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

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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

But you are also leaving out the fact that it does NOT that we are to work to accept Christ's' GIFT, it specifically states "not from yourselves" and "not by works".

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But you are also leaving out the fact that it does NOT [say] [sic] that we are to work to accept Christ's' GIFT, it specifically states "not from yourselves" and "not by works".

Stemelbow's ****ysis and my own address that. I have answered your question. You have not answered any of mine.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

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

Mark, we have gone over this on this board hundreds of times. Yet you seem to not understand. Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

Stemelbow's ****ysis and my own address that. I have answered your question. You have not answered any of mine.

It absolutely does not address the question. The verse clearly states it in not of yourselves and not of works. It couldn't be any clearer. You just don't like what it says so you are trying to make a fancy pants explanation around the clear meaning of the text.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Libby

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

---I am trying to use accurate descriptions of the people who are attacking the LDS church and/or its leaders and doctrines & what the members stand for. Acronyms save a lot of typing. Just like "Mormons" seems to be less work for YOU than typing "Faithful Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." But hey, if you're willing to type the whole thing each time you refer to US, then I am willing to type "Self-appointed Critics and attackers of the LDS Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, and what they stand for."

What do you say? Do we have a deal? Or do you want to allow YOURSELF to continue to be a name-caller--the old Double Standard thing?

As for saying that God is not fair, yes, I have heard that, but it is not meant in the way you use it.

---And my prediction about equivocation/excuse comes to p***....

You really do believe that God is being unfair in not saving everyone, even though no one deserves it..

---What? You are wrong as you are so frequently since you defected. I don't believe that, and I have NEVER seen or heard ANY LDS person say THEY believed it either. Might be time for yet another "Jeff is right" poll.

LDS posters: Do you believe that if some people end up not being saved, that it means that God is unfair?

1st vote, cast by me: NO.

I believe that it will be VERY fair if some people don't get saved. In fact, if some people--the ones who deliberately, knowingly refuse to obey God and continue to rebel against Him in the most reprehensible ways, right up till the end--DO get saved, THAT would unfair. The devil would have cause for a lawsuit, since he was and is such a person and HE didn't get saved.

(the "others" of which you speak are saying we don't want him to be absolutely "fair" or we're ALL going to hell).

--If ALL of us really deserved an eternity in hell, equally, then I WOULD want all of us to go there, silly. If ALL TEN of the shoplifting 5-year-olds deserved to be shot by the store owner, then it would be unfair of him to only shoot
8 or 9 of them.

It is, of course, impossible, for God to be unfair.

----If so, then it's impossible that Calvinistic soteriology could be correct.

That's why it was necessary to send to us His Son, to atone for our sins.

---God sent His Son to be the author of salvation to all who would obey Him. If you don't want to obey Him, then it would be unfair for God to save you. It would mean that the Bible is wrong, and that God REALLY sent His Son to be the author of salvation for those who REFUSE to obey Him. Which makes no sense. Like Calvinism.


It's hard to believe that you still misunderstand what I find unfair about Calvinism's portrayal of God: It makes Him out to be a being who is UNJUST. Yesterday, Glenn Beck mentioned that justice is equal, fair application of the law. If all 1st-degree murderers deserve the death penalty, then the governer's executing all but one, and letting that one go free, and handing him a limo and mansion and cash, is UNJUST.

(As Foxworthy might say: "You know your governor's a Calvinist if....")

Your response to anyone who sees a lack of fairness or sense in the governor doing that, is "He's the governor--this is how thingsare done because he said so, and if you don't like it, tough!" or "It's fair because the governor said so!" or "The governor's idea of what's fair will differ from our idea of what's fair." None of those excuses is satisfactory.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Mark, we have gone over this on this board hundreds of times. Yet you seem to not understand. Works are NOT required for salvation but flow because of our salvation.

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.

It could be works lead to salvation OR salvation leads to works as you say. But the Bible teaches the latter.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

I applaud and thank you for applying an ****ytical tool (an ****ogy) to make your argument. Let's explore this a bit, shall we? But before we get too far into it, perhaps we should get clarification on a couple of things, because I don't want to make any unwarranted ***umptions.

