Does God respond to Man?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

First we must DEFINE terms, figgie. No doubt you're thinking of such verses as "God resists the proud, but gives GRACE to the humble" as a "response from God to man for the choices mankind makes, etc".

So, for your own edification I'm gonna give you the uses of the word, "Grace" which is the English word for "Charis".

I'll be happy to address "faith" afterwards. What you apparently seem to forget/ignore (take your pick) is the reality that CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING.

So without any further ado, please read this entry on "grace" and THEN ask your questions.

Grace:

gras:
1. The Word Charis:

In the English New Testament the word "grace" is always a translation of (charis), a word that occurs in the Greek text something over 170 times (the reading is uncertain in places). In secular Greek of all periods it is also a very common word, and in both Biblical and secular Greek it is used with far more meanings than can be represented by any one term in English Primarily

(a) the word seems to denote pleasant external appearance, "gracefulness" "loveliness"; compare the personificaion in the Graces." Such a use is found in Lu 4:22, where ‘wondered at the charm of his words’ is a good translation; and similarly in Col 4:6.

(b) Objectively, charis may denote the impression produced by "gracefulness," as in 3 #Joh 1:4 ‘greater gratification have I none than this’ (but many m****cripts read chara, "joy," here).

(c) As a mental attribute charis may be translated by "graciousness," or, when directed toward a particular person or persons, by "favor." So in Lu 2:52, "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men."

(d) As the complement to this, charis denotes the emotion awakened in the recipient of such favor, i.e. "gra***ude." So Lu 17:9 reads literally, ‘Has he gra***ude to that servant?’ In a slightly transferred sense charis designates the words or emotion in which gra***ude is expressed, and so becomes "thanks" (some 10 t, Ro 6:17, etc.)’.

(e) Concretely, charis may mean the act by which graciousness is expressed, as in 1Co 16:3, where the King James Version translates by "liberality," and the Revised Version (British and American) by "bounty." These various meanings naturally tend to blend into each other, and in certain cases it is difficult to fix the precise meaning that the writer meant the word to convey, a confusion that is common to both New Testament and secular Greek And in secular Greek the word has a still larger variety of meanings that scarcely concern theologian.

2. Grace as Power:

Naturally, the various meanings of the word were simply taken over from ordinary language by the New Testament writers. And so it is quite illegitimate to try to construct on the basis of all the occurrences of the word a single doctrine that will account for all the various usages. That one word could express both "charm of speech" and "thankfulness for blessings" was doubtless felt to be a mere , if it was thought of at all. But none the less, the very elasticity of the word enabled it to receive still another—new and technically Christian—meaning. This seems to have originated in part by fusing together two of the ordinary significances. In the first place, as in (e) above, charis may mean "a gift." In 1Co 16:3; 2Co 8:19 it is the money given by the Corinthians to the Jerusalemites. In 2Co 9:8 it is the increase of worldly goods that God grants for charitable purposes. In 2Co 1:15 it is the benefit received by the Corinthians from a visit by Paul. In a more spiritual sense charis is the endowment for an office in the church (Eph 4:7), more particularly for the apostolate (Ro 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 1Co 3:10; Eph 3:2,7). So in 1Co 1:4-7 margin charis is expanded into "word and all knowledge," endowments with which the Corinthians were especially favored. In 1Pe 1:13 charis is the future heavenly blessedness that Christians are to receive; in 3:7 it is the present gift of "life." In the second place, charis is the word for God’s favor, a sense of the term that is especially refined by Paul (see below). But God’s favor differs from man’s in that it cannot be conceived of as inactive. A favorable "thought" of God’s about a man involves of necessity the reception of some blessing by that man, and "to look with favor" is one of the commonest Biblical paraphrases for "bestow a blessing." Between "God’s favor" and "God’s favors" there exists a relation of active power, and as charis denoted both the favor and the favors, it was the natural word for the power that connected them. This use is very clear in 1Co 15:10, where Paul says, "not I, but the grace of God which was with me" labored more abundantly than they all: grace is something that labors. So in 2Co 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness"; compare 2Ti 2:1, "strengthened in the grace," and 1Pe 4:10, "stewards of the manifold grace." Evidently in this sense "grace" is almost a synonym for the Spirit (see HOLY SPIRIT), and there is little real difference between "full of the Holy Spirit" and "full of grace and power" in Ac 6:5,8, while there is a very striking parallel between Eph 4:7-13 and 1Co 12:4-11, with "gifts of grace" in the one p***age, and "gifts of the Spirit" in the other. And this connection between grace and the Spirit is found definitely in the formula "Spirit of grace" in Heb 10:29 (compare Zec 12:10). And, as is well known, it is from this sense of the word that the Catholic doctrine of grace developed.

3. Grace in Justification:

This meaning of charis was obtained by expanding and combining other meanings. By the opposite process of narrowly restricting one of the meanings of the word, it came again into Christian theology as a technical term, but this time in a sense quite distinct from that just discussed. The formation of this special sense seems to have been the work of Paul. When charis is used with the meaning "favor," nothing at all is implied as to whether or not the favor is deserved. So, for instance, in the New Testament, when in Lu 2:52 it is said that "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men," the last possible thought is that our Lord did not deserve this favor. Compare also Lu 2:40 and Ac 2:47 and, as less clear cases, Lu 1:30; Ac 7:46; Heb 4:16; 12:15,28. But the word has abundant use in secular Greek in the sense of unmerited favor, and Paul seized on this meaning of the word to express a fundamental characteristic of Christianity. The basic p***age is Ro 11:5,6, where as a definition is given, "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." That the word is used in other senses could have caused no 1st-century reader to miss the meaning, which, indeed, is unmistakable. "Grace" in this sense is an at***ude on God’s part that proceeds entirely from within Himself, and that is conditioned in no way by anything in the objects of His favor. So in Ro 4:4. If salvation is given on the basis of what a man has done, then salvation is given by God as the payment of a debt. But when faith is reckoned for what it is not, i.e. righteousness, there is no claim on man’s part, and he receives as a pure gift something that he has not earned. (It is quite true that faith involves moral effort, and so may be thought of as a sort of a "work"; it is quite true that faith does something as a preparation for receiving God’s further gifts. But it simply clouds the exegetical issue to bring in these ideas here, as they certainly were not present in Paul’s mind when the verses were being written.) "Grace" then, in this sense is the antinomy to "works" or to "law"; it has a special relation to the guilt of sin (Ro 5:20; 6:1), and has almost exactly the same sense as "mercy." Indeed, "grace" here differs from "mercy" chiefly in connoting eager love as the source of the act. See JUSTIFICATION. Of course it is this sense of grace that tes Ro 3-6, especially in thesis 3:24, while the same use is found in Ga 2:21; Eph 2:5,8; 2Ti 1:9. The same strict sense underlies Ga 1:6 and is found, less sharply formulated, in *** 3:5-7. (Ga 5:4 is perhaps different.) Outside of Paul’s writings, his definition of the word seems to be adopted in Joh 1:17; Ac 15:11; Heb 13:9, while a perversion of this definition in the direction of antinomianism is the subject of the invective in Jude 1:4. And, of course, it is from the word in this technical Pauline sense that an elaborate Protestant doctrine of grace has been developed.

Part II will address "special" uses of the term...

[Father_JD]

4. Special Uses:

A few special uses of the word may be noted. That the special blessing of God on a particular undertaking (Ac 14:26; 15:40) should be called a "grace" needs no explanation. In Lu 6:32-34, and 1Pe 2:19,20, charis seems to be used in the sense of "that which deserves the thanks of God," i.e. a specifically Christian act as distinguished from an act of "natural morality." "Grace for grace" in Joh 1:16 is a difficult phrase, but an almost exact parallel in Philo (Poster. Cain, 43) may fix the sense as "benefit on benefit." But the tendency of the New Testament writers is to combine the various meanings the word can have, something that is particularly well illustrated in 2Co 8; 9. In these two chapters the word occurs 10 t, but in so many different senses as to suggest that Paul is consciously playing with the term. Charis is the money given to the Jerusalemites by the Corinthians (2Co 8:19), it is the increase of goods that God will grant the Corinthians (2Co 9:8), it is the disposition of the givers (2Co 8:6), it is the power of God that has wrought this disposition (2Co 8:1; 9:14), it is the act of Christ in the Incarnation (2Co 8:9; contrast the distinction between "God’s grace" and "Christs act" in Heb 2:9), it is the thanks that Paul renders (2Co 9:15). That all a Christian is and all that he has is God’s gift could have been stated of course without the use of any special term at all. But in these two chapters Paul has taught this truth by using for the various ideas always the same term and by referring this term to God at the beginning and the end of the section. That is, to the multiplicity of concepts there is given a unity of terminology, corresponding to the unity given the multiple aspects of life by the thought of entire dependence on God. So charis, "grace," becomes almost an equivalent for "Christianity," viewed as the religion of dependence on God through Christ. As one may think of entering Christianity, abiding in it, or falling from it, so one may speak of entering into (Ro 5:2), abiding in (Ac 13:43), or falling from (Ga 5:4) grace; compare 1Pe 5:12. So the teaching of Christianity may be summed up as word or gospel of grace (Ac 14:3; 20:24,32). So "grace be with you" closes the Epistles as a sufficient summary of all the blessings that can be wished Christian readers. At the beginning of the Epistles the words "and peace" are usually added, but this is due only to the influence of the Jewish greeting "peace be with you" (Lu 10:5, etc.), and not to any reflection on "grace" and "peace" as separate things. (It is possible that the Greek use of chairein, "rejoice," as an epistolary salutation (so in Jas 1:1) influenced the Christian use of charis. But that "grace and peace" was consciously regarded as a universalistic combination of Jewish and Gentilecustom is altogether unlikely.) The further expansion of the introductory formula by the introduction of "mercy" in 1 and 2Ti is quite without theological significance.

5. Teaching of Christ:

In the Greek Gospels, charis is used in the words of Christ only in Lu 6:32-34; 17:9. As Christ spoke in Aram, the choice of this word is due to Luke, probably under the influence of its common Christian use in his own day. And there is no word in our Lord’s recorded sayings that suggests that He employed habitually any especial term to denote grace in any of its senses. But the ideas are unambiguously present. That the pardon of sins is a free act on God’s part may be described as an essential in Christ’s teaching, and the lesson is taught in all manner of ways. The prodigal knowing only his own wretchedness (Lu 15:20), the publican without merit to urge (Lu 18:13), the sick who need a physician (Mr 2:17), they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Mt 5:6), these are the ones for whom God’s pardon is inexhaustible. And positive blessings, be they temporal or spiritual, are to be looked for from God, with perfect trust in Him who clothes the lilies and knows how to give good gifts to His children (Mt 7:11; here Lu 11:13 has "Holy Spirit" for "gifts," doubtless a Lukan interpretation, but certainly a correct one). Indeed, it is not too much to say that Christ knows but one unpardonable sin, the sin of spiritual self-satisfaction—"That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Lu 16:15; compare Lu 17:7-10; Mt 20:1-16).

6. In the Old Testament:

There is no word in Hebrew that can represent all the meanings of charis, and in the Septuagint charis itself is used, practically, only as a translation of the Hebrew chen, "favor," this restriction of meaning being due to the desire to represent the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word as far as possible. And chen, in turn, is used chiefly only in the phrase "find favor" (Ge 6:8, etc.), whether the reference is to God or men, and without theological importance. Much nearer Paul’s use of charis is ratson, "acceptance," in such p***ages as Isa 60:10, "In my favor have I had mercy on thee"; Ps 44:3, "not .... by their own sword .... but .... because thou wast favorable unto them." Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of checedh, "kindness," "mercy," as in Ex 20:6, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to p***ages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust. The main lines seem to be these:

(1) Technically, salvation by grace in the New Testament is opposed to an Old Testament doctrine of salvation by works (Ro 4:4; 11:6), or, what is the same thing, by law (Ro 6:14; Joh 1:17); i.e men and God are thought of as parties to a contract, to be fulfilled by each independently. Most of the legislation seems to presuppose some idea of man as a quan***y quite outside of God, while De 30:11-14 states explicitly that the law is not too hard nor too far off for man.

(2) Yet even this legalism is not without important modifications. The keeping of the law is man’s work, but that man has the law to keep is something for which God only is to be thanked. Ps 119 is the essence of legalism, but the writer feels overwhelmed throughout by the greatness of the mercy that disclosed such statutes to men. After all, the initial (and vital!) act is God’s not man’s. This is stated most sharply in Eze 23:1-4—Oholibah and her sister became God’s, not because of any virtue in them, but in spite of most revolting conduct. Compare De 7:7, etc.

(3) But even in the most legalistic p***ages, an absolute literal keeping of the law is never (not even in such a p***age as Nu 15:30,31) made a condition of salvation. The thought of transgression is at all times tempered with the thought of God’s pardon. The whole sacrificial system, in so far as it is expiatory, rests on God’s gracious acceptance of something in place of legal obedience, while the p***ages that offer God’s mercy without demanding even a sacrifice (Isa 1:18; Mic 7:18-20, etc.) are countless. Indeed, in Eze 16; 20; 23, mercy is promised to a nation that is spoken of as hardly even desiring it, a most extreme instance.

(4) But a mere negative granting of pardon is a most deficient definition of the Old Testament idea of God’s mercy, which delights in conferring positive benefits. The gift to Abraham of the land of Canaan, liberation from Egypt, food in the wilderness, salvation from enemies, deliverance from exile—all of Israel’s history can be felt to be the record of what God did for His people through no duty or compulsion, grateful thanksgiving for such unmerited blessings filling, for instance, much of the Psalter. The hearts of men are in God’s keeping, to receive from Him the impulse toward what is right (1Ch 29:18, etc.). And the promise is made that the God who has manifested Himself as a forgiving Father will in due time take hold of His children to work in them actual righteousness (Isa 1:26; 4:3,1; 32:1-8; 33:24; Jer 31:33,14; Eze 36:25,26; Zec 8; Da 9:24; Ps 51:10-12) With this promise—for the Old Testament always a matter of the future—the Old Testament teaching p***es into that of the New Testament.

7. Summary:

(The following is the most typical error of Mormon hermeneutics!!!)

Most of the discussions of the Biblical doctrine of grace have been faulty in narrowing the meaning of "grace" to some special sense, and then endeavoring to force this special sense on all the Biblical p***ages. For instance, Roman scholars, starting with the meaning of the word in (say) 2Co 12:9, have made Ro 3:24 state that men are justified by the infusion of Divine holiness into them, an interpretation that utterly ruins Paul’s argument. On the other hand, Protestant extremists have tried to reverse the process and have argued that grace cannot mean anything except favor as an at***ude, with results that are equally disastrous from the exegetical standpoint. And a confusion has resulted that has prevented men from seeing that most of the controversies about grace are at cross-purposes. A rigid definition is hardly possible, but still a single conception is actually present in almost every case where "grace" is found—the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ. The kingdom of heaven is reserved for those who become as little children, for those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do.

LITERATURE.

All the Biblical theologies contain full discussions of the subject; for the New Testament the closest definitions are given by Bernard Weiss. But for the meaning of "grace" in any particular place the commentaries must be consulted, although the student may be warned against discussions that argue too closely from what may seem to be parallel p***ages.


Written by Burton Scott Easton

[BigJulie]

Father JD, I couldn't help but smile with you post..it reminded me of when I was trying to explain my beliefs and this was the reply I received:


Have you ever heard this statement, "the simplicity of the Gospel?" I am sorry, but your explanation is quite complicated to say the least. I do not fault you BigJulie, for obviously this is what you have been taught, and this is what you believe, and I respect that.

[dfoJC]

So nice to be remembered...:)

with kind regards,
dfoJC

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

...
Written by Burton Scott Easton

No where does Mr. Easton answer the question: Does God respond to Man?

