No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

There is no verse that says we are saved by faith, not works. I'm waiting for a reference to a verse that says obedience is optional.

Come on Mark--mod edit

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Come on Mark--try to be honest here.

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

And since we apparently disagree on the appropriate interpretation of a verse, I am being dishonest? I at least have provided a reasoned explanation of what Ephesians 2:8-9 means. No on has given a reasoned response challenging what I said. Y'all just revert to your mantra of Faith, not Works, relying on a verse that DOES NOT SAY THAT.

Now, I personally think it impossible that you missed my explanation earlier. After all, you posted more than once in the thread in which it appears, and it is not a lengthy thread. But in order to make it convenient for you, I will post it once again.

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

I was lying in bed thinking of the issue that Jeff raised in the opening post, i.e. whether the gift spoken of in Ephesians 2:8 is faith or salvation, and it occurred to me that both Lyons and Nebeker made it more complicated than it needed to be.

It is really quite a simple task to determine whether faith or salvation is the gift referenced by Paul. One simply needs to look at the Greek word for gift that is used in verse 8.

There are essentially 3 Greek words that are translated into the English as gift: doron, dorea, and charisma. Throughout the New Testament, whenever a sacrificial offering is called a gift, the Greek word used is doron.

On the other hand, when spiritual gifts are referenced in the New Testament, as in 1 Corinthians 12, the Greek word used is charisma, a free gift, or as Strongs describes it "a favour which one receives without any merit of his own." Charisma (free gift) is NEVER used to describe the gift of salvation.

Faith is referred to as a free gift (charisma) in 1 Corinthians 12:9. So it is really a rather simply matter to look at Ephesians 2:8 to see whether the Greek word from which gift is translated is charisma or doron. Not surprisingly, the word Paul used in Ephesians 2:8 is doron, in stark contrast to his use of the word charisma in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

Thus, we can say that the gift of salvation is Christ's sacrificial offering for us, and not the unmerited free gift that some Christians erroneously call it. Christ has laid His sacrifice on the altar, and it is our responsibility to accept it. We show this acceptance throught doing those things which Christ commanded, i.e. love God, love our neighbor, enter the waters of baptism, and so forth. The ****able heresy of the Calvinists, that God determines who may accept this offerering of Christ, is rightly called an abomination.

What this boils down to, Billyray, is this. Salvation ultimately is a gift that Christ offers us, but no one is compelled to accept it. The gift spoken of in Ephesians 2 is grace, not faith. That is clear from the Greek. Now, without this gift of grace, works cannot save us. But unless we accept that gift, by doing those things Christ commanded, grace cannot save us either. Without works, we have rejected the gift Christ offers. We accept Christ's offer of grace through our works, through obedience.

Now then, don't bother reciting your mantra again. If you want to respond, please provide something supported by the Scpritures showing that what I have explained cannot be true.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

But unless we accept that gift, by doing those things Christ commanded, grace cannot save us either. Without works, we have rejected the gift Christ offers. We accept Christ's offer of grace through our works, through obedience.

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are correct and here is the requirement for salvation.

Either these verses are true as they stand or they are false as they stand. These are statements from Jesus. If baptism is required for salvation--and Jesus would clearly know--then these statement by Jesus are false. Mark nobody is arguing that we should keep the commandments,because we should but these are not requirements FOR salvation.

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well. Even though Jesus was sinless he set the example for us to follow by being baptized and fulfilling all righteousness. John did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until after he was baptized when it was revealed Himself as belonging to God.

Matthew 3:13-16
13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John,to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying,I have need to be baptized of thee,and comest thou to me?
15And Jesus answering said unto him,Suffer it to be so now:for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16And Jesus,when he was baptized,went up straightway out of the water:and,lo,the heavens were opened unto him,and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven,saying,This is my beloved Son,in whom I am well pleased.

John 1:29-34
29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him,and saith,Behold the Lamb of God,which taketh away the sin of the world.
30This is he of whom I said,After me cometh a man which is preferred before me:for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not:but that he should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water.
32 And John bare record, saying,I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not:but he that sent me to baptize with water,the same said unto me,Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending,and remaining on him,the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
34And I saw,and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Also when the New Testament writers speak of being saved by believing,they are using "believe" to represents the whole response to the gospel.To “believe in Jesus” means to believe the gospel message,and baptism is a part of that gospel message.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well.

I agree with you, I think that we should be baptized. I was baptized by a Christian pastor after leaving the LDS church. So does this mean that I am OK?