1. What does the tree represent in your ****ogy?
2. What does the fruit represent in your ****ogy?

I have to leave for a few hours, but I will return this afternoon to continue.

And again, thank you.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---The old cart-before-horse reversalistic eisegesis, where you attend dental school BECAUSE you were FIRST handed a DDS degree that you didn't deserve.

This is the worst possible ****ogy and also proof that you DO believe salvation is based on works (so let's not further pretend that you believe differently).

Salvation is by grace through faith, NOT given according to our "works". It's right there in the Bible, hundreds of times. Read it and believe.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

I applaud and thank you for applying an ****ytical tool (an ****ogy) to make your argument.

Why thanks Mark for your applause. But keep your applause to yourself if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

1. What does the tree represent in your ****ogy?

Living tree represents Born again----->Faith----->Salvation

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

2. What does the fruit represent in your ****ogy?

Works

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

And again, thank you.

No Mark, thank you.

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.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No Mark, thank you.

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.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.

Another thing I like about the second chapter of Ephesians is that it also shows us that Jesus is the head of His Church eliminating the need of Prophets making Smith, without any doubt whatsoever, a false prophet....Amen

Bottom line....IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED....AMEN

Andy

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why thanks Mark for your applause. But keep your applause to yourself if you don't mind.

Do you want to carry on a civil discussion or not? Chill brother, my compliment was sincere.

Living tree represents Born again----->Faith----->Salvation

Ok, it's a good thing I didn't ***ume what the tree was supposed to represent. Christ said,

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Matthew 7

So, I've always understood the tree to be a person. There are good trees (good people) and bad trees (bad people). But if I understand your ****ogy, the tree is a process rather than a person. Is that correct?

Works

Ok, good. This one I understand.

If you want, we can continue with this discussion, and I'll try not to compliment you any more.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

No Mark, thank you.

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.

1. Mark what is this referring to?
Not from yourselves
Not by works.



2. If you do a bunch of works doesn't this give you room to boast?
No one can boast.

Would it be ok with you if we work through your ****ogy before moving on to additional questions, please?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

So, I've always understood the tree to be a person. There are good trees (good people) and bad trees (bad people). But if I understand your ****ogy, the tree is a process rather than a person. Is that correct?

I was simply using an ****ogy to explain that when a person is truly saved he will do works, but these works do not contribute to the salvation itself but are a natural fruit of salvation just like fruit are a natural product of a living tree. BTW the tree could be salvation or faith or a saved person (good person), as I said it was simply an illustration.

[theway]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

Another thing I like about the second chapter of Ephesians is that it also shows us that Jesus is the head of His Church eliminating the need of Prophets making Smith, without any doubt whatsoever, a false prophet....Amen

Bottom line....IT IS ALL ABOUT JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED....AMEN

Andy

Really!!!!
Then what about all the prophets mentioned in the Bible, that were around after Christ set up his church? Amen. Or what about he Prophets that were prophesized will come in the last days; also spoken of in the Bible? Amen.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I was simply using an ****ogy to explain that when a person is truly saved he will do works, but these works do not contribute to the salvation itself but are a natural fruit of salvation just like fruit are a natural product of a living tree. BTW the tree could be salvation or faith or a saved person (good person), as I said it was simply an illustration.

I understand what you are trying to do. Let's see if it works. Let's take your ****ogy and plug in the words that you say tree and fruit represent.

Your ****ogy is as follows:

A fruit tree naturally produces fruit. The fruit do not cause the life of that tree but are a result of the life of that tree. If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree.

If will now plug in the other words, this is what we would read:

Salvation or faith or a saved person (good person) naturally produces works. The works do not cause the salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person) to have life of salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person) but are a result of the life of that salvation, or faith or a saved person (good person). If salvation or faith or a saved person (good person) does not produce works it is dead or not really a works salvation or faith or a saved person (good person).

I don't know about you, but it doesn't really work for me, and it doesn't really seem to be consistent with what Christ said, cause Christ said there were good trees and bad trees, but He never the bad trees weren't really trees.

How about we try a little experiment, if you will bear with me? Let's call the tree in your ****ogy a saved person, and let's call the fruit good works. Your ****ogy then would read as follows:

A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person.

