but does that faith save them?

Demons don't have faith, jeff. They KNOW there is one God...something LDS neither have faith nor know.

Water is just as magical as faith is: It is possible for miraculous things to happen if a person USES them correctly. Water can be used to make dirty dishes clean, to make a steam engine move a train, to preserve a mammoth for 10,000 years, and to make a dehydrated person hydrated.

You'll just never understand that "water" in baptism is a SIGN, SIGNIFYING REGENERATION WHICH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED. It's SYMBOLIC, jeff. In and of itself it does neither regenerate or save, but is SYMBOLIC of Christ's DEATH.

Faith can RESULT in the miracle of efficacious grace being applied to a person, IF the person uses that faith correctly and doesn't just announce "I believe in Anglican Jesus, so now I have guaranteed eternal life. Now let's party." Faith is something you need to exercise on a daily basis and prove you have it by your OBEDIENCE, until the end. [/COLOR]

You'll just never understand (unless regenerated by the REAL Holy Spirit) that one is saved BY Grace, THROUGH Faith. You've got it backwards. Furthermore, you don't understand that WHAT we DO is a RESULT of WHO we ARE.

Now, I'll let Paul answer your "let's party" slander:

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose ****ation is just.

Rom 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

nrajeff

09-13-2010, 07:19 AM

Demons don't have faith, jeff. They KNOW there is one God...
--Dang, MY Bible says the demons BELIEVE. Now who should I trust is correct: YOU, or the BIBLE?

You'll just never understand that "water" in baptism is a SIGN, SIGNIFYING REGENERATION WHICH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.
--Hey, I have been baptized, so that is a sign that I was regenerated pre-baptism, right?

It's SYMBOLIC, jeff. In and of itself it does neither regenerate or save, but is SYMBOLIC of Christ's DEATH.
---Why is it a COMMANDMENT, then? How many unbaptized people will be in heaven?

You've got it backwards.
---That is funny, coming from someone who takes EVERY "if-then" conditional prescription in the Bible and turns it into a "because-then" statement. Which came first: your seminary diploma, or the coursework they said you needed to do IN ORDER to GET the diploma?

Furthermore, you don't understand that WHAT we DO is a RESULT of WHO we ARE.
---So the ****s on Carm do what they do (mock other groups of people) because of who they are--unregenerated fake Christians--not despite the fact that they are saved believers...right?

Rom 3:8 And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?

Rom 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
---I don't consider your beliefs to be a case of "Let's party so that grace may abound." I consider them a case of "I think all my sins, past and future, have already been FORGIVEN, so even if I commit 1000 murders and adulteries per day, it can't put my salvation into jeopardy."

(See "Sin vigorously" by Martin Luther, your Restoration's Father.)

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--Then there are none [B]sinless either, so don't let me catch you claiming that you have been made sinless or that you are no longer a sinner.

Mesenja

09-13-2010, 10:47 AM

Demons don't have faith,Jeff. They KNOW there is one God...something LDS neither have faith nor know.

James makes a hypothetical argument of whether one can show their faith without works. He answers the argument in the negative that the devils also believe in God yet works are not added to their faith and therefore being alone it does not save them. They had the first component of faith which is to "believe that He is" however the second needed factor is missing which is to demonstrate by their actions that they believe that "He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

Hebrews 11:6

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

James 2:18-20

18 But someone may well say,"You have faith and I have works;show me your faith without the works,and I will show you my faith by my works."
19 You believe that God is one.You do well;the demons also believe,and shudder.
20 But are you willing to recognize,you foolish fellow,that faith without works is useless?

nrajeff

09-13-2010, 12:51 PM

Billyray

09-13-2010, 05:25 PM

---I think it goes further than that: The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him. And THAT is what dooms them.

A major problem is that you are looking at things with your LDS sungl***es on with respect to angels verses humans. You ***ume that angles and humans are essentially the same en***y but in "various stages of progression". This is a completely different concept compared to what Christians hold.

http://www.gotquestions.org/angels-Bible.html
". . .Angels are an entirely different order of being than humans. Human beings do not become angels after they die. Angels will never become, and never were, human beings. God created the angels, just as He created humanity. The Bible nowhere states that angels are created in the image and likeness of God, as humans are (Genesis 1:26). Angels are spiritual beings that can, to a certain degree, take on physical form. Humans are primarily physical beings, but with a spiritual aspect. . ."

James Banta

09-13-2010, 05:26 PM

---I think it goes further than that: The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him. And THAT is what dooms them. Not their lack of sola fide--they could have tons of that. It's in the area OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S WILL that they blew it. And it's what is gonna doom some humans, too, including some who think they are Christians and think they are saved by their faith alone.

