Born spiritually dead [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

dberrie2000

04-09-2013, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----No, Billyray--I believe that all are born alive in Christ through His Atonement--where He Redeemed all of mankind. And one remains under that Atoning Blood until one answers for their own sins--and one must be born again through the water and Spirit in order to obtain the remission of sins and being born again.

This doesn't make sense. A person is spiritually alive but must be born again to remain spiritually alive?

Well, it most certainly does--if one believes in personal accountability for our own choices. There reaches a point where we are held accountable for our choices--and when we sin in accountability--there has to be some way to reconcile us back to God--and that is through the gospel of repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins--the born again process.

Billyray

04-09-2013, 03:18 PM

Well, it most certainly does--if one believes in personal accountability for our own choices. There reaches a point where we are held accountable for our choices--and when we sin in accountability--there has to be some way to reconcile us back to God--and that is through the gospel of repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins--the born again process.
So a person is born spiritually alive then that person spiritually dies then that person is required to be born again spiritually. Is that your position?

dberrie2000

04-09-2013, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Well, it most certainly does--if one believes in personal accountability for our own choices. There reaches a point where we are held accountable for our choices--and when we sin in accountability--there has to be some way to reconcile us back to God--and that is through the gospel of repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins--the born again process.

So a person is born spiritually alive then that person spiritually dies then that person is required to be born again spiritually. Is that your position?

Any person who refuses to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins after accountability--cannot enter into heaven. That is the position of the Bible--and all the Early Church Fathers--every last one of them--including Martin Luther.

Billyray

04-09-2013, 10:42 PM

Any person who refuses to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins after accountability--cannot not enter into heaven.

A person is spiritually alive from birth to age 8

That person spiritually dies on his 8th birthday

Then that person needs to be baptized so that he can be spiritually alive again.

Does this really make any sense at all to you? And can you support this nutty belief from the Bible?

Billyray

04-09-2013, 10:44 PM

That is the position of the Bible--and all the Early Church Fathers--every last one of them--including Martin Luther.
The Bible teaches that a person is saved when he is converted which means that he turns from his old ways (repentance) and turns to Christ (places his faith in Christ to save him).

The Bible does not teach that works contribute for salvation.

nrajeffreturns

04-09-2013, 11:36 PM

The Bible teaches that a person is saved when he is converted which means that he turns from his old ways (repentance) and turns to Christ (places his faith in Christ to save him).

The Bible does not teach that works contribute for salvation.

The Bible teaches that obedience to Christ's commandments is essential to getting eternal life. It is impossible to find a loophole around this requirement, no matter how hard you are trying to find one.

Billyray

04-09-2013, 11:37 PM

The Bible teaches that obedience to Christ's commandments is essential to getting eternal life.
How can you say that obedience is essential to eternal life when we ALL sin?

dberrie2000

04-10-2013, 07:26 AM

A person is spiritually alive from birth to age 8

All babies are born saved--due to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The condemnation due to the Fall is absolved from mankind. When one reaches accountability--whatever age that might be--and if they reach it at all--one becomes accountable for their own choices--and is commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the Holy Ghost(being born of water and of the Spirit--born again). Without that--one cannot enter into the kingdom of God--as the scriptures state.

That person spiritually dies on his 8th birthday

I don't find that anywhere in the scriptures. One is commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins--but I don't see anywhere in the scriptures where it states one dies spiritually on their 8th birthday.

Then that person needs to be baptized so that he can be spiritually alive again.

One needs to repent and be baptized and receive the Spirit in order to be born again. That is essential to eternal life, as the scriptures state.

Does this really make any sense at all to you? And can you support this nutty belief from the Bible?

I don't believe God's commands are nutty at all--and His commands do make sense to me. They are easy to understand. Calling God's commands nutty is just another slant the faith alone have to inject to justify their theology. But the LDS are grateful for His commands--and feel it a privilege for the opportunity to obey God.

nrajeffreturns

04-10-2013, 09:01 AM

How can you say that obedience is essential to eternal life when we ALL sin?

Easy: One of the commandments is to repent of our sins. If we obey that commandment to repent, we are forgiven, thanks to Christ and His Atonement.

So LDS doctrine is that Christ is the basis of salvation. Without Him, we'd have no atonement and thus no chance of being saved from sins that we commit. By obeying His commandments, including the commandment to repent when we fail to obey His other commandments, we have His promise of salvation. That promise is something we can depend on, because Christ never breaks His promises.

Apologette

04-10-2013, 08:31 PM

Easy: One of the commandments is to repent of our sins. If we obey that commandment to repent, we are forgiven, thanks to Christ and His Atonement.

That would include repenting from following a pedophile, an evil false prophet! Read the Old Testament to see how God dealt with those who follow false prophets.

So LDS doctrine is that Christ is the basis of salvation. Without Him, we'd have no atonement and thus no chance of being saved from sins that we commit. By obeying His commandments, including the commandment to repent when we fail to obey His other commandments, we have His promise of salvation. That promise is something we can depend on, because Christ never breaks His promises.

But if you have the wrong Christ (as Mormons do), you might as well be believing in Buddha! Jesus is not your equal, He is God! He is not Lucifer's brother, He created Lucifer. He is not some sexually procreated spirit by a polygamous god and one of his wives - He is eternally God, without beginning or end, and always was God.

nrajeffreturns

04-10-2013, 08:47 PM

[B]But if you have the wrong Christ (as Mormons do), you might as well be believing in Buddha!
If having some INCORRECT beliefs about Jesus (such as that He's literally just one-third of a 3-person being) means you have the wrong Jesus and therefore can't be saved, then y'all Trinitarians are in for a 'hot' time in the hereafter! :)

Jesus is not your equal, He is God!
Who's been feeding you the lie that I believe Jesus IS my equal? And why were you credulous enough to believe that person? News flash: Jesus never sinned! Jesus is the only way salvation is possible! You really think I believe such things about myself? WAKE UP!

dberrie2000

04-11-2013, 03:47 AM

But if you have the wrong Christ (as Mormons do), you might as well be believing in Buddha! Jesus is not your equal, He is God! He is not Lucifer's brother, He created Lucifer. He is not some sexually procreated spirit by a polygamous god and one of his wives - He is eternally God, without beginning or end, and always was God.

Apologette--the scriptures do not ***ign Christ as the Father of satan or any other spirit--that paternal connection is given to God the Father alone. Even Jesus Christ conceded to the fact He had a God and Father--and it was the same God and Father as mankind's, as to the spirit:

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)

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

05-18-2013, 06:37 PM

Apologette--the scriptures do not ***ign Christ as the Father of satan or any other spirit-

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

dberrie2000

05-19-2013, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Apologette--the scriptures do not ***ign Christ as the Father of satan or any other spirit-

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Billyary--that would have to include God the Father also--as He is in heaven--right? Obviously--"things" do not include spirits. As the scriptures state:

John 1:1-5----King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I believe the scriptures speak a truth here--and qualifies what Christ made--- that was made.

The scriptures do not have the offspring of God "made"--they have them Fathered:

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

That is the reason we address God the Father as "our Father who are in heaven"....

Now--to the point--your implied thought--that Christ made spirits--- cannot fly because of at least one simple declaration:

John 20:17----King James Version (KJV)

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.

Could you explain for us how Christ could have made all spirits--when He Himself conceded the fact that God the Father was not only the God and Father of His Spirit--but also those of mankind ?

BTW--Father is a paternal connection--not a mechanical one.

Billyray

05-19-2013, 02:25 PM

Could you explain for us how Christ could have made all spirits--

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Billyray

05-19-2013, 02:33 PM

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

That is the reason we address God the Father as "our Father who are in heaven"....

Hebrews 12
5*And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6*For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Billyray

05-19-2013, 07:39 PM

BTW--Father is a paternal connection--not a mechanical one.
Zechariah 12:1 The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:

LDS Bible Dictionary
Jehovah
The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel. It denotes the “Unchangeable One,” “the eternal I AM” (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4). The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it but subs***uted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by Lord or God, printed in small capitals.

Billyray

05-19-2013, 08:05 PM

Why would God cause the entire human race to be born spiritually dead, when He is able to prevent that from happening?
Did God create Adam and Eve in a state of spiritual death? Or did He allow them to choose life or death at some point AFTER their creation? Why wouldn't He do the same for each of us?
Ephesians 2
1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,
5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

dberrie2000

05-20-2013, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----Now--to the point--your implied thought--that Christ made spirits--- cannot fly because of at least one simple declaration:

John 20:17----King James Version (KJV)

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.

Could you explain for us how Christ could have made all spirits--when He Himself conceded the fact that God the Father was not only the God and Father of His Spirit--but also those of mankind ?

BTW--Father is a paternal connection--not a mechanical one.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

But again--"things" could not have included spirits--as Christ testified that God the Father was both the God and Father of His Spirit and of mankind's.

John 20:17----King James Version (KJV)

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.

And if Christ's creation included all things in heaven and earth--visible and invisible--that would have Christ creating God the Father also.

As the scripture testifies:

John 1:1-5----King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Obviously--that did not include spirits.

Billyray

05-20-2013, 05:08 PM

But again--"things" could not have included spirits--as Christ testified that God the Father was both the God and Father of His Spirit and of mankind's.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Zechariah 12:1 The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:

Billyray

05-20-2013, 05:10 PM

John 1:1-5----King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Obviously--that did not include spirits.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Billyray

05-20-2013, 05:25 PM

But again--"things" could not have included spirits--as Christ testified that God the Father was both the God and Father of His Spirit and of mankind's.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Zechariah 12:1 The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:

Billyray

05-20-2013, 05:38 PM

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

LDS Bible Dictionary
Jehovah
The covenant or proper name of the God of Israel. It denotes the “Unchangeable One,” “the eternal I AM” (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 12:2; 26:4). The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it but subs***uted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by Lord or God, printed in small capitals. Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth being born of Mary. . ."

Hebrews 12
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

dberrie2000

05-28-2013, 04:50 AM

dberrie----But again--"things" could not have included spirits--as Christ testified that God the Father was both the God and Father of His Spirit and of mankind's.

John 20:17----King James Version (KJV)

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.

And if Christ's creation included all things in heaven and earth--visible and invisible--that would have Christ creating God the Father also.

As the scripture testifies:

John 1:1-5----King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Obviously--that did not include spirits.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Zechariah 12:1 The Lord, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:

Does not touch your problem. The scriptures have a qualified statement--- that was made..

Jesus did not create God the Father--nor does it state Christ created spirits--quite to the contrary:

Hebrews 12:9---King James Version (KJV)

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Again--how could Christ have been the Father of spirits--by creation or otherwise--when He plainly stated that it was God the Father who was the God and Father of spirits--including His own:

John 20:17----King James Version (KJV)

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.

