Message 331 of 352 (536147) 11-20-2009 5:19 AM

Reply to: Message 330 by iano 11-20-2009 4:45 AM

Dude, he isn't really in this thread. You are giving him too much credit, you think he has free will and independent thought invested in this. That's not what is happening at all.

He is working one of those "Fitty Questions ta Axe a Mormon" lists.

Oh and also, just to stay on topic

Guess that settles it, the jig is up! Time to overturn all those sporting victories. Tear down all those hospitals and schools and libraries. Annul the marriages, reverse the statehood, resettle New York.

Message 332 of 352 (536153) 11-20-2009 5:57 AM

Reply to: Message 321 by Blue Jay 11-19-2009 11:26 AM

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?

-

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.

Message 334 of 352 (536179) 11-20-2009 9:41 AM

Reply to: Message 332 by iano 11-20-2009 5:57 AM

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?"

It is completely neutral in terms of our two arguments, because all it can be positively taken to mean is that God is needed in salvation.

Yet, it is the only comment from the story that leads you to conclude that works are not part of salvation. There are three other statements in this story that talk about works:

"...if you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

"...you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones..."

"...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 will inherit eternal life"

Eternal life is twice associated with works, and rewards in heaven are also twice associated with works. Compare this to your one statement that simply says that God is needed, and can only be interpreted to mean more than that if you first assume an interpretive framework that is not included in this story. It's obvious that the moral of the story is that man is required to work for his salvation, with the sidenote that God is also required.

There are two positive statements saying that works lead to salvation, and you are disregarding both of them in favor of one statement that can be interpreted to support either of our views.

All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that my interpretation is valid, even if you think it's wrong.

-----

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.

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.

I was very glad to see you post here, though: I knew I could get a good, rational discussion with you. Thanks.

Darwin loves you.

Message 335 of 352 (536189) 11-20-2009 10:47 AM

Reply to: Message 323 by Blue Jay 11-19-2009 8:34 PM

quote:

---

Just because you see "work out" and "work in" in juxtaposition or in the same sentence, doesn't mean that they are meant to be synergistic.

My comment was directed specifically at your suggestion that "work out" and "work in" were meant to be juxtaposed for the purpose of imagery.

---

The gist of the sentence seems pretty straightforward; We are to be working out our salvation because God is working in us.

Message 336 of 352 (536192) 11-20-2009 11:02 AM

Reply to: Message 330 by iano 11-20-2009 4:45 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

That is a very serious allegation.

It requires proof.

Message 337 of 352 (536206) 11-20-2009 11:56 AM

Reply to: Message 327 by ochaye 11-19-2009 9:55 PM

I understand your sentiment.

But, you have posted nearly 100 messages on this thread, most of which contains a question that you feel your opponents must answer, and few of which include serious attempts to address any of the questions your opponents feel you must answer.

In the Evolution/ID debate, this is referred to as the "Gish gallop" (named after an IDist who is notorious for using it).

I will continue to engage you in this discussion on one condition: for every point of yours that I address, you have to address one of mine in roughly equal detail. And, since I’ve answered considerably more of your questions than you have of mine, I get to start. Deal?

If so, here's one that I want you to answer (along with its context from this discussion):

In Message 292, you claimed that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:17 is anachronistic. My assumption is that you mean He is still teaching the Old Covenant, because the New Covenant wouldn’t apply until after the Atonement, which hadn’t yet happened.

I pointed out a list of problems that I saw with your argument, which were:

1. that you must have accepted that Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19 was pro-works (I had originally split this up into two separate points, but it’s actually one)
   
2. that you must have also accepted that the Old Covenant allowed salvation by works
   
3. that your argument ignores the simple observation that Jesus was already teaching the New Covenant in Matthew 5, so it would not be anachronistic for Him to be teaching the New Covenant in Matthew 19.

Your response was to ask for my view on one of those things, which really isn’t required in order for you to defend your statement.

I’m asking you straight up now: do you still believe that Matthew 19 is an anachronism?

What I would consider a sufficiently detailed answer:

1. A logical explanation for why one or more of my problems above are invalid.
   
2. The one-word response “no.”

What I would not consider a sufficiently detailed answer:

1. An inquiry as to my opinion on the subject.
   
2. A snide remark about paganism, equating me with a Calvinist or Catholic, or my alleged conversion to Protestantism

(Incidentally, I think I may have overinterpreted your argument with regards to my problem (1), but I’ll wait for your confirmation before I accept that I did).

Edited by Bluejay, : Restructuring my preconditions.

Edited by Bluejay, : It wasn't every one of his posts... or none of his posts, it was most of his posts and few of his posts.

Darwin loves you.