(please note that even though I think that we should be baptized this does not mean that I think that baptism is required for salvation)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Believing in Jesus is to follow him in this act of being baptized as well.

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Here are the five elements that forms the blueprint for every conversion story in Acts. What is consistent in all of them is the ordinance of baptism.

1. Hear
2. Believe
3. Repent of our sins
4. Confess
5. Be baptized (fully immersed) in water for the forgiveness of our sins.

Born Again
Hear the gospel message
Faith (place my trust in Christ)
Repent (turn away from my sins)
Baptism (after my conversion)

Lets test your theory Mesenja. I have done the following steps. Will I be exalted?

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Libby

You are attacking a strawman,because those are not my beliefs. Never were,never will be. Those are your own perceptions about Calvinism.

I'm not discussing Calvinism here. It's not the place and I am just not going to get into a long convoluted argument about it. If you really want to understand,take your questions to the experts over on CARM.

You should seriously reconsider your views on Calvinism Libby. Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.

For Calvinists,God’s prevenient grace moves the human will to accept God’s efficacious grace. According to Calvin,persons can accept the saving grace only because God has predestined them to salvation and causally determined their will to accept efficacious grace through his prevenient grace. Moreover,God’s prevenient grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will. Those who do not accept God’s efficacious grace,or grace that accomplishes their salvation,fail to do so because God has decided in his arbitrary election to leave them to ****ation. That is,in the Calvinist view God has decided not to grant irresistible prevenient grace to some and thus has decided to abandon them to ****ation.

This concept of prevenient grace makes God an arbitrary and evil tyrant. He could save all persons,but he has decided not to. This is not the God of love taught by Jesus. This view of grace makes God unjust, unfair,unloving, and loathsome. Blomberg adopts a notion of salvation by grace alone (by which he apparently means that human will has no role in salvation);God’s election alone explains who is saved and who is ****ed. Blomberg responds to the argument that (at least this view of) grace is unfair in the same way as did Augustine,Aquinas,Calvin, and Luther:to ****ation because we all fall so short of God’s holy standard that we cannot hope to make it on our own. According to Calvinists, because of sin all persons (including little children) “deserve eternal death”.

But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation? It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.

What would we think of a parent who could pull both her children safely from a burning car,but decides arbitrarily to save one and not the other? We should be morally outraged. We should be even more outraged if we learn that the parent’s decision is based on the judgment that the child who burned deserved it because the child supposedly was guilty for sins of an ancient ancestor—even though she was only three years old! Of course,the child who was saved deserved salvation or ****ation equally,so this supposed justification is not the reason for salvation or ****ation at all—the decision is purely arbitrary and capricious. I cannot worship such a “god.” I wouldn’t even want to spend the weekend with such a person—let alone an eternity

[Bridging the Gulf Blake T. Ostler FARMS Review: Volume-11,Issue-2,Pages:103-77 A review of "How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation." by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson Provo,Utah:Maxwell Ins***ute,1999]

[akaSeerone]

But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation? It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.

The answer to why is because that what the Bible says God chooses to do.

Who do you think you are to question God?

Who do you think you are to tell God what He can and cannot do?

Who do you think you are to question the Bible?

Andy

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.

The article was full of loaded language by appealing to emotion to win the argument, using examples such as little children burning to death in a car. Shame on him for such a low ball trick.

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as emotive language or high-inference language) is wording that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language


What is your specific question Mesenja? Election? What?

[Father_JD]

In a word:

Nonsense. Ostler doesn't know squat regarding "Calvinism".

Only the tired, mischaracterization that p***es for a "critique" of "Calvinism" which is DEVOID of scriptural justification.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

In a word:Nonsense. Ostler doesn't know squat regarding "Calvinism".

Only the tired,mischaracterization that p***es for a "critique" of "Calvinism" which is DEVOID of scriptural justification.

If you think Ostler does not correctly describe Calvinism,and what,if any,objections you may have to what he wrote please tell me.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

You should seriously reconsider your views on Calvinism Libby. Here is part of a review by Blake Ostler of the book “How Wide the Divide?” by Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. He poses a question that maybe your vaunted experts at CARM should answer.

Ostler so obviously doesn't know what he's talking about, Mesenja, because Calvinists never speak in terms of "prevenient grace". That is an Arminian term.

