|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Paul specifically uses the directional word "work out." This is in contrast to his mention of God "working in" in the next verse. There is nothing improper about this use of English. So much so that the present day term for a good exercising of the body is a "work out".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: The simple fact is that, despite the incessant hounding of born-again Christians, no Christian on the planet believes in salvation by grace alone. Not one. Every single one of us believes that salvation is, at least in part, contingent on man. Tentively raises a finger and points to the Calvinists (of which I am not one ) My own view wouldn't agree with you either, believing as I do in the Bibles pointing to the relentlessly sinful nature of man which, if left to it's own devices would express it's will in one direction and one directon only, ie: contra God. Assuming man's nature to be as described above (not at all rare a view amongst Christians), salvation cannot be dependent on any act of the will of man - whether in thought or carried out unto deed. I mean, how can a being that can only do evil (were it not for Gods' restraint) contribute to his own salvation and foil the notion of salvation by grace alone? -
The Bible contains a repetitive formula: If you do X, you get Y Therein lies a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation by grace alone. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Michamus writes: Not even the NT agrees with you on this one. That's not the NT. That's a verse from the NT. But seeing as we're slinging verses around, there's this other verse from the NT
quote: If godly faith produces work then what can we conclude about faith that doesn't produce work. Might we conclude as James concludes? That such a faith is actually dead? Ungodly? Useless? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Except that the scriptures I listed have X="good works" and Y="salvation." I'm aware of that, and agree there are many verses which say such a thing.
To me, that's a rather big clue leading one to conclude salvation not by grace alone. That's one conclusion you could arrive at - a kind of skimming the surface, simplistic conclusion. If you were to add an obvious piece of information to the pot however, a piece of information that everyone has at their disposal, then you'd quickly arrive at the opposite conclusion. C'mon Bluejay, you're a sinner, you're smart. It shouldn't be that difficult. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
Bluejay writes: ..here's the position I remember you championing in regards to works and grace: * Man could get to heaven by doing good works* Man is evil and fundamentally incapable of doing good works. * Therefore, man cannot get to heaven by his works. I'd refine your(my) first point to read: man could get to heaven if he followed all of the law (and all the nuances of all of the law) all of the time. The rest is spot on. Which leads a person to but one conclusion whenever they read verses demanding work for heaven (assuming they're not also reading from the Book of Mormo)n: "Yikes!! In that case I'm hell-bound - for I cannot keep all of the law (and all the nuances of the law), all of the time*!! -
Rather, we believe that, after all men are saved by God's grace, additional rewards (also called "salvation") are applied based on our willingness to do good works. Additional rewards? If an aspect of salvation is by grace, it cannot be given as reward. A reward being something earned. Surely? Could you also clarify something, seeing as we mean different things by 'salvation'. What benefits accrue to the man who is saved by the grace element alone in Mormonism? And do all men receive this? -
I have another objection to your argument as it specifically pertains to the example from Matthew 19:17-29. Namely, Jesus laid out specifically what a man must do to get into heaven. Here are the verses concerned. Can we take a look at them with a view to Jesus teaching as I'm arguing he/Paul et al teach?: God sets man an impossible task in order that man sees the task as impossible? Because the story of the Rich Young Ruler is an excellent example of same.
quote: The issue is clear: eternal life and what a person has to do to obtain it. There is no reliance on grace, only reliance on self. "What must I do.."
quote: So far so straightforward: obeying the law is the work required.
quote: Clearly this man hasn't followed these commandments. Jesus has told us elsewhere that anger equates to murder and lust with adultery. He has, in other words, expanded on the meaning of the law to the nth degree - so much so that no one can say they obey the law. This man, like every man, is guilty of breaking that expanded law. Rather than embark on a lesson in the expanded law, Jesus engages in a lesson in the condensed law. All 'the law and the prophets' is summed up in but two 'golden rules'. Given this mans obvious-to-Jesus idol (wealth, riches, luxurious life, fine eating/dining), Jesus shoots the fish in a barrel.
