Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 299 of 352 (535642)
11-17-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Blue Jay
11-16-2009 2:40 PM


Re: What must I do ? Impossible!
Bluejay writes:
I'm still stuck on this part:
quote:
If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.
Jesus seems to be clearly stating that obedience to the commandments plays a role in one's salvation. The rest of the story could only be considered a grace-alone story if it contained Jesus clearly going back on that statement.
But, it seems problematic to have Jesus saying one thing, then going back on it, doesn't it?
I know your response was limited in time but this really doesn't address the case made. Your wider point had to do with Jesus as teacher and the lesson he was inserting into the rich young rulers mind. The focus being on teacher/pupil relationship:
The ruler comes to Jesus (as an authority) to find out what he needs to do to inherit eternal life. This renders all of Jesus demands in that regard valid in the eyes of the rich young ruler. In considering the lesson he learns, we cannot leap ahead and suppose that the partial demand (regarding the commandments) means that following the commandments plays a partial role in salvation. The lesson might, as I suggest, be simply using 'follow the commandments' as a temporary lever into springing the lessons true purpose.
You could argue that Jesus' demand to 'give up your wealth and follow me' doesn't refer to gaining eternal life but to gaining something separate (reward in heaven), eternal life having been achieved by the ruler following the commands listed. At this point I think we'd have to agree to differ because of wildly differing views on the meaning of the words: eternal life, treasure in heaven, kingdom of God, saved ..contained within the passage. The context makes the case but if the words which form the context are understood differently then there isn't enough common ground for anyones case to be adequately supported.
Suffice to say, my view is that all Jesus demands on the ruler form are intended to raise this mans personal bar to impossible heights - the lesson being intended for him personally, primarily.
-
Well, the young ruler wasn't present for that portion of the story. In fact, he didn't hear anything Jesus said about how difficult it would be, because he had already gone away by then.
Fair enough, I was reading from Luke. We're left then supposing the ruler sad because he was either:
a) going to give away his wealth and follow Jesus and this saddened him (your view).
b) was too tied to his wealth to give it away and was saddened by failing to meet the demand for gaining eternal life (my view).
The 'camel through the eye of the needle' comment made by Jesus rings a little hollow were it that the ruler, saddened though he might have been, was toddling off to dissolve his assets and pack his sleeping bag and toothbrush. In the light of this success story, it'd have been more appropriate for Jesus to liken things to 'an overweight ant through the eye of a needle'
-
It's just us overfixating on the pinnacle: since we don't aspire to reach the lower degrees, we tend to view them as undesirable, and, since everyone gets some degree, we would feel like essentially the losers if all we got was the lowest degree.
'Outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' a way of describing a lesser degree of bliss which far and away exceeds anything we experience here?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Blue Jay, posted 11-16-2009 2:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2009 10:31 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 300 of 352 (535646)
11-17-2009 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Blue Jay
11-17-2009 12:41 AM


Salvation contingent on belief - but not on decision/action
Bluejay writes:
A contingency is a precondition. If you cannot be saved without belief, then salvation is contingent on belief. Since belief is a decision, an event in which the individual plays an active part, then salvation is partially contingent on man. That means that a man’s actions contribute to his salvation.
Is this so? Does belief involve activity on our part. Or is it something we are brought to without action on our part.
I mean, if someone else holds my eyelids open and points my head at a scene I will see whatever is before me - without any action/decision on my part (apart from the natural workings of my body enabling the information to land on my brain and be interpreted.)
Similarily, if compelling evidence for something is placed before me then I will believe - without having to actively decide on the matter (apart from the natural processes that evaulate the information and crank out the answer: "it is true*")
And so, if salvation is contingent on belief, and belief contingent on God presenting sufficient evidence to cause belief to arise, then the individual plays no active part in his salvation. And contributes nothing to it in the case he is saved
There would be space for a man refusing to look at the evidence which God attempts to place before him. He could turn his head away, clamp his eyes shut, place his hands over his ears, shouting LA-LA-LALA-LA, etc. Plenty of action/decision going on there. In this case he will fail to believe for want of evidence. Salvation being contingent on belief, this man will be lost.
We can conclude then;
- a man is saved without contributing to his salvation.
- a man is lost by having contributed to his damnation.
-
* It is supposed that 'truth' is a catalyst of sorts which produces the result "it is true" in us without our having to decide.
For example: I was addicted to cigarettes a number of years ago and wanted to quit but found it impossible. I read a book in which the reason for my smoking were laid out plainly: the addicitive power of nicotine, my 'liking' smoking being merely the desire to relieve withdrawal from nicotine, that cigarettes create the illusion of peace; the peace felt being the relief of withdrawal pangs, the brainwashing that said "smoking is cool" which got me hooked in the first place.
This was the truth about cigarettes and this truth went "PING!" in my head and the hold cigarettes had over me evaporated. Far from being difficult, quitting was falling-from-a-log easy.
"And you shall know the truth (I came to know the truth about cigarettes by reading the book), and the truth shall set you free (and that is what happened - there was no deciding to do, I looked up and found the prison walls had simply disappeared)"
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2009 12:41 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 301 of 352 (535650)
11-17-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Blue Jay
11-17-2009 12:41 AM


Re: What must I do ? Impossible!
Bluejay writes:
And, based on a clear, direct interpretation of Matthew 19:17 that doesn’t rely on twisted, deceptive semantics, I maintain that Jesus teaches that obedience to the commandments is among those actions that contribute to a man’s salvation.
Supposing the rich young ruler sad because he planned to give up his wealth relies, to my mind, on twisted semantics
quote:
Bluejay: "That the young ruler sorrowed because he couldn't get himself into heaven, rather than because he would have to sacrifice all of his prized possessions.