As for whom God saves, that is simply an unknown, in the end. I honestly don't know but what God does not have in mind to save "all". All I know is that none of us deserve His grace and mercy and yet He is gracious to give it anyway. Even just this life (if that is all there is) is a precious gift. He is a God of Love, a God of mercy and benevolence that is beyond human understanding. Painting Calvinists as believing in a monster of a God is simply inaccurate and the result of faulty understanding (in many areas, including the Bible).

[Libby]

Btw, I read Robinson's book some time ago. He makes it all sound very reasonable, but where he gets tripped up is in the definition of terms. LDS and Christians use the same terms, but they mean such different things that they are actually NOT talking about the same things, in most cases. The divide is, actually, quite wide.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

If you think Ostler does not correctly describe Calvinism,and what,if any,objections you may have to what he wrote please tell me.

Ok, M. fair enough...I'll demonstrate his SKEWED understanding...

Ostler writes:

For Calvinists,God’s prevenient grace moves the human will to accept God’s efficacious grace. According to Calvin,persons can accept the saving grace only because God has predestined them to salvation and causally determined their will to accept efficacious grace through his prevenient grace.

"Methodists" talk about "prevenient grace"...not many Reformed do...at least not those I've read.

Otherwise, no complaint here but hold on...

Moreover,God’s prevenient grace is irresistible—it cannot be rejected by an evil will.

Huh? Not sure exactly what he MEANS here, M. Grace (prevenient or otherwise) is indeed REJECTED BY AN EVIL WILL...hence the NEED for "regeneration" which MUST take place FIRST.

So, I'd consider this the first skewing of Reformed doctrine.

Those who do not accept God’s efficacious grace,or grace that accomplishes their salvation,fail to do so because God has decided in his arbitrary election to leave them to ****ation.

Uh, some serious problems with this statement so here's the correction:

1. ALL who are elect WILL accept "God's efficacious grace" that's WHY it's called "Irresistable Grace". It's NOT a matter of it being offered at all to the non-elect.
2. God's election is NOT "arbitrary". He has His reasons which are known ONLY to Him.

That is,in the Calvinist view God has decided not to grant irresistible prevenient grace to some and thus has decided to abandon them to ****ation.

As seen from my response, this is NOT the "Calvinist view". Also...what's lacking is an understanding that people are not "abandon(ed)...to ****ation", they are already in a state of ****ation and FULLY CHOOSE TO BE IN THIS STATE. This point is generally lost on ALL non-Reformed people who think they understand the "Calvinist" view.

This concept of prevenient grace makes God an arbitrary and evil tyrant.

Merely his opinion.

He could save all persons,but he has decided not to.

Finally a non-skewed statement! Bravo, Ostler!!

This is not the God of love taught by Jesus.

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


Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

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

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Still not convinced? Read on...

Jhn 17:1 ¶ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:


Jhn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

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

Now keep paying attention, M.


Jhn 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Hmmm. Jesus doesn't pray "for the world", but for THEM WHOM THE FATHER HAS GIVEN HIM. So it's apparent that God elects SOME to life, and some He leaves in their unregenerate state.

This view of grace makes God unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome.

His opinion, NOT based upon anything scriptural, so what does Paul say?


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

Oooh. Ostler sure wouldn't like this statement by Paul, would he??


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


Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.


Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


Now granted, the immediate narrow context is regarding "election", but please note!! It's NOT a case that one can WILL "election", nor one who can RUN after it, meaning seek it on his own, but it is only GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Romans 9 alone destroys Ostlers "critique" for he has indeed called God "unrighteous"!!

Blomberg adopts a notion of salvation by grace alone (by which he apparently means that human will has no role in salvation);

Another skewed understanding. God FREES the will so that one WILL accept salvation...but God's regeneration is strictly His work and is NOT dependent upon human beings. Remember now, "Not of him who WILLS, or RUNS after"...

God’s election alone explains who is saved and who is ****ed.

Uh...no duh! And based upon Jesus' OWN statements and Paul's in Romans 9, this is an accutrate statement. Hooray for Ostler yet again!

Blomberg responds to the argument that (at least this view of) grace is unfair in the same way as did Augustine,Aquinas,Calvin, and Luther:“We should not want God to be fair” because we all fall so short of God’s holy standard that we cannot hope to make it on our own. According to Calvinists, because of sin all persons (including little children) “deserve eternal death”.

Not a case of "deserving". We're born in sin and tresp***. We're physically born DOA...dead on arrival SPIRITUALLY.