And that is God the Father-- of all spirits:

Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Not the Father of some, Billyray--the Father of all. That excludes Christ as the possible creator of spirits.

nrajeffreturns

05-28-2013, 01:31 PM

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Not the Father of some, Billyray--the Father of all.

What kind of father would be described as a father of all His children---but only make salvation accessible to a FEW of those children?

It just doesn't make any sense. No good father would do that. And since the Bible says that God is good, we can deduce that God is not that kind of father. And thus we see a major, heretical flaw in Calvinism.

Billyray

05-28-2013, 02:06 PM

What kind of father would be described as a father of all His children---but only make salvation accessible to a FEW of those children?

Salvation is accessible to all Jeff. Nobody is forcing anyone to reject Christ. Everyone has a choice and those who reject Him do so willingly. Those same individuals also willingly sin, breaking God's laws. If you broke the law would it be unfair to punish you for breaking the law?

nrajeffreturns

05-29-2013, 05:02 AM

Salvation is accessible to all Jeff.
Not according to your beliefs and Calvin's teachings. According to you, Jesus didn't die for all. If you are right, then salvation was never possible for all. How much hope for salvation does a person have if he's one of those people who Jesus didn't love enough to die for? Calvin stated that there are people who never had a chance of being saved, because God had ordained or predestined them to destruction back before the Creation.

Nobody is forcing anyone to reject Christ.
According to some Calvinistic Evangelicals like yourself (I think), unregenerated/unsaved people are UNABLE to choose Christ. Because of their, you know, sin nature and unregeneratedness.

If you broke the law would it be unfair to punish you for breaking the law?
Yeah, it would be unfair if the author of the law had made me unable to obey the law due to my nature. Just like it would be unfair to imprison a 2-year-old for jaywalking if he wasn't yet able to understand traffic laws.

theway

05-29-2013, 06:45 AM

Salvation is accessible to all Jeff. Nobody is forcing anyone to reject Christ. Everyone has a choice and those who reject Him do so willingly. Those same individuals also willingly sin, breaking God's laws. If you broke the law would it be unfair to punish you for breaking the law?

That's just plain silly Billyray... How does a person who does not know a God, hence has no idea what God's commandments even are, therefore has no idea he even needs salvation; how does someone like that "willingly sin" and "willingly break the law"?

James Banta

05-29-2013, 07:14 AM

That's just plain silly Billyray... How does a person who does not know a God, hence has no idea what God's commandments even are, therefore has no idea he even needs salvation; how does someone like that "willingly sin" and "willingly break the law"?

I agree a new born has no capacity to sin. Still no one I know ever taught a child to lie and yet they lie. No one teaches a child to be cruel and yet if a child is different from his peers in any way children torture them for that difference. If such things are never taught where do they come from? They come from a the heart of a natural being that even LDS scripture says is lives within an enemy of God.. There is no doubt that a new born is a nature being. There is nothing spiritual about them. You are so correct there is no concept of good or evil in them they just are.. If it were not for the Grace of God calling them to Himself, insisting that they be allowed to come to Him; all these that die without repentance would surely be lost..

By the actions of children we can see that evil is what they are. They don't sin and thereby become sinners. No, they sin because they are sinners (Psalm 51:5).. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

05-29-2013, 11:15 AM

I agree a new born has no capacity to sin. ...By the actions of children we can see that evil is what they are. They don't sin and thereby become sinners. No, they sin because they are sinners (Psalm 51:5).. IHS jim

You are saying that people who have no capacity to sin, are evil, and that the reason they sin is because they are sinners. Isn't that self-contradictory? It's like saying that a cow with no capacity to kill and eat lions, is a killer and eater of lions...

Apologette

05-29-2013, 01:03 PM

What kind of father would be described as a father of all His children---but only make salvation accessible to a FEW of those children?

It just doesn't make any sense. No good father would do that. And since the Bible says that God is good, we can deduce that God is not that kind of father. And thus we see a major, heretical flaw in Calvinism.

Where is God the Father said to be "the father of all children," Jeff? Some of you have the Devil as your father! Was Jesus' lying? You only can become a child of God by faith in the Biblical Christ. You are mixing up the pseudo-Christianity of Mormonism with the Bible.

Still a little compulsive about Calvin, aren't you. You might end up as one yet.

theway

05-29-2013, 01:41 PM

Where is God the Father said to be "the father of all children," Jeff? Some of you have the Devil as your father! Was Jesus' lying? You only can become a child of God by faith in the Biblical Christ. You are mixing up the pseudo-Christianity of Mormonism with the Bible.

Still a little compulsive about Calvin, aren't you. You might end up as one yet.
LOL... What's a matter CA, have things gotten that boring already over at CARM since you complained enough to have me banned?
What's funny is that it was from the very thread where you went on bragging to everyone about the LDS leaving the forum because they could not argue against you. Turns out that most leave because you keep complaining about them to the Mods until they get banned.

Billyray

05-29-2013, 01:45 PM

Not according to your beliefs and Calvin's teachings.

The Bible teaches that ANYONE who comes to Christ and places his faith in Him will be saved.

How much hope for salvation does a person have if he's one of those people who Jesus didn't love enough to die for? Calvin stated that there are people who never had a chance of being saved, because God had ordained or predestined them to destruction back before the Creation.

Every single person makes a choice either to follow Christ or to reject Him. These are willing choices by each individual. Nobody is forcing anyone to reject Christ. Also each individual chooses to obey God's commands or to willingly disobey them.

According to some Calvinistic Evangelicals like yourself (I think), unregenerated/unsaved people are UNABLE to choose Christ. Because of their, you know, sin nature and unregeneratedness.

Again as noted above individuals choose what they want to choose. The offer to accept Christ is given for every single person to either accept Him or reject Him.

nrajeffreturns

05-29-2013, 03:07 PM

Billyray

05-29-2013, 03:37 PM

So Billy, you're saying that Calvin was a false teacher? If he taught that unregenerated people are UNABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST, then how can you say that everyone IS ABLE to choose Christ? One of you is teaching false doctrine. Which of you is one of those "beware of false teachers" people the Bible warned me about? :)

a) You
b) Calvin
Everyone has a choice to either accept Christ or reject Him. Those who are unregenerate will reject Him based on their willing choice. Calvinists don't teach that a person doesn't have a choice nor do they teach that a person is forced to reject Christ rather they teach that they WILLINGLY reject HIM.

Billyray

05-29-2013, 03:47 PM

If he taught that unregenerated people are UNABLE TO CHOOSE CHRIST, then how can you say that everyone IS ABLE to choose Christ?

Every person is commanded to come to Christ. Every person who places their faith in Christ will be saved. This invitation is open to every single person. As I said above those who reject Christ WILLINGLY choose to reject Him. What is also true is those who are unregenerate will not choose to place their faith in Christ. With that said let's look at some of the verses in the Bible that speak about this exact topic. Let's start with John 6:36 and 37. Tell me what they are teaching.

John 6: 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

nrajeffreturns

05-29-2013, 03:49 PM

Where is God the Father said to be "the father of all children," Jeff?
Dberrie already quoted it:

Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Not the Father of some, Billyray--the Father of all.

Some of you have the Devil as your father!
Yeah, well, some of YOU do, too. What a coincidence.

Still a little compulsive about Calvin, aren't you. You might end up as one yet.
I keep seeing Calvinism's illogic being perpetuated by good evangelicals, so I feel the need to point out how Calvinism CANNOT be the way a good, loving, fair God would do things.

And if we're talking compulsive, how about you and your daily attacks on the LDS? Not just the doctrines, but the people as well. Sounds pretty obsessive to me. :)

Billyray

05-29-2013, 04:00 PM

Dberrie already quoted it:

Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Not the Father of some, Billyray--the Father of all.

You quoted Apologette but then addressed me. Did you realize that you did that? Anyway let's look at the p***age in context.

Ephesians 4

1.I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

Is this section of scripture addressing all mankind OR believers?

Billyray

05-29-2013, 04:03 PM

I keep seeing Calvinism's illogic being perpetuated by good evangelicals, so I feel the need to point out how Calvinism CANNOT be the way a good, loving, fair God would do things.

But you have yet to show us from the Bible that what you say is true. That is the problem Jeff. For example the Bible says that ALL have sinned and you say that ALL have not sinned. This is contradictory and both can't be true. Should I believe the Bible or you?

nrajeffreturns

05-29-2013, 09:27 PM

You quoted Apologette but then addressed me. Did you realize that you did that?
Actually, I was responding to Apologette's quoestion by quoting Dberrie's response to you, hence the inclusion of Dberrie's comment to you. And now it's apparent that you didn't realize that. :)

Anyway let's look at the p***age in context. Ephesians 4
1.I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Is this section of scripture addressing all mankind OR believers?

If "all have sinned" means everyone even fetuses, then why can't God is the father of all" mean everyone including even fetuses?

Billyray

05-29-2013, 11:16 PM

If "all have sinned" means everyone even fetuses, then why can't God is the father of all" mean everyone including even fetuses?

The Bible says that all have sinned. You on the other hand say that some are perfect. Why do you think that I should believe your opinion over the word of God?

nrajeffreturns

05-31-2013, 06:40 AM

The Bible says that all have sinned.
It also says

18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust"

Are any us of just? If not, then it looks like Christ suffered for all of us.

Billyray

05-31-2013, 01:40 PM

It also says

18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust"

Are any of just? If not, then it looks like Christ suffered for all of us.
The verse you posted just confirms what I said that we all sin so I am not sure why you would post a verse that supports my position.

nrajeffreturns

05-31-2013, 03:13 PM

Because you can't have it both ways. If you believe that all of us are sinners, then the Bible says that Christ suffered for all of us.

Apologette

05-31-2013, 05:18 PM

Because you can't have it both ways. If you believe that all of us are sinners, then the Bible says that Christ suffered for all of us.

Actually, Jeff, the Bible says Christ died for the Church: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html

nrajeffreturns

05-31-2013, 07:56 PM

Actually, Jeff, the Bible says Christ died for the Church:
You are entirely correct. It does say that. What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.

It's like if you said that you bought a potato today. Would it be safe to ***ume that the potato was the ONLY thing you bought? If you also bought an apple, a pumpkin, and a new Corvette today, wouldn't it still be true that you bought a potato today?

Billyray

05-31-2013, 08:29 PM

What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.
But if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven. You haven't adequately addressed this Jeff. This was also brought up in the article by John Piper that Apologette quoted in her post--a section of that link is reproduced below.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Billyray

06-01-2013, 12:15 AM

You are entirely correct. It does say that. What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.

Matthew 1:21 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

James Banta

06-01-2013, 08:11 AM

You are saying that people who have no capacity to sin, are evil, and that the reason they sin is because they are sinners. Isn't that self-contradictory? It's like saying that a cow with no capacity to kill and eat lions, is a killer and eater of lions...