Is this something that you have engraved on your heart "If there is a scripture that you don't like CHANGE IT".. I am sorry that you have to do this and read what you want the scripture to say instead of just trusting what it says..

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
See it's not that the devils believe is God and choose not to obey Him.. It's that they KNOW that God is one and they tremble!! Even they know that much. A attribute of God that mormonism denies. If the devils tremble and they have that information, mormonism should be unconscious in terror. Simple belief that God is there and is one Lord isn't enough a person must trust Him to be and do what He says he is and has done.. mormonism fails that that point as well.. IHS jim

Father_JD

09-13-2010, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Demons don't have faith, jeff. They KNOW there is one God...

--Dang, MY Bible says the demons BELIEVE. Now who should I trust is correct: YOU, or the BIBLE?

Dang, my Bible uses all sorts of anthropomorphisms, and parallels in Hebrew/Greek construction which the average Mormon doesn't understand 'cause he takes every sentence in scripture in a fantastically woodenly-literal way! :rolleyes:

Now think about this, jeff. First, we'll take a looksee at James statement:

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

Ever hear of parallel construction? Do devils, who are fallen angels rely upon mere BELIEF that there's one God? The very fallen angels who KNEW GOD IN AN INTIMATE WAY THAT NEITHER YOU NOR I NOW POSSESS WHICH MEANS THEY REALLY KNOW AND DON'T RELY ON MERE BELIEF? Or could it be that James is making a PARALLEL statement? Human beings are confined to "belief" this side of heaven...and James makes a parallel construction. In other words, jeff...please grow up in your biblical hermeneutics. :rolleyes:

Quote:
You'll just never understand that "water" in baptism is a SIGN, SIGNIFYING REGENERATION WHICH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.

--Hey, I have been baptized, so that is a sign that I was regenerated pre-baptism, right?

Nope. And I think you already knew what my answer would be, jeff. One isn't generated by the REAL Holy Spirit to believe the LIES and DECEPTION of one Joseph Smith, Jr.

Quote:
It's SYMBOLIC, jeff. In and of itself it does neither regenerate or save, but is SYMBOLIC of Christ's DEATH.

---Why is it a COMMANDMENT, then? How many unbaptized people will be in heaven?

Should one refuse to be baptized, it's a possible sign that something is WRONG, that that one doesn't want to follow Jesus' command...I know of only two exceptions of Christian bodies who do not as a rule baptize. The "Salvation Army" is one and I"ve momentarily forgotten the other one. Since baptism does NOT SAVE anyone, anyone truly regenerate and saved, whether baptized or not will be in heaven just like the thief on the Cross!

Quote:
You've got it backwards.

---That is funny, coming from someone who takes EVERY "if-then" conditional prescription in the Bible and turns it into a "because-then" statement. Which came first: your seminary diploma, or the coursework they said you needed to do IN ORDER to GET the diploma?

Not ****ogous, jeff. But instead of indulging yourself in "glittering generalities" how about a specific example?

Quote:
Furthermore, you don't understand that WHAT we DO is a RESULT of WHO we ARE.

---So the ****s on Carm do what they do (mock other groups of people) because of who they are--unregenerated fake Christians--not despite the fact that they are saved believers...right?

C'mon, jeff. Enough of the cheap shots. There is such a thing as maturity, etc. in the faith "or being (momentarily) in the flesh". Besides that, although being regenerated Christians, we struggle ever still with the "old nature". Something about Paul exhorting regenerate Christians to nail the old nature to the Cross daily?

Quote:
Rom 3:8 And not [rather], [b](as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?

Rom 3:9 ¶ What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

---I don't consider your beliefs to be a case of "Let's party so that grace may abound." I consider them a case of "I think all my sins, past and future, have already been FORGIVEN, so even if I commit 1000 murders and adulteries per day, it can't put my salvation into jeopardy."

You demonstrate that you still don't understand the nature of the New Birth, jeff. You've just negated what Jesus said:

"A GOOD tree can NOT produce bad fruit"...do you have the slightest inkling what He MEANS?? A truly FORGIVEN, REGENERATE person is NOT GOING TO COMMIT 1000 MURDERS AND ADULTERIES PER DAY.

Again, WHAT we DO is a result of WHO we ARE. You still fail to grasp this.

(See "Sin vigorously" by Martin Luther, your Restoration's Father.)