But this response is a dodge;it evades the central issue:if God can save everyone,and he desires to save everyone out of love,then why has he decided to leave some persons to ****ation?

Too bad Ostler thinks he knows more than the omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the universe! Again, a skewed statement. God doesn't "desire to save everyone", but ONLY THE ELECT. CF Romans 9 yet again...

It just won’t do to observe that we all deserve to be ****ed,so we should be grateful that God has decided to save some of us.

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

What would we think of a parent who could pull both her children safely from a burning car, but decides arbitrarily to save one and not the other? We should be morally outraged.

A false ****ogy, because we're not ontologically God's "children" and God is NOT by nature our "parent". Ostler misses the fact that it's NOT a case of someone pulling a child from a burning car, but IS a case of both already burnt up and dead and THEN chooses one to eternal life, but not the other.

We should be even more outraged if we learn that the parent’s decision is based on the judgment that the child who burned deserved it because the child supposedly was guilty for sins of an ancient ancestor—even though she was only three years old!

This is obfuscating the issue besides skewing the Reformed understanding that ALL DESERVE TO BE BURNED. No one is more "guilty" than another. "All have fallen short of the glory of God". Ostler does NOT understand the nature of spiritual death which resulted from the Fall, M.

Of course,the child who was saved deserved salvation or ****ation equally,so this supposed justification is not the reason for salvation or ****ation at all—the decision is purely arbitrary and capricious.

Whoa. No one says God's election is "purely arbitrary and capricious". Ostler has NO biblical justification for this statement. I'll let Paul answer Ostler:


Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.


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


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

(Oh, but Ostler finds fault! Calling God "arbitrary and capricious"!!)


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

Ostler says to God, "Yeah, God. I'm replying against you!!



Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?


How God dare do this!! What a meanie God!!!


Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:


Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

I cannot worship such a “god.” I wouldn’t even want to spend the weekend with such a person—let alone an eternity

Ostler cannot "worship such a god" because the God of the Bible has declared the above which Ostler just doesn't like!! Ostler would prefer a FALSE god of JS' fetid imagination and NOT the God of the Bible!!


Like I said, Ostler can't begin to provide an iota of biblical scripture to justify his "opinions"!!!!

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

To “believe in Jesus” means to believe the gospel message,and baptism is a part of that gospel message.

If baptism is part of the gospel why did Paul say "Christ did not send me to baptize"?

1Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

[Russianwolfe]

Billy,

There is no reason to address your questions until you have properly answered mine. So far you have not. You might think you have but you haven't.

As I pointed out before, the verses that I cite concern the judgement. Both groups were believers and thought that they were going to be accepted into the kingdom. None of your verses address that phase of a believer's life. Until you address this verse in context, I will not address your pointless questions that you have no interest in the answers.

Marvin

Originally Posted by Billyray

Marvin, I have repeatedly responded to your specific verses on multiple posts. The section of scripture speaks of false prophets and it speaks of those who never knew the real Christ--either they were following a false Christ or they were simply giving lip service such as the Benny Hinn's of the world. The section of scripture says "but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." You have ***umed that this means works but I have provided you with the verse in John 6 which says "4For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Why do you believe that the will of the Father is works rather than coming to the Son as it states in John 6? Plus your ***umption contradicts multiple other verses that clearly state the we are saved by faith and not by works.


Now back to the question that I had for you.

Marvin please tell us what the following verses means. Do you believe Jesus and Paul in the following verses?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Ephesians 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[nrajeff]

Libs, remember when you said my summary of Calvinism was a straw man and not at all accurate, and how no Calvinist you know believes what I attributed to extremist Calvinistic Evangelicals? Well, just read down thru these here posts from your buds, starting with Andy's "Because God said so" post, and continue reading through to FJD's post, and you will see most of my "straw men" on display. That's because it's like I said: My ideas of Calvinism's implications CAME FROM your pals. Think about that the next time you are tempted to scoff at my observations regarding what Calvinism says about God.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Libs, remember when you said my summary of Calvinism was a straw man and not at all accurate, and how no Calvinist you know believes what I attributed to extremist Calvinistic Evangelicals? Well, just read down thru these here posts from your buds, starting with Andy's "Because God said so" post, and continue reading through to FJD's post, and you will see most of my "straw men" on display. That's because it's like I said: My ideas of Calvinism's implications CAME FROM your pals. Think about that the next time you are tempted to scoff at my observations regarding what Calvinism says about God.