Not at all when a big cat (Lion, Tiger, Cheetah) give birth, their cubs have no ability to kill. These cubs however are still killers. It is what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill to be killers they are killers by their base nature. That is what they are they can't change that. Humans are sinners by our base nature. It is what we are. We can't change that. A human child doesn't need to commit sin to be what they are. They are born sinners like a lion cub is born a killer. There is no contradiction in that. Even your own scripture teaches that the natural man is an enemy of God. There is NOTHING more natural than a newborn baby. IHS jim

James Banta

06-02-2013, 07:33 AM

No. All will not be made alive in Christ spiritually. But all will be made alive physically through Christ's resurrection. The 15th chapter of 1Cor was speaking specifically about the resurrection.

We are speaking of two different topics.. I have no problem with two resurrections one of the just unto life and the other unto ****ation. You have correctly seen that 1 \cor 15 is about resurrection and not about the final estate of mankind.. There are major differences between mortality and the resurrection. If you could see that you would start learning.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-02-2013, 01:51 PM

But if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven.
That ***umption is still as incorrect as the first time you stated it and we refuted it, Billy.

Using your logic, if RealFakeHair made cupcakes for everyone, then everyone would eat one. Why can't you see the flaw in the bolded part of that thinking?

nrajeffreturns

06-02-2013, 02:03 PM

Not at all when a big cat (Lion, Tiger, Cheetah) give birth, their cubs have no ability to kill. These cubs however are still killers. It is what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill to be killers they are killers by their base nature.
Doves are harmless. Even the Bible says so. I guess that's what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill, so neither do us humans, right? When we kill deliberately, it's because we choose to.

LOWER life forms may be forced to act on instinct only. They may not be able to use stuff like reasoning, comp***ion, intellect, a knowledge of history, etc. when making decisions. News flash: We are DIFFERENT from those animals. We can actually think. It's a gift that God gave to our species. Even you believe that humans were made in God's image. Of all the life forms on Earth, only humans have the God-given ability to mature into beings who possess God's qualities and personality traits.

Even your own scripture teaches that the natural man is an enemy of God. There is NOTHING more natural than a newborn baby. IHS jim
How about Baby Jesus? You're saying He was an enemy of God because He was a baby? I don't buy that, sorry. And our scripture does not say that the natural BABY is an enemy of God. You have misunderstood the scripture. The term "the natural man" refers to people who REFUSE to embrace the spark of deity that is in them. Some people REFUSE be more than mere animals, and that does NOT please God. God wants us to realize that of all species on Earth, WE are the only one who can and should act like more than mere animals.
One thing Jesus demonstrated during his 3 decades on Earth was that it is possible to NOT act like a barbarian. He lived as an example of what we should try to be like.

Billyray

06-02-2013, 04:15 PM

That ***umption is still as incorrect as the first time you stated it and we refuted it, Billy.

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all. And Apologette posted basically the same argument from Piper in her post which you haven't refuted either.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So which of the three choices to you believe is true?

nrajeffreturns

06-03-2013, 05:11 AM

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all.
You're like a flat-Earth believer who has been shown how there's no way the Earth could be flat, and who then says "You haven't refuted the claim at all."

A student in a beginning logic cl*** should be able to see the flaw in the if-then non sequitur

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven."

I am not talking about the OTHER obvious flaw, where you say that if I believe that Jesus paid for all those sins, then all those people will go to heaven. Whether they will go to heaven does not depend on what I believe.

I am talking about the flaw that RealFakeHair explained so well, which I adapted:

To ***ume that if RealFakeHair made cupcakes for everyone, then everyone would eat one

is as incorrect as ***uming that if Jesus paid for everyone's sins, then everyone would get eternal life.

So which of the three choices to you believe is true?

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say.
Glad to see the Arminians are thinking logically.

But then why are not all saved?
For the same reason that RealFakeHair could make cupcakes for everyone and it would be illogical to ***ume that everyone would eat one just because he made them for everyone. That's why. How is this simple logic continuing to escape your understanding?[/COLOR]

theway

06-03-2013, 06:17 AM

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all. And Apologette posted basically the same argument from Piper in her post which you haven't refuted either.

1 John 2:22 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

nrajeffreturns

06-03-2013, 08:40 AM

James Banta

06-03-2013, 09:54 AM

[nrajeffreturns;145431]Doves are harmless. Even the Bible says so. I guess that's what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill, so neither do us humans, right? When we kill deliberately, it's because we choose to.

Doves are harmless to us. yet they are what they are flying birds and by being such Fly and eat that which God provided (Matthew 6:26). Doves don't need to kill yet they will when they have need for food. Humans don't need to kill at all yet we do. Why is that do you think? Because we love one another? No, it's because our base nature is to do evil (Matthew 15:19).

LOWER life forms may be forced to act on instinct only. They may not be able to use stuff like reasoning, comp***ion, intellect, a knowledge of history, etc. when making decisions. News flash: We are DIFFERENT from those animals. We can actually think. It's a gift that God gave to our species. Even you believe that humans were made in God's image. Of all the life forms on Earth, only humans have the God-given ability to mature into beings who possess God's qualities and personality traits.

Yes we can think and those thoughts come all to often from our nature and our nature is to do evil (Jer 17:9). To change that nature requires a new creation from God (Psalm 51:10). A new heart (nature) which thinks first of godly matters and not those of the flesh. No matter how hard we try in ourselves we are sinners born and raised.. yes I believe that a man is created differently from mere animals. They are as you have stated instinct driven their nature is purely physical. There is no mind or spirit within them. Man is triune reflecting the being of God. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are body mind, and spirit. If the Son suddenly became nonexistent then God would die. When our spirit is taken from our body we die. Our human traits, until we are born again of God are always used for sin. We haven't the ability to do good anymore than we have the ability to jump off a cliff and fly.. It just isn't our nature..

How about Baby Jesus? You're saying He was an enemy of God because He was a baby? I don't buy that, sorry. And our scripture does not say that the natural BABY is an enemy of God. You have misunderstood the scripture. The term "the natural man" refers to people who REFUSE to embrace the spark of deity that is in them. Some people REFUSE be more than mere animals, and that does NOT please God. God wants us to realize that of all species on Earth, WE are the only one who can and should act like more than mere animals. One thing Jesus demonstrated during his 3 decades on Earth was that it is possible to NOT act like a barbarian. He lived as an example of what we should try to be like.

How about Jesus baby or not a baby. He is GOD! His nature followed Him into mortality as did His divinity. He never shared the sinful nature of mankind. Sin was impossible for Him as not sinning is for us. I see you have separated children from humanity. I have not. All children new born or unborn are human, all part of OUR Race, the human race.. If they are not what we are then babies wouldn't cry to be feed when mom is tired. Small 2 and three year olds would never lie. Five and six year olds would never talk back. They would obey without question and yet they don't. They lie and sash, torment other who aren't just like them. They are evil by their very nature. Their heart are deceitful above all thing as they are desperately wicked.. Jesus showed us how we should act and then acted as he did so He could share His righteousness with us.. As I said he is God and has always had the nature of God. We are men and have always had the nature of men. If we could generate our own righteousness that could be acceptable to God then Jesus died in vain. Our own righteousness would be enough and we would never have need to be imputed with His (Romans4:23-24).. We are no different than any barbarian it is our nature to do sin always ( Ecclesiastes 7:20 ).. Jesus is far m ore than an example He is our only hope. Only by Him and through Him is there hope for life. Without Him no matter how righteousness we try to be we never come up to the requirements of God for life. Only in His righteousness can we be seen by God to stand worthy before Him (2Cor 5:21). IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-03-2013, 01:17 PM

Billyray

06-03-2013, 02:02 PM

1 John 2:22 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So which of the 3 choices do you subscribe to?

Billyray

06-03-2013, 02:13 PM

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

True. "Us" and "we" are who are believers or will in the future be believers.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

True. Anyone who places their faith in Christ will be saved. But this doesn't speak about limited atonement so I am not sure why you used this verse.

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

True. Christ died for the ungodly. Again this doesn't say anything about limited atonement so I am not sure why you picked this verse.

Billyray

06-03-2013, 08:09 PM

Great verses, from The Bible, refuting the idea that Jesus went through so much suffering for just a few people and abandoned the rest to the impossibility of salvation.

Great verses but they don't speak about limited atonement.

Billyray

06-03-2013, 08:17 PM

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven."

I am not talking about the OTHER obvious flaw, where you say that if I believe that Jesus paid for all those sins, then all those people will go to heaven. Whether they will go to heaven does not depend on what I believe.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

"Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? "

For the same reason that RealFakeHair could make cupcakes for everyone and it would be illogical to ***ume that everyone would eat one just because he made them for everyone.

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff. You don't seem to even realize that. In your example a person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake. Likewise a person who doesn't place his faith is Christ is committing a sin because we are all commanded to do so. Do you believe that the sin of unbelief is not covered by the blood of Jesus (i.e. that Jesus died for some sins but not all sins--which is choice #1)?

theway

06-04-2013, 09:52 AM

Great verses but they don't speak about limited atonement.That's right Billy, keep telling yourself that.

nrajeffreturns

06-04-2013, 11:15 AM

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff.
Sure it does; You don't seem to even realize that.

In your example a person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake.
JUST LIKE Christ could offer all of us salvation by atoning for our sins and making it available to us, and still a person might reject it.

It is EXACTLY ****ogous.

Apologette

06-04-2013, 11:52 AM

Jeff, what is to be "born again" according to Jesus, and what does that mean?

nrajeffreturns

06-04-2013, 07:57 PM

Jeff, what is to be "born again" according to Jesus, and what does that mean?

Will the answer help Billy understand the fallacy of thinking that

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" ???

Billyray

06-04-2013, 08:00 PM

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" ???
That is what you believe Jeff, yet you believe that some sins are not paid for it they were paid for then there would be not basis for sending anyone to Hell.

nrajeffreturns

06-04-2013, 08:11 PM

That is what you believe Jeff

What the heck are you lying about now? I don't believe that

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" !!

If I believed that, why have I been REFUTING that idea for lo these many posts????

What's ironic is that just a few minutes ago, I saw you deny that you distort what I believe.

And here you are, doing what you had just claimed you don't do.

yet you believe that some sins are not paid for it they were paid for then there would be not basis for sending anyone to Hell.

All I can say to that blithering nonsense is: Go back and read the RealFakeHair ****ogy--WHICH I CITED as evidence that your claim is false.

Billyray

06-04-2013, 10:34 PM

What the heck are you lying about now? I don't believe that
You believe the first part which is bolded. . ."i. . .you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person. . .BTW we have gone over this multiple times now and you still don't see the problem with your position. You don't have a good answer for me on this issue. On the one hand you believe that Jesus paid for EVERY sin for EVERY person. But if this is the case then there would be no basis for sending anyone to Hell because ALL of their sins would be forgiven including the sin of unbelief.

