Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Bingo!!!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God in mormonism
- Thread starter Kristoffer
- Start date
Katzpur : Thank you for recognizing that religious texts must be viewed from their historical context in order to keep their historically accurate meaning. This new theory that individuals may, experience a momentary belief and acceptance of Jesus as a savior, perhaps when they are a youth, but then immediately disbelieve and even defy and blaspheme God and accept Satan as their God of worship and do despicable things such as torture and rape of Children and yet still be guaranteed to be taken to a heavenly reward by a God who remains a God of Justice is a modern theory that has very little to do with authentic early Christian doctrine. It is a doctrine created by men of a later age.
The theologians who developed such a theory cannot leave Pauls statements in the larger but specific historical contexts in which he spoke and still maintain a historically viable religious theory. For example, IF the theorist quote a small, "historically dyscontexted" portion of Pauls’ words to the Jews in his effort to convince them that their old covenant with its’ many, many “works” of its’ “schoolmaster” law could not save them once the new covenant was offered to them THEN Paul can be made to sound as though there are no ongoing conditions involved in the new covenant. For example, repentance and obedience to God and Jesus as base principles can be made to look obsolete to salvation. However, IF Pauls’ words are left in their greater context, THEN such silly, historically inaccurate theories cannot bear their own weight of illogic and irrationality and fall flat.
Paul may have tried to teach the Jews that many of the works of their laws were unnecessary to the New Covenant offered through the mediation of Christ, and that even their best obedience to the laws of Moses were insufficient to save them, however, he taught the Christians who accepted the New Covenant that they were to be steady, and continue faithful in the Covenant in order for the New Covenant to be completely valid.
Paul told the Colossians that Christ “22…has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him” 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached … 1 Colossians 1:2-23; 15 This is a conditional covenant.
Even Pauls’ unusual statement that “… woman will be saved through bearing children” carries the conditional phrase “… if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” . 1 Tim 2:15
Many of Pauls’ statements describe and underlie the early Christian doctrine of the New Covenant as a covenant that the Christians were to be faithful to if they wanted to receive it’s full blessings : “IF we endure, we shall also reign with him; IF we deny him, he also will deny us….” 2 Tim 12; The covenant carried conditional descriptors in the words "IF".
“...And we are his house IF we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope. “ Heb 3:6;
“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.....14 For we share in Christ, IF we only hold our first confidence firm to the end,...chapt 4...since therefor it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience ...vs 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. Heb 3:12-14 through 4:6&11;
Paul is not teaching the Christians the doctrine “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later.“ (Billiardsball, post # 196).
In fact, those who accepted the New Covenant and then totally repudiated it were NOT still promised salvation, but instead were punished for repudiation and denial of this greater knowledge they had received and then spurned. “ 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the spirit of grace? Heb 10:29 & “Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.....38 by my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls. Heb 10:35-39
The point is that the new religious theory that one can have a momentary sincere acceptance of Jesus as a savior but then immediately come to disbelieve and repudiate and deny that belief and act in deep and profound and despicable disobedience to the covenant that was offered and yet then still be guaranteed a holy and wonderful place in heaven as a despicable, unrepentant character, living beside holy and exalted beings is itself, a complete perversion of the original historical doctrine. This new theory It is not authentic early Christian doctrine and it is not supported in early the early historical context.
For examples, Billiardsballs’ Prior attempted use of Ephesians 1:13-14 is a good example of an attempt to use historical texts to support this new theory and, the attempt shows how this text can only apply to the new modern theory if the texts’ historical meaning is irrationally changed and it’s context removed FROM it’s actual greater historical context (if it is then to support the new theory at all). Thus, my point in post # 204, #213; and #216 (all three regarding Ephesians 1:14-15) is that the actual context does NOT and cannot support the new theory if left inside its’ original historical context.