Nowhere does Mr. Easton ***ert that the gifts of Grace and Faith are NOT examples of God responding to Man.

[Father_JD]

No where does Mr. Easton answer the question: Does God respond to Man?

Nowhere does Mr. Easton ***ert that the gifts of Grace and Faith are NOT examples of God responding to Man.


Uh, you missed the whole point as usual, figster:

"Grace" has MULTIPLE MEANINGS.

"Faith" has MULITPLE MEANINGS. ( Which I haven't posted yet, waiting for you to settle on your skewed Mormon meaning of "grace".)

The question IS:

What do YOU mean by "grace" or "faith"?????

There are examples where one particular usage of "grace" appears to demonstrate that GOD RESPONDS TO MAN.

Got it now?? ;)

[Father_JD]

Father JD, I couldn't help but smile with you post..it reminded me of when I was trying to explain my beliefs and this was the reply I received:


The one and only TRUE Gospel IS simple:

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be SAVED".


The contextually-nuanced meanings of "grace" and "faith" are not necessarily simple. :)

[Russianwolfe]

Uh, you missed the whole point as usual, figster:

"Grace" has MULTIPLE MEANINGS.

"Faith" has MULITPLE MEANINGS. ( Which I haven't posted yet, waiting for you to settle on your skewed Mormon meaning of "grace".)

The question IS:

What do YOU mean by "grace" or "faith"?????

There are examples where one particular usage of "grace" appears to demonstrate that GOD RESPONDS TO MAN.

Got it now?? ;)

The problem is you don't understand the simple question.

The question is not about the definition of grace and faith. It is about God.

Got it now??? ;)

Marvin

[Father_JD]

The problem is you don't understand the simple question.

The question is not about the definition of grace and faith. It is about God.

Got it now??? ;)

Marvin

No, I'm afraid YOU don't get it, Marvin. Figgie's challenge is based upon his narrowistic Mormon "understanding" of the words.

I'm merely asking Figge exactly WHAT does he mean by "grace" or "faith".

The answer as to "whether God responds to man regarding grace and faith" is completely dependent upon this. :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The answer as to "whether God responds to man regarding grace and faith" is completely dependent upon this. :eek:

Why?

The question is a simple one and if you need to give a 20,000 word answer you can. Just answer the question, and provide all the qualifications you want to.

I'm waiting.

You have 3 options:

God NEVER responds to Man

God ALWAYS responds to Man

Only in certain cases does God respond to Man.

You seem to be leaning to no. 3. So explain.

[Russianwolfe]

No, I'm afraid YOU don't get it, Marvin. Figgie's challenge is based upon his narrowistic Mormon "understanding" of the words.

I'm merely asking Figge exactly WHAT does he mean by "grace" or "faith".

The answer as to "whether God responds to man regarding grace and faith" is completely dependent upon this. :eek:

Figbthistle never talked about what grace and faith were. His question asks nothing about definitions. You seem to be attempting to cloud the issue by asking irrelevant questions.

The question is about why God does something. Doesn't matter what the definition of grace and faith are. The question is about God.

Now can you answer the question or are you going to prove you don't have a clue?

Marvin

[Father_JD]

Figbthistle never talked about what grace and faith were. His question asks nothing about definitions. You seem to be attempting to cloud the issue by asking irrelevant questions.

The question is about why God does something. Doesn't matter what the definition of grace and faith are. The question is about God.

Now can you answer the question or are you going to prove you don't have a clue?

Marvin

That's just it, and NO you still don't get it. Figgie asked, "Does God respond to man's actions with GRACE AND FAITH?"

I therefore ask, "What do you MEAN by 'grace' and 'faith'??"

The answer is DEPENDENT UPON THE DEFINITIONS.

Got it...finally????????????????????? :eek:

[Father_JD]

Why?

The question is a simple one and if you need to give a 20,000 word answer you can. Just answer the question, and provide all the qualifications you want to.

I'm waiting.

You have 3 options:

God NEVER responds to Man

God ALWAYS responds to Man

Only in certain cases does God respond to Man.

You seem to be leaning to no. 3. So explain.


That is NOT what you asked in your OP:


What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Therefore I ask you, "What do you MEAN by 'the gift of Grace and Faith'?????"

You've equivocated your OWN QUESTION from "the gift of Grace and Faith" to that of a generic, "Does God respond to man's choices or actions"???

I'm more than happy to answer that: Of course he does. That's WHY you stand condemned by the REAL Christ of the Bible for your CHOICES:

Trusting in a FALSE GOD
Trusting in a FALSE CHRIST
Trusting in a FALSE GOSPEL
Trusting in FALSE PROPHETS.

You are an idolator figgie of the first rank.

Now...do you want to stop equivocating your own questions or what??? :rolleyes:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

That is NOT what you asked in your OP:


What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Therefore I ask you, "What do you MEAN by 'the gift of Grace and Faith'?????"

You've equivocated your OWN QUESTION from "the gift of Grace and Faith" to that of a generic, "Does God respond to man's choices or actions"???

I'm more than happy to answer that: Of course he does. That's WHY you stand condemned by the REAL Christ of the Bible for your CHOICES:

Trusting in a FALSE GOD
Trusting in a FALSE CHRIST
Trusting in a FALSE GOSPEL
Trusting in FALSE PROPHETS.

You are an idolator figgie of the first rank.

Now...do you want to stop equivocating your own questions or what??? :rolleyes:

The question headline was "Does God respond to Man?"

What do I mean by the gift of faith and grace? Here, Read (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/1-11#1) your Bible.

Your childish ranting aside, Do you believe God gives his gifts in response to man, or not?

[Berean]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

First, I'm always surprised when I read anything from LDS posters with the word "gift" in it when it comes to matters of faith. Mormonism is a works-oriented religious system. In the LDS Bible dictionary (I use the KJV Bible with the LDS Church stamp on the binder) on page 697 the word "grace" has this definition:

"This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation AFTER they have expended THEIR OWN BEST EFFORTS...grace cannot suffice without TOTAL EFFORT on the part of the recipient."

There is no biblical grace in that statement. Whatever you have to work for with your best efforts is not a gift either. Mormons don't get grace until they have completed the "checklist" in Moroni 10:32. I will try to simply answer your original question.

The mere act of believing is a gift. In the Bible, it's clear to Christians that mankind is corrupt and sinful in nature. Mankind is born in a sinful state and that has been the case since the fall of man with Adam (Romans 5:12). This is the exact opposite belief in Mormonism (Articles of Faith #2). Mormons think they aren't born with original sin and are therefore "off the hook". That is a lie from Satan and the Mormons have fell for it face-first (Romans 5:12). There is nothing that man can do to please God (Romans 8:8). We are all corrupt in His sight (Romans 3:10, 12, 23). Our works are disgusting in His sight (Isaiah 64:6). Mankind is dead in their sins and unable to please God and it was God who had to "quicken" us FIRST (Ephesians 2:1 & 5). God does not hear the sinner unless that person has done His will (John 9:31) - given the ability to believe (Philippians 1:29). What is His will? Jesus tells us in John 6:40: believe on Jesus.

God isn't subject to the whims and decisions of mankind waiting for man to make the first move. Just the simple act of believing in Christ has to come from the Father (Philippians 1:29). The Father has to "draw" the person to Christ (John 6:44). When the Father "draws" mankind and gives mankind the ability to believe, because mankind is dead in their sins and can't respond on their own, then God will respond with hearing the sinner AFTER that person has believed on the Son (prayer of repentance). Mankind is awarded the gift of eternal life for choosing to believe in Jesus (John 6:47). It's God FIRST - NOT man making a move first requiring God to act. Man deserves nothing on his own or his own merits. It's all about God - not us doing anything worthy enough to get God to give us His attention. We can't...we're garbage in His sight apart from Christ. Those without the real Jesus (God in the flesh) as taugt in the Bible are utterly lost and dead.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Berean;17673]First, I'm always surprised when I read anything from LDS posters with the word "gift" in it when it comes to matters of faith. Mormonism is a works-oriented religious system. In the LDS Bible dictionary (I use the KJV Bible with the LDS Church stamp on the binder) on page 697 the word "grace" has this definition:

"This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation AFTER they have expended THEIR OWN BEST EFFORTS...grace cannot suffice without TOTAL EFFORT on the part of the recipient." We call it accountability--that God expects us to give our all as he did when he died on the cross on our behalf. We do not believe we can be luke warm of give half in effort in turning over our will to God.


There is no biblical grace in that statement. Whatever you have to work for with your best efforts is not a gift either. Mormons don't get grace until they have completed the "checklist" in Moroni 10:32. I will try to simply answer your original question. The atonement is a gift to all of mankind that he cannot do for himself--in other words, even with our best effort, we cannot over come death and sin--therefore, we need this gift from God.


The mere act of believing is a gift. In the Bible, it's clear to Christians that mankind is corrupt and sinful in nature. Mankind is born in a sinful state and that has been the case since the fall of man with Adam (Romans 5:12). This is the exact opposite belief in Mormonism (Articles of Faith #2). Mormons think they aren't born with original sin and are therefore "off the hook". That is a lie from Satan and the Mormons have fell for it face-first (Romans 5:12). There is nothing that man can do to please God (Romans 8:8). We are all corrupt in His sight (Romans 3:10, 12, 23). Our works are disgusting in His sight (Isaiah 64:6). Mankind is dead in their sins and unable to please God and it was God who had to "quicken" us FIRST (Ephesians 2:1 & 5). God does not hear the sinner unless that person has done His will (John 9:31) - given the ability to believe (Philippians 1:29). What is His will? Jesus tells us in John 6:40: believe on Jesus. This comment about Mormon's being "off the hook" is this gift that you seem to not recognize. We believe that we would be born in a sinful state if it were not for the atonement of Christ who has given us a clean slate from Adam---the atonement makes us responsible to God for ourselves, rather than responsible for Adam's behavior as well.


God isn't subject to the whims and decisions of mankind waiting for man to make the first move. You are right, the first move he made was to atone for the sins of the world---because God didn't send his son to condemn the world, but to save it.


Just the simple act of believing in Christ has to come from the Father (Philippians 1:29). The Father has to "draw" the person to Christ (John 6:44). Mormons don't believe that this occurs randomly, but that God answers all that seek him--in other words, to Mormons, God loves all and desires to bless all.


When the Father "draws" mankind and gives mankind the ability to believe, because mankind is dead in their sins and can't respond on their own, then God will respond with hearing the sinner AFTER that person has believed on the Son (prayer of repentance). Mankind is awarded the gift of eternal life for choosing to believe in Jesus (John 6:47). To Mormons, this act of believing can be seen in the way they behave and the commitment they make to turn their will fully over to God--no half effort will do.


It's God FIRST - NOT man making a move first requiring God to act. Man deserves nothing on his own or his own merits. It's all about God - not us doing anything worthy enough to get God to give us His attention. We can't...we're garbage in His sight apart from Christ. Those without the real Jesus (God in the flesh) as taugt in the Bible are utterly lost and dead. I agree, the first effort made by God happened before the creation of the world, in which a savior was provided. The only difference I see is that you believe God randomly picks and chooses whom he will save, and I believe that he will save all who are willing to follow him. While you see mankind as garbage, I see mankind as children of God, whom he loves and desires to save. All we need to do is turn to God and be willing to turn ourselves over to him.

[Father_JD]

The question headline was "Does God respond to Man?"

And THEN you qualified it by GIFT OF GRACE AND FAITH. Do you not know what you wrote, figgie??? Why do you persist in your games?



What do I mean by the gift of faith and grace? Here, Read (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/15/1-11#1) your Bible.

Your childish ranting aside, Do you believe God gives his gifts in response to man, or not?

And what does John 15 have to do with this?? Enlighen me.


IF you mean does God give gifts in response as some kind of "reward", NO, God does NOT give "gifts" that MUST BE EARNED BY WORKS RIGHTEOUENESS.

You're playing your little juvenile word games, Figgster, refusing to DEFINE your terms in hopes of trapping anyone who deigns to play your little Mormon reindeer games. :rolleyes:

[Charity]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

FBT,

This is my understanding of grace. In 2 Timothy 1:9, the Apostle Paul makes a remarkable statement that God's grace "was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time."

God's grace eternally existed for us literally "before time existed." That's why the NIV translates the verse by saying that God's grace was given to us "before time began."

His grace exists outside of cause-and-effect phenomena, that is why it's grace! It's independent of human actions, thoughts, words, choices, or at***udes.

Since Christ's grace existed for us in His own timeless eternity, not one human act or choice as been excluded from grace. But it still needs to be received, or accepted.

"He hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world...", Ephesians 1:4

God is the author and finisher of our faith. Faith begins and ends with Him. Faith is not something we can manufacture within ourselves, something that resides in our personality or something that is determined by heredity, intelligence or even religious belief. Faith is simply being fully persuaded that God is able to do all that He has promised.

Each believer receives a measure of faith upon being born again (conversion)Our capacity for faith will be enlarged or diminished by our own individual choices. Its necessary that we be completely convinced that God will keep His Word and do the impossible, regardless of how we feel or what we think.

My personal faith has grown in the years since I began studying the Bible and praying faithfully. I believe the Holy Spirit turtors us as we study the Bible giving us more of an understanding of His plan for our lives and His plan for His creation. When we see God's heart in relation to the Cross our faith in Him grows.

In His Grace through Faith,
Charity

[Berean]

[QUOTE] We call it accountability--that God expects us to give our all as he did when he died on the cross on our behalf. We do not believe we can be luke warm of give half in effort in turning over our will to God.

Nice spin, but it doesn't work - not with the Bible - only in Mormonland. We're not talking about accountability or will. We're talking about grace and faith. Grace is unmerited favor. The LDS definition of grace is clear. Have you given TOTAL EFFORT? If not, then I guess you get no grace. Are you perfected in him, denied yourself of all ungodliness and love God with all your might, mind and strength (Moroni 10:32)? If so, your the first Mormon in history to answer "yes" to that question. If not, then you have no grace from your christ until you do so, that is if you believe what is in the Book of Mormon. Mormons today have their own individual hybrid form of Mormonism. Obedience is different than grace. The Mormon god requires your due diligence in adding to this by your own efforts to what the Mormon jesus did on your "cross". There is no grace in that. If your involved in the process, then it's man-based - not completely of Christ. The Mormon jesus couldn't do it all for the Mormon:

“When he (Jesus) became our Savior, he did his part to help us return to our heavenly home. It is now up to each of us to do our part and become worthy of exaltation.” (Gospel Principles, page 19)


The atonement is a gift to all of mankind that he cannot do for himself--in other words, even with our best effort, we cannot over come death and sin--therefore, we need this gift from God.

Once again, we have to define our terms. The LDS atonement is radically different than the atonement of Christianity. Even so, this gift from the Mormon jesus is not enough for Mormons to gain anything higher than the terrestrial kingdom - big deal! Honest Mormons tell me that anything less than exaltation (becoming a god) is ****ation to them. If a Mormon wants that, it's all up to them to get it - work - grace, faith and the atoning work of Christ are out of the picture.


This comment about Mormon's being "off the hook" is this gift that you seem to not recognize. We believe that we would be born in a sinful state if it were not for the atonement of Christ who has given us a clean slate from Adam---the atonement makes us responsible to God for ourselves, rather than responsible for Adam's behavior as well.

...only in Mormon doctrine is that so. It's obvious that you haven't read the Bible verses that do not support Mormon "theology". Romans 5:12 and Ephesians 2:1 & 5 are very clear. You are dead in your TRESP***ES and sins. Romans 5:12 says "all men". This epistle written by Paul was AFTER the ascension of Christ. You can either take the apostles word from the Bible which is inspired of God or you can take the word of Joseph Smith. I'm going with the Bible.


You are right, the first move he made was to atone for the sins of the world---because God didn't send his son to condemn the world, but to save it. Mormons don't believe that this occurs randomly, but that God answers all that seek him--in other words, to Mormons, God loves all and desires to bless all.

