|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Michamus writes: Not even the NT agrees with you on this one. That's not the NT. That's a verse from the NT. But seeing as we're slinging verses around, there's this other verse from the NT
quote: If godly faith produces work then what can we conclude about faith that doesn't produce work. Might we conclude as James concludes? That such a faith is actually dead? Ungodly? Useless? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Indeed. We are agreed then. Faith without works is meaningless. So Faith alone cannot save you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote:Faith cannot exist without works. No works, no faith. Only works that are of faith are pleasing to God. To work to be justified is to reject Christ, and to be destroyed. Those who do not know that they are justified cannot be in Christ. Those who know about Christ but are unjustified will be destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Not so. As I explained at the end of Message 175, it is a New Testament doctrine and was accepted as such by the early church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:I agree that faith without works is dead (i.e. lifeless, powerless). quote:This does not logically follow as a conclusion to the statement above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Sadly I missed this explanation somehow.
Even more sadly, the part about Paul is unfounded (despite it's marked popularity among protestants)
quote: Paul is clearly stating a correlation here between Salvation, and employment. Paul emphasizes the obligation of labor in order to meet the requirement of his wage, and that grace has no part in it. Paul goes even further in Chapter 3:
quote: This is another clear example that faith, and works are two separate and requisite items for justification (salvation).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote: I think I'll go and watch Bugs Bunny. He's funnier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Excellent retort! I especially enjoyed your immersion in scripture and logic!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, KBertsche.
I changed my mind: I'm back in.
kbertsche writes: Bluejay writes: The simple fact is that, despite the incessant hounding of born-again Christians, no Christian on the planet believes in salvation by grace alone. Not one. Every single one of us believes that salvation is, at least in part, contingent on man. Sorry, but what you say is clearly false. So, then, it's your position that every person in the world is saved? If not, what is it that separates the "saved" from the "not saved"? -----
KBertsche writes: I stand by my statement that good works are absolutely not a means of salvation... Then I refer you to the previous message from Ochaye (524230):
ochaye writes: There is no argument that works are not necessary for salvation. As long as these two mutually contradictory positions are held by two non-Mormons on this thread, your argument that my position on the issue is non-biblical has no credibility. -----
kbertsche writes: Bluejay writes: Matthew 14:12 This reference seems to be a typo? Yep, it sure is. But, I can't remember now what reference I originally wanted. Guess I've only got three instead. -----
kbertsche writes: Bluejay writes: Matthew 19:17 Read the rest of the story! Earlier on this thread, you were arguing that it didn't matter what the rest of the New Testament said, as long as the BoM said the opposite of what one scripture said. Now, you're complaining about me taking things out of context. Normal humans would be experiencing a phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" at this point. -----
kbertsche writes: The point is that it is impossible to gain salvation by doing good deeds--one can never do enough good to ensure salvation. No, it isn't. It goes like this: Man: "I did X: what else do I have to do to get into heaven?" Jesus: "Do Y. And Z. Then, you'll get into heaven." Note that Jesus didn't answer, "Nothing: nothing you do will ever get you into heaven." That's what He would have to have said in order for the story to mean what you interpret it to mean. Instead, He told the man that doing Y and Z would get him into heaven. And, verse 29 (NIV) says:
quote: Jesus says, "If you do X, you get eternal life, where X = leave family or belongings for me." Since "leaving family or belongings" is something a person does, and "something a person does" is the operational definition of "works," Jesus just said that works get people into eternal life. And, in order to avoid any potential further confusion, "eternal life" is generally what Mormons mean when we say, "salvation." It seems pretty clear to me. -----
kbertsche writes: Bluejay writes: 1 Cor. 3:13-15 This directly argues against your claim! Verse 15 says that some will be saved even though their works are burned up. Here's the scripture (NIV) with surrouding verses for context:
quote: What reward is received by the man whose work survives the fire, and lost by the man whose work does not survive the fire? In Mormonism (and in some other sects, I understand), we define two types of "salvation": salvation from physical death (resurrection), and salvation from spiritual death. Salvation from physical death is free for all men (i.e. all men go to "heaven"); but, salvation from spiritual death requires works (i.e. only those who fulfill the works requirement go to the "best heaven," where God is). To me, that's the "reward" 1 Corinthians 3 mentions. What is your opinion as to what the "reward" is? -----
kbertsche writes: Sorry, but what you say is false. What we have been explaining is the historic Christian faith. Paul taught in the first century that salvation was not on the basis of good works. And, before Paul taught that (granting, for the sake of argument, that you are right about this), Jesus taught that doing X will get people into eternal life, where X = a type of work. So, I'm sorry, but what you say is false: the historic Christian faith was a faith of salvation by works. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Iano.