quote: The man has asked what he lacks, Jesus tells him what that is. He needs to be perfect(*all of the (condensed) law, all of the time). All it will take for this particular man to achieve perfection is: obey the first golden rule. This man needs to love God: in a right here/right now kind of way. I can't imagine the kind of life Jesus was leading and the kind of people Jesus was hanging with made that demand a simple one to follow for this young ruler. Imagine the smell, the lack of a comfortable bed, the dregs that Jesus hung out with, the lack of servants, the lack of freshly washed bedlinen, the lack, the lack..
quote: Is it any wonder? Hopefully at some point he realised..
iano a minute ago writes: "Yikes!! In that case I'm hell-bound - for I cannot keep all of the law (and all the nuances of the law), all of the time*!! Which is why Jesus picked this particular issue in this particular case. He could do the same for anyone who supposes eternal life to be obtainable by what they do. The detail may differ depending on the person, but everyone's got gods they don't want to give up.
quote: Given the context of Jesus' lesson and the question asked by the rich young ruler, I've entered 'self' in the appropriate places above.
quote: Again the context is self-salvation: for man, impossible. For God, possible. Thus God's grace, and not man's works. That was the question asked. That was Jesus' response. He doesn't tell us anything about God's way of salvation. He does tell us that mans way is futile. That was the lesson.
quote: The argument here would be that the disciples are already saved men, If so, their saving faith inevitably produces work - in this case following the golden rule. In their following Jesus. Their 'work' is a consequence of their having been saved, not a cause of their being saved. -
not only does Jesus say what a man must do to get into heaven, but He also points out that some of them have accomplished the required task, and will receive the promised reward for it. It seems pretty clear to me. Hopefully this contextual analysis, with an emphasis on the opening line "what must I do..." will give cause for re-assessment. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Michamus writes: How about providing that "obvious" piece of information? It is this: we're all sinners and can't keep the law. Even atheists are capable of appreciating this (even if they don't believe in God, sin, The Law). If the demand on us is "keep the law and you will be saved" then even the dumbest of us is capable of concluding: "in that case I am lost" The rest of the road to salvation follows naturally from there. I mean: what is a man, who is convinced he is not capable of doing what it takes to achieve salvation, likely to do on reaching that same conviction? If not fall to his knees I mean? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: The man has asked what he lacks, Jesus tells him what that is. He needs to be perfect(*all of the (condensed) law, all of the time).
Bluejay writes: But, this is not what Jesus said. This is clear from the fact that He later (v. 28) confirms that his apostles (some of them, at least) have lived up to this condition, which indicates that the condition to which He is referring is not something that is impossible for men. We can take a look at the case of the disciples in a minute, but we should not skip past the lesson issued to the rich young ruler - which lends a context to Jesus' dealing with the disciples. Remembering also, the spirit in which my original case was made:
quote: Are we agreed that the man is looking to see how he can achieve eternal life for himself by what he does? And that the means whereby he is examined has to do with 'adherance to God's law' - initially against the classic, Mosaic sense of the law? And that Jesus confounds (intentionally, one must conclude) the mans attempt to achieve eternal life so by asking him to follow the law of God as further expounded on by Jesus (golden rules) - but which is Gods law nonetheless? If the text stopped at that point, I believe we could conclude that the premise suggested by me is well supported by this passage. - Having another look at your contention:
But, this is not what Jesus said. This is clear from the fact that He later (v. 28) confirms that his apostles (some of them, at least) have lived up to this condition, which indicates that the condition to which He is referring is not something that is impossible for men. This analysis takes no account of the information that went before. We have a particular lesson to apply here and it has something to do with Jesus' confounding of one who seeks to work for eternal life. I doubt you'd suppose Jesus accidently happening to finger 'giving up wealth' in the case of a rich young ruler. We should suppose he was intending to cause this man to stumble and fall on the issue of self-earning of eternal life. Assuming you agree with the lesson Jesus was teaching this rich young ruler, my insertion of 'self' is, I think, an acceptable emphasis to place on his conclusion below. A conclusion which states the impossibility of earning eternal life oneself.
