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

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I certainly did not go over Romans 9 with Mesenja--that is a complete fabrication on his/her part.

We did debate the proper interpretation of Paul's statements of God saying that Jacob I loved,Esau I hated.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

I've spoon-fed a line by line exegesis for Mesenja and other LDS on this forum several times. They run away every time,Billyray.

If only it was a proper one. You tried to spoon feed us the false doctrine of Calvinism. We run away from false doctrine every time Father-JD.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Why is it so hard to answer the question that Vlad asked you?

Messy, Sorry Vlad's question didn't register.. What %, ZERO.. If you don't agree with what God has revealed to us in His word the Bible about Himself then you can't be saved trusting in a god of your own imagination.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace,Jeff. Do you really think water can "wash away sins"?

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to..

Correct you do believe that, which is why Christians say that you believe in a works based religion. Maybe you should be spending more time working your way to exaltation, remember there are a lot of things that you are required to do and this isn't one of them.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

If John's baptism was really capable of cleansing us of Sin then Jesus died in vain.. All we would have needed is John's baptism. But in act 19 We are told that the baptism of John is not even considered Christian baptism..

Acts 19:2-5
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So who is right here, you saying that the water of John's baptism is agent by which sins are forgiven yet the Bible says that without the shedding of blood here is no remission (Hebrews 9:22).. That is one HUGE problem with mormonism, it teaches that baptism actually is the way to have sins forgiven. Christian insist that the blood of Jesus is required..

This shows in the way you see 1 Perter 3:21 You insist that baptism is more than a testimony of our salvation, again you put it on a level equal with the blood of Jesus. But right there in the verse it tells us that baptism doesn't put away the filth of the flesh but instead shows a good conscience toward God. It is shocking just how little respect you have for the blood Jesus shed to purchase salvation for all who would accept it..

So when Jim teaches what the Bible says, that forgiveness of sin is only possible through the life's blood of the sacrifice (Jesus) that is false? But again, if water could accomplish that, Jesus could have just died in His sleep and be raised again.. But I am wrong because the water of baptism is what saves us but Jesus is still needed to save us.. You are being contradictive in your words.. Instead of making the Bible contradict why don't you look for a interpretation that makes it all true?

BTW James (banta) 1:1 Is about the star of Bethlehem not baptism IHS jim

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

We are taught that only through the Atonement of Christ,all mankind may be saved,by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. The caveat to this is that baptism is one of the ordinances that we are required to be obedient to.

Thereby making Mormon "salvation" of that of faith + WORKS. Thanks for admitting that.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

If only it was a proper one. You tried to spoon feed us the false doctrine of Calvinism. We run away from false doctrine every time Father-JD.

LOL. Talk's cheap, dude. You don't have any kind of exegesis for Romans 9 because the chapter defies Mormon TWISTING.

Put up or shut up as they say, M.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

I am glad that you feel comfort in the false ***urance that the New Testament writings of Paul support your false doctrine. If you want to take this line of the thread off topic I will gladly do so but at a latter time. At the moment I am interested in debating some of the theoretical and philosophical problems of Calvinism that Ostler brought up.

Put up or shut up, M. Amazing, NO re****al from you or your co-horts in religious crime, just your typical Mormon "Nuh-uh" response.

You're not fooling anyone here, M. You don't ever care to "take this line of the thread" because you have nothing but apolo-joke-tics and smoke-and-mirrors tactics.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

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. ...

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"...

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...


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. ...


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. ...

There is a HUGE problem with this belief. If God's election (were it to exist at all) is NOT "arbitrary", His reasoning for selection of the elect would stand alone and always make sense to stand true. That His reasons for elect selection are necessarily "known ONLY to Him" and applicable to only His own personal preference is actually the rather clear indicator of the arbitrary nature of the choosing of the elect.

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. ...

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

CONTRADICTION!!! You had just previously stated that the elect are selected ONLY by God Himself - without the individual taking ANY role in that selection, and that the non-elect are NEVER offered the chance to accept God's grace - a chance that may ONLY be offered by God Himself if He so chooses to offer it, and cannot be obtained by any other means or by any action on the part of the individual. In which case, the chance for election - and thus the ability to accept the grace of God and leave the state of ****ation - is ONLY within the power of God and NOT in the individual's domain of power; thus the non-elect COULD NOT have chosen to be in a state of ****ation, when they had NO control over the circumstances that kept them in, or would have allowed for their release from, that horrid state.

Merely his opinion. ...

His opinion, NOT based upon anything scriptural ...

Whoa. No one says God's election is "purely arbitrary and capricious". Ostler has NO biblical justification for this statement.