Billairdsballs’ re-attempt to support this new theory by using Romans 3 (in his posts # 239 and again in #252) is another "dyscontexting" of Pauls actual speech. My rebuttal in Post #257 shows that the verses offered do NOT support this new theory that “momentary belief guarantees defiers of God, murderers, rapists, oppressors, pedophiles, etc. a heavenly reward”
Clear
δρακδρνεω
The theologians who developed such a theory cannot leave Pauls statements in the larger but specific historical contexts in which he spoke and still maintain a historically viable religious theory. For example, IF the theorist quote a small, "historically dyscontexted" portion of Pauls’ words to the Jews in his effort to convince them that their old covenant with its’ many, many “works” of its’ “schoolmaster” law could not save them once the new covenant was offered to them THEN Paul can be made to sound as though there are no ongoing conditions involved in the new covenant. For example, repentance and obedience to God and Jesus as base principles can be made to look obsolete to salvation. However, IF Pauls’ words are left in their greater context, THEN such silly, historically inaccurate theories cannot bear their own weight of illogic and irrationality and fall flat.
Paul may have tried to teach the Jews that many of the works of their laws were unnecessary to the New Covenant offered through the mediation of Christ, and that even their best obedience to the laws of Moses were insufficient to save them, however, he taught the Christians who accepted the New Covenant that they were to be steady, and continue faithful in the Covenant in order for the New Covenant to be completely valid.
Paul told the Colossians that Christ “22…has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him” 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached … 1 Colossians 1:2-23; 15 This is a conditional covenant.
Even Pauls’ unusual statement that “… woman will be saved through bearing children” carries the conditional phrase “… if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” . 1 Tim 2:15
Many of Pauls’ statements describe and underlie the early Christian doctrine of the New Covenant as a covenant that the Christians were to be faithful to if they wanted to receive it’s full blessings : “IF we endure, we shall also reign with him; IF we deny him, he also will deny us….” 2 Tim 12; The covenant carried conditional descriptors in the words "IF".
“...And we are his house IF we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope. “ Heb 3:6;
“Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.....14 For we share in Christ, IF we only hold our first confidence firm to the end,...chapt 4...since therefor it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience ...vs 11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. Heb 3:12-14 through 4:6&11;
Paul is not teaching the Christians the doctrine “I'm going to Heaven as the recipient of salvation even if I decide I want to go to Hell later.“ (Billiardsball, post # 196).
In fact, those who accepted the New Covenant and then totally repudiated it were NOT still promised salvation, but instead were punished for repudiation and denial of this greater knowledge they had received and then spurned. “ 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the spirit of grace? Heb 10:29 & “Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.....38 by my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls. Heb 10:35-39
The point is that the new religious theory that one can have a momentary sincere acceptance of Jesus as a savior but then immediately come to disbelieve and repudiate and deny that belief and act in deep and profound and despicable disobedience to the covenant that was offered and yet then still be guaranteed a holy and wonderful place in heaven as a despicable, unrepentant character, living beside holy and exalted beings is itself, a complete perversion of the original historical doctrine. This new theory It is not authentic early Christian doctrine and it is not supported in early the early historical context.
For examples, Billiardsballs’ Prior attempted use of Ephesians 1:13-14 is a good example of an attempt to use historical texts to support this new theory and, the attempt shows how this text can only apply to the new modern theory if the texts’ historical meaning is irrationally changed and it’s context removed FROM it’s actual greater historical context (if it is then to support the new theory at all). Thus, my point in post # 204, #213; and #216 (all three regarding Ephesians 1:14-15) is that the actual context does NOT and cannot support the new theory if left inside its’ original historical context.
Billairdsballs’ re-attempt to support this new theory by using Romans 3 (in his posts # 239 and again in #252) is another "dyscontexting" of Pauls actual speech. My rebuttal in Post #257 shows that the verses offered do NOT support this new theory that “momentary belief guarantees defiers of God, murderers, rapists, oppressors, pedophiles, etc. a heavenly reward”
Clear
δρακδρνεω
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Clear,
I adhere to the Compassion Theory of the atonement. The key element of the position can be seen in the label. Compassion is a cognate. The prefix 'com' means to be with. Passion is to feel or suffer. The purpose of the atonement is to overcome our alienation from God by creating a inter-shared expansive relationship of love (compassion). The mechanic is the following:
1) We begin as moral beings, alienated from God.
