Free Will

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

There are not "many" verses that say that God draws all men to Christ. In fact you or Alan haven't given me a single one. If you stick with what the Bible says the only conclusion you can make is that God does not draw all men all men to Christ.

Well, there IS one verse, even though it says "Christ" draws all people to himself. Christ is God, so same difference.

I absolutely see what you are seeing, Billy, because I was indoctrinated into Christianity through Calvinism. It is kind of difficult for me to see anything else. But, I am making the effort, because I just cannot justify an All Loving God with the Calvinist view of Limited Atonement. I know there are other views out there and I would really like to understand them better.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Would it be just to punish every single person for their sins? The answer is yes.

You know, I realized last night that this is a Calvinist "talking point" that really has no merit. The answer is a conditional "no". God did not give His only Son for nothing, so to say that it would be "just" to punish "every single person for their sins" is to disrespect the cross, IMO, which gives salvation to "whosoever shall call upon the name of The Lord". That is the one and only condition, and it is through God's infinite grace and mercy that we can avail ourselves of this precious gift.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

You know, I realized last night that this is a Calvinist "talking point" that really has no merit. The answer is a conditional "no". God did not give His only Son for nothing, so to say that it would be "just" to punish "every single person for their sins" is to disrespect the cross, IMO, which gives salvation to "whosoever shall call upon the name of The Lord".

I agree. You have come to an important realization. But it goes even farther than you have stated, because the talking point doesn't just disrespect the cross--it disrespects God Himself, because it implies that His personality is centered around only 2 possibilities:

1. "Punish everyone because of a sin nature that they weren't responsible for" or

2. "Punish everyone except the relative few who, for no good reason, get to spend forever in heaven with no punishments."

Both of those scenarios paint God as an unfair judge. LDS soteriology makes so much more sense and shows God to be so much more fair, that the contrast is striking.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I agree. You have come to an important realization. But it goes even farther than you have stated, because the talking point doesn't just disrespect the cross--it disrespects God Himself, because it implies that His personality is centered around only 2 possibilities:

1. "Punish everyone because of a sin nature that they weren't responsible for" or

2. "Punish everyone except the relative few who, for no good reason, get to spend forever in heaven with no punishments."

Both of those scenarios paint God as an unfair judge. LDS soteriology makes so much more sense and shows God to be so much more fair, that the contrast is striking.

I think LDS soteriology makes more sense to you, because it doesn't place an emphasis on how sinful man really is...and in what great need we are of a Savior. LDS tend to believe that people are basically good. I remember the RS President of my Ward, one time, said to us, how good we were and that in this whole group she doubted there were more than very small sins. In other words, we were all moving towards perfection and God. That made me feel uncomfortable, even as a believer, knowing my own sins! lol

Anyway, there are a couple of big items with Mormonism that makes it so wrong. One is their idea of God (that he was once a man and became a god...and that we can do the same). That's really extremely unbiblical. The other is their view of sin. Most have no idea of the condition that mankind is really in.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Why did you say you were universalist, would save alot of time.

said I was a WHAT?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

What Alan is saying is not universalism. Universalists believe that God/Jesus will "save" everyone, somehow. Alan and I are simply saying that everyone is drawn and has the "opportunity" to be saved. Not that everyone "will" be saved.

We have made that VERY clear from the start.....Im not sure what this "universalism" talk came from?...but it was not from here....

[Libby]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

said I was a WHAT?

I think RFH is only reading every other word. ;-)

[Libby]

Just as an aside, I bought this beautiful NIV Study Bible online and just got it last Friday. I needed the "large print" edition. The print, in the one I had, was just too small and I could barely read the footnotes, even with my gl***es. I am very pleased with this large print edition. It's kind of humongous, but has beautiful maps and footnotes I can easily read!

I have been looking up some of our favorite verses, being quoted here, which has been interesting.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

The footnote is as Billy said (and I predicted) that Jesus was talking about all "groups" of people (not individuals)...but that doesn't preclude the fact that Jesus said he would draw "all people".

[Libby]

Phoenix, one more think about soteriology. If it's not based in truth, it's not going to do us much good. We may "wish" for things to be a certain way, but that doesn't mean it lines up with God's plan. And, I'm talking to myself, as much as to you.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think RFH is only reading every other word. ;-)

whats with these people?

One guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and the other makes up stuff out of thin air......