In Mormonism, everyone is a child of the Mormon god because they are his offspring from relations with the Mormon mother in heaven. In the Bible, only those that have RECEIVED Him are the children of God (John 1:12). Rejection of the real Savior of the Bible lands a person in outer darkness - not another kingdom/heaven regardless of that person's belief.


To Mormons, this act of believing can be seen in the way they behave and the commitment they make to turn their will fully over to God--no half effort will do.

Once again, have you fulfilled the definition of "grace" in your own Bible dictionary and in Moroni 10:32? If so, you're the first. They need to put your picture in the Ensign.


I agree, the first effort made by God happened before the creation of the world, in which a savior was provided. The only difference I see is that you believe God randomly picks and chooses whom he will save, and I believe that he will save all who are willing to follow him. While you see mankind as garbage, I see mankind as children of God, whom he loves and desires to save. All we need to do is turn to God and be willing to turn ourselves over to him.

The God of the Bible can do whatever He wants. He is not bound by man's dictates. God will give eternal life to those that put their total faith in Christ and trusting him to completely do for him/her TOTALLY what they could not do for themselves which is gain acceptance and reconciliation of the Father thus the need for Christ to atone for our sins. God sees mankind in his efforts and works to please him as "filthy rags" (garbage - pick any word you like) in Isaiah 64:6. We are dead in our sins and we cannot please him in the flesh. The Scriptures are clear as I gave them above. The Bible says that some are children of God and others are children of the devil. Jesus said that. Let me know if you want the references. It's in the LDS KJV Bible. John 3:16 is a true statement. God loved the world enough to send His Son for us to be our subs***utionary atonement to reconcile us with the Father. Mankind is born with a sin nature. In Christianity it's all about Christ. In Mormonism it's all about them adding to what their jesus could not completely do for them in their quest to become a god. If that wasn't the case, then Mormons wouldn't be dependent on their spouse in celestial marriage in making it to the LDS celestial kingdom to be with their heavenly father. The Mormon jesus is "out to lunch" on that quest. It's all up to the Mormon. It may make you feel self-righteous and proud, but you won't square any of that up with the Bible and you sure can't call to your jesus to help you out in that quest either. Your all on your own - oh yeah, and with the help of your spouse and family.

Where is your jesus and his atonement in this statement?

“Thanks to God’s great plan of happiness, families can be together forever – as exalted beings. No man in this Church can obtain the highest degree of celestial glory without a worthy woman who is sealed to him. This temple ordinance enables eventual exaltation for both of them. Any discussion of family responsibilities to prepare for exaltation would be incomplete if we included only mother, father, and children. What about grandparents and other ancestors? The Lord has revealed that we cannot become perfect without them; neither can they without us be made perfect. Sealing ordinances are essential to exaltation. A wife needs to be sealed to her husband; children need to be sealed to their parents; and we all need to be connected with our ancestors. In God’s eternal plan, salvation is an individual matter; exaltation is a family matter.” [Emphasis added] (Mormon Apostle Russell Nelson, Ensign, May, 2008, pages 7-10).

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

And THEN you qualified it by GIFT OF GRACE AND FAITH. Do you not know what you wrote, figgie??? Why do you persist in your games?




And what does John 15 have to do with this?? Enlighen me.

You pretend to understand grace and can't see a tie in here? Amazing.

So why can't a gift be given in response to something the receive has done?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The mere act of believing is a gift. In the Bible, it's clear to Christians that mankind is corrupt and sinful in nature. Mankind is born in a sinful state and that has been the case since the fall of man with Adam (Romans 5:12). This is the exact opposite belief in Mormonism (Articles of Faith #2). Mormons think they aren't born with original sin and are therefore "off the hook". That is a lie from Satan and the Mormons have fell for it face-first (Romans 5:12). There is nothing that man can do to please God (Romans 8:8). We are all corrupt in His sight (Romans 3:10, 12, 23). Our works are disgusting in His sight (Isaiah 64:6). Mankind is dead in their sins and unable to please God and it was God who had to "quicken" us FIRST (Ephesians 2:1 & 5). God does not hear the sinner unless that person has done His will (John 9:31) - given the ability to believe (Philippians 1:29). What is His will? Jesus tells us in John 6:40: believe on Jesus.

God isn't subject to the whims and decisions of mankind waiting for man to make the first move. Just the simple act of believing in Christ has to come from the Father (Philippians 1:29). The Father has to "draw" the person to Christ (John 6:44). When the Father "draws" mankind and gives mankind the ability to believe, because mankind is dead in their sins and can't respond on their own, then God will respond with hearing the sinner AFTER that person has believed on the Son (prayer of repentance). Mankind is awarded the gift of eternal life for choosing to believe in Jesus (John 6:47). It's God FIRST - NOT man making a move first requiring God to act. Man deserves nothing on his own or his own merits. It's all about God - not us doing anything worthy enough to get God to give us His attention. We can't...we're garbage in His sight apart from Christ. Those without the real Jesus (God in the flesh) as taugt in the Bible are utterly lost and dead.

Hey, this is great. Another advocate for unbelief has joined the ranks accompanied by hellfire, and ****ation preaching. Welcome Barean.

So, Barean says NO. God does not respond to man because man is like a vile worm in God's eyes.

[Berean]

Ah, Fig, what's the matter, you don't like those "plain and precious truths" from the Bible that state that you are born a sinner, dead in your sins and unable ON YOUR OWN FIRST to please God? That's what happens when you put your eternal destiny in what a 14 year-old farm boy from New York supposedly said when he decided to redefine Bible doctrines.

I didn't say that God doesn't respond to man. You need to pay attention. I'm saying that God gives mankind the ability to believe (Romans 1; Phil 1:29). If one prays to God and they haven't acted on that faith that has been given him bringing conviction, repentance and receiving the Son, then God the Father has no obligation to hear that person. When mankind acts on that belief that God has given him and believes on the Savior, then God gives the gift of eternal life. It's really very simple. God is not asleep somewhere waiting on man to make his move FIRST, then He does something. God has already moved - FIRST. You've been given the ability to believe and have decided to follow the "jesus" and god of Joseph Smith's imagination instead of the Christ and God of the Bible. You've also been made accountable for your heresy by being here on this forum where faithful Christians witness to you out of gra***ude for what the Savior has done for them (that's called "works" - Christians believe in works and do it too - not because they have to, but because they want to...big difference) and if you continue to put your faith in the fictional "jesus" of Mormonism and your god that is an exalted man living near a star called Kolob, then you will be judged for that too. You have no excuse (Romans 1:20).

Your "straw man" question in trying to be clever has only worked against you. Also, have you given TOTAL EFFORT for LDS grace? Yeah, I guess not. Where does that leave you? I guess still running the Mormon "hamster wheel" going nowhere. Nope, not everybody is going to make it to the real heaven as taught in the Bible. It's a narrow road and only few will go there. Most are headed for outer darkness (Matthew 7:13-14). You don't like it? Take it up with the Savior at the judgement. It's time to crawl out of your Mormon comfort zone and face the reality of where you stand according to the Bible: LOST.

[Father_JD]

You pretend to understand grace and can't see a tie in here? Amazing.

So why can't a gift be given in response to something the receive has done?


Duh. Because "gifts" by NATURE, by DEFINITION are NOT EARNED, figgie. And you pretend to understand grace and can't see how you've equivocated the meaning of the term here? Amazing.:eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Duh. Because "gifts" by NATURE, by DEFINITION are NOT EARNED, figgie. And you pretend to understand grace and can't see how you've equivocated the meaning of the term here? Amazing.:eek:

So, JD, your conclusion appears to be that God does not respond to man.

And that is a huge reason why I tell people to "Just say NO to hyper-Calvinism."

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Ah, Fig, what's the matter, you don't like those "plain and precious truths" from the Bible that state that you are born a sinner, dead in your sins and unable ON YOUR OWN FIRST to please God? That's what happens when you put your eternal destiny in what a 14 year-old farm boy from New York supposedly said when he decided to redefine Bible doctrines.

I didn't say that God doesn't respond to man. You need to pay attention. I'm saying that God gives mankind the ability to believe (Romans 1; Phil 1:29). If one prays to God and they haven't acted on that faith that has been given him bringing conviction, repentance and receiving the Son, then God the Father has no obligation to hear that person. When mankind acts on that belief that God has given him and believes on the Savior, then God gives the gift of eternal life. It's really very simple. God is not asleep somewhere waiting on man to make his move FIRST, then He does something. God has already moved - FIRST. You've been given the ability to believe and have decided to follow the "jesus" and god of Joseph Smith's imagination instead of the Christ and God of the Bible. You've also been made accountable for your heresy by being here on this forum where faithful Christians witness to you out of gra***ude for what the Savior has done for them (that's called "works" - Christians believe in works and do it too - not because they have to, but because they want to...big difference) and if you continue to put your faith in the fictional "jesus" of Mormonism and your god that is an exalted man living near a star called Kolob, then you will be judged for that too. You have no excuse (Romans 1:20).

Your "straw man" question in trying to be clever has only worked against you. Also, have you given TOTAL EFFORT for LDS grace? Yeah, I guess not. Where does that leave you? I guess still running the Mormon "hamster wheel" going nowhere. Nope, not everybody is going to make it to the real heaven as taught in the Bible. It's a narrow road and only few will go there. Most are headed for outer darkness (Matthew 7:13-14). You don't like it? Take it up with the Savior at the judgement. It's time to crawl out of your Mormon comfort zone and face the reality of where you stand according to the Bible: LOST.

OK. I happen to agree but would add that God gives all mankind the ability to believe, not just some?

So, then what?

Depending on what man does with this ability to believe, does God respond to Man? If you say "yes" then we agree (thus far.)

[Berean]

OK. I happen to agree but would add that God gives all mankind the ability to believe, not just some?

So, then what?

Depending on what man does with this ability to believe, does God respond to Man? If you say "yes" then we agree (thus far.)

For the record, I'm not a 5-pointer (Calvinist) and I'm certainly no hyper-Calvinist. That group can't explain to me why they "sit on their hands" when Christ made it clear in the Great Commission of Matthew 28 what believers are to do. You won't see hyper-Calvinists here anyway. They don't bother talking to Mormons - well, they don't bother talking to anyone...pretty lazy and not Scripturally supported.

To answer your question, all I can simply do is point to Romans 1:19-20 and say that God has made it obvious to all of creation who He is and has given people a measure of faith to believe. If not, then what He said in verse 20 "they are without excuse" would not hold up and we know that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18).

The vast majority of people will not act on that measure of faith given to them. In John 1:9 Christ gives light to every man. This does not mean universal salvation or general revelation or even inner illumination. Instead, it means that Christ as the Light shines on each person either in salvation or in illuminating him with regard to his sin and coming judgement. Matthew 7:13-14 is clear when it says that most people are going to choose the "broad road" and head off to outer darkness. Is this what God wants? Absolutely not! See 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekial 18:23 & 32.

When man, who is dead in his sins because he is born with a sin nature, acts on the faith and the ability to believe that was given to him by the Father, then YES, God will respond! If not, then why did the Son even come here?God hears the prayer of a repentant sinner who is acting on that measure of faith and putting their trust in His Son. God has already moved FIRST. Mankind has to respond with that faith. Next, God moves again (LAST) and gives man that gift of eternal life for acting on that faith by placing it in the Son. Again, it's all about God the Father and God the Son/Jesus. For us to put ourselves anywhere in the equation for our efforts in any regard is to downplay what God did for us FIRST and LAST (I'm not equating this with Isaiah 44:6).

I hope that makes sense.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Berean;17698][

The God of the Bible can do whatever He wants. He is not bound by man's dictates. God will give eternal life to those that put their total faith in Christ and trusting him to completely do for him/her TOTALLY what they could not do for themselves which is gain acceptance and reconciliation of the Father thus the need for Christ to atone for our sins.

In all of your post, I could have not said it better myself. God will give eternal life to those that put their total faith in Christ and trusting him...

Yes, I agree. This is what I call turning our will over to God and trusting him to do what we cannot...to me that is what faith is. Do you find that you turn your will to him with absolutely no effort, or do you need to rely on him to help you overcome your own will? Mormons dont' believe you can sit back and do nothing in this process. They believe that one must turn over their will and that this takes a full committment and effort on one's part. Is your experience any different? Do you just say, God, take over and never find yourself struggling to give up total control of your life? When Christ asked the rich young ruler to give up everything he had and follow him, why didn't the rich young ruler do it...was it Christ's fault for not regenerating him or his own for not being willing to make the effort?

I must admit, I think people are so brainwashed about what Mormons believe, that they don't actually listen to we are saying. If you listen to your own words, you will see that you also believe that you must put your total faith in Christ---that is what I was saying and that is what we as Mormons believe as well.

[Berean]

[QUOTE]

In all of your post, I could have not said it better myself. God will give eternal life to those that put their total faith in Christ and trusting him...

Yes, I agree. This is what I call turning our will over to God and trusting him to do what we cannot...to me that is what faith is. Do you find that you turn your will to him with absolutely no effort, or do you need to rely on him to help you overcome your own will? Mormons dont' believe you can sit back and do nothing in this process. They believe that one must turn over their will and that this takes a full committment and effort on one's part. Is your experience any different? Do you just say, God, take over and never find yourself struggling to give up total control of your life? When Christ asked the rich young ruler to give up everything he had and follow him, why didn't the rich young ruler do it...was it Christ's fault for not regenerating him or his own for not being willing to make the effort?

I must admit, I think people are so brainwashed about what Mormons believe, that they don't actually listen to we are saying. If you listen to your own words, you will see that you also believe that you must put your total faith in Christ---that is what I was saying and that is what we as Mormons believe as well.

Julie,

I'm reading what you are saying and I've listened personally to Mormons in discussions to what they are saying. Here's the problem: you don't speak for church, you have no authority to speak for the General Authorities (they won't engage non-Mormons in discussions so I guess church members have no choice but to do it themselves) and much of what I hear is not official doctrines and teachings of your church. Most of the Mormons I know have lately been creating their own form of individual hybrid Mormonism. This is not Julieonism - it's Mormonism.

No, the only ones that are brainwashed, unfortunately, are our precious Mormon friends that have bought into the gospel, god and jesus of Joseph Smith's creation and imagination. They have blindly accepted what he told them in trusting in their feelings to determine truth (D&C 9 - burning of the bosom) instead of trusting what the real God has already said is truth. They have prayed about a book (Book of Mormon) that Joseph Smith used to translate by using a seer stone that he placed in his hat in which he was given the words. I'll be happy to give you the references if you are ignorant of this fact. The latest Mormon to acknowledge this fact was Mormo apostle Russell Nelson.

Yes, God can do whatever He wants, BUT HE WILL NOT violate His word. There are some things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). He will also not change (Malachi 3:6). Christianity doesn't put God in a box and tell Him that He cannot speak anymore. This is another misconception by Mormons. They think Christians don't believe in further revelation. God can do and say whatever He wants at anytime. I am not about to put limits on omnipotent, omniscient God.

This thread topic isn't much about "will", it's all about grace and faith. We also aren't talking about works. Christianity believes in works and we are all about it, but it's a by-product of a saving grace and faith that has already taken place. Mormons put the cart of good works before the horse of grace. Why do I say this? Mormons have things they have to do BEFORE they can get grace from their "jesus". According to Moroni 10:32 they must:

1. Be perfected in him
2. Deny themselves of ALL ungodliness
3. Love God with all your might, might and strength

"THEN is his grace sufficient for you". Have you done this? Do you know any Mormon who has ever done this?

Again, the LDS defintion of grace on page 697 in the back of the Bible says that "total effort" must be given to receive grace. You don't see that theology in the Bible. Grace is unmerited favor. There is nothing you can do in any way on your own to be worthy or work for grace. You were given grace since the beginning of time. Christianity doesn't have a checklist of what we have to do to get grace. You can't earn grace. As long as you confuse grace or faith with works that are done after the fact, you won't understand this.

