no need to restore the truth

[Berean]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Hi Disciple I believe The Bible teaches it quite clearly

"John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Jesus does not say, "he that seen me hath seen God" (which would conform more with a trinitarian view, I suppose) He was quite specific that SEEING Him was like seeing The Father.

And these others
I think it was a strong teaching from the beginning..I see nowhere in these verses that state we are made in the "image" of His spirit
-God created man in his own image: Gen. 1:27 .
-God created man, in the likeness of God made he him: Gen. 5:1 .
-in the image of God made he man: Gen. 9:6 .

He has a voice...this is also very clear teachings that God is separate from Jesus
-a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son: Matt. 3:17
-a voice out of the cloud: Matt. 17:5

Stephen saw God
-the Son of man standing on the right hand of God: Acts 7:56

And more teachings about Jesus Christ being the EXPRESS image of God. One of the reasons Jesus came to earth was to teach us more about God, and that includes what He looks like.

-Christ, who is the image of God: 2*Cor.
-Who is the image of the invisible God: Col. 1:15 (remember, invisible also means that which is hidden from view, just as God's person is hidden from our view)
-the express image of his person: Heb. 1:3

And again, we are made after the image of God
-men, which are made after the similitude of God: James 3:9

And when we are resurrected, we will be like Him as well
-Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body...Philip. 3:21

I believe it has been clearly taught from the beginning. I personally see these as stronger evidence than one verse that states God is spirit, when many other verses describe God as being many different things(fire, love, light), but we know He is not ONLY those things. Why would THAT ONE particular verse (God is spirit) be different from the rest? Especially when so many other verses teach that God does indeed have a body?

I hope the verses made sense...I'm typing quickly

Thank you for the discussion, really...it helps me as well. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, that discussing this actually helps my testimony.

Because Scripture tells us that God is Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and truth. Jn 4:24.

Also, what you describe are anthropomorphisms, and as much as anthropomorphisms help us picture God in human terms we can understand, God is not now nor ever has been a man. (Hos 11:9; Num 23:19.

He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means “without limits.” When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

The LDS god, OTOH, even if he does exist, which he does not, there is only ONE God, the LDS god is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He is a very weak god, subject to the laws of physics set down by the God of the Bible. He is not able to create, ex nihilo, as the Christian God can, allegedly he can only rearrange matter that already exists. LDS doctrine claims that as man is now, god once was, and as god is now, man may become.

LDS clearly worship a false god and a false Jesus, by their own admission.

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation - Ensign Jan. 1989 - ensign

[Berean]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Hi Disciple I believe The Bible teaches it quite clearly

"John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

Jesus does not say, "he that seen me hath seen God" (which would conform more with a trinitarian view, I suppose) He was quite specific that SEEING Him was like seeing The Father.

And these others
I think it was a strong teaching from the beginning..I see nowhere in these verses that state we are made in the "image" of His spirit
-God created man in his own image: Gen. 1:27 .
-God created man, in the likeness of God made he him: Gen. 5:1 .
-in the image of God made he man: Gen. 9:6 .

He has a voice...this is also very clear teachings that God is separate from Jesus
-a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son: Matt. 3:17
-a voice out of the cloud: Matt. 17:5

Stephen saw God
-the Son of man standing on the right hand of God: Acts 7:56

And more teachings about Jesus Christ being the EXPRESS image of God. One of the reasons Jesus came to earth was to teach us more about God, and that includes what He looks like.

-Christ, who is the image of God: 2*Cor.
-Who is the image of the invisible God: Col. 1:15 (remember, invisible also means that which is hidden from view, just as God's person is hidden from our view)
-the express image of his person: Heb. 1:3

And again, we are made after the image of God
-men, which are made after the similitude of God: James 3:9

And when we are resurrected, we will be like Him as well
-Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body...Philip. 3:21

I believe it has been clearly taught from the beginning. I personally see these as stronger evidence than one verse that states God is spirit, when many other verses describe God as being many different things(fire, love, light), but we know He is not ONLY those things. Why would THAT ONE particular verse (God is spirit) be different from the rest? Especially when so many other verses teach that God does indeed have a body?

I hope the verses made sense...I'm typing quickly

Thank you for the discussion, really...it helps me as well. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, that discussing this actually helps my testimony.

Because Scripture tells us that God is Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and truth. Jn 4:24.

Also, what you describe are anthropomorphisms, and as much as anthropomorphisms help us picture God in human terms we can understand, God is not now nor ever has been a man. (Hos 11:9; Num 23:19.

He reminds us in Isaiah 55:8-9: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means “without limits.” When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

The LDS god, OTOH, even if he does exist, which he does not, there is only ONE God, the LDS god is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He is a very weak god, subject to the laws of physics set down by the God of the Bible. He is not able to create, ex nihilo, as the Christian God can, allegedly he can only rearrange matter that already exists. LDS doctrine claims that as man is now, god once was, and as god is now, man may become.