quote: - And so to your contention:
But, this is not what Jesus said. This is clear from the fact that He later (v. 28) confirms that his apostles (some of them, at least) have lived up to this condition, which indicates that the condition to which He is referring is not something that is impossible for men. The rich young ruler came looking for eternal life by own effort - and he left stumped. That is: with man impossible. There is no indication that the disciples followership was sourced in such self-reliant motivation. Indeed, we know that Jesus turned up and simply called them and they followed. We know also that when asked by him would they leave him that they acknowledge that they couldn't: he had the words of eternal life. There is a contrast to be drawn here: Rich young ruler > what must I do/work at > Impossible with manDisciples > we cannot do, we rely on Jesus > Possible with God -
So, I believe a more appropriate interpretation of this is that our salvation is contingent upon us doing something that we are fully capable of doing. The context of this story seems to support this much more clearly. I feel I've given a step by step breakdown of happenings, with reasonable in-context conclusions attaching to those steps - over the whole passage. Would you like to pose an alternative, step-by-step viewpoint along those lines? -
In effect, it’s speaking backwards: instead of meaning, Doing X gets you into heaven, it’s supposed to mean, Getting into heaven causes you to do X. This is the exact opposite of what is actually said. It gives me the impression that you believe Jesus is trying to cleverly deceive people by grammatically attaching the outcome to a consequence of the reason they deserve the outcome, rather than to the actual reason why they deserve the outcome. Why would Jesus speak in such a fashion if His goal is to clearly and concisely teach correct doctrines? It is, frankly, a deceptive way of speaking. I do not personally feel that such deliberate deception is compatible with the compassionate character that we attribute to Jesus. I feel that it is beyond my power to accept both Jesus’s compassion and the deceptive speech patterns that you attribute to Him. Deceptive? Jesus is speaking but frankly. This rich young ruler asked a straight question and Jesus gave him a straight answer. Q: "What work must I do..? What standard must I reach ... if I want to earn eternal life?" A: "This is the work must you do... this is the standard you must reach - if you want to earn eternal life for yourself" It's worth noting the complete absence, anywhere in scripture, of Jesus saying or implying himself as saying that a persons trying their best to follow the law will suffice for a self-earned salvation? He is remorselessly insistant that it be all of the law, all of the time:
- unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (who weren't at all righteous in his eyes but who were viewed as the standard of uber-righteousness by those Jesus addressed. What is Jesus audience in that day to conclude from this if not: with man impossible! - all the law and all the prophets summed up in but two impossible to keep commands: love God with all your heart/soul/mind. Love your neighbour (just) as yourself. What is selfish, unbelieving man to conclude from this if not; with man impossible! - "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The heady heights of the law of God. What is any hetrosexual male to conclude from this if not; with man impossible! Jesus isn't at all deceptive, Bluejay. He speaks in parable often, and in riddles that have his own disciples wondering. He very often doesn't answer the question asked sometimes and at other times, such as this time, does so with laser precision. There can be little doubt about his message here when it comes to a man achieving eternal life through own effort, which comes through adherance to Gods law. With man it's impossible Seeing that that's all a man needs to be convinced of in order to gain eternal life (according the the gospel of grace), what better message should Jesus concern himself with delivering if not: With man it's impossible. -
Essentially all men, with few exceptions, will receive salvation. This means that they will be resurrected, and will go to heaven (we like to use the term degree of glory instead of heaven). Degrees of glory are wonderful, blissful places where we can live forever. Again, all men are granted these. Of course, some degrees of glory are better than others, and the purpose of good works is to increase your degree of glory. And, basically, as your degree of glory increases, your degree of separation from God (i.e. spiritual death) decreases. Gotcha. It's a little like salvation by grace. Works are important in terms of heavenly reward (or degrees of glory if you like). It's just that they don't earn you eternal life/heaven in the first place. What is the basis for the few exceptions not gaining heaven btw? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Yes, God very clearly states that a man's salvation is contingent on something that that man does. Our disagreement is about what a man has to do to satisfy that contingency, and nothing more. Interjecting here. You said in response to my query that effectively (nigh on) all men will be saved (in the sense of going to heaven) but that heaven is a case of degrees of bliss, the degree depending on the work a man does. This primary salvation isn't contingent on a mans work I take it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