[Father_JD]

So, JD, your conclusion appears to be that God does not respond to man.

Nope. Didn't say that Figgie and I suggest you actually READ responses before answering. God DOES respond to man in many ways. Does He REWARD people with salvivic grace and faith in "response" to man's choices and actions...to that I heartily say, NO because the BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS.

You have to re-define Biblical terms...equivocate them to make them conform to Mormon dogma.


And that is a huge reason why I tell people to "Just say NO to hyper-Calvinism."

And I heartily AGREE for everyone to say NO to HYPER-Calvinism as well.

(Hint...you have no idea what Calvinism is or it's perverted form of it do you??)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

For the record, I'm not a 5-pointer (Calvinist) and I'm certainly no hyper-Calvinist. That group can't explain to me why they "sit on their hands" when Christ made it clear in the Great Commission of Matthew 28 what believers are to do. You won't see hyper-Calvinists here anyway. They don't bother talking to Mormons - well, they don't bother talking to anyone...pretty lazy and not Scripturally supported.

To answer your question, all I can simply do is point to Romans 1:19-20 and say that God has made it obvious to all of creation who He is and has given people a measure of faith to believe. If not, then what He said in verse 20 "they are without excuse" would not hold up and we know that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18).

The vast majority of people will not act on that measure of faith given to them. In John 1:9 Christ gives light to every man. This does not mean universal salvation or general revelation or even inner illumination. Instead, it means that Christ as the Light shines on each person either in salvation or in illuminating him with regard to his sin and coming judgement. Matthew 7:13-14 is clear when it says that most people are going to choose the "broad road" and head off to outer darkness. Is this what God wants? Absolutely not! See 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekial 18:23 & 32.

When man, who is dead in his sins because he is born with a sin nature, acts on the faith and the ability to believe that was given to him by the Father, then YES, God will respond! If not, then why did the Son even come here?God hears the prayer of a repentant sinner who is acting on that measure of faith and putting their trust in His Son. God has already moved FIRST. Mankind has to respond with that faith. Next, God moves again (LAST) and gives man that gift of eternal life for acting on that faith by placing it in the Son. Again, it's all about God the Father and God the Son/Jesus. For us to put ourselves anywhere in the equation for our efforts in any regard is to downplay what God did for us FIRST and LAST (I'm not equating this with Isaiah 44:6).

I hope that makes sense.

I think we actually agree on some points. But if, as you say, God has made it obvious to all of creation who He is and has given people a measure of faith to believe. If not, then what He said in verse 20 "they are without excuse" would not hold up and we know that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18).

If Jesus Christ is obvious to all, including all those who never heard of him, then why the great commission? And why didn't the great commission include the heathen nations that were separated from the Apostles by oceans?

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Berean;17728][QUOTE=BigJulie;17723]

Julie,

I'm reading what you are saying and I've listened personally to Mormons in discussions to what they are saying. Here's the problem: you don't speak for church, you have no authority to speak for the General Authorities (they won't engage non-Mormons in discussions so I guess church members have no choice but to do it themselves) and much of what I hear is not official doctrines and teachings of your church. Most of the Mormons I know have lately been creating their own form of individual hybrid Mormonism. This is not Julieonism - it's Mormonism. You are right..you are hearing the opinion of someone who has been going to church for decades and reading the scriptures and listening to conference talks. Unfortunately, you do not seem to understand that if one does not understand the full gospel, it is easy to spin text and sensationalize it by taking a bit here and a bit there and ignoring the full-context. You can either believe what non-members who only look to find fault tell you, are you can believe what devout faithful attending Mormons tell you they believe.


No, the only ones that are brainwashed, unfortunately, are our precious Mormon friends that have bought into the gospel, god and jesus of Joseph Smith's creation and imagination. They have blindly accepted what he told them in trusting in their feelings to determine truth (D&C 9 - burning of the bosom) instead of trusting what the real God has already said is truth. They have prayed about a book (Book of Mormon) that Joseph Smith used to translate by using a seer stone that he placed in his hat in which he was given the words. I'll be happy to give you the references if you are ignorant of this fact. The latest Mormon to acknowledge this fact was Mormo apostle Russell Nelson. I haven't blindly accepted anything. I trust that God does hear and answer my prayers and that his answers will be congruent with what he teaches. You can make fun a seer stone all you want, but other religions can make fun of a talking donkey, animals marching on to a boat, ephods, and animal sacrifices. I do not make fun of any of these things because I understand that the things of God are often laughed at by mankind.


Yes, God can do whatever He wants, BUT HE WILL NOT violate His word. There are some things that God cannot do. He cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). He will also not change (Malachi 3:6). Christianity doesn't put God in a box and tell Him that He cannot speak anymore. This is another misconception by Mormons. They think Christians don't believe in further revelation. God can do and say whatever He wants at anytime. I am not about to put limits on omnipotent, omniscient God. I am glad that you don't put limits on God, and you are right, God does not change...but what he tells his children changes for the circumstance they are in. This is why he can tell his apostles not to go to the gentiles or samaritans, but then give Peter a revelation to do such a thing.


This thread topic isn't much about "will", it's all about grace and faith. We also aren't talking about works. Christianity believes in works and we are all about it, but it's a by-product of a saving grace and faith that has already taken place. Mormons put the cart of good works before the horse of grace. Why do I say this? Mormons have things they have to do BEFORE they can get grace from their "jesus". According to Moroni 10:32 they must:

1. Be perfected in him
2. Deny themselves of ALL ungodliness
3. Love God with all your might, might and strength

"THEN is his grace sufficient for you". Have you done this? Do you know any Mormon who has ever done this? You lack understanding of our doctrine and so bear false witness against us. I do not believe I can be perfected in God, nor have the pure love of Christ without God giving me this ability. What I said is that we must fully committ ourselves to following him, we must turn over our will to him in order for him to do this. This is the effort we make. Maybe for you, this is no effort--maybe God will's it and you have no choice but to turn your will over. Mormons believe that God does remove agency or the ability to choose from us. What does your own personal experience tell you? Does God force you to follow him or do you have to make an effort to turn your will over to him--with his Spirit helping you to do this fully AFTER you have made the committment?

Oh, by the way, the very first part of Moroni 10:32 is "Yea, Come unto Christ and be perfected in him..." ..."and deny yourself all ungodliness" ...and if you keep reading..."if ye by the grace of Christ are perfect in Christ and deny not his power"...

You seem to miss the whole point of this discussion which is that when we come unto Christ and let go of our sins, Christ is the one that does the perfecting.

Again, the LDS defintion of grace on page 697 in the back of the Bible says that "total effort" must be given to receive grace. You don't see that theology in the Bible. Grace is unmerited favor. There is nothing you can do in any way on your own to be worthy or work for grace. You were given grace since the beginning of time. Christianity doesn't have a checklist of what we have to do to get grace. You can't earn grace. As long as you confuse grace or faith with works that are done after the fact, you won't understand this. Grace is an unmerited favor given to all mankind with the atonement of Jesus Christ. Without this atonement, no one, regardless of their choices, could be saved. This gift can never be removed. There is no checklist to recieve it. On the other hand, those who desire eternal life must be willing to fully committ themselves to God. You never answered my question. For the rich young man who came to Christ---why did he go away sad? Was it because of his lack of willingness to make a total effort (as we know he was making an effort as he explained to Christ) or was it Christ's lack of effort to fully recover him? Why did Christ ask him to do more? Would it require an effort on this young man's part, in fact, would it take a "total effort' for him to sale all he had and give it to the poor or not? Or was it Christ's fault for him not having what it took to do as Christ asked?

[Father_JD]

Grace is an unmerited favor given to all mankind with the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Grace is indeed "unmerited favor".
Grace is NOT given to "all mankind".

Again, you confuse resurrection for salvation.

[BigJulie]

Grace is indeed "unmerited favor".
Grace is NOT given to "all mankind".

Again, you confuse resurrection for salvation.

I never did see your step by step explaination of Romans---care to do it now? The way I read it, Christ overcame the fall of Adam. Do you remember the sentence for sin? I think you would agree it is death. Who do you think is not going to be resurrected?

[Berean]

I think we actually agree on some points. But if, as you say, God has made it obvious to all of creation who He is and has given people a measure of faith to believe. If not, then what He said in verse 20 "they are without excuse" would not hold up and we know that God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18).

If Jesus Christ is obvious to all, including all those who never heard of him, then why the great commission? And why didn't the great commission include the heathen nations that were separated from the Apostles by oceans?

The person, work, earthly ministry, deity and nature of Jesus Christ is not known to all mankind. The gospel message isn't known to all of mankind. Right, that would make the command in the Great Commission pointless and confusing. What is made known to mankind is the inner awareness that there is a God. He created what we see, stand on, etc. We have inner awareness of right and wrong. He has made it known to us. That is one of the points made in Romans chapter 1.

The Great Commission does include the heathen nations of the world. The Apostles went out as far as they could obviously and fulfilled their personal ministry in fulfilling the Great Commission. They were all martyred for it except for John. He died an old man in 101 AD in the city of Ephesus. I know D&C 7 says otherwise, but you can accept the historical record or you can accept Joseph Smith's personal opinion. History says he is wrong. The apostles died and other "picked up the torch" and kept going. The disciples of the original 12 are known in Christianity as the early church Fathers. For example, Jesus discipled John. John discipled Polycarp. Polycarp discipled Irenaeus. It just goes on from there...a successive line.

Christians are in those heathen nations now and have been for many years. I am a supporter and involved in a ministry called Voice of the Martyrs. They've been around for over 40 years. They support the persecuted church all over the world in hostile nations. People have no idea what is going on out there when it comes to modern-day fulfilling of the Great Commission. Christians are still being brutally martyred, abused, tortured and persecuted in many hostile nations. The monthly newsletter and magazine has the color photos to prove it. It's physically nauseating to look at the photos. It's heartbreaking and it's a reality check for American Christians who are here being comfy and cozy. The numbers of Christians who are dying for their faith because of fulfilling the Great Commission today is staggering. Does the LDS Church do this?

Voice of the Martyrs: http://www.persecution.com/

[Berean]

Big Julie said: "I haven't blindly accepted anything. I trust that God does hear and answer my prayers and that his answers will be congruent with what he teaches. You can make fun a seer stone all you want, but other religions can make fun of a talking donkey, animals marching on to a boat, ephods, and animal sacrifices. I do not make fun of any of these things because I understand that the things of God are often laughed at by mankind."

I'm not making fun of it (seer stone). I'm stating a historical LDS fact that most Mormons have no clue about. Seer stone in the hat...so much for the plates, huh? By the way, the "talking donkey, animals marching on to a boat, ephods and animal sacrifices" is in the LDS Standard Works as well. It's in my LDS KJV Bible. If you don't like it or think that shouldn't be in Mormonism because of Julie's opinion, then contact your ward bishop and work your way up to the top and see about having the Standard Works "adjusted" just like they did with the introduction to the Book of Mormon in the latest printing as compared to the 1981 version...nothing new here. The LDS Church has been doing these corrections and modifications since the 1830 version came out. I've read it and I couldn't believe the difference between the 1830 and the 1981 versions.

Anyway, Joseph Smith's seer stone is not in my LDS KJV Bible. That's called divination in Deuteronomy 18:10 and an abomination in verse 12. If you don't have a problem with this blatant misinterpretation of LDS history (your church said that Joseph Smith used the plates when he didn't) and you have swallowed this "bad medicine" down and you don't care and have no problem with it, then any type of discussion on grace and faith is a waste of time.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Berean;17783]
I'm not making fun of it (seer stone). I'm stating a historical LDS fact that most Mormons have no clue about. Seer stone in the hat...so much for the plates, huh? By the way, the "talking donkey, animals marching on to a boat, ephods and animal sacrifices" is in the LDS Standard Works as well. It's in my LDS KJV Bible. If you don't like it or think that shouldn't be in Mormonism because of Julie's opinion, then contact your ward bishop and work your way up to the top and see about having the Standard Works "adjusted" just like they did with the introduction to the Book of Mormon in the latest printing as compared to the 1981 version...nothing new here. The LDS Church has been doing these corrections and modifications since the 1830 version came out. I've read it and I couldn't believe the difference between the 1830 and the 1981 versions. You are all over the place with accusations. Don't worry, I have heard it all before, looked at it, and your claims only show a lacking of how the church works and how God works. I am glad you believe in talking donkeys as well. Good to know that there is plenty to scratch our head about if we are looking for logic.


Anyway, Joseph Smith's seer stone is not in my LDS KJV Bible. That's called divination in Deuteronomy 18:10 and an abomination in verse 12. If you don't have a problem with this blatant misinterpretation of LDS history (your church said that Joseph Smith used the plates when he didn't) and you have swallowed this "bad medicine" down and you don't care and have no problem with it, then any type of discussion on grace and faith is a waste of time. Do some research on the ephod and the Urim and Thummin and see what you find in the Bible...see what you can piece together.

[Father_JD]

I never did see your step by step explaination of Romans---care to do it now? The way I read it, Christ overcame the fall of Adam. Do you remember the sentence for sin? I think you would agree it is death. Who do you think is not going to be resurrected?

I suggest you go back and READ my response. Yes, Christ OVERCAME the "Fall", but scripture does NOT teach that it's UNIVERSALISTRIC in nature...but is ONLY efficacious FOR THE REDEEMED.

NOT for your garden-variety unrepentant SINNER.

Christ's resurrection PROVED that His atonement was ACCEPTABLE TO THE FATHER.

Yes, all will be resurrected, but in typical Mormon fashion you see only that portion of it that Mormonism permits you to.

Some are resurrected TO ETERNAL LIFE, others to ETERNAL ****ATION.

Now, how about engaging THAT?? :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Nope. Didn't say that Figgie and I suggest you actually READ responses before answering. God DOES respond to man in many ways. Does He REWARD people with salvivic grace and faith in "response" to man's choices and actions...to that I heartily say, NO because the BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS.

Does God GRANT people salvific grace and faith in "response" to individuals in any way shape or form?

What about the gift of 'additional' grace, and the gift of 'additional' faith. Are these given in any way at all as a response from God to Man?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The person, work, earthly ministry, deity and nature of Jesus Christ is not known to all mankind. The gospel message isn't known to all of mankind. Right, that would make the command in the Great Commission pointless and confusing. What is made known to mankind is the inner awareness that there is a God. He created what we see, stand on, etc. We have inner awareness of right and wrong. He has made it known to us. That is one of the points made in Romans chapter 1.

But isn't salvation dependent 'specifically' on a knowledge of and belief in the person named "Jesus Christ"? Isn't a knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel essential to salvation?

Or are you (or Paul), saying that for some people in this world, it is just the belief in a Supreme Being that will bring them to salvation, and these folks don't need to have a specific belief in the name and person of Jesus Christ?

[BigJulie]

I suggest you go back and READ my response. Yes, Christ OVERCAME the "Fall", but scripture does NOT teach that it's UNIVERSALISTRIC in nature...but is ONLY efficacious FOR THE REDEEMED.

NOT for your garden-variety unrepentant SINNER.

Christ's resurrection PROVED that His atonement was ACCEPTABLE TO THE FATHER.

Yes, all will be resurrected, but in typical Mormon fashion you see only that portion of it that Mormonism permits you to.

Some are resurrected TO ETERNAL LIFE, others to ETERNAL ****ATION.

Now, how about engaging THAT?? :eek:

But all are resurrected. Do you believe this would happen without Christ? Will you please define the word ****ation? Thanks.

[Father_JD]

But all are resurrected. Do you believe this would happen without Christ? Will you please define the word ****ation? Thanks.

So WHAT?? Yes, it could have happened WITHOUT CHRIST.

