Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-29-2014 10:47 AM
181 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,462 Year: 19,303/28,606 Month: 2,574/2,305 Week: 216/563 Day: 26/117 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
19202122
23
24Next
Author Topic:   Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 331 of 352 (536147)
11-20-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by iano
11-20-2009 4:45 AM


petty petty petty
A quick perusal of the thread title will reveal our task.

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.

And we were just going all to hang out to eat some ice cream and so we’re are sitting [and] just got our ice cream, and two LDS missionaries walk in. One of the teens with me [said] “Well I’m gonna go and share my faith with them.” So he goes up and starts dialoging with these missionaries. And he just kept on giving them question after question after question talking and asking them about what they believe. And in the process I noticed the LDS missionary kind of pausing and just kind of looking at the guy more and more intent. And finally toward the end of the conversation the LDS missionary turned to the Christian teen and said “You know, I don’t think you care about me a bit. Every time I answered one of your questions, you were in the process thinking of the next question to ask me. You are not even listening to my answer.” And that teen has never forgot that.

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/...-mormon-missionaries

Oh and also, just to stay on topic

In the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon, Nephi laments that the prophet Jeremiah has been cast into prison[36], sometime before the 8th year of the reign of Zedekiah.[37] However, according to the Bible, Jeremiah was not imprisoned until the 10th year of the reign of Zedekiah.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Book_of_Mormon#Jeremiah_in_prison

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by iano, posted 11-20-2009 4:45 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by iano, posted 11-20-2009 6:30 AM Iblis has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6163
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 responded

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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6163
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 yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 334 of 352 (536179)
11-20-2009 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by iano
11-20-2009 5:57 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
Hi, Iano.

iano writes:

Jesus supports this conclusion by concluding himself that it is impossible for this man to do the work necessary to earn salvation.

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.

-----

iano writes:

If you'd like to come out from inside the concrete bunker...

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.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by iano, posted 11-20-2009 5:57 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by ICANT, posted 11-21-2009 11:33 AM Blue Jay has responded
 Message 345 by iano, posted 11-23-2009 7:11 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1062
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 335 of 352 (536189)
11-20-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Blue Jay
11-19-2009 8:34 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
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.



But the author DID use the same word (work) with two different prepositions in the same sentence. It is unlikely that this was accidental. It is more likely that this was intentional on Paul's part, especially when he ties their clauses together with "for."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2009 8:34 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 336 of 352 (536192)
11-20-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by iano
11-20-2009 4:45 AM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by iano, posted 11-20-2009 4:45 AM iano has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 337 of 352 (536206)
11-20-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by ochaye
11-19-2009 9:55 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
Hi, Ochaye.

ochaye writes:

...it is all but impossible to usefully proceed on topic unless the question is answered by a Mormon.

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.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by ochaye, posted 11-20-2009 1:14 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 338 of 352 (536217)
11-20-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by Blue Jay
11-20-2009 11:56 AM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
quote:
But, you

That's the second personal pronoun.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Blue Jay, posted 11-20-2009 11:56 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Admin, posted 11-20-2009 1:30 PM ochaye has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11414
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 339 of 352 (536220)
11-20-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ochaye
11-20-2009 1:14 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
Hi Ochaye,

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


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ochaye, posted 11-20-2009 1:14 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by ochaye, posted 11-20-2009 1:39 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 340 of 352 (536222)
11-20-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Admin
11-20-2009 1:30 PM


Re: Contradiction 5: Means of Salvation
The USA, Christophobic shit.

Maybe the oceans will join before long!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Admin, posted 11-20-2009 1:30 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by AdminNosy, posted 11-20-2009 2:18 PM ochaye has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 341 of 352 (536229)
11-20-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by ochaye
11-20-2009 1:39 PM


Ochaye 24 hours
Since you immediately demonstrated that you aren't going to participate constructively you are suspended for 24 hours.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by ochaye, posted 11-20-2009 1:39 PM ochaye has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 342 of 352 (536284)
11-21-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Blue Jay
11-20-2009 9:41 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
Hi Bluejay,

Bluejay writes:

Eternal life is twice associated with works,

Where?

You quote part of Matthew 19:17.

Bluejay writes:

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

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.

Bluejay writes:

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

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.

Bluejay writes:

"...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"

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,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Blue Jay, posted 11-20-2009 9:41 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by kbertsche, posted 11-21-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 344 by Blue Jay, posted 11-22-2009 3:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1062
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 343 of 352 (536289)
11-21-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by ICANT
11-21-2009 11:33 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
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.



This is indeed one possible way of interpreting the passage in the context of the rest of Scripture. But I think it divorces verse 17 a bit too much from verse 16.

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.

Bible Knowledge Commentary writes:


This ruler was not asking how he could earn salvation. Instead, he wondered how he could be assured of entering Messiah’s kingdom. He wanted to know what “good thing” (work) would demonstrate that he was righteous and therefore qualified for the kingdom. ... Jesus indicated that life (i.e., life in God’s kingdom) can be entered only if one gives evidence that he is righteous. Since the official standard of righteousness was the Law of Moses, Jesus told the man to obey the commandments. ...

Jesus put His finger on his problem when He told him to go, sell all his possessions and give to the poor, and he would then have treasure in heaven. Such mercy toward the poor would demonstrate inner righteousness. If he were righteous (based on faith in Jesus as God), he should have given his wealth to the poor and followed Jesus. But instead, the man ... went away sad (lupou/menoß, “grieved or sad to the point of distress”; cf. 14:9; 18:31) for he had great wealth. His unwillingness to relinquish his wealth showed he did not love his neighbor as himself. Thus he had not kept all the commandments, and he lacked salvation. Nothing more was written about this young man; probably he never left all and followed Jesus. He loved his money more than God, and thus he violated even the first commandment (Ex. 20:3).

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ICANT, posted 11-21-2009 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 344 of 352 (536386)
11-22-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by ICANT
11-21-2009 11:33 AM


Re: Does the Book of Mormon contradict bits of the Bible?
Hi, ICANT.

ICANT writes:

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.

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.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ICANT, posted 11-21-2009 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6163
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 responded

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

  
RewPrev1
...
19202122
23
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014