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

whats with these people?

One guy doesn't know what he is talking about, and the other makes up stuff out of thin air......

My Granny said, "if you take a fool and educate them, all you is got is an educated fool, think about that.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think LDS soteriology makes more sense to you, because it doesn't place an emphasis on how sinful man really is...and in what great need we are of a Savior.

That is incorrect. LDS soteriology places as much emphasis on those things as any other church does, IMO. Where LDS soteriology makes the most sense is where it teaches that people are punished for the sins they actually commit that they don't actually repent of. People aren't punished because of something Adam and Eve did. People aren't punished for living and dying in a time and place where they had no chance of hearing the gospel. People aren't punished for imaginary sins they "may have" committed while they were a fetus. LDS doctrine uses common sense in understanding what scripture was intended to mean. That is why it makes sense, and that is why I believe it.

LDS tend to believe that people are basically good.

Generally speaking, the average human being is more good than he is bad. He obeys the law more frequently than he breaks it. He helps those in need more than he hurts people. It's only the exceptions to the rule, the small minority out on the fringe, who are totally depraved, totally evil, with no good at all in them, such as Dahmer, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

I remember the RS President of my Ward, one time, said to us, how good we were and that in this whole group she doubted there were more than very small sins. In other words, we were all moving towards perfection and God. That made me feel uncomfortable, even as a believer, knowing my own sins! lol

It makes you uncomfortable to think that you are moving towards God? If you think you are moving farther and farther away from God, then THAT is what should make you uncomfortable. If the church you're now in is a group of people who aren't growing closer to God, then maybe you should get out.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That is incorrect. LDS soteriology places as much emphasis on those things as any other church does, IMO. Where LDS soteriology makes the most sense is where it teaches that people are punished for the sins they actually commit that they don't actually repent of. People aren't punished because of something Adam and Eve did. People aren't punished for living and dying in a time and place where they had no chance of hearing the gospel. People aren't punished for imaginary sins they "may have" committed while they were a fetus. LDS doctrine uses common sense in understanding what scripture was intended to mean. That is why it makes sense, and that is why I believe it.

Okay, placing "emphasis" on sin was not the right word and not really what I meant. You pointed it out, above, when you said we did not inherit Adam and Eve's sins. I don't believe we inherited their actual sins, either, but we did inherit a "sin nature". I see that as like inheriting any other physical attribute. Just as we are prone to disease, so we are prone to sin. Our sins are often well hidden in our minds and hearts. Just because people don't go around killing one another, doesn't mean they don't sin. Until we know God (and even often after we DO) our motives are often selfish and self centered. I don't think we are even aware of that, most of the time, because it really is a part of our nature.

It makes you uncomfortable to think that you are moving towards God? If you think you are moving farther and farther away from God, then THAT is what should make you uncomfortable. If the church you're now in is a group of people who aren't growing closer to God, then maybe you should get out.

I'll put it this way. I am now aware that any real good that comes from me is because of God, not because of my own personal doing. It does not make me uncomfortable to be moving towards God. It made me uncomfortable to take credit for it, because of my "good works". I just see that very differently, now, and give God credit for all of it.

I don't know that everyone in that room felt as I did (that it was because of their own work that they were moving towards God), but the LDS Church is very works oriented (do all you can do and Jesus will do the rest), and I think it is easy to forget that we need to be giving God the credit for the work he is doing in us, through the indwelling Spirit...we do nothing of ourselves. And to be grateful for that.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Okay, placing "emphasis" on sin was not the right word and not really what I meant. You pointed it out, above, when you said we did not inherit Adam and Eve's sins. I don't believe we inherited their actual sins, either, but we did inherit a "sin nature".

Actually, what I said was that LDS teach--correctly--that we are not PUNISHED for Adam and Eve's sins. This is one of several correct teachings that make the LDS church stand out as a beacon of common sense.

I see that as like inheriting any other physical attribute. Just as we are prone to disease, so we are prone to sin.

The problem with that Calvinistic ****ogy is that being susceptible to germs is not something that you can, or need to, repent of. But sin is a willful, deliberate act of rebellion against what God wants you to do. It doesn't displease God when you catch a cold, but it does displease Him when you loot a store for a big-screen TV.

Being prone to sin is not a punishment, or a curse that you inherited from Adam and Eve because of some sin they committed. And the proof of that is Adam and Eve themselves. They were just as prone to sin as you are, but who did they inherit THEIR "sin nature" from?