I suggest you look up the word, ****ation from a reputable BIBLE dictionary, and not what LD$, Inc. tells you what it means. :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

Does God GRANT people salvific grace and faith in "response" to individuals in any way shape or form?

NO, no, and no!


What about the gift of 'additional' grace, and the gift of 'additional' faith. Are these given in any way at all as a response from God to Man?


Finally we're getting some where. This is WHY I posted a lengthy article on the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "GRACE".

So YES, God does respond to the REGENERATE Christian with MORE grace, etc. :) This is CLEAR from the article I provided.

[BigJulie]

So WHAT?? Yes, it could have happened WITHOUT CHRIST.

I suggest you look up the word, ****ation from a reputable BIBLE dictionary, and not what LD$, Inc. tells you what it means. :rolleyes:

That is a pretty big difference in the way you believe and I do. I believe that because Adam partook of the fruit, he was subject to death as are all men born as a result. If it was not for Jesus Christ, I do not believe we could resurrected or overcome any type of death. I see that you believe that your resurrection was not dependent on Christ. This is the reason you and I read Romans differently.

[Berean]

But isn't salvation dependent 'specifically' on a knowledge of and belief in the person named "Jesus Christ"? Isn't a knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel essential to salvation?

Or are you (or Paul), saying that for some people in this world, it is just the belief in a Supreme Being that will bring them to salvation, and these folks don't need to have a specific belief in the name and person of Jesus Christ?

Yes, the Bible is clear that salvation (in Christianity this means eternal life) is through Jesus Christ and Him alone (Acts 4:12). If you are wanting to bring in the scenario or illustrative argument and question of what will happen to a person who has never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (ie: the pigmy in the Amazon jungle), all I can tell you is that the Bible - God's Word - says that God is a righteous judge and will judge fairly (Psalm 19:9; 96:12-13; Genesis 18:25). Jesus is God the Son and God the Father has appointed all judgement to the Son (John 5:22). Some in Christianity (Calvinists) would disagree with me on this, but I believe that the Son will judge fairly those that truly have never heard the name of Christ and these people will not be sent to eternal ****ation for not accepting a Savior they never heard of. I believe this group falls into the same category with infants, small children, mentally disabled, etc. I believe for people like the "pigmy in the Amazon jungle" they will be held accountable for what has been made known to them (Romans 1:20) and be judged on that because they are without excuse.

I don't know how the Son is going to work all that out in His own providence and righteous judgement. That is not up for me to decide. There are some things for the Lord to know about and some things for us not to know about (Deut 29:29). Needless to say, this whole scenario doesn't apply to anyone here. Everyone here knows the deal. For any Mormon to have made it to the Walter Martin website has undoubedly heard and read of the errors of Mormonism and it's false god and "jesus". The Mormons have their god who is an exalted man who lives near Kolob. Christianity doesn't believe this and the God of the Bible is not described in those terms. That is why discussions of grace, works, etc., are a waste of time with Mormons until they realize that their exalted man who became a god is the creation of Joseph Smith's imagination (Romans 1:23), they aren't going to become a god (Isaiah 43:10-12) and that each Mormon is born a sinner (Romans 3:23; 5:12). Once Mormons come to that realization, then the discussions have real meaning. This discussion is just "filler" in light of the big picture/discussion.

[Father_JD]

That is a pretty big difference in the way you believe and I do. I believe that because Adam partook of the fruit, he was subject to as are all men born as a result. If it was not for Jesus Christ, I do not believe we could resurrected or overcome any type of . I see that you believe that your resurrection was not dependent on Christ. This is the reason you and I read Romans differently.

I KNOW what you believe. Your problem is that you can NOT SUPPORT IT FROM THE BIBLE...plain and simple.:eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Yes, the Bible is clear that salvation (in Christianity this means eternal life) is through Jesus Christ and Him alone (Acts 4:12). If you are wanting to bring in the scenario or illustrative argument and question of what will happen to a person who has never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ (ie: the pigmy in the Amazon jungle), all I can tell you is that the Bible - God's Word - says that God is a righteous judge and will judge fairly (Psalm 19:9; 96:12-13; Genesis 18:25). Jesus is God the Son and God the Father has appointed all judgement to the Son (John 5:22). Some in Christianity (Calvinists) would disagree with me on this, but I believe that the Son will judge fairly those that truly have never heard the name of Christ and these people will not be sent to eternal ****ation for not accepting a Savior they never heard of. I believe this group falls into the same category with infants, small children, mentally disabled, etc. I believe for people like the "pigmy in the Amazon jungle" they will be held accountable for what has been made known to them (Romans 1:20) and be judged on that because they are without excuse.

I don't know how the Son is going to work all that out in His own providence and righteous judgement. That is not up for me to decide. There are some things for the Lord to know about and some things for us not to know about (Deut 29:29). Needless to say, this whole scenario doesn't apply to anyone here.

So if you have no idea HOW God will save those who have never heard of Jesus Christ, and still maintain that Jesus Christ is the only way, then you have no business saying that what we believe on that topic is false.

Every LDS who comes here is well aware of the corruption that came into Christianity that led to the great apostasy. Most of the faithful remaining were either killed, or shamed and embarr***ed out of the much of their faith. What remains today are only fragments of the fulness.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

NO, no, and no!




Finally we're getting some where. This is WHY I posted a lengthy article on the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "GRACE".

So YES, God does respond to the REGENERATE Christian with MORE grace, etc. :) This is CLEAR from the article I provided.

Is Regeneration a choice belonging to Man?

[BigJulie]

I KNOW what you believe. Your problem is that you can NOT SUPPORT IT FROM THE BIBLE...plain and simple.:eek:

You believe there is not Biblical proof that without Christ, we would not be resurrected? Is this really your claim?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So WHAT?? Yes, it [resurrection] could have happened WITHOUT CHRIST.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

I'm at a loss of words on this one.

[James Banta]

You believe there is not Biblical proof that without Christ, we would not be resurrected? Is this really your claim?

Fig had no words so I will come to you.. The promise of the resurrection is part of the OT and there is nothing there to say Jesus resurrection gave us anything but the conformation of God's promise to raise the dead in the Last day.. We receive Justification through the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is given as a free gift to the sinner so the sinner is declared righteous before a Holy God. Sanctification, on the other hand, involves the work of the person. But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is also the work of God in the lives of Hos children. He and only He makes us holy. These two gifts of God come through The death of Jesus.. The resurrection is a down payment on the promise of God to raise all those who have lived and died.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Fig had no words so I will come to you.. The promise of the resurrection is part of the OT and there is nothing there to say Jesus resurrection gave us anything but the conformation of God's promise to raise the dead in the Last day.. We receive Justification through the work of God where the righteousness of Jesus is given as a free gift to the sinner so the sinner is declared righteous before a Holy God. Sanctification, on the other hand, involves the work of the person. But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is also the work of God in the lives of Hos children. He and only He makes us holy. These two gifts of God come through The death of Jesus.. The resurrection is a down payment on the promise of God to raise all those who have lived and died.. IHS jim


So am I understanding that you also believe that we would be resurrected regardless of Jesus Christ as well?

[James Banta]

So am I understanding that you also believe that we would be resurrected regardless of Jesus Christ as well?

I am not sure that I can stand behind such a tradition While there are statements in the Bible that call the bones of men to life (and this is what I was thinking of during this discussion):

Ezek 37:4-5
Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.
Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live
However there is also Biblical evidence that all will be made alive though Jesus.. I must be Biblically sound or I am nothing.. I will say that without Jesus the rest of the scripture would not have been fulfilled..

1 Cor 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Father JD is in error on this point.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

Frankly, I'm shocked by your UNIVERSALISM if I'm understanding you correctly.

Please note the qualifiers:

"In Adam"
"In Christ"

The whole human family is "in Adam".
Only the REDEEMED are "in Christ".

Read

I suggest you go read a good commentary such as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown to disabuse you of your universalistic notions. The "resurrection" in Eze. 37 is strictly metaphorical regarding the recons***ution of the Jewish nation.

Here's what J, F &B sa regarding this verse:

22. in Adam all--in union of nature with Adam, as representative head of mankind in their fall.
in Christ . . . all--in union of nature with Christ, the representative head of mankind in their recovery. The life brought in by Christ is co-extensive with the death brought in by Adam.

Only the Redeemed are "in union of nature with Christ".

[Father_JD]

I'm at a loss of words on this one.


God's a really big God, Figgie (the real one, ya know? Not the exalted human schmoe you think is God) and it didn't take Christ's resurrection to be a CAUSAL agent in any kind of resurrection. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

All God has to say is, "ARISE!" and it's done.

[Father_JD]

You believe there is not Biblical proof that without Christ, we would not be resurrected? Is this really your claim?

You've used so many negatives, it's very difficult to understand your point. The bible does NOT teach that Jesus' resurrection is CAUSAL for other resurrections. God the Father is more than capable of stating, "Arise" and it's a done deal...with or without Jesus.

The great promise for believers is that we will be resurrected just as Jesus Himself was.

[Father_JD]

Is Regeneration a choice belonging to Man?


No, Figgie. Read Romans 9 until it sinks in, wouldja?? ;)

[BigJulie]

You've used so many negatives, it's very difficult to understand your point. The bible does NOT teach that Jesus' resurrection is CAUSAL for other resurrections. God the Father is more than capable of stating, "Arise" and it's a done deal...with or without Jesus.

The great promise for believers is that we will be resurrected just as Jesus Himself was.

As I stated before, this is the big difference between your beliefs and mine and why we interpret Romans differently. I did not realize that this plain and precious truth was not obvious in the Bible. Why do you think you cannot overcome spiritual death without Christ, but that you can overcome physical death without him? Why do we call Christ the firstfruit of resurrection?

[Father_JD]

As I stated before, this is the big difference between your beliefs and mine and why we interpret Romans differently. I did not realize that this plain and precious truth was not obvious in the Bible. Why do you think you cannot overcome spiritual without Christ, but that you can overcome physical without him? Why do we call Christ the firstfruit of resurrection?


You interpret Romans NOT CONTEXTUALLY, but through the alien foreign lens of Mormon doctrine. Romans is teaching something radically different than what you think.

Christ's atonement negated spiritual , yes. Because Christ lives, we shall live too, hence He is the "firstfruit of resurrection".

What you're not understanding is that from a CAUSAL standpoint, God the Father is more than able to resurrect anyone at anytime.

God chose that Christ should overcome physical on our behalf, but I'm speaking from a different viewpoint regarding God's own OMNIPOTENCE.

Got it now? :D

[BigJulie]

You interpret Romans NOT CONTEXTUALLY, but through the alien foreign lens of Mormon doctrine. Romans is teaching something radically different than what you think.

Christ's atonement negated spiritual , yes. Because Christ lives, we shall live too, hence He is the "firstfruit of resurrection".

What you're not understanding is that from a CAUSAL standpoint, God the Father is more than able to resurrect anyone at anytime.

God chose that Christ should overcome physical on our behalf, but I'm speaking from a different viewpoint regarding God's own OMNIPOTENCE.

Got it now? :D So, if I am understanding you correctly, Christ's atonement was not needed to overcome physical death even though God chose Christ to overcome physical death. It could have been, according to you, someone else if God chose it, and therefore, when I read Romans, according to you, the fact that it was Christ that God chose to overcome physical death, I should not in any way use this information to understand Romans because it is an insignificant tidbit of information that really doesn't matter when understanding scripture. In otherwords, even though Christ was chosen to overcome physical death, because it could have been anybody, I should not to any degree use this as part of my understsanding (that it was Christ who overcame physical death) when interpretting scripture and strickly think of Christ overcoming spiritual death only as the other part is insignificant as it could have been anybody? (God being omnipotent, so Christ's role in this is insignificant.) Is this what you are saying?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You interpret Romans NOT CONTEXTUALLY, but through the alien foreign lens of Mormon doctrine. Romans is teaching something radically different than what you think.

Christ's atonement negated spiritual , yes. Because Christ lives, we shall live too, hence He is the "firstfruit of resurrection".

What you're not understanding is that from a CAUSAL standpoint, God the Father is more than able to resurrect anyone at anytime.

God chose that Christ should overcome physical on our behalf, but I'm speaking from a different viewpoint regarding God's own OMNIPOTENCE.

Got it now? :D

I suppose God, being omnipotent, could also break his own laws of justice and mercy, but wouldn't that make Him NO LONGER GOD?

[Father_JD]

I suppose God, being omnipotent, could also break his own laws of justice and mercy, but wouldn't that make Him NO LONGER GOD?


You do not understand the nature of God's "omnipotence", figgie that you could pose this kind of question. His own laws of justice, mercy, etc. are inviolable...and accord with the very nature of His being.

God can NOT LIE. It's against His own nature.

Now before you run off on a tangent that that means God isn't really "omnipotent", and embarr*** yourself, I suggest you understand what His "omnipotence" MEANS from the Biblical/Christian standpoint and NOT what Mormons IMAGINE it means. :eek:

[Father_JD]

No, you didn't understand correctly. It's NOT a case of "somebody else overcoming physical ", but that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE CHRIST to do this. What I'm saying, is based upon the doctrine of God's OMNIPOTENCE, He could resurrect anybody BY HIS SOVEREIGN DECREE.

[BigJulie]

No, you didn't understand correctly. It's NOT a case of "somebody else overcoming physical ", but that God SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE CHRIST to do this. What I'm saying, is based upon the doctrine of God's OMNIPOTENCE, He could resurrect anybody BY HIS SOVEREIGN DECREE.

Sorry, I am still not understanding. You seem to be saying that it was not Christ that overcame death (physical) by the power of his atonement, but God the Father whose power overcame death relying nothing on Christ. Is this right?

[Father_JD]

Sorry, I am still not understanding. You seem to be saying that it was not Christ that overcame (physical) by the power of his atonement, but God the Father whose power overcame relying nothing on Christ. Is this right?


Nope. Didn't say that. Yes, Christ overcame . What I AM merely proposing is that based upon God's OMNIPOTENCE (got it NOW????)

He's more than able to resurrect ANYONE based upon his OMNIPOTENT POWER ALONE.

Got it...Finally??;)

[BigJulie]

Nope. Didn't say that. Yes, Christ overcame . What I AM merely proposing is that based upon God's OMNIPOTENCE (got it NOW????)

He's more than able to resurrect ANYONE based upon his OMNIPOTENT POWER ALONE.

Got it...Finally??;)
No, I really don't. Who's omnipotent power are we discussing? Christ's?

Okay, so Christ dies on the cross....he goes down to the pit, to unlock the gates of hell....he overcomes death...but chooses another fellow to start the process? Is this what you are inferring, that it didn't have to be him to open the graves? I mean, it could of been him, but he could have started with someone else's body and then followed them? Wouldn't it still be then, Christ, who overcame physical death allowing us all to be resurrected?

Can you give me a case scenario in which you are envisioning, maybe that would help?

[Father_JD]

No, I really don't. Who's omnipotent power are we discussing? Christ's?

Okay, so Christ dies on the cross....he goes down to the pit, to unlock the gates of hell....he overcomes ...but chooses another fellow to start the process? Is this what you are inferring, that it didn't have to be him to open the graves? I mean, it could of been him, but he could have started with someone else's body and then followed them? Wouldn't it still be then, Christ, who overcame physical allowing us all to be resurrected?

Can you give me a case scenario in which you are envisioning, maybe that would help?


Thanks for your honesty that you still don't understand. I don't know who else to express it:

God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has OMNIPOTENT POWER AND CAN RESURRECT ANYONE BASED UPON THIS ALONE.

It isn't a case of "somebody else".

Please try to think outside of the Mormon BOX.

[BigJulie]

Thanks for your honesty that you still don't understand. I don't know who else to express it:

God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) has OMNIPOTENT POWER AND CAN RESURRECT ANYONE BASED UPON THIS ALONE.

It isn't a case of "somebody else".