LDS clearly worship a false god and a false Jesus, by their own admission.

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation - Ensign Jan. 1989 - ensign

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Berean

God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space.

the Virgin Mary seemed pretty sure that the god she gave birth to existed in her time and space.
if Jesus never existed in our time and apace, then the phrase "god with us" would be a lie.

LDS clearly worship a false god and a false Jesus, by their own admission.

i am pretty sure that they do not admit to worshiping a false god and a false Jesus.
i will go ask one. Wait for a minute and I will be right back.




okay, I asked one of them "do you admit that you worship a false god and a false Jesus?" and they said "no."

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

the Virgin Mary seemed pretty sure that the god she gave birth to existed in her time and space.
if Jesus never existed in our time and apace, then the phrase "god with us" would be a lie.

Jesus is fully God, and fully man. It's called a hypostatic union. http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

Originally Posted by Phoenix

i am pretty sure that they do not admit to worshiping a false god and a false Jesus.
i will go ask one. Wait for a minute and I will be right back.




okay, I asked one of them "do you admit that you worship a false god and a false Jesus?" and they said "no."

The link I posted, is an Ensign article which clearly indicates that Joseph Smith taught a "different" Jesus and a "different" god than that of orthodox Christianity. Here it is again.

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation - Ensign Jan. 1989 - ensign

And the following is the reason why I said Mormonism "admittedly" teaches false doctrines, a false Jesus and a false god:

2 Cor 11:4For if he who comes preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or if you receive a different spirit, which you did not receive, or a different "good news", which you did not accept, you put up with that well enough. 5For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles. 6But though I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not unskilled in knowledge. No, in every way we have been revealed to you in all things.

Gal 1:6I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different "good news"; 7and there isn't another "good news." Only there are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. 8But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any "good news" other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. 9As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any "good news" other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn't be a servant of Christ.

1 Tim 6:3If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and doesn't consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, 4he is conceited, knowing nothing, but obsessed with arguments, disputes, and word battles, from which come envy, strife, insulting, evil suspicions, 5constant friction of people of corrupt minds and des***ute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. Withdraw yourself from such.

[MickeyS]

"The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding."

So this doesn't really explain anything. No offense, but it seems to me that this is a way to "explain" away contrary doctrine, and contradictory verses to the concept of the trinity. If you don't understand it....why are defining it? It sounds like it was able to be explained up to a point, and then everything else gets labeled as "mystery" and accepted. Just because somebody's come up with a name for it, doesn't mean it's real. I don't see how this explains anything.

You do realize that there isn't a "Jesus" shelf with all these "different Jesuses" lined up to represent what man believes. There is no "different" Jesus. There are simply different understandings of the SAME Jesus. I know the phrase is thrown around a lot, but it's getting really old.

It's okay though. One day the One and Only Jesus will explain it all. I have comfort in that.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

"The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding."

That's true for LDS, but Christians have no problem fully understanding.

Originally Posted by MickeyS

So this doesn't really explain anything. No offense, but it seems to me that this is a way to "explain" away contrary doctrine, and contradictory verses to the concept of the trinity. If you don't understand it....why are defining it? It sounds like it was able to be explained up to a point, and then everything else gets labeled as "mystery" and accepted. Just because somebody's come up with a name for it, doesn't mean it's real. I don't see how this explains anything.

No offense taken. It most certainly is a way to explain the doctrine, but I don't believe there any contradictions in the Bible, and the Trinity is not a concept, it is evident all throughout the Bible. Even the BoM teaches the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but Mormons don't follow the teachings of the BoM and vise versa.

For example:

Alma 11:
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Originally Posted by MickeyS

You do realize that there isn't a "Jesus" shelf with all these "different Jesuses" lined up to represent what man believes. There is no "different" Jesus. There are simply different understandings of the SAME Jesus. I know the phrase is thrown around a lot, but it's getting really old.

It's okay though. One day the One and Only Jesus will explain it all. I have comfort in that.

Tell that to Joseph Smith. He insists LDS follow a different Jesus, a different god and a different gospel.

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation - Ensign Jan. 1989 - ensign

[Phoenix]

Berean still hasn't proven that the Virgin Mary would be lying if she claimed that the god she gave birth to and raised did in fact exist in her time and space.

[MickeyS]

That's true for LDS, but Christians have no problem fully understanding.

I got that quote from your got questions link....was it not an accurate source?

"The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding."

http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

If not, why did you provide it?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

i am pretty sure that they do not admit to worshiping a false god and a false Jesus.
i will go ask one. Wait for a minute and I will be right back.




okay, I asked one of them "do you admit that you worship a false god and a false Jesus?" and they said "no."