-
Hopefully you'll agree at this point, that there is nothing in particular preventing arrival at the object lesson I suggest Jesus to be teaching this young ruler (outside Mormon interpretations of Kingdom of God, salvation, eternal life, etc which split the lesson up into disparate parts). If so, then we have Jesus pointedly teaching the impossibility of salvation by works. Which dovetails nicely with Pauls teaching of salvation by grace and the impossibility of salvation by works.
Which serves to dismantle the..
..Mormon belief that the Bible has many internal inconsistencies, and thus requires the assistance of the Book of Mormon to clarify the troublesome bits.
Meaning there is no need for the book of Mormon. Heard of Ockhams Razor, Bluejay?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2009 12:41 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2009 10:36 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 310 of 352 (535824)
11-18-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Blue Jay
11-17-2009 10:31 PM


Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
iano writes:
In considering the lesson he learns, we cannot leap ahead and suppose that the partial demand (regarding the commandments) means that following the commandments plays a partial role in salvation.
Bluejay writes:
But, we can leap ahead and suppose that Jesus's direct statement, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments," does mean that following the commandments plays at least a partial role in salvation.
I don’t see that as a particularly large leap, either.
I haven’t yet seen an argument that gives me an alternative explanation.
I'm not sure you've understood the point. The point is that if we want to arrive at the object of Jesus' lesson, we must consider the whole and not simply snip out that which suits our own position. That would be quote-mining.
Our question is: what is the whole demand Jesus places before this ruler regarding inheriting eternal life. That is the rulers question and we are looking for Jesus' answer. If we agreed that Jesus' answer is: follow the law's instruction & follow my instruction, then we can arrive at one of two conclusions regarding the object of his lesson:
- works lead to salvation; follow commands is a part of it (as you suggest), following Jesus instruction is the other part of it. Do both and you will inherit eternal life.
- works won't lead to salvation: no one can do the work required as the bar Jesus sets is too high for a man to clear it.
(you might not agree that these two demands form the totality of Jesus response to the rulers question - in which case that might form a route of objection for us to follow up on. But if agreed then the above is it
-
I'd argue for my version above on the basis of (for example):
- the rulers sadness stems from his inability to give up his wealth. The context doesn't reasonably support any other conclusion.
- Jesus didn't make this demand accidently. It was asking the ruler to give up something Jesus knew to be precious. The deliberateness of Jesus targetting as he did forms a part of the lesson. As does the man failing the test. As you acknowledge yourself: this lesson is intended primarily for this man. We extract an application of this lesson to our own situation, to our own idols.
- Jesus concludes things by stating salvation by man impossible. This is as clear an alignment with the proposal above, and an underlining that this was Jesus' deliberate intent, as one could possibly hope to see. The whole context of the passage is how to be saved and that with man it is impossible.
Conclusion: your position so far hasn't relied on any step-by-step analysis of the passage as a whole - in which all the various statements and plays are assembled into a coherant body of thinking. Whilst you've made some seemingly valid objections along the way, your contra-position stands on;
- quotemining snippets from the passage
- not dealing with the passage in total - instead your conclusion is attached to the pieces quotemined.
- unlikely alternative interpretations of places where I rely on a reasonable (if not provable) contextual analysis of what's going on. (One example of this is where you suppose the ruler sad because he's planning on giving up his wealth and is sad about that.)
-
But, that hardly matters. Do you agree that, since the statement, If you want to enter life, keep the commandments, exists in the Bible, there is sufficient justification for me to legitimately claim that the salvation doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is biblical?
You'd be relying on a quote mine, so no, I wouldn't agree. But that's me revealing the standard by which I'd consider a view of mine supported or no. If you want to suppose your case supported on such a flimsy basis for own purposes then that's your affair.
To be honest, I'm more than a little surprised that you'd actually posit a quotemine as suporting your justification in any way, shape or form. It's not your form as I've ever seen it.
-
Remember, to win this argument, I do not have to convince anybody here that salvation by works is a correct doctrine: I only have to show that it is based on the Bible. I feel that I have shown sufficient support for that.
I'm sure I could find Richard Dawkins saying "God exists" were I to snip what he says out of context. I wouldn't hope to win any argument based on such a move however. Nor should you here.
-
If we begin with Jesus’s statement in Matthew 19:17, and interpret the rest of the Bible in light of that, with the combined support of James 2:24 (...faith without works is dead...), Hebrews 5:8-9 (...salvation for all those who obey him...), and Philippians 2:12 (...work out your salvation...), what emerges is an entirely different doctrinal picture.
Extending the scope of your mining activities doth not a more substantial case make.
What you need to do is reconcile the whole thing. And because you can't do that you disappear down the wormhole of "Bible corrupt/contradictory - need the Book of Mormon to resolve things".
You've effectively exited the debate because it's not the Bible you're saying the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict, it's certain bits of the Bible the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict. If the title of the thread was that, then I wouldn't be here.
-
Paul tells us of the work which is produced by faith. In the light of both that, and the Bible telling us of false professions, James 'faith without works is dead' is harmonised perfectly with salvation by grace alone. Such a salvation results in faith > which produces work.
isn't: work produces faith produces salvation
is: salvation produces faith produces work
That's an example of what I mean by 'harmonising the whole Bible'. You can't harmonise James and Paul and BoM so throw out Paul. I can harmonise James and Paul so throw out BoM.