Please try to think outside of the Mormon BOX.
So, the according to you, God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)---did not need to start the process via God? They could chosen anyone and started there because it did not require God himself start the process with himself. Is this what you are saying? In other words, it was not Jesus Christ that overcame physical death, it was God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) who overcame physical death and the broader "God" didn't need to start with the incarnated God to do this, right?

[Father_JD]

Forget "process". Forget "anyone else".

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT. He (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is MORE THAN capable of resurrecting ANYONE AT ANY TIME.

[BigJulie]

Forget "process". Forget "anyone else".

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT. He (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is MORE THAN capable of resurrecting ANYONE AT ANY TIME.

So why wait for Christ to be resurrected first? Why was Christ the firstfruit if there is no purpose in it or if it didn't matter?

[Father_JD]

So why wait for Christ to be resurrected first? Why was Christ the firstfruit if there is no purpose in it or if it didn't matter?


Because God DEIGNED it to be so. Christ's resurrection signaled the efficacy of His atonement.

Who said there's "no purpose in it" or it didn't matter??

I sure didn't, and you keep missing the point: God's OMNIPOTENCE. :cool:

[BigJulie]

Because God DEIGNED it to be so. Christ's resurrection signaled the efficacy of His atonement.

Who said there's "no purpose in it" or it didn't matter??

I sure didn't, and you keep missing the point: God's OMNIPOTENCE. :cool:

And do you remember the original point, that it was Jesus Christ (God) who overcame both physical and spiritual death. Since you believe it did not matter that it was God who overcame physical death, even though God deigned it to be so, you read Romans differently. I read it from the standpoint that Christ (God) overcame both physical and spiritual death. You seem to agree with this point--"Christ's resurrection signaled the efficacy of His atonement." In otherwords, it worked in overcoming death and we could see this by his resurrection.

[Father_JD]

This is getting real-l-l-ly old. You're still not getting it and I don't know how to make you understand that...

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BigJulie]

This is getting real-l-l-ly old. You're still not getting it and I don't know how to make you understand that...

GOD IS OMNIPOTENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe God is omnipotent too...that is not the question and you are not answering it by explaining something to me I already know. It is like asking you why you believe 1+1=5 and you keep answering over and over, "numbers are real." I know numbers are real, I am trying to understand your logic of how that applies.

I am beginning to believe that you are avoiding really looking at this.

I'll tell you what, let's go back to Romans and we can read it line by line, together and we can see how you see it and how I see it, as we both agree that God is omnipotent, but I, unlike you, believe that it was Christ's atonement that allows us to overcome the physical death, or any kind of death for that matter.

[Father_JD]

You don't believe God is "omnipotent"...you Mos merely pay lip-service to this. You don't believe He could call things into existence "ex nihilo" but can only shape "eternal, pre-existent" muck in his cosmic hands...

[Bat-Man]

I believe God is omnipotent too...that is not the question and you are not answering it by explaining something to me I already know. It is like asking you why you believe 1+1=5 and you keep answering over and over, "numbers are real." I know numbers are real, I am trying to understand your logic of how that applies.
BigJulie,
Father_JD believes God's omnipotence means God has the power to make 1+1=5, whether or not you can believe it or understand how God would do it.

That's the kind of "logic" you are up against, here.

It's basically like listening to a child who says "My Dad can do ANYTHING!"

... which is kinda cute, but not really based on reality.

[nrajeff]

The bible does NOT teach that Jesus' resurrection is CAUSAL for other resurrections. God the Father is more than capable of stating, "Arise" and it's a done deal...with or without Jesus. The great promise for believers is that we will be resurrected just as Jesus Himself was.

---I must not be well, because I find myself agreeing with FJD here. :eek:
The above is essentially correct according to my understanding. God was able to resurrect us all, independently of Jesus. The only thing I would add is that LDS believe that once God had resurrected Jesus, He gave to Jesus that power to resurrect us. So when we get resurrected, it will be Jesus who will be doing it. God has conferred or will confer ALL His powers upon Jesus. So in that sense, it IS through Jesus that we will be resurrected, not to mention it is through Him (because of His atonement) that we will be saved from separation from God.

[Bat-Man]

---I must not be well, because I find myself agreeing with FJD here. :eek:
The above is essentially correct according to my understanding. God was able to resurrect us all, independently of Jesus. The only thing I would add is that LDS believe that once God had resurrected Jesus, He gave to Jesus that power to resurrect us. So when we get resurrected, it will be Jesus who will be doing it. God has conferred or will confer ALL His powers upon Jesus. So in that sense, it IS through Jesus that we will be resurrected, not to mention it is through Him (because of His atonement) that we will be saved from separation from God.
You say well when you say that God (our Father) conferred or will confer upon Jesus the power to resurrect others, but in like manner, Jesus conferred or will confer upon others the power to resurrect others and nobody without that power will be able to be resurrected.

Perhaps instead of asking if God could resurrect anyone if God wanted to, it would be better to ask if anyone can resurrect himself (or herself) without God's help, or Help, or Helper, aka our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[BigJulie]

You don't believe God is "omnipotent"...you Mos merely pay lip-service to this. You don't believe He could call things into existence "ex nihilo" but can only shape "eternal, pre-existent" muck in his cosmic hands...

Wow, JD, you have gone from not just judging me, but to now knowing better than I do what I believe in. What next?

[BigJulie]

---I must not be well, because I find myself agreeing with FJD here. :eek:
The above is essentially correct according to my understanding. God was able to resurrect us all, independently of Jesus. The only thing I would add is that LDS believe that once God had resurrected Jesus, He gave to Jesus that power to resurrect us. So when we get resurrected, it will be Jesus who will be doing it. God has conferred or will confer ALL His powers upon Jesus. So in that sense, it IS through Jesus that we will be resurrected, not to mention it is through Him (because of His atonement) that we will be saved from separation from God.

Only He had the power to lay down His life and take it up again. From His mortal mother, Mary, He inherited the ability to die. From His immortal Father, He inherited the power to overcome death. He declared, "As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26).

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=968539b439c98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

The original discussion I was having with JD is whether because of Christ, we have overcome physical death (a favor given to all men) and the opportunity to overcome spiritual death (a favor given to those who accept Christ). He states that the atonement only allows us the ability to overcome spiritual death and has nothing to do with overcoming our physical death as God is omnipotent and the atonement was not necessary in this regard. Is this your thought as well?

[nrajeff]

Valid point, Bat Man.

[Bat-Man]

Wow, JD, you have gone from not just judging me, but to now knowing better than I do what I believe in. What next?
What's next, you ask ?

Next will be Father_JD telling you that you should believe in whatever Father_JD believes in, with Father_JD being the one who will tell you what is right and wrong, and good and evil, and true and false, etc.

Stay tuned.

And btw, I've already seen this, before. It's a re-run.

[Father_JD]

Wow, JD, you have gone from not just judging me, but to now knowing better than I do what I believe in. What next?

You've more than amply demonstrated your CORRUPT Mormon doctrine which has NO support from the Bible, so YES, I know WHAT you believe, BJ.

And it ain't "Biblical" that's for sure!! :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

What's next, you ask ?

Next will be Father_JD telling you that you should believe in whatever Father_JD believes in, with Father_JD being the one who will tell you what is right and wrong, and good and evil, and true and false, etc.

Stay tuned.

And btw, I've already seen this, before. It's a re-run.

LOL. Such a coward that you won't address me directly will you, BM?? :rolleyes:

It's NOT a case of "believing what I believe", but it IS a case of BELIEVING THE BIBLE AND NOT YOUR LYING PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH!!! :eek:

[Father_JD]

BigJulie,
Father_JD believes God's omnipotence means God has the power to make 1+1=5, whether or not you can believe it or understand how God would do it.

Nonsense. That's what MORMONS BELIEVE as EVIDENT when objective proof demonstrates the FALSITY of JS writings, teachings, and when confronted with the evidence, Mormons retreat into a fideistic pose of "God told me it's true, therefore it must be even if it CONTRADICTS LOGIC AND REASON."

It's Mormons who are capable of believing "1+1 = 5", NOT Christians! :D


That's the kind of "logic" you are up against, here.

It's basically like listening to a child who says "My Dad can do ANYTHING!"

... which is kinda cute, but not really based on reality.


Well, now, BM let's see what YOU mean by "omnipotence", 'k? :rolleyes:

One thing's certain, it will demonstrable that your understanding of the term is NOT BIBLICAL. :D

[BigJulie]

You've more than amply demonstrated your CORRUPT Mormon doctrine which has NO support from the Bible, so YES, I know WHAT you believe, BJ.

And it ain't "Biblical" that's for sure!! :rolleyes:

Jill, I am wondering if you would be willing to jump in here. You see, when I try to explain what I believe to JD, he accuses me that I believe something different because he knows better. Now, you explain that we cannot use the term anti-Mormon because it is an attack. But I don't know what else to call JD's behavior. You see, I am a Mormon and he isn't just making a claim about what he thinks my church stance is, he is making a claim about me. He claims he knows what I believe better than I do. I am not sure how he justifies this as he has not walked in my shoes.

[Bat-Man]

It's Mormons who are capable of believing "1+1 = 5", NOT Christians! :D
Thank you, Father_JD.

If I had been the one to say God could NOT make 1+1=5, I think YOU would have jumped in saying that I was DENYING God's OMNIPOTENCE.

You played right into my hands.

Thanks for playing.

[Bat-Man]

You see, when I try to explain what I believe to JD, he accuses me that I believe something different because he knows better. Now, you explain that we cannot use the term anti-Mormon because it is an attack. But I don't know what else to call JD's behavior. You see, I am a Mormon and he isn't just making a claim about what he thinks my church stance is, he is making a claim about me. He claims he knows what I believe better than I do. I am not sure how he justifies this as he has not walked in my shoes.
BigJulie,

Just call Father_JD Father_JD. That is who he really is.

There's no need to call him anti... whatever, or even pro-whatever.

Just acknowledge his beliefs as his beliefs, and his works as his works, and his name as his name, with his name being Father_JD.

... and if you haven't caught on yet, Father_JD likes to deny whatever any LDS says about anything. That's just what he does.

... and, of course, he will deny that what I have said is true.

He'll deny whatever I say whenever I say anything, or say that I have the wrong idea, or say that I am WRONG or DECEIVED or... whatever... as long as it's not anything good.

[Father_JD]

Jill, I am wondering if you would be willing to jump in here. You see, when I try to explain what I believe to JD, he accuses me that I believe something different because he knows better. Now, you explain that we cannot use the term anti-Mormon because it is an attack. But I don't know what else to call JD's behavior. You see, I am a Mormon and he isn't just making a claim about what he thinks my church stance is, he is making a claim about me. He claims he knows what I believe better than I do. I am not sure how he justifies this as he has not walked in my shoes.


Let's get some things straight, ok?

First of all, I am anti-MORMONISM.

I only know what you believe because you have consistently posted status-quo Mormon doctrines and beliefs. I'm not guessing here, I'm merely pointing out to you that your Mormon beliefs are not scriptural.

FYI, I was born into an LDS family in SLC, Utah...so I HAVE walked in your shoes and I know those shoes are taking you anywhere but Heaven. :eek:

[Father_JD]

BigJulie,

Just call Father_JD Father_JD. That is who he really is.

There's no need to call him anti... whatever, or even pro-whatever.

Just acknowledge his beliefs as his beliefs, and his works as his works, and his name as his name, with his name being Father_JD.

... and if you haven't caught on yet, Father_JD likes to deny whatever any LDS says about anything. That's just what he does.

... and, of course, he will deny that what I have said is true.

He'll deny whatever I say whenever I say anything, or say that I have the wrong idea, or say that I am WRONG or DECEIVED or... whatever... as long as it's not anything good.

LOL. I have demonstrated from scripture WHY your beliefs are NOT "Biblical", BM. Do you think I simply oppose them for the sake of opposition?

Hardly.

[Father_JD]

Thank you, Father_JD.

If I had been the one to say God could NOT make 1+1=5, I think YOU would have jumped in saying that I was DENYING God's OMNIPOTENCE.

You played right into my hands.

Thanks for playing.

Uh, it's Mormons who attempt to make "1+1=5" by denying OBJECTIVE evidence in favor of SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS when the evidence is CONTRARY to both LOGIC AND REASON, BM.

That's when the fideistic "God told me so..." kicks in...and it's kicked in plenty in your own case!!! :eek:

And typically "Mormon" you evade the issue, in this case, God's OMNIPOTENCE.

Only Mos think they're clever with such posers as:

"Can God make a rock so heaven that even He can't lift it?"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Because God DEIGNED it to be so. Christ's resurrection signaled the efficacy of His atonement.

So, according to Father JD, the one who first broke the bands of death to become the first fruits of them that slept did not need to be sinless. God could have made a sinful person the first fruits of the resurrection just as easily.

Something just doesn't sound right with that train of thought that says an omnipotent God would do such a thing.

[Father_JD]

So, according to Father JD, the one who first broke the bands of death to become the first fruits of them that slept did not need to be sinless. God could have made a sinful person the first fruits of the resurrection just as easily.

Something just doesn't sound right with that train of thought that says an omnipotent God would do such a thing.

The Bible is clear that a sinless, perfect sacrifice was NECESSARY to appease God's wrath against mankind. I don't see a clear teaching that resurrection was necessarily brought about by Jesus' atonement.

If you've got Biblical proof that's the case, then by all means show me and I'll happily change my position, Fig.

(Remember, however, I was speaking from the perspective of God's ATTRIBUTE of omnipotence...He clearly deigned to bring resurrection to us via Jesus...I'm NOT arguing against that)

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The Bible is clear that a sinless, perfect sacrifice was NECESSARY to appease God's wrath against mankind. I don't see a clear teaching that resurrection was necessarily brought about by Jesus' atonement.

If you've got Biblical proof that's the case, then by all means show me and I'll happily change my position, Fig.

(Remember, however, I was speaking from the perspective of God's ATTRIBUTE of omnipotence...He clearly deigned to bring resurrection to us via Jesus...I'm NOT arguing against that)

First, define omnipotence. For example, do you think that God's omnipotence means that he can violate his own laws of justice? Does God's omnipotence mean that he can save people by means other than through Jesus Christ?

I think the Bible can be used to show that Jesus had the power to take up his own life, but the ordinary man did not.

[PostTribber]

"I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4) :eek:

[Father_JD]

First, define omnipotence.

"All powerful"...that's what the word MEANS. :)


For example, do you think that God's omnipotence means that he can violate his own laws of justice?


Nope.



Does God's omnipotence mean that he can save people by means other than through Jesus Christ?

Nope.



I think the Bible can be used to show that Jesus had the power to take up his own life, but the ordinary man did not.

Who said anything about an "ordinary man" who COULD, Fig??? :confused:

Jesus had the "power" because he is GOD INCARNATE. You are NOT...despite your fervid hopes of being your own godlet someday. :rolleyes:

So where's the scriptural evidence for your view??

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Jesus had the "power" because he is GOD INCARNATE. You are NOT...despite your fervid hopes of being your own godlet someday.



And with this admission of yours, I ask why you would think that the bands of death could have been broken by any person other than Jesus Christ?

[Father_JD]

And with this admission of yours, I ask why you would think that the bands of death could have been broken by any person other than Jesus Christ?

They couldn't. Only the TRIUNE God is capable of that:

The Father is.
The Son is.
The Holy Spirit is.


And if you knew the Bible (as Mormons always claim to know but really don't) you would be aware of the scriptures that declare:

The Father raised the Son.
The Son raised Himself.
The Holy Spirit raised the Son.

Think on that.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

They couldn't. Only the TRIUNE God is capable of that:

The Father is.
The Son is.
The Holy Spirit is.


And if you knew the Bible (as Mormons always claim to know but really don't) you would be aware of the scriptures that declare:

The Father raised the Son.
The Son raised Himself.
The Holy Spirit raised the Son.