It seems like you are getting a little testy--but I guess I can't blame you because it is hard to defend a defenseless position.

Billyray

06-04-2013, 10:38 PM

All I can say to that blithering nonsense is: Go back and read the RealFakeHair ****ogy--WHICH I CITED as evidence that your claim is false.

I have already gone over this with you in a prior post. Perhaps you missed it so I will be kind to you and go over it with you again. Perhaps this time you will see the problem with your position. I can only hope.

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven."

I am not talking about the OTHER obvious flaw, where you say that if I believe that Jesus paid for all those sins, then all those people will go to heaven. Whether they will go to heaven does not depend on what I believe.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved?[/B] If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

"Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? "

For the same reason that RealFakeHair could make cupcakes for everyone and it would be illogical to ***ume that everyone would eat one just because he made them for everyone.

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff. You don't seem to even realize that. In your example a "person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". Likewise a person who is offered salvation by Christ be he decides not to accept His free offer. (By doing so he is committing a sin because he is commanded to come to Christ). In cupcake lingo the person who doesn't accept Christ (which is a sin) is like the "person [who] doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". The person who doesn't accept the cupcake is ****ogous to the person who doesn't accept Christ's offer of salvation by faith. If this is a sin and this sin has been PAID for in full then the person doesn't have any sins that can be charged against him. On the other hand if you believe that this sin was not paid for by Christ then he is guilty of the sin of unbelief and will certainly not go to heaven because he is guilty. But this would mean that you would have to accept position number one which is "1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men."

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 05:43 AM

You believe the first part which is bolded. . ."i. . .you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person. . .BTW we have gone over this multiple times now and you still don't see the problem with your position.
Because there isn't any problem with my position. What is uncertain is whether you realize my point is valid, and are just faking being unaware of it, or whether you truly are that oblivious. Either way, it's a sad commentary on you.

You don't have a good answer for me on this issue.
RealFakeHair had a GREAT answer for you on this issue. Coincidentally, it was similar to my answer. Your position seems to be out in left field, virtually all alone, as evidenced by the fact that no one is posting any support of your position.

On the one hand you believe that Jesus paid for EVERY sin for EVERY person. But if this is the case then there would be no basis for sending anyone to Hell because ALL of their sins would be forgiven including the sin of unbelief.
Your HUGE fallacy continues to be your belief that if Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins, then everyone's sins have been forgiven. You continue to make this non sequitur fallacy, and it is quite troubling that even when we give you a grade-school-level explanation, complete with "low information voter"-level cupcake ****ogy, you FAIL to acknowledge that you understand it.

Again, what is uncertain is whether you really "don't get it" or whether you're just faking it. Either way, it is really disappointing.

But I will give you an "A" in the category of "sheer Obama-like temerity," since you, like Obama, claim that the other side has the defenseless position when really it's you. And hey, that is working for Obama somewhat--he has had some success in getting some people to believe that it's the pro-Cons***ution people who are the threat to the USA.

Apologette

06-05-2013, 10:07 AM

Christ's Atoning sacrifice ON THE CROSS was SUFFICIENT to pay for every sin ever committed. It is only EFFICIENT for the Body of Christ! Christ's Blood is not wasted on those who scorn Him, belittle Him, or replace Him with another.

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 10:18 AM

Apologette

06-05-2013, 10:40 AM

Translation: "Christ didn't die for Mormons."

Did I say that? But naturally, I believe that those for whom Christ died must have faith in the Biblical Christ. However, there is always hope that many Mormons, like many in the Community of Christ, will change their belief from the counterfeit Mormon Jesus to the Biblical Jesus. Many already have. However, in the end, this is the work of God's Spirit. All we can do is share the truth in love.

That's why we post, to share the truth.

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 12:15 PM

Did I say that?
You did say exactly that, a while back. I saved the quote on my C drive. But anyone who claims that it would be a waste if Jesus had paid the price for everyone's sins, is saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of those who don't convert to the "true Jesus of the Bible."

So if you believe that Jesus didn't die for anyone who doesn't become a "true Christian," and if you believe that LDS people follow a false Christ, then yeah: You believe that Jesus didn't die for LDS people, or JW people, or Jews, or Buddhists, or whatever group you believe don't follow the real Jesus.

RealFakeHair

06-05-2013, 12:34 PM

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 12:48 PM

Jesus of the Holy Bible went to the Cross that all men MIGHT be Saved. So even a TBM, JW, or even a democrate has been given a chance to be SAVED, but most don't take the offer.

Exactly! Thanks for posting this. You have a talent for stating this clearly, simply, and succinctly. Hopefully, anyone who has been confused over this issue in the past will "see the light" thanks to your post.

Billyray

06-05-2013, 12:54 PM

Because there isn't any problem with my position. What is uncertain is whether you realize my point is valid, and are just faking being unaware of it, or whether you truly are that oblivious. Either way, it's a sad commentary on you.

There certainly is a problem with your position and we have gone over it multiple times now.

RealFakeHair had a GREAT answer for you on this issue.

And I addressed that here.

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff. You don't seem to even realize that. In your example a "person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". Likewise a person who is offered salvation by Christ be he decides not to accept His free offer. (By doing so he is committing a sin because he is commanded to come to Christ). In cupcake lingo the person who doesn't accept Christ (which is a sin) is like the "person [who] doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". The person who doesn't accept the cupcake is ****ogous to the person who doesn't accept Christ's offer of salvation by faith. If this is a sin and this sin has been PAID for in full then the person doesn't have any sins that can be charged against him. On the other hand if you believe that this sin was not paid for by Christ then he is guilty of the sin of unbelief and will certainly not go to heaven because he is guilty. But this would mean that you would have to accept position number one which is "1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men."

Your HUGE fallacy continues to be your belief that if Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins, then everyone's sins have been forgiven.

So Jesus PAID for sins but he didn't really pay for them? If I PAID off your mortgage would you still owe the bank money for your mortgage?

Billyray

06-05-2013, 12:56 PM

Jesus of the Holy Bible went to the Cross that all men MIGHT be Saved. So even a TBM, JW, or even a democrate has been given a chance to be SAVED, but most don't take the offer.
So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?

RealFakeHair

06-05-2013, 01:02 PM

So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?
With the exeption of my mother-in-Law, yes,. lol,

Billyray

06-05-2013, 01:20 PM

With the exeption of my mother-in-Law, yes,. lol,
If I PAID off your car loan would you still owe the bank money for your car loan?

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 02:14 PM

So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

Apologette

06-05-2013, 02:45 PM

You did say exactly that, a while back. I saved the quote on my C drive. But anyone who claims that it would be a waste if Jesus had paid the price for everyone's sins, is saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of those who don't convert to the "true Jesus of the Bible."

So if you believe that Jesus didn't die for anyone who doesn't become a "true Christian," and if you believe that LDS people follow a false Christ, then yeah: You believe that Jesus didn't die for LDS people, or JW people, or Jews, or Buddhists, or whatever group you believe don't follow the real Jesus.

Jeff, this is what I believe: Christ Shed His Blood for the Church! The Bible clearly states that. Although His Shed Blood is SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR ALL SINS, it is only EFFICIENT FOR BELIEVERS. In order to be part of the Church, a person must have faith in the Biblical Christ. NoT one drop of Christ's Blood is efficient for those who deny Him, ridicule Him, hate Him or replace Him. Sorry, but that's what the Bible teaches. When you come to Christ in the future, as I think you will, Christ's Blood will become EFFICIENT TO CLEANS YOUR SINS TOO. We're praying for you!

Apologette

06-05-2013, 02:48 PM

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

Mormons are very nearly Universalists - the only ones that won't be saved in one of their "kingdoms" are those who reject Joseph Smith. They can reject Christ and still be saved according to the Universalism of the Mormon cult. It's Joey that is the dividing line.

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 02:52 PM

Jeff, this is what I believe: Christ Shed His Blood for the Church!

And today, while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels.

I also paid for some milk, and for some Yakisoba (I learned to love them while I was in Japan).

Anyway, I did state that while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels. Should you jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I paid ONLY for Toaster Strudels?

Did I say "while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels ONLY" ??

If I were to say "while at the store, I paid the price for some milk" would it be right to conclude that milk was the only thing I paid for while I was at the store?

See the eisegesis going on with "Christ shed His blood for the church" ?? You have no good, sound reason to conclude that He shed His blood ONLY for the church. The reason is that the word "only" DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TEXT.

Now suppose I wrote a book, and in one chapter of the book I said "While at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels."

And in a later chapter of the book, I also said "While at the store, I paid to price for every item in the store."

And then someone came along--someone who claimed to love my book and to be a believer of every word in my book--and that person said "He says in his book that he only paid for the Toaster Strudels."

And when that person was asked where the book said this, the person replied "In the chapter where it says he paid for the Toaster Strudels."

What would you think of this person's reading skills? Or honesty?

1. The Bible is a book that says, in one chapter, that Christ shed His blood for the church.
2. And in another chapter it says that He died for everyone--for the whole world, for all, etc.
3.NOWHERE does it say that He paid the price for the sins of the elect ONLY. IT. NEVER. SAYS. THAT.

So, putting those three facts together, is it correct to conclude that the Bible teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of ONLY THE CHURCH?

nrajeffreturns

06-05-2013, 03:07 PM

Mormons are very nearly Universalists - the only ones that won't be saved in one of their "kingdoms" are those who reject Joseph Smith. They can reject Christ and still be saved according to the Universalism of the Mormon cult. It's Joey that is the dividing line.

Remember when you were claiming that you always provide links to support your statements?

Any chance you will provide some to support the bold part of the above claim? Thanks.

Billyray

06-05-2013, 03:20 PM

And today, while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels.

I also paid for some milk, and for some Yakisoba (I learned to love them while I was in Japan).

Can the store charge you again for something that you have already paid for?

Billyray

06-05-2013, 03:22 PM

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.
Those who do not come to Christ by faith will not have their sins paid for.

Jeff can you tell me how a just God could punish someone who has had ALL of their sins PAID for in full?

Billyray

06-05-2013, 03:48 PM

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.
Why do you believe that those who have broken God's laws AND who have REJECTED Christ "deserve" to have their sins paid for?

theway

06-05-2013, 03:52 PM

Can the store charge you again for something that you have already paid for?No.... But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.

This is what is called the "Sin for free Salvation credit card".

Billyray

06-05-2013, 04:08 PM

No....

Then why do you think that a person can have ALL of his sins paid for and then expect God to punish him?

Billyray

06-05-2013, 04:10 PM

.. But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.
.
You certainly have a strange view of the atonement. We don't pay for our own sins--Christ has paid for our sins. Do you really believe that you are paying for your own sins?

theway

06-05-2013, 05:05 PM

Then why do you think that a person can have ALL of his sins paid for and then expect God to punish him?Why in the world would you think that I believe that God will punish you for sins you have not done?