Message 338 of 352 (536217) 11-20-2009 1:14 PM

Reply to: Message 337 by Blue Jay 11-20-2009 11:56 AM

quote:

---

But, you

---

That's the second personal pronoun.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

Message 339 of 352 (536220) 11-20-2009 1:30 PM

Reply to: Message 338 by ochaye 11-20-2009 1:14 PM

Unless you can participate more constructively, please stop participating in this thread. Thanks.

Message 340 of 352 (536222) 11-20-2009 1:39 PM

Reply to: Message 339 by Admin 11-20-2009 1:30 PM

Maybe the oceans will join before long!

Message 342 of 352 (536284) 11-21-2009 11:33 AM

Reply to: Message 334 by Blue Jay 11-20-2009 9:41 AM

Where?

You quote part of Matthew 19:17.

quote:

---

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

---

Where does this verse say anything about "eternal life"?

You are not in a lab or an english class.

You are discussing a passage of scripture that was originally written in Koine Greek, then translated into English.

The Greek word translated as life has nothing to do with eternal life.

It comes from the Greek word translitered as zôç which means: 1) life
a) the state of one who is possessed of vitality or is animate. It simply means a live breathing human being.

Had the author intended "eternal life" he would have used the Greek word transliterated as aiônios which means: 1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be.

So if we are talking about a human we would be talking about life that will never end.

Lets examine Matthew 19:16.

quote:

---

Mat 19:16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

---

Who is doing the talking? A specific person. Not a group or mankind.
What is he talking about? Specifically what he has to do to have eternal life. What good thing shall I do?

What was the answer he got to his question? He really did not get one to that question.

Jesus told him what he had to do to enter into life. He did not tell him what he had to do to receive eternal life.

Jesus did tell him what he had to do to have treasures in heaven.

But treasures are not eternal life.

Conclusion Matthew 19:17 is not talking about eternal life therefore it can not be associating eternal life with works.

quote:

---

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

---

No eternal life mentioned there as Jesus tells the apostles of a reward they will receive for having followed Him.

This is not addressed to the 12 but to all mankind.

An inheritance is something you obtain by birthright not anything you do.

You can also receive an inheritance by gift.

So they don't get the inheritance by working for it, as that would make it wages or a reward for services rendered.

Conclusion:

Nowhere have you shown the Bible teaches you can obtain eternal life by doing good works.

In fact the Bible teaches the exact opposite.

Does the Bible say for by grace are ye saved through faith. Yes/No
Does the Bible say it is a Gift of God? Yes/No

quote:

---

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

Does the Bible say, "Not of works" ? Yes/No
Does the Bible say, lest any man should boast? Yes/No

quote:

---

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

---

Does the Bible say, we are His workmanship? Yes/No
Does the Bible say, we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works? Yes/No
Does these verses say we are created and obtain eternal life in good works? Yes/No

quote:

---

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

---

Does the BOM teach you are saved by grace through faith? Yes/No give scripture.

Does the BOM teach you receive eternal life by works? Yes/No give scripture.

Does the BOM teach you are saved by grace + works? Yes/No give scripture.

God Bless,

Message 343 of 352 (536289) 11-21-2009 12:57 PM

Reply to: Message 342 by ICANT 11-21-2009 11:33 AM

quote:

---

Who is doing the talking? A specific person. Not a group or mankind.
What is he talking about? Specifically what he has to do to have eternal life. What good thing shall I do?

What was the answer he got to his question? He really did not get one to that question.

Jesus told him what he had to do to enter into life. He did not tell him what he had to do to receive eternal life.

Jesus did tell him what he had to do to have treasures in heaven.

But treasures are not eternal life.

Conclusion Matthew 19:17 is not talking about eternal life therefore it can not be associating eternal life with works.

---

I read the passage somewhat differently. The man is asking for what he can do to attain eternal life. Jesus reminds him of the OT Law, and helps him to see that this standard is too high for man to attain to. Jesus helps the man to see that he is not blameless, and has no hope of attaining eternal life through his own deeds.

In other words, Jesus is presenting a hypothetical case (If you can obey the OT Law perfectly, then you will have demonstrated that you are perfectly good and deserving of eternal life.) The purpose of this is to let the man see his own sin and to see that he cannot earn eternal life through works.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

Message 344 of 352 (536386) 11-22-2009 3:18 PM

Reply to: Message 342 by ICANT 11-21-2009 11:33 AM

I already responded to this in Message 298.

Either Jesus is talking about eternal life, or He is talking about mortal life.

If He is talking about mortal life, then He taught that people have to keep the commandments before they are born.

If this is what the Bible teaches, then it means one of two things:

1. Jesus taught about a pre-mortal life (a doctrine of Mormonism)
2. I would no longer have a problem with agreeing that the BoM contradicts the Bible.

Darwin loves you.

Message 345 of 352 (536448) 11-23-2009 7:11 AM

Reply to: Message 334 by Blue Jay 11-20-2009 9:41 AM

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.

-

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.

-

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.

-

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.