2) Our alienation is compounded by our wrong choices. This compounding alienation is because, rather than face the pain, guilt, shame etc. for the wrong(s) done, we self-justify and delude ourselves into a false view or things. Thus, we become stuck in a stagnate delusion of our own making. Think of the film Groundhog Day with Bill Murray where there is no moving forward, one is endlessly repeating the same cycle: damnation.
3) Christ sees through the delusion and facade for what we are, warts and all, and yet loves us. He reaches into our hearts and offers a way out. This is a literal reaching into our core self where Christ takes on our sins and pain to Himself and all that darkness is transformed by His love into light. The reason Christ is willing to take this pain and suffering is because each of us is unique. In all that exists, there is only one 'me'. There is something only we can add to the celestial equation. Thus, the shepherd will search of the lost sheep.
4) Christ reaches into our self and provides a way out of the false world we create, by sharing our experience: all the pain, isolation, fear...everything by taking the full brunt of it all so we don't have to suffer it. This is dependent on repentance, if we turn to God and accept the relationship offered. If we do not, then we will ultimately have to suffer the full measure of our actions. (D&C 19: 16-19)
That is a simple summery. Look it over and let me know what questions you have and I'll flush those points out further.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
In post 263 I note an alternate atonement model that I hold to.
I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other models. You say you repudiate all five points of Calvinism, yet appeal to Calvin's atonement model that informs all those same points. Earlier, you recognized in your bus analogy that you got on the salvation bus. That Master Billiards, is a work. You weren't drug onto the bus or kidnapped. It was your choice. This alone indicates you are a participant in your own salvation, not an automaton, or slave. Since you got on the bus of your own accord, you could also get off, which I think you also recognized. If these are you feelings, then you aren't really a follower of the penal model. You can't defend it on logical grounds as we've noted, and it appears your personal ideas also run counter to it, so why do you offer loyalty to a irrational, immoral position, that doesn't even completely mesh with your own thoughts?
Per modernism: Calvin's theology is an innovation, and this is a massive problem. Why is that different from Mormon unique stances? Calvin never claimed his ideas were revelations, he never claimed prophet status. They are simply his poor misreading of scripture. Mormonism recognizes revelation and prophets and new doctrine can arise. The heavens are open under Mormon Thought, this is not the case for Calvin, therefore positions he argues that have no historical corollary is a contradiction that condemns his theology.
Per Romans 3:26: it has nothing to do with a penal substitution model. Verse 26 should be read in the larger context:
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Rom 3:21-26
The point Paul is making is that justification comes through Christ as the mediator of the relationship with God. We cannot earn this relationship per a standard client-patron protection or glory/honor on our own. I want you to note that in Greek righteousness and justification have the same range of meaning. To whit, these are not personal traits, but refer to how one is viewed by others. Christ applies a righteousness, and justification on us, the same way He does love, not because we are righteous or just or loveable, but because of who He is. It is part of Christ's willingness to reach out to us. It then falls on us to believe, repent etc. You see, there is nothing there about a penal model where Christ innocently suffers and we are off the hook with no obligation.
Billiardsball said (post 252) : “Ah, I see. My issue is that as some have suggested, there may be multiple purposes to the atonement. The penal model has room for other models to be included, but I fear those opposing the penal model are relying on works and personal morality rather than relying on Jesus Christ for salvation.”
Orontes replied (post 264) : “I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other model. “
I actually agree with Billiardsball on his specific point that any theory he creates may be mixed and created as he desires, especially if it is a personal theory he is creating in his attempt to understand what the atonement it and what it does (from his own perspective).
I’ve already mentioned to Billiardsball that almost all historical models are tentative and incomplete and are continually modified as we gain better data. That is, the base model may be correct but there are usually errors in the model and the data is incomplete in even the most common historical events.
We may know that President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. We may know the Day. But there are almost always data that are missing that forces us to make incomplete historical models of details of the event. For example, we may not be clear on all persons and motives and underlying circumstances regarding the event.