"Work out your salvation" is another case in point. Work it out, express it out, let it be displayed outwards. But what's it? Well, it's your salvation. First salvation comes to a man, then work comes out of that man - that is the sequence here too. And as ever, the second part of this verse is excluded by the work-for-your-salvationista:
"..for (ie: because) it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good pleasure"
Why let your (if you are saved) salvation shine out to the world? Why let your light (if you are saved) stand on a hill where all can see it - rather than under a bushel where nobody can see it? Because God is working in you; to motivate you, to encourage you, to set your minds on his will so that you'll act according to his purpose.
-
That you and KBertsche can explain these things away with semantic riddles does not change the fact that an alternative interpretation is equally consistent with the writings of the Bible. The doctrine of salvation by works is supportable by the Bible, and that’s all that is being debated on this thread.
As pointed out: the manner and means of your activity is quote mining. And whether the workist is an unbeliever, a Roman Catholic, a Jehovahs Witness or a Mormon, it's always the same few (often snippets of) verses that come up. When you have to pit such flimsy evidence this against the likes of the first half of the book of Romans, which lays out in step-by-step fashion, the need for and intricate workings of Salvation by Grace (without works) - you've an insurmountable mountain in your way and your case is already lost.
Reconcile your view with the whole of the Bible. Or admit that you are defeated by the Bible. Tearing out reams of pages that confound your case is not an acceptable approach.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Blue Jay, posted 11-17-2009 10:31 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Blue Jay, posted 11-18-2009 11:59 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 311 of 352 (535825)
11-18-2009 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by ochaye
11-17-2009 1:52 PM


Re: What must I do ? Impossible!
Ochaye writes:
Yes, but there's a Calvinist keeps trying to push his own heresy, which the Mormons gratefully accept because it gets them off the hook. Just one of those inevitable things about the 'net.
A Calvinist here? At EvC? Where is he/her .. I've a question or two I'd like to pose them in the confines of a moderated forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by ochaye, posted 11-17-2009 1:52 PM ochaye has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 316 of 352 (535877)
11-18-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Blue Jay
11-18-2009 12:00 PM


Re: What must I do ? Impossible!
Bluejay writes:
Since when did this exchange have anything to do with anything I've said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Blue Jay, posted 11-18-2009 12:00 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 318 of 352 (535947)
11-18-2009 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Blue Jay
11-18-2009 11:59 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
iano writes:
Tearing out reams of pages that confound your case is not an acceptable approach.
Bluejay writes:
Agreed.
Fair enough.
But why then focus on 'salvation by works' sounding verses to support your position when you know (as I'm sure you do) that they can be reconciled from a saved > produces faith > produces good works perspective.
Surely the viewpoint that can reconcile an apparent conflict is to be considered superior to one that cannot?
-
Also agreed. (iano: that is, there are two possible conclusions to be arrived at w.r.t. Jesus' objective in his dealing with the rich young ruler)
Thanks .. for the confusion
Option 1 (your option) - appears to render salvation possible by works alone. All the ruler had to do, to inherit eternal life, was to follow the commandments (which he did) + do what he chose not to do in this case, ie: give up his wealth and follow Jesus. There is no need for grace here when work can achieve a result.
Option 2 (my option).
-
Disagreed. It’s not a quote-mine! I have already explained the Mormon teaching that both grace and works are required. Thus, obviously, "For man this is impossible" fits perfectly with my interpretation too!
That is it impossible for a man to earn salvation by his works doesn't lend support to the notion that salvation is by works + grace (ie: your position). Granted, it doesn't disprove your position - but then again, it doesn't disprove a number of alternative positions.
You say 'too' above. The same lack of support - and for the same reason - attaches to that point too. You said then:
quote:
Do you agree that, since the statement, If you want to enter life, keep the commandments, exists in the Bible, there is sufficient justification for me to legitimately claim that the salvation doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon is biblical?
..there is no justification for supposing works + grace to be taught in this particular biblical passage.
-
Your job on this thread is to prove that my interpretation of the Bible is not valid, not that you can explain away my evidence by inserting your own doctrinal interpretation as context.
The better way to phrase is would be: "Does the Bible support BoM notions" given that it is not possible to prove any interpretation of the Bible invalid. As far as the notion grace + works = salvation goes? The Bible appears to be silent on the matter. Which isn't proof of anything of course.
-
I can explain away any and all of your evidence by inserting my own doctrinal interpretation as context, too, but I have not endeavored to do so because this thread is not about explaining things under specific contexts, but about showing whether a certain interpretation can emerge logically from what is written.
Fair enough. My main gripe is that there is no positive support for you postion, biblically. And that you can only inject your notions into 'gaps' in the Bible which don't preclude your doing so.
-
I have spent this entire thread avoiding things that y’all can explain away, looking for specific, clear, unambiguous evidence. But, I’ve now realized that this was my error from the beginning: your ability to explain it away does not make it support for your position, nor does it diminish its ability to support my position.
The general confrontation takes place between the salvation by work-ists and the salvation by grace-ists. In that context, arriving at the conclusion "salvation-impossible-by-work" is seen as a support for the salvation-by-grace view. It being the only other show in town.
The salvation by works + grace view is really only a salvation by works view by another name. I made the point earlier that if God spans 999.99 miles of the 1000 mile canyon between man and God, and man spans the rest by his work then it is salvation by works.
-
When we combine if you want to enter life, obey the commandments and with man salvation is impossible, two seemingly contradictory statements, we can interpret it two ways:
1. Man is not capable of meeting the requirements that are set for him (your way).
2. Even if man meets the requirements that are set for him, he will still need God’s grace to be saved (my way).
Hang on a sec
We could combine those same words and posit option 2 to to involve; salvation by works + little green men falling from the sky. That is: a grace element of salvation isn't evidenced in the passage in order that it be included as a logical option. All that's going on is that salvation by works is being demonstrated as impossible. You can't fill the silence with whatever your having yourself.