No, that is only an opinion insofar as the words " arbitrary and evil tyrant" are redefined to exclude the Abrahamic/Biblical God from such categorization. The fact remains that this God's judgment in regard to the selection of the elect is proven to be quite arbitrary by its very own nature, and only a truly heartless and uncomp***ionate soul could ever consider such a horrid thing as even allowing (let alone mandating) that One's own children/creation to forever burn in the hell of eternal ****ation - as supposed 'punishment' for an alleged 'mistake' committed by those who had NO POWER on their own to act differently - to be anything less than evil and tyrannical, and the One who does so as anything less than "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome." This is particularly true when one factually understands that God had FULL control over the circumstances that might have prevented it butactively CHOSE not to allow those circumstances to be modified to a more favorable position for arbitrary personal reasons. Even by Reformed Christian understanding the Bible makes it clear that the Judeo-Christian God's reasoning for such decision-making is not known to the people; it is so because it is only tailored to His personal preference and therefore certainly arbitrary.

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.

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


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

Still not convinced? Read on...

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

Now keep paying attention, M. ...

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.

The fact remains that the non-elect are NOT left behind by their choice. The decision was solely made arbitrarily by a God whose actions in this regard may indeed be thus be called "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome" as was previously stated.

... 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??

Paul is NOT God. He was a mere man. God is loving; man has at times been known to hate.

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"!! ...

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! ...

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, ...

The Abrahamic/Biblical God may be declared to show mercy to some, but He CANNOT be declared as truly merciful if He does not bestow His mercy to ALL; He would then be UNmerciful to those who were not so fortunate to receive His mercy, for NO fault of their own doing!

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

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"!!!!

Whether you believe the Bible supports or opposes Reformed belief is entirely your own opinion, based on your personal preferred interpretations of the Bible; nevertheless, the fact remains that the TRUE God is, has always been, and will always be a God of love.

As said in the Bible (1 John 4:8, NIV) :
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

[akaSeerone]

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.

A couple of things here....we are not all created God's children. We are only children by adoption.

All of creation fell when Adam sinned, so by default we are enemies of God and must be called and adopted to become sons and daughters of God.

Being the God of Love is why some are chosen and some are not. Live with it or remain dead in your tresp***es and sins or repent and become Christians, otherwise you will remain lost and without hope.

Andy

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by jennieblue22

There is a HUGE problem with this belief. If God's election (were it to exist at all) is NOT "arbitrary", His reasoning for selection of the elect would stand alone and always make sense to stand true. That His reasons for elect selection are necessarily "known ONLY to Him" and applicable to only His own personal preference is actually the rather clear indicator of the arbitrary nature of the choosing of the elect.



CONTRADICTION!!! You had just previously stated that the elect are selected ONLY by God Himself - without the individual taking ANY role in that selection, and that the non-elect are NEVER offered the chance to accept God's grace - a chance that may ONLY be offered by God Himself if He so chooses to offer it, and cannot be obtained by any other means or by any action on the part of the individual. In which case, the chance for election - and thus the ability to accept the grace of God and leave the state of ****ation - is ONLY within the power of God and NOT in the individual's domain of power; thus the non-elect COULD NOT have chosen to be in a state of ****ation, when they had NO control over the circumstances that kept them in, or would have allowed for their release from, that horrid state.



No, that is only an opinion insofar as the words " arbitrary and evil tyrant" are redefined to exclude the Abrahamic/Biblical God from such categorization. The fact remains that this God's judgment in regard to the selection of the elect is proven to be quite arbitrary by its very own nature, and only a truly heartless and uncomp***ionate soul could ever consider such a horrid thing as even allowing (let alone mandating) that One's own children/creation to forever burn in the hell of eternal ****ation - as supposed 'punishment' for an alleged 'mistake' committed by those who had NO POWER on their own to act differently - to be anything less than evil and tyrannical, and the One who does so as anything less than "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome." This is particularly true when one factually understands that God had FULL control over the circumstances that might have prevented it butactively CHOSE not to allow those circumstances to be modified to a more favorable position for arbitrary personal reasons. Even by Reformed Christian understanding the Bible makes it clear that the Judeo-Christian God's reasoning for such decision-making is not known to the people; it is so because it is only tailored to His personal preference and therefore certainly arbitrary.

And on a related note, it's quite unfair for God to knowingly create all of His children in such a manner as to make them worthy only of ****ation by default - particularly as this inherent lack of worth for salvation is given to all for NO fault of their own, that was within their control to change - and then pre-select a handpicked lucky few who may be able to override their default settings in a way that is not available to the rest, which comprise the vast majority of His creation.



The fact remains that the non-elect are NOT left behind by their choice. The decision was solely made arbitrarily by a God whose actions in this regard may indeed be thus be called "unjust, unfair, unloving, and loathsome" as was previously stated.


Paul is NOT God. He was a mere man. God is loving; man has at times been known to hate.






The Abrahamic/Biblical God may be declared to show mercy to some, but He CANNOT be declared as truly merciful if He does not bestow His mercy to ALL; He would then be UNmerciful to those who were not so fortunate to receive His mercy, for NO fault of their own doing!


Whether you believe the Bible supports or opposes Reformed belief is entirely your own opinion, based on your personal preferred interpretations of the Bible; nevertheless, the fact remains that the TRUE God is, has always been, and will always be a God of love.

As said in the Bible (1 John 4:8, NIV) :
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

and I could be wrong and all, but, well you see, I mean you know it just seems you is a bit abrasive in your style of writing and all. Yeah, God is love and all, but IMHO sayin it with kindness is much more palatable.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

A couple of things here....we are not all created God's children. We are only children by adoption.