That's just silly Billy.

Billyray

06-05-2013, 05:15 PM

Why in the world would you think that I believe that God will punish you for sins you have not done?

That's just silly Billy.

What sins are charged to those who have had ALL of their sins PAID for in full by Christ?

Apologette

06-05-2013, 05:16 PM

And today, while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels.

I also paid for some milk, and for some Yakisoba (I learned to love them while I was in Japan).

Anyway, I did state that while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels. Should you jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I paid ONLY for Toaster Strudels?

Did I say "while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels ONLY" ??

If I were to say "while at the store, I paid the price for some milk" would it be right to conclude that milk was the only thing I paid for while I was at the store?

See the eisegesis going on with "Christ shed His blood for the church" ?? You have no good, sound reason to conclude that He shed His blood ONLY for the church. The reason is that the word "only" DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TEXT.

Now suppose I wrote a book, and in one chapter of the book I said "While at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels."

And in a later chapter of the book, I also said "While at the store, I paid to price for every item in the store."

And then someone came along--someone who claimed to love my book and to be a believer of every word in my book--and that person said "He says in his book that he only paid for the Toaster Strudels."

And when that person was asked where the book said this, the person replied "In the chapter where it says he paid for the Toaster Strudels."

What would you think of this person's reading skills? Or honesty?

1. The Bible is a book that says, in one chapter, that Christ shed His blood for the church.
2. And in another chapter it says that He died for everyone--for the whole world, for all, etc.
3.NOWHERE does it say that He paid the price for the sins of the elect ONLY. IT. NEVER. SAYS. THAT.

So, putting those three facts together, is it correct to conclude that the Bible teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of ONLY THE CHURCH?

Jeff, it is God's will that all men would be saved, but men are fallen and rebellious. They turn away from the road which the Lord has provided, the narrow road, and go onto the broad path of rebellion, of arrogance, or works. Jesus said there will be "few" who will find the narrow road, few! God Who is Omniscient knows our hearts and brings those who "will" to the foot of the cross, the narrow road. I've gone there. There is no other place to go if you want to be saved. Not to a Mormon temple. Not to some cult. Not to Joseph Smith or some priesthood file. You, Jeff, must come to the foot of the cross at Calvary, and look into the face of the Bleeding Savior, and ask Him to save you. There is no other way.

theway

06-05-2013, 05:16 PM

You certainly have a strange view of the atonement. We don't pay for our own sins--Christ has paid for our sins. Do you really believe that you are paying for your own sins?
Oh Billy, Billy, Billy... The item or gift that you received was Salvation in both mine and your's little ****ogy. If I was able to understand your's, why is it you are incapable of understanding mine, seeing as though I never changed anything.
I simply added the fact that when you sin after having been saved through the Water and the Spirit, it's like taking a loan (or being free to sin) and using your salvation (or gift) as collateral for the loan (or gift).

IOW, do you believe in that Calvinist heresy which states that once you are "saved" you can now sin all you want without any consequences to your salvation?

Billyray

06-05-2013, 05:23 PM

No.... But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.

Example
1. You have a home loan

2. I pay off your loan then you pay me back instead of the original lender (Simple refinance of a loan)

In this case I didn't pay off your loan because you paid me back instead of the original lender. Rather I simply lent you the money. Applying this example to the atonement--Jesus didn't pay for your sins because he gets paid back by you when you "pay back the loan".

theway

06-05-2013, 05:46 PM

Jeff, it is God's will that all men would be saved, but men are fallen and rebellious. They turn away from the road which the Lord has provided, the narrow road, and go onto the broad path of rebellion, of arrogance, or works. That doesn't make any sense based on your guy's statements that man never was on the path to begin with nor could they even be aware of a path... So how is it that they can turn from a path that they didn't even know existed?
And if by "works" you mean "good works" then please show in the Bible where doing good is considered the wrong path?
Also, the term "narrow road" is a mistranslation which is only used in Evangelical Bibles nowadays.
It is the Gate which is narrow, while the Road is hard, difficult, or straitened which leads to Salvation. It is not a one time alter call.
It appears you are just making things up as you go along again.

Jesus said there will be "few" who will find the narrow road, few! God Who is Omniscient knows our hearts and brings those who "will" to the foot of the cross, the narrow road.
You are contradicting yourself again CA; first you say that man must find the path or narrow Gate, and then in the same sentence you say it is God which puts them on the path.

I've gone there. There is no other place to go if you want to be saved. Not to a Mormon temple. Not to some cult. Not to Joseph Smith oMr some priesthood file. You, Jeff, must come to the foot of the cross at Calvary, and look into the face of the Bleeding Savior, and ask Him to save you. There is no other way.I ***ume that since you are using actual physical places and people to discribe the LDS experience, then you must mean that in the "Christian" expieriance that you have to go to an actual cross, at a place in Israel, and look into a bloody face, and then verbally ask him to save you???
You always want to have it both ways CA, no matter how silly it makes you look.

theway

06-05-2013, 05:55 PM

Example
1. You have a home loan

2. I pay off your loan then you pay me back instead of the original lender (Simple refinance of a loan)

In this case I didn't pay off your loan because you paid me back instead of the original lender. Rather I simply lent you the money. Applying this example to the atonement--Jesus didn't pay for your sins because he gets paid back by you when you "pay back the loan".
No Billy... You keep leaving off the end part because it doesn't work with Evangelical/Cheap grace theology.

OK, can we both agree that God pays off our loan and makes us free and clear from any debt.
Good...
Now my question was what happens when you get back into debt?
Do you use your home or salvation as collateral for the new loan? If so, are you then expecting God to simply cover that loan as well?
Or do you believe you can simply borrow the money or sin with the intention of never having to pay the price or consequences for it, or that the new loan will never come due?

Apologette

06-05-2013, 05:56 PM

That doesn't make any sense based on your guy's statements that man never was on the path to begin with nor could they even be aware of a path... So how is it that they can turn from a path that they didn't even know existed?
And if by "works" you mean "good works" then please show in the Bible where doing good is considered the wrong path?
Also, the term "narrow road" is a mistranslation which is only used in Evangelical Bibles nowadays.
It is the Gate which is narrow, while the Road is hard, difficult, or straitened which leads to Salvation. It is not a one time alter call.
It appears you are just making things up as you go along again.

You are contradicting yourself again CA; first you say that man must find the path or narrow Gate, and then in the same sentence you say it is God which puts them on the path.
I ***ume that since you are using actual physical places and people to discribe the LDS experience, then you must mean that in the "Christian" expieriance that you have to go to an actual cross, at a place in Israel, and look into a bloody face, and then verbally ask him to save you???
You always want to have it both ways CA, no matter how silly it makes you look.

So why did you get suspended from CARM? It's what the Bible teaches, fellow. Like it or lump it, there is only ONE way and it isn't through the LDS cult.

Billyray

06-05-2013, 06:10 PM

OK, can we both agree that God pays off our loan and makes us free and clear from any debt.

But that is not what you said in your prior post.

No.... But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.

Let's go through this again.

1. You owe money for a loan
2. I lend you money (i.e. you are still in debt--but to a new lender) to pay off the first loan
3. I will get paid back what you owe me so I didn't pay off your loan--you did. I simply loaned you the money.

theway

06-05-2013, 06:11 PM

So why did you get suspended from CARM? It's what the Bible teaches, fellow. Like it or lump it, there is only ONE way and it isn't through the LDS cult.Funny you should ask...
CARM has invented a new way to ban Mormons when they can't think up a real reason to use.
I was banned for being "divisive" with a non Mormon???
In other words I was banned for disagreeing with what a nonMormon said.
I guess Mormons are expected to do nothing but agree completely with their Critics, and then bend over and say "thank you sir, may I have another?"

LOL you have got to love the hypocrisy of it all. You guys create a website or forum whose sole purpose is to cause divisiveness within the LDS church, but you will not tolerate anybody turning around and using the same tactics on you.

James Banta

06-05-2013, 07:21 PM

So let's summarize your beliefs, Jim. You believe that:

Human babies are created and born evil, but dove babies, for some strange reason, are not.

So you believe that the Fall didn't affect any of the lower animals but did cause God to create all humans as evil? Or do you believe that it affected some animals but all humans?

Why would God create Baby James Banta evil, but create baby doves as such peaceful creatures that the Holy Spirit became one? Does that really make any sense to you?

Sin makes jim evil. I was conceived born raised and lived in sin just as all men are.. I also believe the Bible that tell us that the whole world lays in sin (1 John 5:19).. The nature of the whole world is based in sin. I thought you would understand that when I made it clear that even your peaceful doves kill. Now you understand.. I believe the Bible and even point out errors you think I believe.. IHS jim

Billyray

06-05-2013, 10:32 PM

IOW, do you believe in that Calvinist heresy which states that once you are "saved" you can now sin all you want without any consequences to your salvation?
Salvation is by faith and NOT by works. You believe that in addition to your faith your works are the basis of your salvation/exaltation. This is a works based salvation.

nrajeffreturns

06-06-2013, 07:32 AM

Salvation is by faith and NOT by works. You believe that in addition to your faith your works are the basis of your salvation/exaltation. This is a works based salvation.

Bread is by flour and not by salt. You believe that in addition to flour, a pinch of salt is part of the recipe, and that makes it salt-based bread instead of flour-based bread.

See how little sense that makes?

RealFakeHair

06-06-2013, 08:03 AM

Bread is by flour and not by salt. You believe that in addition to flour, a pinch of salt is part of the recipe, and that makes it salt-based bread instead of flour-based bread.

See how little sense that makes?

Ever tried to make a Joseph Smith jr. Sandwich out of saltless bread?
It's made with Bologna! lol

Billyray

06-06-2013, 12:35 PM

See how little sense that makes?
A Mormon can have faith but what determines his final destination is his works. Jeff this is a works based salvation.

nrajeffreturns

06-07-2013, 06:25 AM

A Mormon can have faith but what determines his final destination is his works. Jeff this is a works based salvation.

A Calvinistic anti-Mormon can be obedient to God, but what determines his final destination is his dead faith. Billy, you have a dead-faith-based salvation, despite your belief that you SHOULD obey God's commandments. The fact that you believe that Faith Alone is sufficient to save you, negates every other ingredient, including Jesus and His atonement and grace and obedience.

That's the kind of logic you have been using, and I just turned it back on yourself so you could see how vapid it is.

Billyray

06-07-2013, 07:49 AM

That's the kind of logic you have been using, and I just turned it back on yourself so you could see how vapid it is.
Jeff how about answering my question. Two Mormons are in your ward, both have faith in Christ, yet they go to different places after death. What determines where they end up?

Billyray

06-07-2013, 07:52 AM

[B]A Calvinistic anti-Mormon can be obedient to God, but what determines his final destination is his dead faith.
Dead faith = No Faith.