The conclusion so far is: by-works-impossible. That's all the rich young ruler positively evidences. This doesn't, as I say, detract from your position. But it lends zero evidence to the assertion.
-
So, now we must look for additional clues from the story:
quote: if you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor... (v.21)
everyone who has left [...a list of things...] for my sake ... will inherit eternal life, (v.28)
We now have two additional comments reaffirming the interpretation that works play a role in salvation, with the added contextual implication that certain men have already achieved the task that was set for them, and will thus inherit eternal life.
This belies---but, granted, does not actually disprove---your interpretation that the task set before man is impossible for man to achieve.
The argumentation a little ways up establishes that there is no support in the passage for salvation by grace + works. The only agreed conclusion available (given the exclusion of your preferred option) is 'salvation not by works'. This grants possibly: Mormonisms 'by grace + works'. But it grants also possibly: salvation 'by little green men falling from the sky + works'. Which doesn't say a whole lot.
You place the two verses quoted above side by side (as if affirming one common conclusion). But they are addressed at two categories of people(s) in the story.
The first verse is addressed to the subject of the lesson: the rich young ruler who came asking a question and who failed to follow the demand. To follow was 'a work' in this context.
The second verse is addressed to observers of the lesson who were already followers of Jesus. We cannot conclude that their following arose out of a work
Silence on the issue of the disciples followership can't be inserted into your case as evidence of anything to do with your case. Indeed, we know that the disciples were simply called by Jesus.
-
Then, James 2:24, Philippians 2:12 and Hebrews 5:8-9 fall comfortably into place as saying that works play a role in salvation.
Although I've pointed towards Paul's "faith produces work" to enlighten "faith without works is dead" we'd be better off not slinging verses around willy nilly. As per (fascinating) Rich Young Ruler passage, the devil is in the detail.
-
quote:
For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.
This scripture clearly states that grace, not salvation, is the gift of God. And, sure enough, grace does not come from our works.
I'm not quite sure how you differentiate between what appears to me to be a consequential. Grace, and it's offspring, salvation, is a gift from God. By grace saved. By airplane transported. By hammer nail driven.
If grace a gift, then the produce of grace is also a gift. Salvation being the produce of grace renders it a gift. I'm not quite sure how else to read it - if your 'clearly' see's something other than that then I'd appreciate something by way of explanation / semantical expansion.
-
quote:
he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit...
Using my understanding of Matthew 19, James 2, Philippians 2 and Hebrews 5, I can interpret this as saying that our works do not save us without His grace.
I'm not sure how you involve works here. All I see is works excluded and his grace (expressed by the word ' mercy' in this case) included.
Given that your position is grace + works, you need passages that indicate grace + works. All I've seen so far is passages that exclude works and include grace (and nothing else). Assuming you differ with the above conclusion, would you (us) perhaps concentrate on working out one or other specific verse that you suppose combines the two elements of Mormonist salvation?
-
And, I can do the same for any scripture you present before me, so long as I first remember what it is that I believe the entire Bible message and gospel of Jesus to be.
Can you agree with me that this method is logically defensible?
Logically you have a defense. So have the little-green-menists. What you (and the little green menists) lack is positive evidence for your position. Whereas I feel I have all the evidence I need to arrive at mine:
- works won't result in salvation (you agree)
- salvation is by grace (you agree)
Because there is no biblical evidence of salvation by little green men / grace + works, I conclude salvation by grace ... alone.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Blue Jay, posted 11-18-2009 11:59 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2009 11:26 AM iano has replied
 Message 328 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2009 10:47 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 329 of 352 (536141)
11-20-2009 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by ICANT
11-19-2009 10:47 PM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
iano writes:
The better way to phrase is would be: "Does the Bible support BoM notions" given that it is not possible to prove any interpretation of the Bible invalid. As far as the notion grace + works = salvation goes? The Bible appears to be silent on the matter. Which isn't proof of anything of course.
ICANT writes:
I thought Paul did a good job straight to the point.
I'd agree wholeheartedly.
But Bluejays position relies on finding a 'loophole in the law'. That is; when the Bible indicates a man isn't saved by works, Bluejay's position agrees: works alone won't save a man. When the Bible indicates a man is saved by grace, Bluejay's position agrees, technically; - a man is saved by grace (in part). When the Bible says a man is saved by grace and not by works, Bluejay's position supposes (I'm supposing) the verse a rebuttal to the person who supposes salvation by works alone (or else this verse is a corruption, to be straightened out in the Book of Mormon).
Barring a verse that says salvation isn't by grace and works, Bluejays position can naviagate past objections all day long. It does so on a technicality; reading what's possible into the rather large space of what isn't excluded in the Bible.
And so I highlight a larger issue for him: if he places his trust for eternal life on a doctrine that isn't postively taught in the Bible then he might as well believe that salvation is by little green men falling from the sky. That isn't taught in the Bible either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2009 10:47 PM ICANT has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 330 of 352 (536144)
11-20-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by ochaye
11-19-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
Bluejay writes:
This was your statement, not mine.
Ochaye writes:
That is not the truth,
On the contrary. That statement was one made by you after you (heavily) edited a question posed by Blujay so as to make it look like a statement made by Bluejay.
-
but it does not matter if no-one has made it. It is a statement. No Mormon has to answer the question about it, which is not directed to any particular poster. But, in a thread of this nature, on the basic issue of salvation, it is all but impossible to usefully proceed on topic unless the question is answered by a Mormon.