I'll put it this way. I am now aware that any real good that comes from me is because of God, not because of my own personal doing. It does not make me uncomfortable to be moving towards God. It made me uncomfortable to take credit for it, because of my "good works". I just see that very differently, now, and give God credit for all of it.

I don't know that everyone in that room felt as I did (that it was because of their own work that they were moving towards God), but the LDS Church is very works oriented (do all you can do and Jesus will do the rest), and I think it is easy to forget that we need to be giving God the credit for the work he is doing in us, through the indwelling Spirit...we do nothing of ourselves. And to be grateful for that.

The LDS church doesn't need to apologize for its emphasis on the importance of obeying God. Churches that DE-emphasize the importance of obeying God are the ones that need to apologize, actually.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Actually, what I said was that LDS teach--correctly--that we are not PUNISHED for Adam and Eve's sins. This is one of several correct teachings that make the LDS church stand out as a beacon of common sense.

That's exactly what I meant, as well. We are not punished for their sins, but you really can't deny that we inherited a sin nature from them. Even LDS teach that our propensity towards sin was inherited from Adam and Eve.

"Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression” (Articles of Faith 1:2)."

The problem with that Calvinistic ****ogy is that being susceptible to germs is not something that you can, or need to, repent of. But sin is a willful, deliberate act of rebellion against what God wants you to do. It doesn't displease God when you catch a cold, but it does displease Him when you loot a store for a big-screen TV.

That's not just a Calvinist belief, Phoenix. That is from the Bible and a Christian belief.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." We are also prone to disease and death, because of The Fall. It's not a "punishment". It's just the way it is. I have inherited traits from my parents that are causing me some health problems. It's not a "punishment", per se, but the natural consequences of man's separation from God...sin, disease, physical and spiritual death.

Being prone to sin is not a punishment, or a curse that you inherited from Adam and Eve because of some sin they committed. And the proof of that is Adam and Eve themselves. They were just as prone to sin as you are, but who did they inherit THEIR "sin nature" from?

No, they were not created with a "sin nature". Speaking of "free will", Adam and Eve had much more of a choice in the matter than we do. They were not separated from God, at the time, but still allowed themselves to fall under the spell of Satan.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's exactly what I meant, as well.

I mentioned the LDS doctrine that we are not punished for Adam's sins, and your response referred to inheriting their sins. Thanks for clarifying what you really meant.

We are not punished for their sins, but you really can't deny that we inherited a sin nature from them.

I can and do deny it, because it's a false idea that owes its popularity to Calvin and pals. It implies that if Adam and Eve had obeyed the commandment to stay away from a certain fruit, none of their children would have been born prone to sin. Common sense shows how wrong that idea is.

Even LDS teach that our propensity towards sin was inherited from Adam and Eve.

You are mistaken.

"Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression” (Articles of Faith 1:2)."

That doesn't say that our propensity towards sin was inherited from Adam and Eve. It just says that because of what Adam and Eve did, we don't live in Paradise right now, and we are mortal. Being mortal isn't a bad thing. Jesus made sure that being mortal is no impediment to our salvation at all.

If you agree that Adam and Eve didn't get a sin nature from anyone, then how do you explain the fact that they sinned?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I mentioned the LDS doctrine that we are not punished for Adam's sins, and your response referred to inheriting their sins. Thanks for clarifying what you really meant.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I said we inherited our "sin nature" from Adam and Eve. There is a difference between inheriting responsibility for their actual sins and inheriting an inclination towards sin.

I can and do deny it, because it's a false idea that owes its popularity to Calvin and pals. It implies that if Adam and Eve had obeyed the commandment to stay away from a certain fruit, none of their children would have been born prone to sin. Common sense shows how wrong that idea is.

You believe Adam and Eve came in with an inclination to sin? No wonder you keep saying that God made us that way. That is not a mainstream Christian belief, which is why I always puzzled over it, when you said that. God did not create us with a sin nature. Adam and Eve were pure and sinless, until they fell prey to Satan in the Garden. They didn't even realize they were naked....they were innocent.

Also, the quote I gave you from the LDS Church says that we are in a Fallen World (the cold and dreary world?)....what does a "fallen world" mean to you? You think that has nothing to do with sin? Specifically, the sins of Adam and Eve?