Think on that.

What about Mary. Didn't she also raise the Son?:D

Then it seems we are in agreement that only Jesus could have broken the bands of death. And our only point of contention is whether the resurrection has anything to do with the atonement or not.

[Father_JD]

What about Mary. Didn't she also raise the Son?:D

Good one, Fig! :D


Then it seems we are in agreement that only Jesus could have broken the bands of death. And our only point of contention is whether the resurrection has anything to do with the atonement or not.

That's what I've been saying all along, Fig. :)

[BigJulie]

Good one, Fig! :D



That's what I've been saying all along, Fig. :)

Which takes us back to Romans 5. By Adam, death came into the world and only by Christ did the resurrection occur or overcoming death. Thus, Christ overcame both spiritual and physical death. Physical death was overcome by the resurrection of Christ for all. Spiritual death is overcome by Christ for those who take the opportunity to repent.

Rom 5:18 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. (All will overcome physical death via the resurrection of Christ).


Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Because of Christ we have the opportunity to overcome spiritual death by repenting of our sins and turning over our will to him.)

[Father_JD]

I've already ****n your universalistic understanding of the p***age out of the water.

Enough already.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I've already ****n your universalistic understanding of the p***age out of the water.

Enough already.

What part of "all men" did you not understand?

What part of "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people" do you not understand?

[Father_JD]

What part of "all men" did you not understand?

What part of "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people" do you not understand?


What part of CONTEXT don't you understand? :eek:

[BigJulie]

What part of "all men" did you not understand?

What part of "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people" do you not understand?

Fig, did you see Father's JD full examination of context explaining why this verse is not understood as I read it? I mean, after all of that discussion, I thought it was finally concluded that it was Christ that had to overcome physical death and not just anyone. Did I miss it somehow?

[Father_JD]

Fig, did you see Father's JD full examination of context explaining why this verse is not understood as I read it? I mean, after all of that discussion, I thought it was finally concluded that it was Christ that had to overcome physical death and not just anyone. Did I miss it somehow?


Yes, Christ overcame physical death. I never said it came from anyone else. It's the UNIVERSALISITIC understanding of Mormonism that EVERYONE HAS ETERNAL LIFE,to which I disagree.

[BigJulie]

Yes, Christ overcame physical death. I never said it came from anyone else. It's the UNIVERSALISITIC understanding of Mormonism that EVERYONE HAS ETERNAL LIFE,to which I disagree.

Nope, Mormons do not believe that everyone has eternal life. Where ever did you hear that? What we do believe is that all are saved from physical death. Eternal life and overcoming death are two different things as one can certainly inherit eternal ****ation. I think you mistake eternal life to mean living forever. It doesn't. Eternal life is the opposite of eternal ****ation. How can one experience eternal ****ation if one is not around to experience it?

Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal ****ation:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Nope, Mormons do not believe that everyone has eternal life. Where ever did you hear that? What we do believe is that all are saved from physical death. Eternal life and overcoming death are two different things as one can certainly inherit eternal ****ation. I think you mistake eternal life to mean living forever. It doesn't. Eternal life is the opposite of eternal ****ation. How can one experience eternal ****ation if one is not around to experience it?

Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal ****ation:

Perhaps JD is confusing immortality with Eternal Life?

[BigJulie]

Perhaps JD is confusing immortality with Eternal Life?

I think you are right. That may explain the whole difference we have with Romans 5. He may read the free gift, unto the justification of life, means eternal life rather than overcoming death brought to man by Adam's transgression.

[Father_JD]

I think you are right. That may explain the whole difference we have with Romans 5. He may read the free gift, unto the justification of life, means eternal life rather than overcoming death brought to man by Adam's transgression.


Immortality = eternal life.

It's Mormonism that has artifically re-defined terms.:eek:

And that's Mormon confusion.

[Father_JD]

I think you are right. That may explain the whole difference we have with Romans 5. He may read the free gift, unto the justification of life, means eternal life rather than overcoming death brought to man by Adam's transgression.


At last we're getting somewhere!

Of course "justification of life" MEANS ETERNAL LIFE which includes "overcoming PHYSICAL death brought to man by Adam's transgression".

The problem is Mormon underestimation of "Adam's transgression".

You think it means ONLY physical death whereas the Bible clearly teaches it goes WAY beyond physical death to include SPIRITUAL DEATH.

But you don't believe in spiritual death and that's why you can't understand the Book of Romans either. :eek:

[BigJulie]

At last we're getting somewhere!

Of course "justification of life" MEANS ETERNAL LIFE which includes "overcoming PHYSICAL death brought to man by Adam's transgression".

The problem is Mormon underestimation of "Adam's transgression".

You think it means ONLY physical death whereas the Bible clearly teaches it goes WAY beyond physical death to include SPIRITUAL DEATH.

But you don't believe in spiritual death and that's why you can't understand the Book of Romans either. :eek:

No, I know that Adam's death meant both physical and spiritual death. I do believe in spiritual death. Do you understand that we spiritually died when we sin? God's justice means that we do not need to pay for Adam's transgression. In Adam all men died, in Christ all are made alive. In other words, our spiritual death is our own doing through sin. On the other hand, our physical death was brought about by Adam. Justice then means that God has undid the sin of Adam and the physical death that was brought to all of us. We will all be resurrected. Do you not believe this?

Rom 5:18 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. (All will overcome physical death via the resurrection of Christ).

[Father_JD]

No, I know that Adam's death meant both physical and spiritual death. I do believe in spiritual death.


Uh, not according to the Bible's MEANING of the term, BJ. You expose this in the very next sentence:



Do you understand that we spiritually died when we sin?

No, I understand BIBLICALLY that we're BORN INTO SIN. We were physically born DEAD ON ARRIVAL SPIRITUALLY.

Again, your premise is that people are somehow born "neutral" and it's only BY some willful sinning that one THEN spiritually "dies".

The Mormon understanding of "spiritual death" is extremely DEFICIENT, Julie.






God's justice means that we do not need to pay for Adam's transgression. In Adam all men died, in Christ all are made alive. In other words, our spiritual death is our own doing through sin. On the other hand, our physical death was brought about by Adam. Justice then means that God has undid the sin of Adam and the physical death that was brought to all of us. We will all be resurrected. Do you not believe this?

Rom 5:18 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. (All will overcome physical death via the resurrection of Christ).


Justification to life is NOT talking about physical life/resurrection but is in reference to ETERNAL LIFE, the undoing of SPIRITUAL DEATH.

This has been explained to you several times now, to which you offer no reasoned re****al, but your Mormon-induced belief. Here's a commentary which might shed light on your erroneous understanding of the p***age:


Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Romans 5:

19. For, &c.--better, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so by the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous." On this great verse observe: First, By the "obedience" of Christ here is plainly not meant more than what divines call His active obedience, as distinguished from His sufferings and death; it is the entire work of Christ in its obediential character. Our Lord Himself represents even His death as His great act of obedience to the Father: "This commandment (that is, to lay down and resume His life) have I received of My Father" ( Jhn 10:8 ). Second, The significant word twice rendered made, does not signify to work a change upon a person or thing, but to cons***ute or ordain, as will be seen from all the places where it is used. Here, accordingly, it is intended to express that judicial act which holds men, in virtue of their connection with Adam, as sinners; and, in connection with Christ, as righteous. Third, The change of tense from the past to the future--"as through Adam we were made sinners, so through Christ we shall be made righteous"--delightfully expresses the enduring character of the act, and of the economy to which such acts belong, in contrast with the for-ever-past ruin of believers in Adam. (See on JF & B for Ro 6:5). Fourth, The "all men" of Rom 5:18 and the "many" of Rom 5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between the one representative (Adam--Christ) and the many whom he represented; in the former case, it is between the one head (Adam--Christ) and the human race, affected for death and life respectively by the actings of that one. Only in this latter case it is the redeemed family of man that is alone in view; it is humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered. Such as refuse to fall in with the high purpose of God to cons***ute His Son a "second Adam," the Head of a new race, and as impenitent and unbelieving finally perish, have no place in this section of the Epistle, whose sole object is to show how God repairs in the second Adam the evil done by the first. (Thus the doctrine of universal restoration has no place here. Thus too the forced interpretation by which the "justification of all" is made to mean a justification merely in possibility and offer to all, and the "justification of the many" to mean the actual justification of as many as believe [ALFORD, &c.], is completely avoided. And thus the harshness of comparing a whole fallen family with a recovered part is got rid of. However true it be in fact that part of mankind is not saved, this is not the aspect in which the subject is here presented. It is totals that are compared and contrasted; and it is the same total in two successive conditions--namely, the human race as ruined in Adam and recovered in Christ).

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Father_JD;20367]Uh, not according to the Bible's MEANING of the term, BJ. You expose this in the very next sentence:

No, I understand BIBLICALLY that we're BORN INTO SIN. We were physically born DEAD ON ARRIVAL SPIRITUALLY. Again, your premise is that people are somehow born "neutral" and it's only BY some willful sinning that one THEN spiritually "dies". We are neutral when we are born or spiritually alive because Christ atoned for the sins of Adam. Therefore, infants who die are not dead spiritually.


The Mormon understanding of "spiritual death" is extremely DEFICIENT, Julie. The Mormon understanding of spiritual death takes into account the atonement which overcame Adam's sins. If you believe that all men are born spiritually dead, then you must believe that infants who die are dead to God forever.



Justification to life is NOT talking about physical life/resurrection but is in reference to ETERNAL LIFE, the undoing of SPIRITUAL DEATH. No the justification that is to ALL men is to physical death. God is a just God and therefore, would not have us perish because of the acts of Adam. Therefore, we all will be resurrected. Our spiritual death is our own doing through sin, not because of Adam.


This has been explained to you several times now, to which you offer no reasoned re****al, but your Mormon-induced belief. Here's a commentary which might shed light on your erroneous understanding of the p***age: Why on earth would I believe the commentary of a bunch of men? I have explained myself well. I read the scriptures as they have been written...I read ALL to mean ALL and MANYto mean MANY. I don't read ALL to mean partial or not all. My way of reading Romans makes way more sense. Your way condemns infants to hell as they are born dead not because of their own sins,but because of Adams and Christ's atonement is of no effect to the sins of Adam. How can God be a just God if he holds us accountable for the sins we have never committed?


Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Romans 5:

Fourth, The "all men" of Rom 5:18 and the "many" of Rom 5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. Why on earth did Paul use different words if he meant the same thing? Look at the way they spin this to get the meaning they want. It is quite clear without all the explanation.

You have yet to answer my question...do you believe all will be resurrected or not?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

What part of CONTEXT don't you understand? :eek:

Do you have a hierarchy for Bible verses or something that helps you determine context? Some verse in Romans being at the top perhaps?

[Father_JD]

Do you have a hierarchy for Bible verses or something that helps you determine context? Some verse in Romans being at the top perhaps?

Why...YES!! But this goes for ALL of the Bible, not just Romans:

Explicit texts help one to interpret non-explicit or implicit texts.

Context, however, establishes ITSELF...and NOT according to some "hierarchy".

[Father_JD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Uh, not according to the Bible's MEANING of the term, BJ. You expose this in the very next sentence:

No, I understand BIBLICALLY that we're BORN INTO SIN. We were physically born DEAD ON ARRIVAL SPIRITUALLY. Again, your premise is that people are somehow born "neutral" and it's only BY some willful sinning that one THEN spiritually "dies".


We are neutral when we are born or spiritually alive because Christ atoned for the sins of Adam. Therefore, infants who die are not dead spiritually.

Not according to the Bible:

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

It's NOT referring to the sex act as "sinful" but that we are BORN INTO A SINFUL CONDITION.

Now instead of offering yet more Mormon belief, ADDRESS this verse.

Quote:
The Mormon understanding of "spiritual death" is extremely DEFICIENT, Julie.


The Mormon understanding of spiritual death takes into account the atonement which overcame Adam's sins. If you believe that all men are born spiritually dead, then you must believe that infants who die are dead to God forever.

The atonement's efficacy of overcoming spiritual death is FOR THE REDEEMED AND ONLY THE REDEEMED. NOT for mankind in general!! Infants are in God's hands one way or another. We can INFER from some texts that GRACE is applied to them should they die in infancy.



Quote:
Justification to life is NOT talking about physical life/resurrection but is in reference to ETERNAL LIFE, the undoing of SPIRITUAL DEATH.


No the justification that is to ALL men is to physical death. God is a just God and therefore, would not have us perish because of the acts of Adam. Therefore, we all will be resurrected. Our spiritual death is our own doing through sin, not because of Adam.


That's your Mormon opinion, it just doesn't MEASURE up to what scripture teaches: Justification does NOT REFER TO PHYSICAL DEATH, but to be declared forensically INNOCENT in the spiritual sense.


Quote:
This has been explained to you several times now, to which you offer no reasoned re****al, but your Mormon-induced belief. Here's a commentary which might shed light on your erroneous understanding of the p***age:


Why on earth would I believe the commentary of a bunch of men?


Uh, how about because they KNOW the Bible a heck of a lot better than you????? :eek:



I have explained myself well. I read the scriptures as they have been written...I read ALL to mean ALL and MANYto mean MANY. I don't read ALL to mean partial or not all. My way of reading Romans makes way more sense. Your way condemns infants to hell as they are born dead not because of their own sins,but because of Adams and Christ's atonement is of no effect to the sins of Adam. How can God be a just God if he holds us accountable for the sins we have never committed?

No, the Bible's way does NOT condemn infants to hell...this is your straw-man argument based upon your erroneous understanding of THE FALL. We ARE held accountable for the sins we commit...so who said anything about sins "never committed". As typical, you REFUSE to engage your OWN condition, but instead prefer to bring up either the hypothetical "pygmy in Africa" or the dead infant scenario as if this answers YOUR dilemma.


Quote:
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Romans 5:

Fourth, The "all men" of Rom 5:18 and the "many" of Rom 5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect.


Why on earth did Paul use different words if he meant the same thing? Look at the way they spin this to get the meaning they want. It is quite clear without all the explanation.

It's BASED UPON OTHER SCRIPTURES and in comparison one with the other. It's Mormons who REFUSE to read the Bible in CONTEXT, but prefer instead to pull out individual verses OUT OF CONTEXT which you think support Mormon conditions.


You have yet to answer my question...do you believe all will be resurrected or not?

I've answered this several times:

The Redeemed are RESURRECTED UNTO ETERNAL LIFE.
The ****ed are RESURRECTED UNTO ETERNAL DEATH.

Got it now? :rolleyes:

[BigJulie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Uh, not according to the Bible's MEANING of the term, BJ. You expose this in the very next sentence:

No, I understand BIBLICALLY that we're BORN INTO SIN. We were physically born DEAD ON ARRIVAL SPIRITUALLY. Again, your premise is that people are somehow born "neutral" and it's only BY some willful sinning that one THEN spiritually "dies". Then according to you, the atonement has no affect.


Not according to the Bible:

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. This verse makes Romans 5 so important. David could say, in sin I was conceived, but because of the atonemen of Christ, the sin of Adam is erased and I am free to choose for myself eternal life or eternal death. Of course, the atonement hadn't happened yet, so imagine the rejoicing when Paul explained that Christ had given all a clean slate to start with.


It's NOT referring to the sex act as "sinful" but that we are BORN INTO A SINFUL CONDITION.

Now instead of offering yet more Mormon belief, ADDRESS this verse. I did.


Quote:
The Mormon understanding of "spiritual death" is extremely DEFICIENT, Julie. The Mormon understanding of spiritual death doesn't just look at the effects of Adam on sin, but the effects of Christ on life.