I assume the same historical problems are inherent in religious history as well. While I may have a more correct take on a very specific point, Billiardsball may have a better take on multiple other certain points of the Gospel than I do. I may have a specific piece of knowledge about Jesus while his relationship WITH Jesus may be deeper and more profound than my own. My point is that our personal theories and all other aspects and characteristics are personal and may vary widely. I am perfectly comfortable with Billiardsball “mixing and matching” principles in creating his beliefs (and agree with him that he should do) as he learns more and more. While my disagreements with him usually regarding what is "historical", still, his comments are insightful and they affect me just as my comments affect him.
Billiardsball said : “ I appreciate that you and Clear are excited about early church sources for all doctrine, but that seems unfair if you are going to allow for revelation to occur and be distributed to us as Christians 1,500 years later or longer. “
The underlying concept is that the concept of personal revelation to all individuals, is, and has been, a principle of authentic religion in all ages of time and will be in all future ages. While an individual may read a history book about religion, this may involve bare accumulation of facts, i.e. a study of theology. Religion however, involves some sort of communication between God and mankind, in all the various forms that communication may take. Revelation, personal enlightenment through the spirit of God may come to anyone at any time and in various forms. Mormon theology allows that all men may receive such enlightenment in various forms and in various degrees.
Regarding “Mormon” religion :
The Mormon claim is that they are a restoration of a version of early Christian theology which occurred, partly, through prophetic revelation. IF this is correct, then it only makes sense that one should be able to make a study of early Christian descriptions and find the same parallel doctrines and descriptions of “Mormon” doctrines in the early Judeo-Christians texts as the early converts describe the gospel they were taught. (As the Christian movement experienced
greater schizm and doctrinal "shifts" occurred, then greater theological diversity and doctrinal "distance" from the earliest doctrines occurred)
However, as an example, for me, as a Mormon, I am perfectly comfortable reading about early pre-creation themes concerning spirits of mankind existing before the creation of the earth in either modern Mormon texts such as the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, etc, or in the earliest versions of these same books that existed among early Judeo-Christians (before or after the peri c.e. era) and have been discovered AFTER Joseph Smith revealed them by revelation (but were undiscovered and unknown to the rest of the world until later years).
It makes no difference to me to read about the gospel from a revealed text from 1840s or whether I read the same gospel from a dead sea scroll discovered in the 1940s. IF the LDS theology IS a restoration of these theological base doctrines, then one should simply find such parallels as a matter of course.
As an adult convert to LDS theology, I was, early on, continually amazed and shocked that the historical parallels existed in such depth and frequency. Now I take it as a matter of fact and it no longer surprises me to read texts from papyri from Oxyrynchus, or text from the Nag Hamadi library, or from texts from the Qumran library and simply see textual themes that one could take to an LDS Sunday School and read without any doctrinal ripples being noticed. It is a singular thing to LDS theology and I think it is difficult for other Christian sects to even imagine doing the same thing. This is simply my opinion and my experience of LDS theology as a convert and it may differ greatly from that of a life-long member.
In any case Billiardsball and Orontes, I hope your spiritual journeys are good.
Clear
δρνετζσιω
P.S. Orontes, I'll have to take a day or so to think about your atonement model while I'm working and get back with you on questions.
Orontes replied (post 264) : “I don't think you really understand the penal substitution model. It doesn't allow amendments or adding in other model. “
I actually agree with Billiardsball on his specific point that any theory he creates may be mixed and created as he desires, especially if it is a personal theory he is creating in his attempt to understand what the atonement it and what it does (from his own perspective).
I’ve already mentioned to Billiardsball that almost all historical models are tentative and incomplete and are continually modified as we gain better data. That is, the base model may be correct but there are usually errors in the model and the data is incomplete in even the most common historical events.
We may know that President Kennedy was shot in Dallas. We may know the Day. But there are almost always data that are missing that forces us to make incomplete historical models of details of the event. For example, we may not be clear on all persons and motives and underlying circumstances regarding the event.
I assume the same historical problems are inherent in religious history as well. While I may have a more correct take on a very specific point, Billiardsball may have a better take on multiple other certain points of the Gospel than I do. I may have a specific piece of knowledge about Jesus while his relationship WITH Jesus may be deeper and more profound than my own. My point is that our personal theories and all other aspects and characteristics are personal and may vary widely. I am perfectly comfortable with Billiardsball “mixing and matching” principles in creating his beliefs (and agree with him that he should do) as he learns more and more. While my disagreements with him usually regarding what is "historical", still, his comments are insightful and they affect me just as my comments affect him.