In which case, as stated previously, we are indeed rejected by default according to this position - for no fault within our own control.

All of creation fell when Adam sinned, so by default we are enemies of God and must be called and adopted to become sons and daughters of God.

What did WE do to earn/share in this punishment that was meant to be given only for Adam's crime?! Absolutely NOTHING!! We had absolutely NO control over the situation (and wouldn't have even been around to see it) and thus we are being unfairly/unduly/unjustly punished by this Biblical/Abrahmic God for a crime that WE didn't commit and COULD NOT have prevented from occurring in ANY way.

Being the God of Love is why some are chosen

Yes, only for those lucky few ...

...and some are not. Live with it or remain dead in your tresp***es and sins or repent and become Christians, otherwise you will remain lost and without hope.

... but in what way is THIS attributable to a God who is truly a God of Love?! It simply is NOT within the character of a truly loving God.

[akaSeerone]

... but in what way is THIS attributable to a God who is truly a God of Love?! It simply is NOT within the character of a truly loving God.

Quite frankly you have no idea what God's Love is because you are lost and without God, being under the influence of mormonism and all.

You do not have the infilling of the Holy Spirit so your idea of love is from the fallen nature of man's view point, not the Biblical.

Andy

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

Quite frankly you have no idea what God's Love is because you are lost and without God, being under the influence of mormonism and all.


You do not have the infilling of the Holy Spirit so your idea of love is from the fallen nature of man's view point, not the Biblical.

Andy

i'm NOT a Mormon, actually. Just making an obvious valid point (on which Mormons may happen to agree ). and i am grateful - by the good Lord's Mercy - to have known God's Love and His Mercy; He is most certainly not the unloving, uncomp***ionate, vengeful creature so many of His confused followers make Him out to be, and i pity those who have not given themselves the opportunity to know this beautiful Truth by forcing themselves to think otherwise.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

and I could be wrong and all, but, well you see, I mean you know it just seems you is a bit abrasive in your style of writing and all. Yeah, God is love and all, but IMHO sayin it with kindness is much more palatable.

i certainly didn't intend it to be written in an abrasive/hateful style; my sincere apologies to anyone who interpreted it as such and took offense. Certainly it would be quite hypocritical to push others to accept the Truth that God is Love in a hateful manner.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

LOL. Talk's cheap, dude. You don't have any kind of exegesis for Romans 9 because the chapter defies Mormon TWISTING.

Put up or shut up as they say, M.

Romans 9 ***erts that God has the power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by jennieblue22

Romans 9 ***erts that God has the power and ability to do as He wishes to anyone - and certainly no one is denying that He could make the world all believe (or all disbelieve) in an instant if He so chooses - but the fact is that He doesn't necessarily do so; just as although it may well be in His power to destroy the universe in an instant, He certainly hasn't chosen to do so (yet).

Any belief system ***erting that - including Mormonism, if it does so - is not necessarily "twisting" belief.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Thereby making Mormon "salvation" of that of faith + WORKS. Thanks for admitting that.

Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by jennieblue22

i certainly didn't intend it to be written in an abrasive/hateful style; my sincere apologies to anyone who interpreted it as such and took offense. Certainly it would be quite hypocritical to push others to accept the Truth that God is Love in a hateful manner.

Love is a mighty BIG word, and as a poet of low rank I can not attempt to write the words better than God put into St John 3:16.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Originally Posted by jennieblue22

Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

You'll see below, Jenn, that there at least appears to have been fundamental disagreement between the Antinomianism of Paul and the much more service-oriented and pragmatic approach of the apostle James on this issue of "easy-believism", by which today's Antinomian evangelicals have come to the interesting determination that they, and they alone are "true Christians":

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and des***ute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." - New Testament James, 2 : 14 - 26 (NKJV)

Insofar as James had personal ***ociation with Jesus during the latter's actual lifetime and ministry (whereas Paul did not), it is not especially difficult for us to determine which of the two had originally over-emphasized the importance of mere belief- calling for a later clarification by the other.

ys,
bmd.

[Father_JD]

There's NO contradiction between Paul and James, Bhakta-dude. Sorry.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by jennieblue22

Misinterpretation. Those "works" are enabled by FAITH (did you completely ignore the bolded part?)

I agree, but you don't appear to understand that "works" do NOT contribute to the salvific process.

They DO contribute to REWARDS, but that's NOT to be confused with salvation.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

I agree, but you don't appear to understand that "works" do NOT contribute to the salvific process.

They DO contribute to REWARDS, but that's NOT to be confused with salvation.

The faith that awards salvation is the faith that enables us to do works that contribute to spiritual growth. Those "works" grow and strengthen the faith required for salvation.

[jennieblue22]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

There's NO contradiction between Paul and James, Bhakta-dude. Sorry.

Actually, one has been pointed out here in the forum - namely, James' statement that "faith without works is dead" (per James 2:14-26; see BMD's post) vs. Paul's emphasis that faith alone (and not works at all) matters.