The atonement's efficacy of overcoming spiritual death is FOR THE REDEEMED AND ONLY THE REDEEMED. NOT for mankind in general!! Infants are in God's hands one way or another. We can INFER from some texts that GRACE is applied to them should they die in infancy. Then to you, only the redeemed should be resurrected. But all are, and there lies your problem. As grace is applied to infants, it is applied to all men---why do infants get this grace and all men don't? Because men are capable of bringing about their own spiritual death by their own choices. Infants on the other hand, have never had the ability to accept Christ and therefore are not held accountable for something he have never been able to do, namely sin. There is no INFERING if you understand Romans 5 about infants----there is sure knowledge that they are not held accountable for the sins of Adam.



Quote:
Justification to life is NOT talking about physical life/resurrection but is in reference to ETERNAL LIFE, the undoing of SPIRITUAL DEATH. No it is not. If that was the case, it would not say ALL men. All men will be resurrected, but only some man will take that opportunity given by Christ, the cleaning of the slate, to have eternal life.



That's your Mormon opinion, it just doesn't MEASURE up to what scripture teaches: Justification does NOT REFER TO PHYSICAL DEATH, but to be declared forensically INNOCENT in the spiritual sense. My Mormon oppinion is the truth. Your opinion leaves infants being inferred to God's grace. I read it as it states, ALL means ALL and many means many...your have a bunch of scholars who haven't got accountabity figured out and so they make it fit their thinking rather than just reading the words.



Quote:
This has been explained to you several times now, to which you offer no reasoned re****al, but your Mormon-induced belief. Here's a commentary which might shed light on your erroneous understanding of the p***age: You keep going to commentaries. Just read the p***age. It makes perfect sense. I don't need light to be shed on the perfect light already given in the gospel. Your explanation leaves us in the dark as to infants. Do you think God would be so cruel to young parents who have lost a child as to leave them INFERRING what will happen to their baby? Don't lecture me about my Mormon-induced belief. Your corrupt men induced belief shreds the love of God into something that has to be INFERRED.





Uh, how about because they KNOW the Bible a heck of a lot better than you????? :eek: I know the Holy Ghost and that superceeds what any man says.




No, the Bible's way does NOT condemn infants to hell...this is your straw-man argument based upon your erroneous understanding of THE FALL. We ARE held accountable for the sins we commit...so who said anything about sins "never committed". As typical, you REFUSE to engage your OWN condition, but instead prefer to bring up either the hypothetical "pygmy in Africa" or the dead infant scenario as if this answers YOUR dilemma. Wait a minute...first you say that the well being of infants can be INFERRED that some type of grace applies. Now you are saying that we are only held accountable for the sins we commit---but before you were saying that we are held accountable for the sins Adam committed---remember, being conceived in sin stuff? You were the one who talked about sins never committed because you are the one insisting that we are born spiritually dead and that life is only given to those Christ choses to redeem. To me, Romans explains how the sin of Adam is overcome and life is again given to all men---it is now up to them whether or not they sin and cause ****ation for ourselves. I thought you whole argument is that we are born ****ed (in a sinful state) because of the sin of Adam? Which one is it? Did Christ overcome this sin of Adam for all men or not?





It's BASED UPON OTHER SCRIPTURES and in comparison one with the other. It's Mormons who REFUSE to read the Bible in CONTEXT, but prefer instead to pull out individual verses OUT OF CONTEXT which you think support Mormon conditions. I read the Bible as is, which is why I do not need to go to a commentary to explain it. I just repeat what it says.


I've answered this several times:

The Redeemed are RESURRECTED UNTO ETERNAL LIFE.
The ****ed are RESURRECTED UNTO ETERNAL DEATH.

Got it now? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Eternal ****ation---when did eternal ****ation turn into eternal death?

So, you agree that all are resurrected? How and why? Wasn't the promise to Adam death (both spiritual and physical) came into the world because of his sin? How was that overcome physically?

[stemelbow]

JD...you have to prove your point, not just fill up threads with words.

Here you say:


First we must DEFINE terms, figgie. No doubt you're thinking of such verses as "God resists the proud, but gives GRACE to the humble" as a "response from God to man for the choices mankind makes, etc".

So, for your own edification I'm gonna give you the uses of the word, "Grace" which is the English word for "Charis".

I'll be happy to address "faith" afterwards. What you apparently seem to forget/ignore (take your pick) is the reality that CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING.

So without any further ado, please read this entry on "grace" and THEN ask your questions.


Show someone that the p***age in 1 Peter which you allude to holds a meaning of grace as something other than salvific. You never tried to do this in the other thread. how about trying it in this one?

love,
stem

[Father_JD]

JD...you have to prove your point, not just fill up threads with words.

Here you say:



Show someone that the p***age in 1 Peter which you allude to holds a meaning of grace as something other than salvific. You never tried to do this in the other thread. how about trying it in this one?

love,
stem


Sure. Read the CONTEXT and weep, Stemmy:

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

1Pe 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:


1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.


1Pe 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you].

Note:

To WHOM is the epistle written?

TO THE ELDERS OF THE FLOCK, I.E. BELIEVERS ALREADY IN THE FAITH AND LEADERS. This is enough to demonstrate that the meaning of "grace" here can NOT be of the salvivic kind.

Note:

The context also engages the believers SUFFERING for the faith. A promise to those who "humble themselves" that in due time God will exalt them.

Again, point 1 dispels your notion. :rolleyes:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Sure. Read the CONTEXT and weep, Stemmy:

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.


1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pe 5:5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

1Pe 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.


1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:


1Pe 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.


1Pe 5:10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you].

Note:

To WHOM is the epistle written?

TO THE ELDERS OF THE FLOCK, I.E. BELIEVERS ALREADY IN THE FAITH AND LEADERS. This is enough to demonstrate that the meaning of "grace" here can NOT be of the salvivic kind.

Note:

The context also engages the believers SUFFERING for the faith. A promise to those who "humble themselves" that in due time God will exalt them.

Again, point 1 dispels your notion. :rolleyes:

Nowhere does it indicate that the words:


"for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

is NOT a UNIVERSAL and self-evident principle that Peter is teaching and which applies to all of human-kind, (not just elders). But you seem to think it is a principle that applies to no one in the world, EXCEPT Elders who are already saved?

That seems like a hyper-narrow very, to restrict the application of this principle to Elders in the church, and only Elders.

IMO.

Thanks

[Father_JD]

Nowhere does it indicate that the words:


"for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

is NOT a UNIVERSAL and self-evident principle that Peter is teaching and which applies to all of human-kind, (not just elders). But you seem to think it is a principle that applies to no one in the world, EXCEPT Elders who are already saved?

That seems like a hyper-narrow very, to restrict the application of this principle to Elders in the church, and only Elders.

IMO.

Thanks


No, it's EVIDENT from the context that CHRISTIANS (Elders, younger, etc.)HAVE ALREADY RECEIEVED SALVIVIC GRACE, therefore this usage of "grace" is something other.

You can go "nuh-uh" as much as you want...the context says you're in error, Fig.

[alanmolstad]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

.


Grace does not sit around watching TV until it notices someone do something first....

Faith is a "response" to Grace working in our hearts.

just look at Romans 5:8 to see this in Scripture "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

This is how it is with us all...

[alanmolstad]

so in other words,,,,,God always takes the first step...God starts the ball rolling....God reaches out to man....

God reaches out and starts to save people that have not even given him a 2nd thought.....

[alanmolstad]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.





I think this is a great question.....




I need to think of a more ways to address this question....

[James Banta]

I think this is a great question.....




I need to think of a more ways to address this question....

Think about it as you reread Eph 2:8-9.. re we not taught in that p***age that salvation is 100% of God and has nothing to do with our actions? Does it not say clearly that we are saved by God's Grace through Faith that is NOT OF OURSELVES but is a gift of God and NOT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast? Does that not disprove the works based thought here presented by Fig? IHS jim

[Apologette]

I think this is a great question.....




I need to think of a more ways to address this question....

God is Sovereign. This is something Mormons do not understand. They also do not understand that man is fallen, dead in his spirit, and needs to be brought to life by God's grace. Mormonism is a dangerous cult, since it robs God of His Sovereignty, and tells men they will be equal to God. The initiative is God's, not man's. God calls, God elects, God foreknows. Once we recognize that God really is truly Sovereign, we come to realize how blessed we have been to hear His call. In short, God grants us eternal life because He has enabled us to repent, falling on our knees and calling out for mercy.

[alanmolstad]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

as we ...or I seek to answer this fine question, I have to always keep in mind that "God does not learn anything"

God does not 'respond" to new things happening ....God does not 'react'

God does not do things from His point of view "after" something happens.

[alanmolstad]

after a bit of listening to others...and checking the text...and my own limited ability to reason....I have come to this answer...

1st - Galatians 4:6......Romans 8:15.........Mark 14:36 all teach us about how to address and think of God.

The term we are to use is "Abba"



yes, an odd little word, that really is never used in real life.

So I very much doubt that God wants me to call him a name I dont got a clue about and is meaningless to me unless I google it.


so......lets google it -
"Abbá – "Father," also used as the term of tender endearment by a beloved child – i.e. in an affectionate, dependent relationship with their father; "daddy," "papa."


So its clear the idea that Jesus was talking about and the Disciples to for that matter, is a term that gets actross the word a child calls their dad.

I dont know about you but I never called my dad, "father"
I dont remember calling him "daddy"...but then I think back to my younger brother and siste, and they did call my dad, "Daddy"...so I guess I must have too when I was a little kid.

and....truth be told, I think that term of "Daddy" is the most correct and was what Jesus was talking about.

The word for a father that a very young child uses.


The term "Dad" is what i called my father when I was a teenager and it was what i called him until he
died.
But "Daddy" is what I must have called him when I needed his guidance the most.




what does this mean to my topic about God "Responding" to men?

I think now that the use of the term "Daddy" lends itself to the understanding that God is so far above us, and is so wise, and so much ahead of us, that we cant ever dream of say, "God responded to me"

[dberrie2000]

as we ...or I seek to answer this fine question, I have to always keep in mind that "God does not learn anything"

God does not 'respond" to new things happening ....God does not 'react'

God does not do things from His point of view "after" something happens.

So--after these repented and were water baptized--are you claiming God did not respond with the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Do you believe the forgiveness of sins is God's grace?

[Apologette]

This is a question regarding the gift of Grace, and Faith.

What proof can JD and others provide that prove that the gift of Grace and Faith is NOT a RESPONSE from God to Man for the choices Mankind makes, and actions he undertakes.

Thanks.

Read the first chapter of Ephesians..............oops, I guess you can't anymore.

[Apologette]

So--after these repented and were water baptized--are you claiming God did not respond with the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Do you believe the forgiveness of sins is God's grace?

the word "for" in that verse means "as pertaining to."

[Phoenix]

the word "for" in that verse means "as pertaining to."
where does the bible say it means that?

[BigJulie]

after a bit of listening to others...and checking the text...and my own limited ability to reason....I have come to this answer...

1st - Galatians 4:6......Romans 8:15.........Mark 14:36 all teach us about how to address and think of God.

The term we are to use is "Abba"



yes, an odd little word, that really is never used in real life.

So I very much doubt that God wants me to call him a name I dont got a clue about and is meaningless to me unless I google it.


so......lets google it -
"Abbá – "Father," also used as the term of tender endearment by a beloved child – i.e. in an affectionate, dependent relationship with their father; "daddy," "papa."


So its clear the idea that Jesus was talking about and the Disciples to for that matter, is a term that gets actross the word a child calls their dad.

I dont know about you but I never called my dad, "father"
I dont remember calling him "daddy"...but then I think back to my younger brother and siste, and they did call my dad, "Daddy"...so I guess I must have too when I was a little kid.

and....truth be told, I think that term of "Daddy" is the most correct and was what Jesus was talking about.

The word for a father that a very young child uses.


The term "Dad" is what i called my father when I was a teenager and it was what i called him until he
died.
But "Daddy" is what I must have called him when I needed his guidance the most.




what does this mean to my topic about God "Responding" to men?

I think now that the use of the term "Daddy" lends itself to the understanding that God is so far above us, and is so wise, and so much ahead of us, that we cant ever dream of say, "God responded to me"

How did you go from understanding that the term "daddy" is used when we need guidance most to "that God is so far above us, and is so wise, and so much ahead of us, that we cant ever dream of say, "God responded to me"??

You take the very meaning you understand and say it must not be so.

[dberrie2000]

the word "for" in that verse means "as pertaining to."

If repentance and water baptism pertains to the forgiveness of sins--then how do you fit that into faith alone theology?

[alanmolstad]

I think this is a great question.....




I need to think of a more ways to address this question....





When it comes to God's plan for our salvation, what seems clear is that within God's plan and he preordained salvation for Chrostians, there is man's ability to respond to him that is also taken into account.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post So--after these repented and were water baptized--are you claiming God did not respond with the forgiveness of sins?

Acts 2:38--King James Version (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Do you believe the forgiveness of sins is God's grace?


the word "for" in that verse means "as pertaining to."

Perhaps you could explain for us how that changes the fact Acts2:38 has God extending His salvational grace to them which do His work?

[alanmolstad]

..... within God's plan and he preordained salvation for Christians, there is man's ability to respond to him that is also taken into account.


This is the answer to all such questions as to the relationship of the terms "works" and 'faith"

[dberrie2000]

This is the answer to all such questions as to the relationship of the terms "works" and 'faith"

This is the answer the LDS rely upon:

James 2:20-26---King James Version (KJV)
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

[alanmolstad]

This is the answer the LDS rely upon:

James 2:20-26---King James Version (KJV)
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
just let me know if you have any questions about what I have taught on the salvation issue.

[dberrie2000]

just let me know if you have any questions about what I have taught on the salvation issue.

Alan--I have brought the question up numerous times--which has not been addressed directly, IMO.

IOW--how is it the Bible testifies all men will be judged according to their works--after death--and that for life or ****ation--and the faith alone preach one obtains salvation excluding all works?

John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation.

Where do we find the term "faith alone" in the Biblical text--other than the one instance here?

James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[alanmolstad]

Alan--I have brought the question up numerous times--which has not been addressed directly, IMO.

IOW--how is it the Bible testifies all men will be judged according to their works--after death-]


There is no "condemnation" for Christians like myself.
But there is a judgement.


The Lost, (non-Christians) are judged onto their condemnation, and are sent to burn forever in hell.

The saved, (we Christians like myself) are judged onto our rewards.



Now as to what "works" should a person be doing that count?....This is the answer we learn from the lips of Jesus-

For Jesus was asked directly what are the works of God?
The context of this is that we also know of the story of the guy who asked what to do to be saved?..and Jesus lists a bunch of the Law.
The man answers that he had always kept the full law.
Jesus does not disagree with the man abut this.
The fact is that the man was correct, he had kept the law all his life.


But the ending of the story is that even if you had kept the law you still are judged as lacking.....and to be lacking is to be lost.


So then let us return to the question of "What are the works of God?"


and Jesus gives us the answer - for Jesus teaches us that the work of God is to believe in the Son of God.






Thats it.

Thats the only "work" that matters with God.




Notice that while we might ask, what "works" are important, that Jesus answers that there is but one single 'work" that counts.

and thee work is to believe.....to have.....FAITH!

[dberrie2000]

There is no "condemnation" for Christians like myself.

Just a note here, Alan. The judgment, after death--is for all men--which includes Christians and non-Christian.

John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation.

The works will determine who is Christian or not--not the "Lord""Lord" claim:

Matthew 7:19-21---King James Version (KJV)
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[alanmolstad]

Just a note here, Alan. The judgment, after death--is for all men--....
There is no condemnation for us who are in Christ Jesus....

Therefore we need not fear in the slightest way the judgement of God,,,for all my sins have already been forgiven and the slate is clean....it's as if I never sinned even the slightest of sins in my life....Im rightious and free of the stain of sin.


So while the Lost are judged and sent to Hell's fire, the Christian is judged as to his eternal rewards!

We are judged onto life everlasting,,,!!!!

AMEN!