Bluejay writes: Your recounting of the story and the lesson it was meant to teach cast Jesus in the light of a humble, perfect teacher. As everyone knows, a teacher's effectiveness is dependent on context: it can only be gauged by how well the lesson is tailored to the student. Fair enough. I'm supposing this lesson tailored to precisely this student (although we can all learn from it - the vehicle of wealth being replaceable by many others) -
So, what would the rich young ruler take from what Jesus said? The only thing the rich young ruler heard was "Keep the commandments, and you will have eternal life. Sell your possessions, and follow me, and you will have treasure in heaven." What do you think this meant to the rich man? (Leaving aside discussion on whether Jesus implied "keep the commandments and you will have eternal life") I'd say the message the rich young ruler heard was: "You ask me what you have to do to get eternal life? Well, you've followed the commandments: so far so good. All that's left for you to do is.." -
If this is the only thing you heard Jesus say (along with a few tidbits you overheard from the earlier verses about divorce and little children), what would be your reaction to this statement? Would you conclude that man's works cannot contribute to his salvation? Not at all! I'd continue along in the belief I was raised in; that my works established my righteousness before God and that eternal life depended on them. All that Jesus tidbits, and all his specific demands of me would achieve is to raise the height of the bar I already thought I had to jump over. -
If you really believe that Jesus was a perfect teacher, then I don't see how you could conclude anything else. Any other interpretation requires you to make a number of assumptions: 1. That the young ruler knew all about the law to which Jesus's "follow me" was a peripheral reference, and that "follow me" was a reference to said law. It's not necessary that the young ruler knew whether or not this is the law of God. All he had to know was that it was a requirement he had to follow, delivered by someone he felt was in a position to demand it of him. He perceived it as a work he had to do - in the context of a question he himself had asked. -
2. 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. Hmm. I'd warrant the context supports the cause of his sadness - which happens to coincide with Jesus looking at him and telling him that it's camel-through-a-needle hard for him. Which is another way of saying, as Jesus said, that it's impossible - for a man. -
3. That, when Jesus says, "keep the commandments, and you will get into heaven," He doesn't mean, "keep the commandments, and you will get into heaven," and that the young ruler was privy to that double-speak. The issue is the conclusion the ruler forms in his own mind. If it's the conclusion Jesus' wants to be formed there, then Jesus' teaching mission is accomplished. Agreed? I'm assuming that the sadness in this man arises from his recognising his being unable to give up his wealth (and not sadness because he intends to and is "missing it already"). If so, then Jesus is the one who has formed that mans conclusion about himself: "I've asked and I've been answered. I conclude that I can't do that which is required to inherit eternal life" I see no particular external assumptions used in the formulation of the above view (bar the basis of the rulers sadness). So we can say that our respective views rely on the basis of the mans sadness. -
What we must accept is not that this story is one piece in a grand puzzle meant for us to figure out 2000 years later, but that it was the entire puzzle for this rich young ruler. Otherwise, we must conclude that Jesus is a lousy teacher. The conclusion "I'm not capable of doing what's necessary to inherit eternal life" is the only lesson this young ruler need take away with him - according to the mechanism of salvation by grace. Salvation by grace can work with a lesson thus implanted. -
It's a lot like salvation by grace, because we agree with you that man is not capable of earning his way to heaven on his own. There is a certain "quota" that is expected of us before God's saving grace will be applied to us. We appear to mean different things by salvation by grace also . If the canyon between salvation or no is 1000 miles wide and God bridges 999.99 of them by his own grace and we work for the rest (our quota being 0.1 mile) then it's salvation by works through and through. In my (good) book: salvation by grace means man contributes nothing to his salvation by way of work. (Thank God btw. I've been going around telling anyone who'll listen (and many who won't) that 'every world Religion and major cult (sorry) has works as the basis of it's salvation'. You nearly runed my credibility there ) -