A quick perusal of the thread title will reveal our task. We've to find something the BoM/Mormon doctrie says and make a case for it contradicting the Bible. Our task isn't to edit the thread title to one of our own choosing
-
It seems to me that, if the question is not answered, readers will naturally assume that Mormonism holds that people before Christ were able to work their way to heaven. If Mormons are happy with that, we can come to a conclusion about the thread question.
A lot of things can be extracted from a persons silence. The above is but one of them - and not something highest on my own list in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by ochaye, posted 11-19-2009 9:55 PM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 5:19 AM iano has replied
 Message 336 by ochaye, posted 11-20-2009 11:02 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 332 of 352 (536153)
11-20-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Blue Jay
11-19-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
Bluejay writes:
1. Obeying the commandments and following Jesus lead to salvation.
..We both accept that this is true: we just disagree on whether it's an attainable goal or not, and what the consequences of that are.
I think we both agree that it's not an obtainable goal - you say yourself that we all sin (ergo: a place for repentance). What we're disagreed on the purpose of the lesson. If we were to take the story in standalone fashion (ie: not importing our own externally derived notions into it) would we conclude grace and works? Or would we conclude grace and not works? I think the positive evidence points to the latter.
- the young ruler background is salvation by adherance to the law. There is no hint that +grace is considered an element of salvation in his mind. There is nothing in Jesus response to him that hints at +grace. +grace occurs as a notion only if imported into the text.
- the ruler fails the test in his own eyes/understanding. The conclusion he reaches in his own mind (and thus the object of Jesus' lesson him-ward, we must suppose) is "I can't do what it takes to be saved". The logical outworking of this is that he be sad.
- Jesus supports this conclusion by concluding himself that it is impossible for this man to do the work necessary to earn salvation. Camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle impossible. Again, we are not importing +grace into the text. So far nothing has been said about how a man is to be saved.
- The disciples understand the wider remit of the lesson. They don't think the point has to do with just rich men giving up wealth. The understand the point to cover all people: "who then can be saved". And the means by which they understand salvation to occur is the same as the young rulers. Again, we are not importing anything into the story.
- Jesus now draws a sharp distinction. With man (based solely on his work - given the storys context) impossible. With God - possible. If this is read to permit salvation by grace + works, the correct thing for Jesus to have said would be "with God and man, possible". If we are to suppose God + Man simply because the sentence doesn't exclude Man then we might also suppose God + Little Green Men from Mars.
We can agree that the BoM doesn't contradict the Bible in this case but so what? You can win the battle of a poor thread title. And loose the war for your soul?
-
I realize that I have left out a portion of my belief in this regard (although I did mention it to KBertsche earlier): that is, repentence. That's where the Atonement comes in: since we will all fall short of perfect worthiness (i.e. we will all sin), God's grace is a way provided for us to clean the slate and start over from zero.
That's why grace is required: because we have no means for undoing our sins by ourselves.
Noted. I suppose our discussion winding up given that I've acknowledged no contradiction (other than in the evidenced manner shown above) in this case.
If you'd like to come out from inside the concrete bunker of this threads title and give positive biblical evidence for grace + works then I'd be all ears.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2009 11:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Blue Jay, posted 11-20-2009 9:41 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 333 of 352 (536158)
11-20-2009 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Iblis
11-20-2009 5:19 AM


Re: petty petty petty
"Fitty Questions ta Axe a Mormon" lists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Iblis, posted 11-20-2009 5:19 AM Iblis has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 345 of 352 (536448)
11-23-2009 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Blue Jay
11-20-2009 9:41 AM


Here endeth the lesson?
Bluejay writes:
This is where we disagree. Jesus didn't say that man can't do the works required of him: He says that man cannot save man. That statement is a direct response to the disciples asking, "Who can be saved?" not "Who can do the works necessary?"
Context?
The disciples remark to Jesus - and his response to them - takes place after a lesson has been delivered to the rich young ruler. The question is whether your disagreement is a valid one given this context. I’m bearing in mind two things here — two things you yourself introduced into the discussion:
- What is the lesson the rich young ruler walks away with? This lesson forms the context of what happens subsequently.
- We are not to import our external dogma into the story
Our context revolves around a question: "what must I do?". Man seeks to earn eternal life via own effort. There is no mention of/interest in/allowance for a grace element in this scene. Neither is there mention of/interest in / allowance for a little green men element in this scene. We cannot, therefore, suppose a place for grace/little green men in salvation based on this passage. We cannot say Ah! But grace and works is how it is, so this ruler was simply asking how he would do his bit of the total. That would be importing our notions into the setting.
And the answer to the question also only deals with work: "this is the work you must do. We must conclude that if the ruler did the work then eternal life would follow - any other reading demands semantical wriggling. The ruler walks away sad. At this point we can only get to supposing the rulers failure to comply meant he found himself unable to do the work required of him. We cannot conclude this to mean another rich young ruler couldn't do it. So far, salvation-by-works remains a logical possibility.
Given the question/answer/response, the lesson this rich young ruler learned was: I cannot do the works required of me to earn eternal life. At this point we can see that your contention above isn’t permissible due to lack of positive evidence for it. And that mine contention is — partially. I say 'partially', because the lesson learned by the ruler hasn’t yet been extended to apply to all men — which my own contention (based on the whole passage) states.
-
All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that my interpretation is valid, even if you think it's wrong.
The above indicates how I’m arriving at the conclusion No. The context, so far, is quite specific: 'Working for my salvation - what work must I do and will I do it?". There is no impediement to the ruler giving up his wealth other than by wilful refusal - thus no impediment to his being saved by his work.