Thanks for a good laugh.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings,
Paul wrote the following,
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Gal 1:6-9
The Gospel message preached by the Apostles and recorded in the New Testament was and is true and complete, and can be either accepted or rejected. There has never been a need for a "restored" gospel. I do not say this with disdain, as I am sure Joseph Smith was indeed searching for truth and you who are Mormons are sincere in your belief as I am in mine, but only one can be right. And since Joseph Smith seems to have done the exact thing Paul warned against, adding to a Gospel that was already complete and declared finished by Jesus Christ and receiving new information form an angel, wouldn't the New Testament account be more reliable than extra-biblical books added in the 1800's? The Gospel didn't need to be restored just preached.

Then could you explain for us why there a need for a Reformation--where a different theology was introduced--with numerous different denominations?

[disciple]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Then could you explain for us why there a need for a Reformation--where a different theology was introduced--with numerous different denominations?

The reformation was an indictment against the catholic church, which was preaching a false Gospel. Salvation by works, indulgences, attributing the power of God to Mary and saints, etc. The true Gospel was not being reformed, Luther and others realized that the teaching of the church did not line up with the truth of the scriptures.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

The reformation was an indictment against the catholic church, which was preaching a false Gospel. Salvation by works, indulgences, attributing the power of God to Mary and saints, etc. The true Gospel was not being reformed, Luther and others realized that the teaching of the church did not line up with the truth of the scriptures.

Hello Disciple!

If the gospel was not being reformed(and since the gospel does not need to be reformed, that is good)--and the teachings did not line up with the truth--then what would you call starting new denominations with a different theology?

[disciple]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Hello Disciple!

If the gospel was not being reformed(and since the gospel does not need to be reformed, that is good)--and the teachings did not line up with the truth--then what would you call starting new denominations with a different theology?

Hi DB,

Hope you are well. The realization that the scriptures were true and what the catholic church was teaching was not true was not someone coming up with a different theology. Nothing needed to be added or changed the bible was always true, men just needed to believe the revelation of God and not of men. I'm
not a big fan of the many denominations in Protestantism but I know satan will never stop driving wedges between believers.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi DB,

Hope you are well. The realization that the scriptures were true and what the catholic church was teaching was not true was not someone coming up with a different theology. Nothing needed to be added or changed the bible was always true, men just needed to believe the revelation of God and not of men. I'm
not a big fan of the many denominations in Protestantism but I know satan will never stop driving wedges between believers.

If it is possible that Catholicism was teaching not-scriptural views such as indulgences, isn't it possible that a idea that came not from the Bible, but 300 years or so later is also not true? As mentioned, the word trinity, nor the concept is backed by the Bible. The only way to do so is to make the poetic writings of Isaiah literal and the literal writings of Moses poetic or figurative. This does not make sense to me.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi DB,

Hope you are well. The realization that the scriptures were true and what the catholic church was teaching was not true was not someone coming up with a different theology. Nothing needed to be added or changed ...

Hi Disciple:

Again--if nothing needed to be changed--then why the need for the Reformation--and the different theology--with numerous new denominations?

In fact--the Reformation gave rise to a major branch in Christianity:


Reformation---https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation
CHRISTIANITY
WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 4-20-2010 See Article History

Reformation, the religious revolution that took place in the Western church in the 16th century. Its greatest leaders undoubtedly were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Having far-reaching political, economic, and social effects, the Reformation became the basis for the founding of Protestantism, one of the three major branches of Christianity.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Hi Disciple:

Again--if nothing needed to be changed--then why the need for the Reformation--and the different theology--with numerous new denominations?

In fact--the Reformation gave rise to a major branch in Christianity:


Reformation---https://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation
CHRISTIANITY
WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 4-20-2010 See Article History

Reformation, the religious revolution that took place in the Western church in the 16th century. Its greatest leaders undoubtedly were Martin Luther and John Calvin. Having far-reaching political, economic, and social effects, the Reformation became the basis for the founding of Protestantism, one of the three major branches of Christianity.

Hey DB, thanks for your reply.

Here's the point I'm trying to make, it wasn't God that felt the need for the reformation. It wasn't God who was the author of denominations or multiple religions. God had no need to add to or change the Bible, the complete revelation of His redemptive plan was always there, men just ignored it. Religion is man made, James 1:27 tells us," Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Christianity is following Jesus Christ and acknowledging who He is. People were getting saved before Luther, Calvin or Smith and the means of their salvation can be found in the Gospel. See what I'm getting at?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hey DB, thanks for your reply.

Here's the point I'm trying to make, it wasn't God that felt the need for the reformation.

If God did not need a reformation, then it shouldn't have been as it divided the church.

It wasn't God who was the author of denominations or multiple religions.

See point above.

God had no need to add to or change the Bible, the complete revelation of His redemptive plan was always there, men just ignored it.