That doesn't say that our propensity towards sin was inherited from Adam and Eve. It just says that because of what Adam and Eve did, we don't live in Paradise right now, and we are mortal. Being mortal isn't a bad thing. Jesus made sure that being mortal is no impediment to our salvation at all.

Adam and Eve were mortal.

Phoenix, why is it we need Jesus Christ?

If you agree that Adam and Eve didn't get a sin nature from anyone, then how do you explain the fact that they sinned?

They had the ability to sin, of course, but they were not as inclined to do so, as we might be. As you said, we live in a fallen world, with a lot of sin and temptation. Adam and Eve were living in Paradise, as you said, and had full access to God, face to face. Theirs was true choice and they allowed themselves to succumb to Satan. That was not God's doing....unless you want to blame him for giving them "agency".

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

Actually, I'm pretty sure I said we inherited our "sin nature" from Adam and Eve. There is a difference between inheriting responsibility for their actual sins and inheriting an inclination towards sin.

So you reject the teaching about humanity being under condemnation because of Original Sin?

You believe Adam and Eve came in with an inclination to sin?

Well, you believe they did sin, right? How did they manage to do that if it wasn't in their nature?

As some of your newly re-found "friends" say: Why does a lion eat other animals, instead of just eating gr***? Because it's in a lion's NATURE to be a carnivore. Lions aren't carnivores because they eat meat--they eat meat because they are, by nature, carnivores. Just like with humans: We're not sinners because we sin--we sin because we are, by nature, sinners."

Their logic falls apart where their belief that Adam and Eve managed to sin WITHOUT being sinners by nature enters the picture.

No wonder you keep saying that God made us that way.

You deny that you were created with a sin nature? You did say "us" right?

That is not a mainstream Christian belief,

I can't help it if mainstream Christian beliefs are sometimes erroneous and illogical.

God did not create us with a sin nature.

"Us" includes you and me, right?
You're saying that God did not create you and me with a sin nature?

Adam and Eve were pure and sinless, until they fell prey to Satan in the Garden. They didn't even realize they were naked....they were innocent.

Isn't that what happened to you and me as well? Didn't our sins start when we fell prey to temptations?
Wasn't there a time when we didn't know good from evil? So how, again, are we different from our great-great etc. grandparents Adam and Eve?

Also, the quote I gave you from the LDS Church says that we are in a Fallen World (the cold and dreary world?)....what does a "fallen world" mean to you?

I told you: It means that it's not Paradise. Stuff dies, crops need work in order to grow, it gets cold in winter, and germs make you sick.

Adam and Eve were mortal.

Not at first they weren't.

Phoenix, why is it we need Jesus Christ?

Because without Him, our sins couldn't be remitted, we couldn't be resurrected, and we couldn't return home to be with God.

They had the ability to sin, of course, but they were not as inclined to do so, as we might be.

But wasn't their sin far worse than any other sin in human history, in your current belief system?
Does that sound like something a person who isn't very inclined to sin would do?

Adam and Eve were living in Paradise, as you said, and had full access to God, face to face. Theirs was true choice and they allowed themselves to succumb to Satan.

So they far less of an excuse to sin than we have? Doesn't that suggest that they actually had MORE of a sin nature than any of us have?

[Libby]

I told you: It means that it's not Paradise. Stuff dies, crops need work in order to grow, it gets cold in winter, and germs make you sick.

But, why?

Do you think this world just as a good a place to live as Paradise?

Isn't that what happened to you and me as well? Didn't our sins start when we fell prey to temptations?

Wasn't there a time when we didn't know good from evil? So how, again, are we different from our great-great etc. grandparents Adam and Eve?

Yes to all of that, but in this "fallen world" we are exposed to a hundred times more temptation than Adam and Eve.

As some of your newly re-found "friends" say:

That made me smile. Some of them have not been very "friendly", have they?

I'm not a Calvinist, Phoenix. I could agree with a lot of your beliefs....if they were not encased in a church that teaches plural gods and prophets who were/are not really prophets.

I'm disgusted with the LDS Church, today, more than ever, which is why I started on this "anti-Mormon binge", I suppose.

So they far less of an excuse to sin than we have? Doesn't that suggest that they actually had MORE of a sin nature than any of us have?

Seems to me they were, generally speaking, much more obedient than most of us.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

But, why?
Do you think this world just as a good a place to live as Paradise?