Before progressing further with you however, it might be wise to pause and ask you whether you accept the conclusion arrived at, at this point in proceedings. If so then I can progress. If not then I’d be interested in your objection / arrival at a different lesson learned by the rich young ruler. Note that I’m asking you to work your way through the passage to this point — I'm not asking that you use subsequent information not available to the rich young ruler to inform the lesson the ruler learned.
-
I'm having a very difficult time establishing a baseline from which to start my interpretive framework of the Bible, because I am met with three unrelenting opponents who have constructed a concrete bunker of dogma around the entire Bible, such that, if they can explain away my arguments with their selective interpretations, I cannot use my arguments to support myself.
My sympathies — although I cannot help that you discuss with compatriots of mine. Hopefully, the above will be seen as a common-sense reading & interpretation - without insertion of externally derived dogma/semantical wriggling.
-
Meanwhile, I am not allowed the luxury of using my dogmatic interpretive framework to support my arguments or to explain away my opponents’ arguments. So, my opponents basically demand that I start with nothng, and they start with everything, and that all neutral conclusions thus must fall in their favor, even though the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, meaning that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be assumed innocent until proven contradictory...
...so you'll get no sympathy from me .
But I’m prepared to step out of my own dogmatic concrete bunker too and have already said that the Mormonist ‘grace + works’ position doesn’t contradict this passage (for want of positive connection to it). I’m merely interested in what positive evidence can be gleaned for our respective positions.
In suggesting that a standalone reading of the passage (up to the point where the ruler exits stage left) leads us to suppose:
- there is no positive support for grace + works here.
- there is positive support for salvation not possible by a mans work
..and so, I’m taking a small, albeit not conclusive, piece of positive evidence from the passage-so-far in support of my own position. Your position so far, is evidentially empty-handed.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Blue Jay, posted 11-20-2009 9:41 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Blue Jay, posted 11-23-2009 12:12 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 347 of 352 (536519)
11-23-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Blue Jay
11-23-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Here endeth the lesson?
Bluejay writes:
What the young ruler learned was that there was something he could do that would get him saved, but that it sounded hideously unpleasant. There is no indication that he thought it was an impossible task: there is only the indication that he was emotionally torn between two things that he very much loved.
We simply do not know anything beyond this, so it is completely your interpretation that he learned, I cannot do the works required of me to earn eternal life.
We have a man who either:
- figures the bar is set to high for him to clear it, or...
- is saddened by being offered the very best investment proposal he could ever hope to make. Eternal life in exhange for temporal loss of wealth: who'da thunk that'd make someone sad.
But if you insist then certainly, either is 'possible' at this point.
-
Once the ruler left, Jesus was no longer teaching the young ruler: He had a new class. That means that the lesson from then on would be tailored to the new class, and not to the ruler. Jesus used the ruler’s inner conflict as a teaching aid for His new class.
Certainly the lesson to the disciples will have to connect to what has gone before. At this point, we're not sure what the nature of the rulers inner conflict is (of the above options).
-
But, the new class, the disciples, had already done the thing that Jesus said was required of them, and so, weren't experiencing that inner conflict. In fact, most of them were probably thinking, I’ve done that already... so I must be going to heaven, right?
This jumps ahead of things a little - although it might suffice for me to say that that this idea has potential. But let's leave that aside until the stories chronology permits fuller inclusion of the disciples view. At this point we have the ruler depart and Christ making a proclamation:
Jesus makes his 'camels & eye of a needle' comment which is contextually referencing what has just occurred (rich men seeking to work for eternal life). Assuming you agree that his comment does indeed indicate an impossiblity (like: whoever heard of a camel going through the eye of a needle) we have two potential conclusions to available:
- we can suppose the ruler found it impossible (and not just undesirable) to do the work required for eternal life. The rulers question/answer/reaction would be illustrating Jesus' concluding proclamation "with man impossible". This view provides storytelling continuity: Jesus teaches the ruler as an individual then universalises that same lesson by way of universal proclamation of same
OR
- we can suppose the ruler found it undesirable (but possible) to do the work set for him leading to eternal life. This would mean Jesus' deceived the ruler in setting a 'possible' works goal for salvation (no other assumptions being imported into the rulers lesson, thus no other information available to the ruler during his lesson) but then, when the ruler had departed, proclaiming that this palmed-off-as-possible demand wasn't actually possible and that (you conclude later) something else is required. We're neither of us supposing Jesus to have deceived the ruler, I take it?
Could I seek your view on these options before proceeding: limited as indicated, to the lesson as the ruler understood it - in the light of Jesus' proclamation ? In the meantime, I'll make some roundabout comments on the remainder of your post.
-
So, they ask Jesus, "Who can make it to heaven?" And Jesus answers, "It's impossible for you to save yourself, but I can save you."
Peter astutely realizes the implication of this: "But, You just said that we need to give up everything to follow You! And, we've already done that. So, what do we get for that?"
And, Jesus's answer explicitly includes eternal life for those who follow Him (v. 29), despite having just said that man cannot save himself.
So, how can we reconcile Jesus's two statements: "You cannot save yourself" and "You will get eternal life if you leave everything to follow me"?
The most natural interpretation is that both must be required.
I don't think it gets plainer than that.
1) You lack continuity. Jesus' statement: "it is impossible for man" is not connected to anything in the story suggested by you as un-doable (see your quote at the top of the page). Thus we have a standalone piece of doctrine without any contextual connection.