Does that work for you?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

I understand what you are trying to do. Let's see if it works. Let's take your ****ogy and plug in the words that you say tree and fruit represent.

Your ****ogy is as follows:


If will now plug in the other words, this is what we would read:

I don't know about you, but it doesn't really work for me, and it doesn't really seem to be consistent with what Christ said, cause Christ said there were good trees and bad trees, but He never the bad trees weren't really trees.

How about we try a little experiment, if you will bear with me? Let's call the tree in your ****ogy a saved person, and let's call the fruit good works. Your ****ogy then would read as follows:


Does that work for you?

I really do wish you could hear what a Christian hears when you made these comments.. Yes a Good tree isn't a Good tree because it produces fruit.. Fruit is produced by Good trees.. It was a very good allegory.. IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by theway

Really!!!!
Then what about all the prophets mentioned in the Bible, that were around after Christ set up his church? Amen. Or what about he Prophets that were prophesized will come in the last days; also spoken of in the Bible? Amen.

First off you are not taking into consideration Luke 16:16 and Hebrews 1:1-10.

The "prophets" spoken of in the New Testament are not like the Prophets of the Old Testament and that is the kind of prophet Smith claimed to be.

The prophets of the NT Church are simply people that prophesy.

The two "Prophets" in Revelation are in a special cl*** and are only sent to Israel.

It is obvious from reading the second chapter of Ephesians that Jesus has replaced the OT type Prophet being that He is the head of His Church/Body on the earth.

AMEN!!

Andy

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

Does that work for you?

I am not sure what the whole point of your post was. Care to elaborate?

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I am not sure what the whole point of your post was. Care to elaborate?

Well, unless the point of your ****ogy was to demonstrate that trees bear fruit, I am trying to make sure I understand the relationship between your ****ogy and the topic that we are discussing. It may be self-evident to you, but I am learning not to ***ume anything in discussions with people on discussion boards. Because let me tell you right now, we may well be in agreement.

So, let me ask you once again, does my restatement of your ****ogy fairly represent what you are arguing? I will restate it once again for you:

"A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person. If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

"A saved person naturally produces good works. The good works do not cause the salvation of the saved person, but are a result of salvation of the good person.

This is true. Salvation is not by works. However works will follow after salvation. A person becomes more and more Christ life over time, a process called sanctification. The thief on the cross had no works and was saved. However if he lived instead of died his life would eventually of produced good works, which was clearly lacking at the time of his salvation.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This is true. Salvation is not by works. However works will follow after salvation. A person becomes more and more Christ life over time, a process called sanctification. The thief on the cross had no works and was saved. However if he lived instead of died his life would eventually of produced good works, which was clearly lacking at the time of his salvation.

Before continuing, I need to understand if there is a reason why, in quoting me, you did not include the final sentence of my restatement, the sentence which reads: "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

Putting aside the question of the thief on the cross, or other deathbed-type confessions, does that final sentence accurate portray the intent of your ****ogy? Just as refresher, that sentence in your ****ogy stated:
"If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree."

So, is "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person" a fair restatement?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

Before continuing, I need to understand if there is a reason why, in quoting me, you did not include the final sentence of my restatement, the sentence which reads: "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person."

Putting aside the question of the thief on the cross, or other deathbed-type confessions, does that final sentence accurate portray the intent of your ****ogy? Just as refresher, that sentence in your ****ogy stated:
"If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree."

So, is "If a saved person does not produce good fruit he/she is dead or not really a saved person" a fair restatement?

My sentence is true ""If a tree does not produce fruit it is dead or not really a fruit tree." However I am simply trying to anticipate your objection before you raise it. The thief on the cross did not have any fruit or works. The reason is that he did not live long after his conversion to produce fruit. Likewise a young living tree may not have fruit--YET. The bottom line Mark is that works are not a requirement for salvation. Does that mean that we shouldn't follow the commandments? Of course not. Is there a way for a person to know if he is truly saved? One way is to see the fruit or works in his life. If one thinks that he is saved and lives like the devil he is unlikely saved. But the works are not what saves only indicative of the fact that one is saved.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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. Wikipedia:Loaded language What is your specific question Mesenja? Election? What?

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.