iano writes: My own view wouldn't agree with you either... I suppose I overgeneralized. I didn't think it would matter, because I didn't think anyone else was going to read this thread. My apologies. -----
iano writes: Bluejay writes: The Bible contains a repetitive formula: If you do X, you get Y Therein lies a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation by grace alone. Except that the scriptures I listed have X="good works" and Y="salvation." To me, that's a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation not by grace alone. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Ochaye.
ochaye writes: There is no argument that works are not necessary for salvation. Good. Then we are in complete agreement. I'm still not sure why you're going on about justification when this entire sub-topic has been about salvation. Come to think of it, I've never really been clear on what "justification" means in this context (it isn't a term we use much, if ever, in the LDS church). But, regardless of what "justification" means, I again refer you to James 2:24, which says the exact opposite of your argument about whatever "justification" means:
quote: -----
ochaye writes: It does not matter how much the BoM says that salvation is free, etc. It is just so much camouflage on a loaded artillery piece, sugar on a poison pill. It's double-talk worthy of the Qur'an. So, what the BoM says does not matter in a discussion about what the BoM says? I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you, given the coherency of your previous arguments. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
Quite. 'Enjoyed' isn't quite the word, is it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ochaye Member (Idle past 5269 days) Posts: 307 Joined: |
quote: Salvation comes only to those who are justified. One cannot be justified without knowing it. What is justification? Being accounted just, righteous. One can be accounted righteous before men, or before God. People are justified before men by works, before God by faith. The NT refers to both.
quote:On the contrary. Has it taken all this time to come up with a daft reply like that? Surely not. Try harder, worker.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Except that the scriptures I listed have X="good works" and Y="salvation." I'm aware of that, and agree there are many verses which say such a thing.
To me, that's a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation not by grace alone. That's one conclusion you could arrive at - a kind of skimming the surface, simplistic conclusion. If you were to add an obvious piece of information to the pot however, a piece of information that everyone has at their disposal, then you'd quickly arrive at the opposite conclusion. C'mon Bluejay, you're a sinner, you're smart. It shouldn't be that difficult. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5188 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
ochaye writes:
The NT refers to both.
Then reference those scriptures. How hard is it? You have made 58 posts on this thread (so far) and not a single one makes any direct scripture reference. I don't know about you ochaye, but I really don't take very many people's "word on it". Reference the scriptures, and then state what you think they mean. I have a feeling though that you don't (and won't) do this for a few reasons. 1. Maybe you don't know the Bible (or it's sub-library the New Testament) as well as you say you do, so you avoid citing scripture and opt for sermon-like posts. 2. Perhaps you are just trolling this thread in hopes of a hollow victory. 3. Or, maybe you just don't want to adhere to any solid scripture reference, as they have been dissected and analyzed already by several of the poster's here, and you might be presented with an argument uncomfortable to you. This also prevents you from easily morphing your own position. I could spend all day thinking of reasons you don't do this simple and intellectually honest function. That more than likely won't change how you participate though, as you more than likely are convinced your debate style is proper, else you certainly wouldn't be employing it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024