2) Whilst the case of the rulers potential motivation for following is clear: works for salvation, the disciples motivation for following isn't stated in any way. One person can marry for money and another for love. That we observe two different people occppying the same status (ie: they are married) doesn't say anything about the basis of the marriage. Similarily, you cannot presume the disciples following as work-contributing-to-salvation without inserting something into the story. We could as easily insert something else into the story and render their work the result of their already having been saved, ie: saving faith has produced the following work - not them trying to salvation by doing work.
-
One last point to emphasis the above point:
So, how can we reconcile Jesus's two statements: "You cannot save yourself" and "You will get eternal life if you leave everything to follow me"?
One of those isn't Jesus' statement to the disciples. "If you leave.." was a conditional statement made to the rich young ruler who came looking to save himself: "IF work THEN eternal life". The conditionality of the statement fits the question asked.
The statement made by Jesus to the disciples is subtly different. It's not a conditional statement, it's descriptional statement.
quote:
I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.
Salvation is argued elsewhere to produce work in the faithful (eg:"...it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good pleasure"). In that case, work would a marker of the saved person, a consequence of their having been saved - not a contributing cause of their having been saved.
Thus, a descriptional statement regarding a persons works can as easily be interpreted consequential as it can be interpreted causal. Neither of us may introduce our doctrine into the story to push it this way or that and so we need to look elsewhere for resolution of the point: causal or consequential*
The disciples followed alright. But why is that?
The descriptional/conditional differentiation helps make the above distinction clearer. But even an IF/THEN statment regarding works can be interpreted as works > consequential and not works > causal
-
I feel like I’ve presented positive evidence from a plain, straightforward reading of this passage. Note also that I feel like I've done it three times now, each time in response to you requesting that I provide a step-by-step analysis of the story. Do you still feel like I haven't done this yet?
I've the feeling that you skip around a bit and jump to conclusions without moving step by step through the story. For example above, you skip past Jesus proclamation and the context for doing so and move straight to the disciples reaction and Jesus response.
I think we're still moving forward however. Perhaps if we can keep unpaking & resolving dilemmas (like Jesus currently deceiving the ruler, apparently) then we'll arrive at an agreed position (perhaps stalemate)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Blue Jay, posted 11-23-2009 12:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Blue Jay, posted 11-23-2009 7:25 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 350 of 352 (536621)
11-24-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Blue Jay
11-23-2009 7:25 PM


Back to the future..
Bluejay writes:
It’s actually very logical... if you can’t decide which one you want more. It’s not an intuitive, easy question to answer (or even to ask, for that matter) for most people.
Given the lengths people go to to hang on to life and delay it's tendency towards decay, I'm not so sure it's other than cut and dried. Posed with the option, "which would you like: the comforts of wealth for a short period or eternal life" I think most people would plump for the latter.
If considering it possible for themselves to do it.
-
You don’t seem to be assimilating my objection to this portion. The Savior’s this is impossible with man is not aimed at the works that man has to do, but at that attainment of salvation, or entrance into heaven. Remember my Do X, get Y presentation?
I do - but it appears to be relevant to a later point, the point about reading X(works) as a marker of Y(salvation) rather than doing X(works) to get Y(salvation). I'm not sure how that objection fits in here but will read on.
-
Because chronology is important to our reasoning, I've re-arranged your post to deal with things in chronological order.
It can be argued that Jesus’s answer is intentionally deceptive, because he doesn’t mention that there’s more to it than just X. However, I think the way the question is phrased suggests that this young ruler knew exactly what it was that he was asking.
I have asked the exact same question many times (in Sunday school and introspectively during prayer or contemplation): What am I supposed to do? When asking that question, I am not simply asking Jesus an intellectual, doctrinal question out of curiosity: I am asking for personal guidance. The observation of the young ruler’s emotional attachment to the subject later in the story suggests that his was also not just a philosophical, hypothetical question.
But, maybe it was just an philosophical inquiry, and Jesus’s answer was therefore deliberately incomplete (or, maybe the ruler walked away before he could hear the end of the story). However, to suppose this is to assume one of two possible interpretations (the other being that the ruler knew exactly what he was asking).
Either way, we can still conclude that the young ruler got exactly the answer he asked for. That makes it objectively the best conclusion.
I agree the young ruler is has a more-than-mere-philosophical interest in the answer to his question. But that doesn't alter the plain intent of it and the works-for-salvation perspective under which he labours.
We cannot suppose there is 'more to it than just X' because we are not permitted to import our conclusions into the story in order to arrive at our conclusions. We have a one dimensional question and an equally one dimensional answer to that question: works for salvation - what's necessary? Then the ruler walks away. If there is more to it than can be gleaned from the lesson given to the ruler - without importing notions - then Jesus is being deceptive in regard to the ruler.
We must come to a conclusion about this issue before going on to deal with the further lesson involving the disciples I feel. Loose ends here are creating looseness in discussion later because both of us are basing our subsequent arguments on different conclusions drawn here.
-
The only way Jesus could be considered not to be deceiving the ruler is in the case where the lesson given contains an answer to the rulers question. And the only available option available (that I can think of) is
1) the ruler believes "with me impossible"
If the ruler walks away believing it's possible for him to work - but difficult - then Jesus has deceived him on the basis of his subsequent comment "with man impossible". Options that speculate on the ruler perhaps walking away prior to delivery of the full lesson - and such like, would be importing things into the story in order to render Jesus not deceiving. That isn't permissible we have agreed.
I'll leave aside the issue of the disciples lesson in order that we can perhaps agree on what conclusion the ruler drew before moving on? His conclusion informs later analysis.