If there was no need for any more revelation, then men would not need a reformation, nor a break off from the original church (see above again).

Religion is man made, James 1:27 tells us," Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

So God has no need for religion, then to you, there is no need for a church?

So, if God has no need for religion, nor a reformation, why do you believe God started both? Or do you feel He was not part of either the early church nor the reformation?

Christianity is following Jesus Christ and acknowledging who He is. People were getting saved before Luther, Calvin or Smith and the means of their salvation can be found in the Gospel. See what I'm getting at?

I agree that people have been saved since the beginning of time because of Christ, I am just curious how you suppose people understand what it means to follow Christ? What it means to believe in Christ, etc.---especially in light that there is so much division about what this means. I mean, even Muslims believe Christ was a great prophet, are they "christian" to you? And Mormons believe Christ is God the Son and begotten of the Father, are they Christian to you too? We are all just happily saved then--according to the gospel of Disciple (you)?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hey DB, thanks for your reply.

Here's the point I'm trying to make, it wasn't God that felt the need for the reformation.

Hi Disciple:

I agree. The gospel does not need to be reformed----but it is restored, as the scriptures bear testimony to:


Acts 3:21---King James Version (KJV)
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of res***ution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

The addendum to that restoration is--it must be accompanied by a heavenly event, not just an earthly one. IMO--the LDS church is the only church that claims the presence of Heavenly messengers--with witnesses.

It wasn't God who was the author of denominations or multiple religions.

Once again--I agree with you. So--what separates out God's true church from the rest?

God had no need to add to or change the Bible, the complete revelation of His redemptive plan was always there, men just ignored it.

God has added to the Bible all through the history of man--it was the product of thousands of years of revelations to man. And although the "Bible" may be complete--His revelations aren't finished, as God has always revealed His will to man, and those revelations have always been recorded in scripture, with witnesses--call it what one might. The LDS call it the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

Religion is man made, James 1:27 tells us," Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

How is that "man-made"? I believe that is God's way--not man's. We, as Christians, adopt God's way as our own, if we are to be accepted of God, and become His servants.

Christianity is following Jesus Christ and acknowledging who He is. People were getting saved before Luther, Calvin or Smith and the means of their salvation can be found in the Gospel. See what I'm getting at?

If any man is saved--it is on the same principle they have always been saved--and that is--obedience to the gospel. I don't believe the gospel, in it's form to be saved--has always been on the earth.

Disciple--the faith alone preach a gospel of salvation independent of following Christ. They preach a gospel of--first--being saved through faith--without any acts of obedience to Jesus Christ.

The scriptures testify to God's grace unto life conditional upon a "walk in the light":

1 John 1:7---King James Version (KJV)
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Preaching salvation is independent of acts of obedience to Jesus Christ is not the Gospel found in the Biblical NT:

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9---King James Version (KJV)
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

[disciple]

Hi DB,


In light of your comment above, it seems you are saying that acts of obedience must precede salvation.
If that is indeed what you believe than how do you interpret the following scriptures?

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

“This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works ofthe law, or by the hearing of faith?” Gal 3:2

The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.” – C.S. Lewis

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi DB,


In light of your comment above, it seems you are saying that acts of obedience must precede salvation.
If that is indeed what you believe than how do you interpret the following scriptures?

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

“This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works ofthe law, or by the hearing of faith?” Gal 3:2

The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.” – C.S. Lewis

These scriptures (and comment by C.S. Lewis) do not contradict Dberrie's scriptures at all.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

These scriptures (and comment by C.S. Lewis) do not contradict Dberrie's scriptures at all.

So are you saying that acts of obedience must precede salvation?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi DB,


In light of your comment above, it seems you are saying that acts of obedience must precede salvation.
If that is indeed what you believe than how do you interpret the following scriptures?

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

Hi Disciple:

I interpret "works of the law" as certain rituals attached to the Mosaic Law--such as circumcision.

Obviously--Paul was not referring to obedience to the Gospel:

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9---King James Version (KJV)
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

When Paul used the terms "works" "works of the Law", "the Law", "the Mosaic Law", etc--that was a reference to certain rituals under the Mosaic Law.

The Christian does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.” – C.S. Lewis

If that is true--then why doesn't God make the whole world do good?

John 3:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[disciple]

Hi DB,

So are we justified by faith in Jesus or by doing works. Paul says its by faith.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hi DB,

So are we justified by faith in Jesus or by doing works. Paul says its by faith.

Hi Disciple--that begs the question--is that a faith with works--or a faith without works?

Romans 6:16---King James Version (KJV)
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

It is certainly a faith without the works of the Law--agreed. But not independent of obedience to the gospel of Christ:

James 2:24---King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

[disciple]

Hey DB,

Perhaps I can ask the question a different way. Which comes first, faith or works?