Jeff, I personally answered your canard about this a long time ago. WHY do you still invoke it, even after having been FORCED to read Luther IN CONTEXT?? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

--Then there are none sinless either, so don't let me catch you claiming that you have been made sinless or that you are no longer a sinner.

Lord NO! No need to think that, jeff. I agree with Luther about being "simultaneously saint and sinner". :D

Father_JD

09-13-2010, 06:33 PM

James makes a hypothetical argument of whether one can show their faith without works. He answers the argument in the negative that the devils also believe in God yet works are not added to their faith and therefore being alone it does not save them. They had the first component of faith which is to "believe that He is" however the second needed factor is missing which is to demonstrate by their actions that they believe that "He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

<sigh> How many times must this be explained to you LDS?? James is teaching that a salvific FAITH will be demonstrated BY WORKS. If there are NO works which accompany "said" faith, it isn't faith at all, but called by him as a "dead faith". Are you finally going to grasp this some day, guys??? :rolleyes:

WHAT we DO is a result of WHO we ARE.

Demons are FALLEN Angels. They don't have salvific faith to begin with. They don't just "believe" there's one God. They KNOW it. (CF my answer to jeff)

The addressee of "God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" is directed TO BELIEVERS.

Unbelievers do NOT have "faith" and can NEVER "please Him" in a reprobate state.

Thanks for demonstrating yet another flawed Mormon hermeneutic, M:

Mormons tend to IGNORE/DISMISS to WHOM certain p***ages are addressed.

Father_JD

09-13-2010, 06:49 PM

---I think it goes further than that: The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him. And THAT is what dooms them. Not their lack of sola fide--they could have tons of that. It's in the area OBEDIENCE TO GOD'S WILL that they blew it. And it's what is gonna doom some humans, too, including some who think they are Christians and think they are saved by their faith alone.

1. God rewards BELIEVERS who seek Him. According to scripture, no one in their reprobate seek Him. Be mindful of to WHOM the p***age in James is addressed: BELIEVERS.
2. First rightful statement in a long time from you, jeff: Demons do indeed REFUSE to OBEY Him. They REBELLED millenia ago.
3. Salvific FAITH is a gift from God. Demons have NEVER possessed it, NEVER will. Neither are "righteous" angels "heirs of salvation". They have NO need of salvific FAITH, jeff.
4. We ARE saved by faith ALONE, but a saving faith is NEVER alone. It WILL be accompanied by works.

Mesenja

09-14-2010, 10:34 AM

James is teaching that a salvific FAITH will be demonstrated BY WORKS. If there are NO works which accompany "said" faith,it isn't faith at all,but called by him as a "dead faith".

James is using the word justification in verse 21 to mean a demonstration or vindication. Then in verse 23 he switches the meaning of the word justification to mean God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. Finally in verse 24 he reverts back to his original usage of the word justification as being a demonstration or vindication.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified [i.e. vindicated] by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says,"AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD,AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified [i.e. vindicated] by works and not by faith alone for it only vindicated him.

James used the word justification to also mean a demonstration or vindication and not a justification as Paul consistently used the term. As the grammar in verse 24 would require that this definition must serve as a referent for both faith and works James would be making the argument that a man is vindicated both by works and faith which would cease to make faith that which justified Abraham before God.

24 You see that a man is justified [i.e. vindicated] by works and not [i.e. vindicated] by faith alone for it only vindicated him.

nrajeff

09-14-2010, 11:55 AM

A major problem is that you are looking at things with your LDS sungl***es on with respect to angels verses humans. . . ."

---Whether angels are aliens or humans, it doesn't affect the correctness of my statement:

The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him. And THAT is what dooms them.

nrajeff

09-14-2010, 12:01 PM

Is this something that you have engraved on your heart "If there is a scripture that you don't like CHANGE IT

---This is a priceless example of ironic hypocrisy. Let me spell it out for James and anyone else who might need the remedial version:

1. I say the devils believe.

2. FJD says I am wrong because, he says, the devils KNOW.

3. I say the Bible claims the devils BELIEVE.

4. Jim tries to come to the rescue by saying the Bible says the devils KNOW, and Jim also accuses ME of changing what the Bible says.

5. Here is the very bestest part of the whole circus: Jim QUOTES the Bible saying that the devils BELIEVE, and thinks he has proven that it was ME who was wrong!!!

Thanks for the laughs, Jim, you Bible-changing son of a gun. :):D:eek:

Billyray

09-14-2010, 12:17 PM

---Whether angels are aliens or humans, it doesn't affect the correctness of my statement:

The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him. And THAT is what dooms them.