-
But, like I said earlier, interpreting this as a descriptional statement is like saying, people wearing blue shirts get ice cream, when a blue shirt is not the real reason why ice cream is given. It’s a perfectly legitimate statement to make if your goal is to provide a way for others to identify those who will be getting ice cream (cf. Hey, look! All of us are wearing blue!), but not if your goal is to explain why somebody gets ice cream (cf. You forgot your blue shirt today? Oh... that’s too bad for you.).
Firstly, I'm not interpreting it as a descriptional statement. It is a descriptional statement - lacking as it does conditional words I merely pick on this one to show how even an IF/THEN statement can be seen as descriptional (in reverse to the way you can potentially see this descriptional statement as implying IF/THEN
Given that we haven't concluded the basis for salvation (the point of our discussion) we cannot decide a priori that blue shirts aren't the reason folk get ice-cream. My point is to stalemate your position for the moment - not to advance mine.
-
We should be able to determine the goal from the context. And, the context is Peter asking what he will get for his dedication to Jesus, not how he can recognize somebody who will be going to heaven. So, to me, it’s either a causal statement extrapolated to principle, or it’s a deliberate misdirection.
We don't know why Peter follows so cannot comment on whether works a cause or works a consequence. That's a nice way of putting it though: "a cause (or consequence) statement extrapolated to principle".
Hopefully you can get to agreeing that "with me impossible" in the case of the ruler is a persons personal conclusion extrapolated by Jesus into universal principle by his "with man impossible" statement.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Blue Jay, posted 11-23-2009 7:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2009 6:07 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 352 of 352 (536795)
11-25-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Blue Jay
11-24-2009 6:07 PM


Re: Back to the future..
Working through your post chronologically:
-
iano writes:
If there is more to it than can be gleaned from the lesson given to the ruler - without importing notions - then Jesus is being deceptive in regard to the ruler.
Bluejay writes:
But, this is, itself, an imported assumption. It incorporates the assumption that the ruler needed to be taught more than what Jesus taught him.
You are correct. But permit me a second bite at the cherry.
The ruler asks: 'what do I need to do to inherit eternal life' and is told he must perform certain work. Jesus confirms that he shall be given eternal life if he does these works. There is no need to include details of other, non-works elements involved in this mans salvation because:
a) any other element is useless to this ruler unless the required work is carried out. In answering the question "what must I do", Jesus tells us it must be done (if works are indeed involved in salvation).
b) any other element involved must be applied if this work is performed - in order that Jesus' confirmation to the ruler be true.
Which renders 'any other element' not=grace. For grace isn't a conditional thing dependent on what we do. The problem of Jesus confirming works-shall-result-in-salvation, extends downwards through the passage. The rulers two possible conclusions regarding this lesson were, we recall:
1) "I cannot do this".
2) "I can do this".
The first option leads us salvation by grace alone. The second option leads us to salvation by works apart from grace (indicated by b) above)
Then there is Jesus 'Camel & Needles' proclamation which precludes the ruler correctly arriving at conclusion 2).
Could you comment thus far?
-
But, the disciples weren’t asking only about their role in the process when they asked, Who can be saved? At this point, you continue to interpret the story as if Jesus is still trying to answer the young ruler’s question. But, new students with new questions change the dynamic of the story, and there is no reason to believe that Jesus is still answering the old question. The new question should serve as the context under which we interpret the answer.
Which is why I'm trying to focus on resolving the first half of the story.
"Who then can be saved" is a question arising out of Jesus "Camels & Needles" statement. And that statement arises directly out of his dealing with the rich young ruler. The nature of the second lesson is tied up with the first and we really need to arrive at conclusion about the first in order to be informed about the nature of the second.
-
With man this is impossible... was meant to answer the question, Who can be saved? It does not answer the question, Who can do what is required for salvation? or Who can keep all the commandments and leave everything to follow You? or What must I do to gain eternal life? It answers, Who can be saved?
So, in the answer (i.e., With man this is impossible), the word this refers to salvation, not to works (i.e. the outcome of the process, rather than the apparent means). These are two distinct concepts. Although the distinction is not important for the argument you’re making, it is important for the argument that I’m making, so you will not be able to address my argument without providing some sort of commentary on the distinction between the outcome (salvation) and the apparent means (works).
They were different questions. We cannot assume that the meaning of both was the same simply because they appear within a few verses of one another.
"With man this is impossible".
'This' indeed refers to salvation. But 'with man' can only refer to a-man-by-his-works/effort/input because that is the only thing a man can contribute to the 'with' part of the sentence. And so we read "With man by his works impossible".
We cannot forget either "who then can be saved" is the astonished response of the disciples to Jesus "Camels & Needles" proclamation so "with man impossible" connects back to whatever is going on there (as mentioned already)
-
Secondly, if is not the only conditional construction. [Person] who or [noun] that is also a conditional structure.
Granted. We might agree then that descriptional-sounding statements can be conditional in fact. And that conditional-sounding statements can be descriptional in fact. Which means we must look elsewhere for our conclusions regarding what Jesus means at the end of this passage.
-
This is rather at odds with the rest of your argument.
Surely we agree that at least Peter thought his works were analogous to the young ruler’s works.
If their works are not analogous, then, once again, we have Jesus leaving something out of His explanation (namely, what the difference between Peter and the young ruler is), which, according to you, is deception.
I would imagine Peter to have thought his following a work at this point time. Which doesn't mean it was. Consider for a moment that my case "I cannot do this" above was established and is applied to this part of the passage.
quote:
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you!..."
1) with man impossible - man cannot do the work required.
2) yet Peter is doing the work required.
3) with God possible, ie: Peter is doing because God is empowering (whether Peter is aware of this or not)
4) The rest of the passage is descriptional.
Which is why I'm interested in dealing with what the rich young ruler must conclude.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2009 6:07 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024