Either a person has faith or he doesn't. A person who has faith will be saved. A person who does no have faith will not be saved. Works do not contribute for salvation.

Billyray

06-07-2013, 07:55 AM

The fact that you believe that Faith Alone is sufficient to save you, negates every other ingredient, including Jesus and His atonement and grace and obedience.

Jeff that is another straw man argument. I believe--and other Christians believe--in "Jesus and His atonement and grace and obedience".

nrajeffreturns

06-07-2013, 02:43 PM

Dead faith = No Faith.
And FAITH ALONE--the BASIS for salvation in your belief system-- = dead faith.

Therefore, you believe in dead faith-based salvation. See how I used your reasoning against you again? It's easy to do. And fun!

RealFakeHair

06-07-2013, 02:50 PM

And FAITH ALONE--the BASIS for salvation in your belief system-- = dead faith.

Therefore, you believe in dead faith-based salvation. See how I used your reasoning against you again? It's easy to do. And fun!

Kinda like my love life at my age, but that's another story. It aint much of a story, but I have faith that one day even though it is dead, see where I am coming from?
Anyways, a dead faith is prevalent to a false faith, there is no hope in that, in the same way as in my; well you know, my golf game.
Having faith in Joseph Smith jr. Is a false ***umption in the work ethic.
Remember a bad day of golf beats a good day of work.
A bad day of faith, beats a good day of working for Joesph Smith jr.

nrajeffreturns

06-07-2013, 06:31 PM

Current status of RFH's love life = TMI !!!! :)

Billyray

06-07-2013, 10:25 PM

And FAITH ALONE--the BASIS for salvation in your belief system-- = dead faith.

"Faith without works is dead". This is contrasting those who have faith and those who do not have faith. Faith is the basis for salvation not works. Those who have faith will be saved. Those who do not have faith will not be saved. Those who have faith will naturally produce works BECAUSE they have faith and are born again/saved. They don't do works in order to be saved. BTW the thief on the cross had faith and was saved despite having no works.

Billyray

06-07-2013, 11:05 PM

Why in the world would you think that I believe that God will punish you for sins you have not done?

That's just silly Billy.
Does God punish those who do not place their faith in Him for salvation?

Apologette

06-08-2013, 08:50 AM

A Calvinistic anti-Mormon can be obedient to God, but what determines his final destination is his dead faith. Billy, you have a dead-faith-based salvation, despite your belief that you SHOULD obey God's commandments. The fact that you believe that Faith Alone is sufficient to save you, negates every other ingredient, including Jesus and His atonement and grace and obedience.

Why do you believe Calvinists have a dead faith when they trust in the Biblical (not the Mormon imitation) Christ? Faith unto salvation is in the Christ of Scripture. Faith unto ****ation is faith in a false prophet and his imitation Christ.

That's the kind of logic you have been using, and I just turned it back on yourself so you could see how vapid it is.

Perhaps you should spend less time thinking about how to "get back" at Christians, and more time considering the truth they are trying to share with you.

Apologette

06-08-2013, 08:54 AM

And FAITH ALONE--the BASIS for salvation in your belief system-- = dead faith.

Therefore, you believe in dead faith-based salvation. See how I used your reasoning against you again? It's easy to do. And fun!

Dead faith is that which produces no works consistent with Scripture. This would include: false prophecy; following false prophets; having a false deity; believing you are going to be a god someday; disregarding the Word of God and supplanting and replacing it with the false words of men. Billy's faith is full of the types of works one would expect to see in a Christian. Mormonism's works speak for themselves - false doctrines and false prophets.

nrajeffreturns

06-08-2013, 09:14 AM

"Faith without works is dead".

And dead faith = no faith.

So, another way to describe your belief is: You believe that salvation is BASED on NO FAITH, because you believe in faith-ALONE-based salvation. (Your mischaracterizations of LDS doctrine, where you say it's works-BASED, indicate that you don't believe that obedience plays any role whatsoever as an ingredient in the salvation recipe)

So, since faith alone = dead faith, and dead faith = no faith, then using your reasoning, we must conclude that you believe that salvation is based on NO FAITH.

Which is unbiblical. And unChristian.

Therefore, Billy, if you insist on using your reasoning, you admit that you are not a Christian.

NOW: DO YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP PLAYING YOUR GAME? You are losing, badly. What kind of person would want to keep digging himself deeper into such a hole?

Apologette

06-08-2013, 12:04 PM

James Banta

06-08-2013, 01:41 PM

And dead faith = no faith.

So, another way to describe your belief is: You believe that salvation is BASED on NO FAITH, because you believe in faith-ALONE-based salvation. (Your mischaracterizations of LDS doctrine, where you say it's works-BASED, indicate that you don't believe that obedience plays any role whatsoever as an ingredient in the salvation recipe)

So, since faith alone = dead faith, and dead faith = no faith, then using your reasoning, we must conclude that you believe that salvation is based on NO FAITH.

Which is unbiblical. And unChristian.

Therefore, Billy, if you insist on using your reasoning, you admit that you are not a Christian.

NOW: DO YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP PLAYING YOUR GAME? You are losing, badly. What kind of person would want to keep digging himself deeper into such a hole?

James told us what living faith is.. It is a refusal to show partiality. It is seeing to the care of the naked, the hungry, and the homeless. No where is baptism, work for the dead, marriage, or enduring to the end in RIGHTEOUSNESS, see as the works that manifest saving faith. And whose sees these acts of faith that James said are manifest in saving faith? He said show ME your faith without your works and I will show YOU my faith by my works.. Just where in that is there showing God by our works that we deserve His grace? His gives His grace to all who believe in Jesus through that faith and NOT BY WORKS. That is Gospel unless you are again willing to deny the scripture..

Christian believe the scripture and hold that we are saved by His grace through faith plus NOTHING.. That it is simply NOT OF WORKS, period. Nothing you can do, not baptism, not keeping commandments. NOTHING but faith in Jesus is the way for anyone to gain the salvation of God, NOTHING.. It isn't up to you to determine what is dead faith and what is Faith. How can you judge Billy? Do you knpw what actions he has taken to help those damaged by earthquakes, OR VIOLENT storms? No you don't know.. Are you even aware of his level of obedience to God's commandments? No? I see you being just the kind of person James commands us not to be.. You judge others on their outside appearance and put down the poor of spirit among us. Good work.. It's no wonder that ALL LDS GAs are rich and have special seats in the front in all your conferences.. You ignore all of James 2 except for 2 verses.. This kind of behavior shows that Jesus is not included in your church nor in your heart..

If you believe that waving a warning flag of destruction that lays ahead is a game then you need to find a real playground.. Here we deal in life and death, Eternal life and death IHS jim

Billyray

06-08-2013, 01:47 PM

And dead faith = no faith.

Dead faith = No faith

A person who does not have faith will not be saved. A person who has faith will be saved.

You believe that salvation is BASED on NO FAITH, because you believe in faith-ALONE-based salvation.

No Jeff I believe that salvation comes to those who have faith in Christ and this is what the Bible teaches. Those who are saved naturally produce works which is what James in teaching.

nrajeffreturns

06-08-2013, 04:31 PM

Dead faith = No faith
Right, and faith alone = dead faith, which is what your basis for salvation is. So you have a no faith-based salvation gospel. Again, I am just playing your game by the rules you chose to use against the LDS, when you decided to brand them as having a works-based salvation even though their REAL basis for salvation is Christ's atonement, and obedience is one ingredient that makes that atonement have efficacy for a person but is not the BASIS.

A person who does not have faith will not be saved.
And a person like you who has faith alone will not be saved because faith alone is dead faith, and dead faith is NO FAITH.

Billyray

06-09-2013, 01:26 AM

faith alone = dead faith
Dead faith = No faith

Faith alone = Faith

Those who have faith will be saved. Those who do not have faith will not be saved. Those who have faith will naturally produce works which is what James is talking about. You don't do works to earn faith or salvation. A perfect example of this is the thief on the cross who had faith and was saved despite having any works.

Billyray

06-09-2013, 01:27 AM

And a person like you who has faith alone will not be saved because faith alone is dead faith, and dead faith is NO FAITH.
The thief has faith alone and was saved. Right?

Billyray

06-09-2013, 01:33 AM

And dead faith = no faith.

LDS Article of Faith 4
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Jeff is this real faith since it precedes any works?

dberrie2000

06-09-2013, 05:13 AM

LDS Article of Faith 4
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Jeff is this real faith since it precedes any works?

Billyray--you have already asked this question before--and the answer is the same. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is dead faith unless acted upon by obedience to Jesus Christ. It's just as James stated:

James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Faith without obedience to Jesus Christ will not save anyone from ****ation. Even the devils believe.

Billyray

06-09-2013, 06:15 AM

Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is dead faith unless acted upon by obedience to Jesus Christ. . .
LDS Article of Faith
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, [DEAD FAITH] in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Would you agree that "the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, [DEAD FAITH] in the Lord Jesus Christ" since it precedes any works?

Apologette

06-09-2013, 08:02 AM

Right, and faith alone = dead faith, which is what your basis for salvation is. So you have a no faith-based salvation gospel. Again, I am just playing your game by the rules you chose to use against the LDS, when you decided to brand them as having a works-based salvation even though their REAL basis for salvation is Christ's atonement, and obedience is one ingredient that makes that atonement have efficacy for a person but is not the BASIS.

And a person like you who has faith alone will not be saved because faith alone is dead faith, and dead faith is NO FAITH.

The whole point you are missing is it is God Who gives you the faith unto salvation:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God Eph. 2

Saving faith, then is a gift. And to whom is it a gift?

Eph. 1: 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions

Okay, Jeff, break that down. You are dead in your transgressions and sins, craving the things of the flesh; All of us have been likewise dead, in the same hopeless way! But God loved us, and so has brought to life those who were dead. They have placed their faith in Christ, and have been given the saving faith necessary for belief.

Now you can mock this out if you want, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture. You can receive it, or continue to follow Joseph Smith who taught that everybody is spiritually alive with "free agency." He simply denied the Scriptures, twisting them to his own ****ation - he was so spiritually dead that he lied, sexually molested teenagers, and said he'd be your god. You are following a corpse.

dberrie2000

06-09-2013, 11:00 AM

Saving faith, then is a gift.

Could you explain to us what the difference between faith and saving faith is?

Apologette

06-09-2013, 11:38 AM

Could you explain to us what the difference between faith and saving faith is?

I don't make that distinction - you did. And, in fact, I have no intention of engaging in an obsessive need to attack Christian doctrine.

dberrie2000

06-09-2013, 05:57 PM

I don't make that distinction - you did. And, in fact, I have no intention of engaging in an obsessive need to attack Christian doctrine.

What is it about the scriptures that you don't find as Christian doctrine?

James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Do you consider dead faith--- saving faith?

Originally Posted by Apologette View Post----Saving faith, then is a gift.