So, we tend to associate the lowest degree of glory (the "Telestial Kingdom") with Hell and damnation, although this is not doctrinally accurate. But degrees of glory sounded like nice things (even if in different degrees of niceness). Is Hell nice? -
I'm actually not entirely clear on that. It has to do with major sins, such as the anti-Christ would be guilty of. Maybe Hitler. Darwin, too, if you ask some Mormons . The Mother of All Mortal Sins you mean But fair enough: too much a sidetrack to worry about. Core essential is that: all will be saved in degree. All it'll be good, to greater or lesser degree. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
What's the difference between a Mormon, a Calvinist and a Catholic? I can't think of one. The Mormon and the RC rely on works. The Calvinist not at all. (the Calvinist relie on a celestial lotto ) Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
ochaye writes: They do. They just say they don't. What they say is about all I've to go on. Their doctrine precludes their working for salvation: so they're either - believing Calvinist doctrine and working for some other reason (Calvinists who call themselves Calvinists) - don't believe Calvinist doctrine and are working for their salvation (not-Calvinists calling themselves Calvinist) Like, how can you be a Calvinist and not believe Calvinism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
What people don't cotton onto about Calvinists is that they are not necessarily Christians. The same could be said of people from all denominations. -
Even if their (horrible) theology is correct, it proves nothing about them. Their works are Puritan- formal dressing, sabbath-keeping, water baptism and the like. A toned-down, literally a reformed Catholicism. Again, I only know them by what they say and in the main they seem alright - their doctrine not necessarily deflecting them from the grace they consider themselves to be subject of. That said, I've heard/debated some on the likes of CARM and would agree the theology an appalling one - and the triumphalism of some of those who consider them 'the predestined elect" appallinging.
They are unconverted, and fear taking a decision for Christ above everything. A decision for Christ? Sounds like a choice to me. A work in other words. Why, why, you... unreformed Roman Catholic you..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined:
|
ochaye writes: There are very few people who would say that X, and Y, are not evangelical Christians (substitute names of any two well-known Calvinist preachers for X and Y). Try it, and see what happens. My point was that:
ochaye writes: What people don't cotton onto about Calvinists is that they are not necessarily Christians. ..there are non-Christians in all demoninations(sic), not just non-Christians in the Calvinist denomination. My own view is that people are saved by Gods grace alone, not by the particular doctrine they happen cleave too. Were it we were saved by doctrine alone. And so there will be, I believe, saved people from amongst the Calvinist persuasion, the Arminian, the Mormon, the Muslim. I'm sure even the atheists will be represented amongst the saved; Matthew 25's somewhat surprised-to-be-there sheep probably making up their number. -
Wow. You've been lucky. They do nothing but lie, evade and get personal when they are cornered, in my experience. Just like Catholics and you know who. You mean Bluejay? I've always found him a reasonable enough debater and not one easy to push into a corner. But them darn Catholiks..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ICANT writes: Quite a fuss has been made over my claim that all a person has to do is believe. Making believing out to be some sort of work in order to obtain eternal life. When you say "all a person has to do" you leave yourself open to that charge. But it's not one that can stick too well -
Lets examine the word translated believe: Let's examine what common sense tells us about believing. Something else causes belief about it to arise up in you. You enter a state of belief about something on account of the effect of that something on you. If that something doesn't work on you then you will not believe, regarding it.
Believe is translated from the Greek word transliterated pisteu Primary meaning, 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in a) of the thing believed 1) to credit, have confidence Please tell me which part of believing is a work? The italicised puts it quite nicely. If God convinces man, man believes. No work involved on mans part, he can sit back and relax in the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ochaye writes: We know what your point was. The fact that you have completely ignored the 'solution' to it tends to indicate that you understand that solution, but don't much like it. If that is incorrect, deal with what I wrote in reply. A 'solution' to there being non-Christians in not just the Calvin denomination but in all other denominations? I'm not sure a solution is required .. but you seem to be asking me to push the button on this?
quote: Let X = Martyn Lloyd Jones and Y = John Calvin (stands back expectantly).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024