No, but that is irrelevant to the question. Just because we're not in Paradise, does it mean we inherited a mystical sin nature from Adam of Eve? No.

Yes to all of that, but in this "fallen world" we are exposed to a hundred times more temptation than Adam and Eve.

Is Satan literally here, literally tempting us? Not that I can tell. At least I haven't seen any snakes trying to trick me into eating fruit. And does it seem fair to you that Adam Eve were born WITHOUT a sin nature, AND they got 100 times LESS temptation than we get?

That made me smile. Some of them have not been very "friendly", have they?

They are fair weather friends. You know that. They will tell you how glad they are to know that you are saved....until you tell them you believe differently than they do on some doctrines, or until you start sticking up for LDS people again, whereupon they will tell you how sad they are to know that you were never really saved.

I'm not a Calvinist, Phoenix. I could agree with a lot of your beliefs....if they were not encased in a church that teaches plural gods and prophets who were/are not really prophets.

How does a church that never had true prophets end up with beliefs that are more correct than the "true" churches have?
Think about that.

I'm disgusted with the LDS Church, today, more than ever, which is why I started on this "anti-Mormon binge", I suppose.

I have a feeling that at some point in the future, you will come to your senses again, and will walk away from being anti-LDS, and it will bring you happiness again, like it did in the past.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

No, but that is irrelevant to the question. Just because we're not in Paradise, does it mean we inherited a mystical sin nature from Adam of Eve? No.

Well, it's definitely been a downward spiral, since the Garden....whatever you point to as the reason....the Bible calls it sin nature or desires of the flesh.

Is Satan literally here, literally tempting us? Not that I can tell. At least I haven't seen any snakes trying to trick me into eating fruit. And does it seem fair to you that Adam Eve were born WITHOUT a sin nature, AND they got 100 times LESS temptation than we get?

Is "satan" here? In a million different forms, yes.

I may be convinced, yet, that God's idea of "fair", and mine, are quite different.

They are fair weather friends. You know that. They will tell you how glad they are to know that you are saved....until you tell them you believe differently than they do on some doctrines, or until you start sticking up for LDS people again, whereupon they will tell you how sad they are to know that you were never really saved.

Well, I guess I would say that there can be a difference between being "friendly" and being a good "friend". A friend should be allowed to be honest with you. At any rate, I am not too worried about "friendships" on these boards.....more interested in honest discussion, at this point.

How does a church that never had true prophets end up with beliefs that are more correct than the "true" churches have?
Think about that.

I don't believe the LDS Church has "more correct truth". What they have gets distorted by being funneled through so much..."untruth".

I have a feeling that at some point in the future, you will come to your senses again, and will walk away from being anti-LDS, and it will bring you happiness again, like it did in the past.

I have never been "anti-Mormon".....anti-MormonISM..yes. But, you're right, I probably won't be active on the boards for very long. I'm just not very good at it...and I don't like a lot of the contention and strife that comes with it. It's stressful. The boards have changed. Most LDS who defend are never going to leave the church. Do the conversations keep some people from "joining"....perhaps, a few. That's the only good I can see coming from it.

[Phoenix]

I think I'd rather see people join Hinduism than see them join radical anti-Mormonism.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I think I'd rather see people join Hinduism than see them join radical anti-Mormonism.

That's quite an interesting thing to say, from someone who considers themselves a Christian.

I think I understand where you're coming from, though. Radical "anything" often stimulates a lot of hate.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's quite an interesting thing to say, from someone who considers themselves a Christian.

I think I understand where you're coming from, though. Radical "anything" often stimulates a lot of hate.

Exactly. When the average Hindu acts more like a disciple of Christ, than the average anti-LDS person who claims to be a Christian does, well....Houston, we have a problem.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Exactly. When the average Hindu acts more like a disciple of Christ, than the average anti-LDS person who claims to be a Christian does, well....Houston, we have a problem.

Well, as you probably know, I do love and appreciate civility. But, I also know that the truth (and speaking it in love) is important...very important. Both speaking the truth..AND doing it with love and caring. That last part often gets lost in the heat of the "battle". It's so very easy to hate someone or something that we perceive as the enemy. Very difficult to actually love and show genuine concern for those with whom we vehemently disagree. That's the challenge, IMO. To tell the truth and withstand the consequences of it (which can sometimes be hate)...but to continue to love, anyway.