You do believe that Satan and his followers could of come to the earth and taken on a physical body, been baptized etc allowing them to seek forgiveness by the blood of Jesus through faith, correct?

nrajeff

09-14-2010, 02:48 PM

You do believe that Satan and his followers could of come to the earth and taken on a physical body, been baptized etc allowing them to seek forgiveness by the blood of Jesus through faith, correct?

---Uh, if you are talking about traveling back in time, to a point before Lucifer decided to rebel, then back THEN he had the same chance to be born and go through mortal life like we have. What does THAT hypothetical have to do with the accuracy of my statement that the Bible says "The devils believe" and that mere belief can't save anyone ??? Is my statement false? Does the Bible NOT really teach these two ideas?

Why do you keep trying to come up with irrelevant hypotheticals and pretending that they might somehow invalidate the Bible?

Billyray

09-14-2010, 04:29 PM

"The devils believe" and that mere belief can't save anyone ???

When you say saved what do you mean with respect to angels?

Mesenja

09-14-2010, 06:58 PM

---Uh,if you are talking about traveling back in time,to a point before Lucifer decided to rebel,then back THEN he had the same chance to be born and go through mortal life like we have. What does THAT hypothetical have to do with the accuracy of my statement that the Bible says "The devils believe" and that mere belief can't save anyone? Is my statement false? Does the Bible NOT really teach these two ideas? Why do you keep trying to come up with irrelevant hypotheses and pretending that they might somehow invalidate the Bible?

I would strongly suggest that you stop indulging Billy on these "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" irrelevancies that he is trying to bog you down in and put the onus on him to spell out the argument that James was making.

nrajeff

09-14-2010, 08:33 PM

I would strongly suggest that you stop indulging Billy on these "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" irrelevancies that he is trying to bog you down in ....

---But it's so much FUN to see what desperate red herring he will come up with next! Some of them are fairly novel, and thus entertaining. It's like when you tell your kid "Don't ever jump off the roof," and the kid responds, "But what if the house is on fire and the doors are all burning, and I have a parachute, and there's a huge air mattress on the ground below?"

See? It's annoying, but cute to see the imagination at work.

Billyray

09-14-2010, 08:42 PM

---But it's so much FUN to see what desperate red herring he will come up with next! Some of them are fairly novel, and thus entertaining. . .
Hey Jeff thanks for indulging me.

The devils may ALSO believe that God rewards those who seek Him--the devils just REFUSE to OBEY Him.

"The devils believe" and that mere belief can't save anyone ???

When you say saved what do you mean with respect to angels?

LDS believe that angels/demons are simply your spiritual brothers or sisters that are somewhere along the plan of salvation--just that the demons jumped ship early on that road. Yet to Christians this is a completely false idea. Humans and angels/demons are completely distinct en***ies. My comment was in response to what appeared on the surface as a hint that angels/demons could possibly be saved. Is that what you believe?

nrajeff

09-14-2010, 09:52 PM

Hey Jeff thanks for indulging me.
---I enjoy giving a person enough rope to hang himself, as much as the next guy does.

Humans and angels/demons are completely distinct en***ies.
--Yeah, I am familiar with the made-up species distinctions that some people have come up with. Whether demons are aliens as you believe, or whether they are spirits that would have been human if they hadn't followed satan, as I believe, has ZERO, NOTHING to do with whether my statement is true or false. Here is that statement again, waiting for you to prove it is incorrect or unBiblical:

The Bible says "The devils believe" and the Bible teaches that mere belief can't save anyone.

My comment was in response to what appeared on the surface as a hint that angels/demons could possibly be saved. Is that what you believe?
--LOL. Of course I don't believe that the demons who followed satan in his failed coup attempt can be saved. Didn't you pay attention in LDS Sunday School? But I just now realized how ON EARTH you could end up thinking I DID believe it, based merely on my statement that The Bible says "The devils believe" and the Bible teaches that mere belief can't save anyone. You thought I was implying that if the demons would add good works to their belief in God's existence and deity, then they could be saved just like any human who has faith and does good works can be saved. Right? Sorry, I wasn't even THINKING along those lines. I was only saying what the BIBLE says: The devils believe, but it won't save them, just like the mere belief of a mortal human won't save HIM. If all you do is have mere belief alone, you won't get saved any more than the demons will be. That is what the Bible was trying to teach you. I added that the demons have no DESIRE to OBEY God's commandments, and the proof of that is the fact that they followed satan in his attempted coup to overthrow God. THEIR fate is sealed. But yours is not, as long as you have some desire to obey God.