Billyray

06-09-2013, 06:01 PM

James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Do you consider dead faith--- saving faith?
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

dberrie2000

06-10-2013, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Do you consider dead faith--- saving faith?

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Could you explain for us how you are using Romans4 in relation to James2?

Billyray--Christ justified all men of life due to His Atonement--the ungodly included:

Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Paul's example was of Abraham--could you explain the following, in relationship to your argument:

Genesis 26:4-5----King James Version (KJV)

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Could you explain to us, if Abraham was given God's grace independent of his works--then how is the above true? Paul was a master of the scriptures--he certainly was aware of what the scriptures stated.

Could it be--that when Paul stated "works"--"works of the law"---that he was referring to the Mosaic Law--especially seeing that Abraham lived under the gospel of Jesus Christ--not the Mosaic Law?

Works of the Law----- http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/works-of-the-law.html

The term erga nomou ("works of the Law") is used by Paul to denote deeds prescribed by the Mosaic Law ( Rom 2:15 ; Romans 3:20 Romans 3:27 Romans 3:28 ; Gal 2:16 ; Galatians 3:2 Galatians 3:5 Galatians 3:10 ). Although not found in the Old Testament or later rabbinic literature, this phrase appears in Qumran literature (maase torah,4QFlor 1:1-7; cf. 1QS 6:18; 1 QpHab 7:11). At times Paul shortens the phrase and uses erga, "works" ( Romans 4:2 Romans 4:6 ; Romans 9:11 Romans 9:32 ; 11:6 ), referring to a mode of relationship to the Law and set in contrast to faith in Christ

Paul's "worketh not" was a reference to the Mosaic Law, not obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Romans 4:12----King James Version (KJV)

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Billyray

06-10-2013, 04:18 PM

Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Paul's example was of Abraham--could you explain the following, in relationship to your argument:
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 5:5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Billyray

06-10-2013, 04:20 PM

Paul's "worketh not" was a reference to the Mosaic Law, not obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ:

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the LAW are just before God, but the doers of the L A W shall be justified.

nrajeffreturns

06-12-2013, 08:39 AM

Dead faith = No faith

Faith alone = Faith
No, faith alone, since it hath not works, is DEAD, because it's ALONE. That is what the BIBLE teaches, anyhow. You can reject the Bible and embrace Calvinism if you want to, but you will have to stop claiming that your beliefs come only from the Bible.

And since you already agree that dead faith = no faith, then faith alone, being dead, is no faith.

James Banta

06-15-2013, 08:35 AM

No, faith alone, since it hath not works, is DEAD, because it's ALONE. That is what the BIBLE teaches, anyhow. You can reject the Bible and embrace Calvinism if you want to, but you will have to stop claiming that your beliefs come only from the Bible.

And since you already agree that dead faith = no faith, then faith alone, being dead, is no faith.

As soon as mormonism brings forth the fruits that James points out as the works of God that a living faith bring men to do I will believe that mormonism is sitting in such a faith.. I have already pointed out that only the rich in their fine cloths are brought to the best seats in their conferences. I have never even see one poor person in their rags made welcome in those meetings.. It is FACT that the LDS church offers less than 1% of their income to aiding the poor and those touched by disaster (Business Week; Ryan T Cragun, Stephanie Teager, Desmond Vega). The United Methodists offer over 25% of their income to such need and they do it with NO FANFARE that I see on TV (especially KSL, the LDS church's own station) when they send their "offerings" to the poor.. They did this when they sent supplies to Haiti and then again as then sent supplies to Japan. There in no attempt in mormonism to live by the call of James to show forth their faith though good works, NONE! The Church on the other hand has been in Haiti for over a century, building, offering heath care, and educating the people. Agencies such as "Food for the poor" and "Samaritan's Purse" still are in all areas of the world that cry under extreme pain of want. Where is the LDS church in the Sudan? Not there!! Too dangerous!! Thank God He has called His true servants to be His hands in easing the pain of those peoples.. Mormonism is NOT living by the call of James to do the works of God. They, and by extension you, fail to keep the call of James in the second chapter of His epistle.. You must not have faith because those works James speaks of are not present in LDS actions.. No works, no faith! IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-16-2013, 08:14 PM

So was that long diatribe supposed to refute the idea that faith alone, being dead, is no faith?

Because if so, I didn't see it.

James Banta

06-17-2013, 10:06 PM

So was that long diatribe supposed to refute the idea that faith alone, being dead, is no faith?

Because if so, I didn't see it.

Why don't you bring forth the works James says show saving faith and then you can use James 2 to support your teachings of salvation by works.. till then you show no faith and have no works.. IHS jim

Billyray

06-17-2013, 11:48 PM

So was that long diatribe supposed to refute the idea that faith alone, being dead, is no faith?
.
Jeff either a person has faith or he does not. Those who have faith will be saved and those who do not have faith will not be saved. The thief on the cross had faith and was saved yet he did not have works.

James was teaching that those who have faith will naturally produce works. Not that you have to do works to earn faith.

Billyray

06-17-2013, 11:50 PM

And since you already agree that dead faith = no faith

Which is exactly what I said, Dead faith = no faith

, then faith alone, being dead, is no faith.
The thief had faith and no works and because he had faith he was saved.

nrajeffreturns

06-18-2013, 01:24 PM

Why don't you bring forth the works James says show saving faith
Why don't YOU?

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

If you aren't doing these kinds of things, then you have no faith, and definitely no good works. So you have nothing and you won't be saved.

Billyray

06-18-2013, 04:08 PM

Why don't YOU?

Jeff do you really believe that you do works in order to earn faith?

nrajeffreturns

06-18-2013, 04:19 PM

Jeff do you really believe that you do works in order to earn faith?

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

Apologette

06-18-2013, 04:52 PM

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

You must be confusing your anti-Christian local ward with anti-LDS training camps. We don't have anything even remotely like that, since we don't need them. You see, the Bible alone debunks Mormonism right on its first page.

James Banta

06-19-2013, 08:42 AM

Why don't YOU?

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

If you aren't doing these kinds of things, then you have no faith, and definitely no good works. So you have nothing and you won't be saved.

And that is directly what I do as directed by the Holy Spirit.. DIRECTLY.. I look after the orphans and widows in their distress. Have you ever heard of "Food for the Poor" and the work they are doing in Haiti and have done for over 50 years.. And the LDS what have they done there? Is there even 50 Months of work they have had anything to do with there? How many of your missionaries have been murdered as they bring comfort to those in the center of a War ravaged area of the world. If you review FOX BOOM OF MARTYRS you will see thousands of Christian missionaries that were killed as they took their Lord's message to the world. And those not from the distant past but from 2013 as well as that distant past.. While my actually given is SECRET (Matthew 6:3) is is a good thing to tell the world of some wonderful agencies that allows me to keep the teachings of James 1:27.. So look at Food for the Poor and see what they are doing to keep that commandment.. Look at the work being done for the forgotten of this country being accomplished at St Labre Indian School. Some of their children have just been dropped off by their parents and left for the Christians at that school to care for year round. many an Indian child has been saved by their good works. Then look who, in the name of Jesus, is always there to aid and support those effected by disaster, Samaritans Purse. This is a Billy Graham ministry. A physical James 1:27 manifestation of the faith of thousands of Christians all working together to aid those touched by disaster.. Each of these agencies exists ONLY for humanitarian reasons. They are the feet and hand of the Lord as His mercy is spread out over the whole world. Each is putting over 90% of their income toward that work and 100% of their effort is that pursuit. And what does Mormons do is keeping that commandment? Less than 1% of their income and 10-20% efforts. More effort is spent on doing work for the dead.. That is hardly seeing to the orphans and widows in their distress now is it.. IHS jim

James Banta

06-19-2013, 09:06 AM

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith? How does one EARN faith, anyhow? It's not part of LDS doctrine, so you musta picked up that phrase in your anti-LDS training camp.

I hate hippocracy don't you? It's much better when a person sees his error then faces them, modifying his ways to conform to the truth of God instead of spinning self indulged lies to cover up his actions.

Speaking of those you have labeled as the Anti-LDS the ones I call Christians They are taught in the book they hold to be scripture to Love their neighbor, While the LDS are taught this is their scripture:

JSH19
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

This isn't just the feelings of one man, this is a attack on my faith that is written right into LDS Scripture. Oh sure tell me that this was the words of Jesus BUT Smith reported no such things in his earlier report of this "Vision".. Did he really forget TO REPORT THE answer to what today's LDS church teaches was the whole reason he retired to the grove? "What church should I join".. The whole episode smacks of being an man made invention growing piece by piece as Smith's invented religion took form. This wasn't an attack on one man but on all the churches of Christendom.. Then what do you do? Do you actually sit back like a cry baby and saying "their picking on me"? I am sorry you see it that way. What we are "picking on" are the lies of Smith that he wrote into his own invented religion's scripture and called truth.

Yes there are those that would look at you as being the source of the lies we can see so clearly in the LDS church. You are not that source. That source is the heart and mind of another, one Joseph Smith. You have been deceived. Your sin like Eve's before you is to believe such a deception. May God provide you the grace and the faith to reject lies and turn to Him and Him alone in faith and be gifted everlasting life. IHS jim

Billyray

06-19-2013, 09:10 AM

Where have I EVER said ANYTHING about earning faith?
You believe that you have to add works in order to have faith. That is earning faith Jeff.

nrajeffreturns

06-19-2013, 09:46 AM

You believe that you have to add works in order to have faith. That is earning faith Jeff.

That's just retarded reasoning. If living faith CONTAINS obedience to Jesus' commandments (which includes charity, also called doing good works), then there's no "EARNING" involved.

We know that living faith contains obedience in the form of charity because that doctrine is found in the Bible, in the book of James.

Plus, I thought you agreed that dead faith is no faith. Did you get amnesia, or are you just lying now by pretending that you don't remember that?

James Banta

06-19-2013, 10:17 AM

That's just retarded reasoning. If living faith CONTAINS obedience to Jesus' commandments (which includes charity, also called doing good works), then there's no "EARNING" involved.

We know that living faith contains obedience in the form of charity because that doctrine is found in the Bible, in the book of James.

Plus, I thought you agreed that dead faith is no faith. Did you get amnesia, or are you just lying now by pretending that you don't remember that?

Please Jeff TRY to follow the rules of the forum.. using words such as ANTI, Retarded, Liar (Or saying someone is lying) is not allowed here.. Ok you disagree that doesn't mean someone else has a different opinion and holding and commenting from that diverse opinion doesn't come up to the lying.. PLEASE.. LDS in their creed say they believe is being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. It is not good to call someone a liar for believing different than you do.. Teach what you have believed to be true. Attack those teachings we hold are true all tat is fair.. The same goes for us. We will question your beliefs as we try to point you to the truth.. What you admit we have in common is the Bible so use that common resource and show us how mormonism can be God's truth.. You believe that the Bible the BofM the D&C and the PofPG to be God's truth so we can use all of them to show problems in mormonism.. That is fair isn't it? We stand by the Scripture as we know it and you stand by yours.. Oh one more source you consider to be equal in authority with scripture are the words of your prophets.. You will be required to stand behind those or reject the prophets that taught doctrines you believe are not true..