What I "scoff at", Jeff, is your mischaracterizations of Calvinism as being "unfair" and presenting God as a "monster". Let's me know you don't really understand it or it's foundation (which is in the Bible).

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

Billy,

There is no reason to address your questions until you have properly answered mine. So far you have not. You might think you have but you haven't.

As I pointed out before, the verses that I cite concern the judgement. Both groups were believers and thought that they were going to be accepted into the kingdom. None of your verses address that phase of a believer's life. Until you address this verse in context, I will not address your pointless questions that you have no interest in the answers.

Marvin

Marvin, if you choose not to engage that is your choice. I can't force you into dialogue. I have gone over this a number of times. For some reason you think that if I go over this again that my answer will somehow change. BTW my questions are directly relevant to this specific p***age. You stated, "Both groups were believers", but if Christ states that he NEVER knew them, were they ever true believers? No. If they were true believers in any sort of way then Christ would be incorrect to say that he NEVER knew them, rather it would be more accurate to say that they were believers but did not cut the mustard. Also note that this follows immediately after the false prophet statement, which needs to be taken into context.


Marvin stated "Now, no matter what you might believe about faith, you cannot deny that Christ states very clearly here that obedience is a requirement to 'enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

Matthew 7:21-23
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.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

You say "obedience". Obedience to what?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---What if I could quote some of your fellow Scolds saying "Of COURSE God is unfair, and you should be grateful that He IS !!!" ????

I guess you'd come up with some kind of equivocation-based excuse for them, right?

My fellow what? I wish you would drop the namecalling, Jeff.

As for saying that God is not fair, yes, I have heard that, but it is not meant in the way you use it. You really do believe that God is being unfair in not saving everyone, even though no one deserves it.. (the "others" of which you speak are saying we don't want him to be absolutely "fair" or we're ALL going to hell).

It is, of course, impossible, for God to be unfair. That's why it was necessary to send to us His Son, to atone for our sins. If He had the ability to be "unfair", that would not have been necessary. He can now grant us grace and pardon in His Son, Jesus Christ.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Perhaps you can provide an alternative ****ysis to the one I provided, addressing the Greek words doron and charisma which are translated into the English word gift and apply that ****ysis to reach a conclusion as to why Paul calls savation by grace the doron type of a gift instead of a chrisma type of gift.

Following that, perhaps you could continue with an alternative ****ysis to John's words in 1 John 2:3-4, which I did, wherein John and I concluded that someone who claims to have faith but is not obedient to the commandments (such as Be Baptized), is a liar, and thus works become as necessary as faith in the salvic equation.

Thank you.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

Perhaps you can provide an alternative ****ysis to the one I provided, addressing the Greek words doron and charisma which are translated into the English word gift and apply that ****ysis to reach a conclusion as to why Paul calls savation by grace the doron type of a gift instead of a chrisma type of gift.

Hey Mark, mod edit, try just reading the p***age and telling us what it actually says.

BTW my question still stands, you completely avoided answering it. Don't try to say that I have not tried to engage you or avoided discussing this with you. You are the one who is trying to avoid the discussion.

Originally Posted by Billyray

Ephesian 2
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

Mark, this is completely false. The verse says that it is "not from yourselves" and "not by works". You have completely changed the meaning of this verse to fit with Mormon theology. Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

If you have to work for a GIFT then it is no longer a gift.

Romans 11
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Hey Mark, mod edit try just reading the p***age and telling us what it actually says.

BTW my question still stands, you completely avoided answering it. Don't try to say that I have not tried to engage you or avoided discussing this with you. You are the one who is trying to avoid the discussion.

So, I guess the answer is, No, you will not do the ****ysis. Fine.

The ****ysis I did of Ephesians 2:8-9 and 1 John 2:3-4 explains how the conclusion is reached that works are the required mechanism for accepting the sacrificial offering of Christ. Stemelbow also began a thread where he provided a good ****ysis of the mechanism of accepting Christ's gift, though I see where you have not done any ****ysis there either.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

So, I guess the answer is, No, you will not do the ****ysis. Fine.

So I guess your answer is NO--you don't want to address my question. Thats fine.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So I guess your answer is NO--you don't want to address my question. Thats fine.

You question was, Where in this verse does it say that we accept Christs' GIFT by doing works?

Answer: No where. So, tell me what do I do with 1 John 2 that I now have to tear out of my Bible, because 1 John 2 says that if we claim to know Christ (have accepted Christ's gift) but we are not obedient in keeping the commandments (those are works), then we are liars.