Ok as for obedience being a evidence for true faith.. I look at Paul who said that sin lives in him and the sin he commits is because of that sin and not because of who he is (Romans 7:19-20). Therefore Paul admitted his disobedience and yet he still claimed his salvation.. Obedience is only able to be lived in the grace of God though Jesus. In His love and grace for those who believe, He became sin in our place so that in our faith we can be made the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21).. Living faith has no requirement of obedience. It has a requirement yo Love both God and our fellow man, and to believe Him.. In that there is evidence of living faith and salvation by His grace.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-19-2013, 10:45 AM

Please Jeff TRY to follow the rules of the forum.. using words such as ANTI, Retarded, Liar (Or saying someone is lying) is not allowed here..

Really? So no one is allowed to speak of the doctrine known as antinomianism, or of the USA's efforts in anti-terrorism, or of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism?

And no one here is allowed to do like Billy has been doing--accusing people of lying about what he believes?

Have you broken the news to Billy yet? How'd he take the news?

James Banta

06-19-2013, 11:10 AM

Really? So no one is allowed to speak of the doctrine known as antinomianism, or of the USA's efforts in anti-terrorism, or of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism?

And no one here is allowed to do like Billy has been doing--accusing people of lying about what he believes?

Have you broken the news to Billy yet? How'd he take the news?

No, there is no need to show off your vocabulary with such wording.. You deny the theology behind it anyway.. Just use the wording the bible uses to say that believers are freed from the law by the righteousness of Jesus.. Billy has been addresses here haven't you seen that.. He can read.. Watch his posts and see, he will correct his wording.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-19-2013, 09:22 PM

No, there is no need to show off your vocabulary with such wording.
I wasn't trying to show off my vocabulary. I was trying to show you how banning the word "anti" from this forum would be a mistake.

Billy has been addresses here haven't you seen that.. He can read..
Yeah. I can read, too, that's how I know he has been accusing another poster of lying.

Billyray

06-20-2013, 01:57 AM

Billyray

06-20-2013, 02:01 AM

Yeah. I can read, too, that's how I know he has been accusing another poster of lying.

And it isn't just "another" poster, you are guilty as well particularly when you know what I believe yet you misrepresent it.

nrajeffreturns

06-20-2013, 08:25 AM

And it isn't just "another" poster, you are guilty as well particularly when you know what I believe yet you misrepresent it.

You mean when you misrepresent LDS doctrines for years, it's okay, but if we were to BEGIN to misrepresent yours, it's a BAD thing? How can that be, unless there was a double standard being used all those years?

Billyray

06-20-2013, 08:47 AM

You mean when you misrepresent LDS doctrines for years. . .
Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?

RealFakeHair

06-20-2013, 09:11 AM

Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?

Telling the truth is one of the misrepresented doctrinal problems. Most LDSinc, and none LDSinc. Persons have no idea the LDSinc. use the same language as Christians, but have a different dictionary. Here is one example, the word Saved. To most Christians it means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible, and to the TBM it means to be exaltated to the hightest of Joseph Smith jr. promises, ie Godhood.

nrajeffreturns

06-20-2013, 01:46 PM

Can you give me a couple of example of how I misrepresented LDS doctrine?
"LDS believe that salvation is BASED on works."

nrajeffreturns

06-20-2013, 01:47 PM

Here is one example, the word Saved. To most Christians it means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible, .

Is that really what most Christians think the definition of "saved" is?

I am a-callin' "BS" on that ***ertion.

James Banta

06-23-2013, 01:45 PM

Is that really what most Christians think the definition of "saved" is?

I am a-callin' "BS" on that ***ertion.

I can show you that death is not part of the Christians future. That is salvation.. It come to all those that Believe in Him. This is manifest though the love they show to their fellow man..
And that you call "BS".. And you tell us that you are offended by us when we say that mormonism was invented in the mind of a man?

I am happy to see you using original 1830 BofM translation syntax to give us that opinion (See "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred ..." 1830(page 249) modern[Alma 10:7])
IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-24-2013, 06:00 AM

I can show you that death is not part of the Christians future. That is salvation..
But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'

And that you call "BS"
No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."

I am happy to see you using original 1830 BofM translation syntax to give us that opinion (See "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred ..." 1830(page 249) modern[Alma 10:7])
IHS jim

"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?

Apologette

06-24-2013, 07:29 AM

But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'

No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."

"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?
The problem with you, Jeff, and other Mormons, is that you WILL not understand the Gospel because you are spiritually dead to it.

nrajeffreturns

06-24-2013, 02:52 PM

The problem with you, Jeff, and other Mormons, is that you WILL not understand the Gospel because you are spiritually dead to it.

What on earth are you talking about now? The essence of the gospel is so simple to understand, even a Calvinist should be able to comprehend it:

It's the Good News that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah and only way to salvation, who atoned for the sins of all sinners in the world, which makes salvation possible and available to any sinner who wants to be saved.

James Banta

06-25-2013, 10:01 AM

[nrajeffreturns;146108]But RFH claims that

"To most Christians (saved) means, to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible."

But you claim 'saved' means that death is not part of the Christians future--that is salvation, and 'It come to all those that Believe in Him.'

That is the same thing!!!!! Good grief you expect us to use the same woring as we explain our faith.. We don't plagiarize each other. So you get the message in different wording it is the same message,,

No, I am saying that I question the claim that most Christians define the word "saved" as "to believe and follow the Living Savior of the Holy Bible'' when it's more likely that most Christians define "saved" as something like "spending eternity in heaven."

And that means the same thing!!!

"As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house."

It's a good verse, but what has it to do with the definition of "saved" that is actually used by most Christians?

Not my point.. I see the context of the p***age, I do have some doctrinal issues with it but it was the way it was first written and approved by Smith. The hillbilly syntax that would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T. Read it in the language of the 1830 edition ""As I was a journeying...). Yes it was changed to reflect a more educated profile still this was given, said Smith, by the gift and power of God through direct revelation word for word through the Urim and Thummim and not by or through his own mind in any way.. At least that is the way those that witnessed the process of translation said it was accomplished.. Since neither of us were there we will have to go by those who were. Even Emma agreed that Joseph placed the seer stone in a hat and there in that stone one word at a time was given and stayed visible unit it was read back to Joseph correctly. therefore all the errors in the first edition were the very hillbilly talk that God uses.. That Jeff, my friend, is blasphemy.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns

06-25-2013, 11:32 AM

Apologette

06-25-2013, 02:57 PM

James Banta

06-25-2013, 05:30 PM

Now Jim, I challenge your claim that "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

The reason I am challenging your claim, is that your claim amounts to an attack on the Bible and, indirectly on God Himself. And I won't allow that on this site without taking exception to such an attack.

Open your Bible, preferably the KJV, and read Ezekiel:

"...Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.
So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll.
And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat,...
As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead..."
And the cherubims were lifted up.""

Only a hillbilly I DIOT would say "cause they BELLY to eat" ?

Or "an adamant harder than flint" ?

Or say cherubims when the plural of cherub is really cherubim?

Or in Exodus 34:

"...and they go a whoring after their gods"

Sounds pretty hillbillylike.

Yet you claim that such "hillbilly syntax... would make God out to be an illiterate I D I O T."

So you are saying that the HOLY BIBLE makes God out to be an illiterate I D I O T?

I disagree with your opinion.

Here are your references given by people who speak the same language that was spoken by educated people even in Smith era..

Ezekiel 3:1-9 NASB
Then He said to me, “Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll. He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth. Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house.”

Exodus 34:15
otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice

Just where are the errors in these p***ages now? Isn't 1830 closer to 2013 than it is to 1630.. But again remember no scholarly translator of the Bible claimed his translation was given through direct revelation, as Smith did for the BofM.. You are comparing apples to Jumbo jets.. There is no comparison between how the KJV of the Bible was TRANSLATED AND HOW THE BofM WAS SAID TO BE TRANSLATED.. It is not comparable at all.. IHS jim

dberrie2000

01-04-2014, 01:20 PM

The problem with you, Jeff, and other Mormons, is that you WILL not understand the Gospel because you are spiritually dead to it.

Is this the gospel you refer to?

Mark 1:1-4---King James Version (KJV)

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Could you explain to us why the faith alone have to deny that?

Pa Pa

01-04-2014, 05:00 PM

You can't see that this is refers to both spiritual and physical life and death? IHS jimJim,

Are you suggesting that infants are spiritually dead? This would mean that babies die and go to hell, is this what you mean.

James Banta

01-11-2014, 11:42 AM

Jim,

Are you suggesting that infants are spiritually dead? This would mean that babies die and go to hell, is this what you mean.

If Jesus is a liar I guess you could see it that was.. But what did Jesus say on the subject that excluded babied that die in infancy that separates them from the rest of us?

Matthew 19:14 NASB
But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

When I say I believe the Bile, unlike the LDS, I believe all the Bible.. You asked this question even knowing the answer before hand.. Shame on you.. IHS jim

dberrie2000

01-11-2014, 03:08 PM

If Jesus is a liar I guess you could see it that was.. But what did Jesus say on the subject that excluded babied that die in infancy that separates them from the rest of us?

Matthew 19:14 NASB
But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

When I say I believe the Bile, unlike the LDS, I believe all the Bible..

So--you believe the testimony of Paul is true, when he wrote to the Galatians?

Galatians 5:19-21---King James Version (KJV)

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I thought you told me once that a Christian could commit adultery after they were saved--and not even repent--and they would still be saved?

James Banta

01-14-2014, 09:34 AM

So--you believe the testimony of Paul is true, when he wrote to the Galatians?

Galatians 5:19-21---King James Version (KJV)

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I thought you told me once that a Christian could commit adultery after they were saved--and not even repent--and they would still be saved?

Listen closely.. The Biblical truth I am about to speak to again doesn't seem to be getting through to you.. This is so important Paul said it twice.

Romans 7:14-20
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Like Paul the Christian doesn't sin, it is sin within them that does so.. I know, I know you don't like that p***age or that theology. Know what, it doesn't matter whether you like it of NOT.. Jesus, who knew no sin became sin in our place and makes us (Those that have the faith that accesses God's grace) the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).. See the Christian has been given the righteousness of Jesus. In that righteousness we can't sin. All our sin rests only in our flesh and not on us.. The penalty for that sin was paid in full by Jesus.. Is this a license to sin?

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

But when we do sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). By that we see that Paul and John both understood the failings of the flesh, and the price God paid to deal with it.. IHS jim