Billiardsball said : “ I appreciate that you and Clear are excited about early church sources for all doctrine, but that seems unfair if you are going to allow for revelation to occur and be distributed to us as Christians 1,500 years later or longer. “
The underlying concept is that the concept of personal revelation to all individuals, is, and has been, a principle of authentic religion in all ages of time and will be in all future ages. While an individual may read a history book about religion, this may involve bare accumulation of facts, i.e. a study of theology. Religion however, involves some sort of communication between God and mankind, in all the various forms that communication may take. Revelation, personal enlightenment through the spirit of God may come to anyone at any time and in various forms. Mormon theology allows that all men may receive such enlightenment in various forms and in various degrees.
Regarding “Mormon” religion :
The Mormon claim is that they are a restoration of a version of early Christian theology which occurred, partly, through prophetic revelation. IF this is correct, then it only makes sense that one should be able to make a study of early Christian descriptions and find the same parallel doctrines and descriptions of “Mormon” doctrines in the early Judeo-Christians texts as the early converts describe the gospel they were taught. (As the Christian movement experienced
greater schizm and doctrinal "shifts" occurred, then greater theological diversity and doctrinal "distance" from the earliest doctrines occurred)
However, as an example, for me, as a Mormon, I am perfectly comfortable reading about early pre-creation themes concerning spirits of mankind existing before the creation of the earth in either modern Mormon texts such as the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses, etc, or in the earliest versions of these same books that existed among early Judeo-Christians (before or after the peri c.e. era) and have been discovered AFTER Joseph Smith revealed them by revelation (but were undiscovered and unknown to the rest of the world until later years).
It makes no difference to me to read about the gospel from a revealed text from 1840s or whether I read the same gospel from a dead sea scroll discovered in the 1940s. IF the LDS theology IS a restoration of these theological base doctrines, then one should simply find such parallels as a matter of course.
As an adult convert to LDS theology, I was, early on, continually amazed and shocked that the historical parallels existed in such depth and frequency. Now I take it as a matter of fact and it no longer surprises me to read texts from papyri from Oxyrynchus, or text from the Nag Hamadi library, or from texts from the Qumran library and simply see textual themes that one could take to an LDS Sunday School and read without any doctrinal ripples being noticed. It is a singular thing to LDS theology and I think it is difficult for other Christian sects to even imagine doing the same thing. This is simply my opinion and my experience of LDS theology as a convert and it may differ greatly from that of a life-long member.
In any case Billiardsball and Orontes, I hope your spiritual journeys are good.
Clear
δρνετζσιω
P.S. Orontes, I'll have to take a day or so to think about your atonement model while I'm working and get back with you on questions.
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
If this is Master Billiards atonement theory, then it's an open book: anything he fancies can apply. If however, he is claiming loyalty to the Penal Substitution Model of Calvin, which seems to be the case, then there are parameters.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Oki Doki
Orontes
I understand now that you are differentiating a strict penal atonement theory versus a relaxed, personal use of principles from the penal atonement theory. Your clarification makes perfect sense and I agree with your point. I had simply assumed Billiardsball was speaking in relative terms.
Clear
I understand now that you are differentiating a strict penal atonement theory versus a relaxed, personal use of principles from the penal atonement theory. Your clarification makes perfect sense and I agree with your point. I had simply assumed Billiardsball was speaking in relative terms.
Clear
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I hear what you are saying. I have been shown on this thread some Bible verses to demonstrate there are more gods than the traditional triunified God. Do you have Bible verses that support this assertion:
"I suggested that unless we become like God we will always have to trust him even in Heaven."
I presented a Bible verse that says the opposite, that faith and hope will not endure, though love shall.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If salvation is not a decision but a road, I'm trying to better understand what your road is and how to follow it. I already pointed out that you, like me, seem to believe that salvation rests on a decision(s).
Romans 3 says: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
Do you interpret Romans 3:28 differently? Because a lot of what you wrote seems counter to this verse.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Sorry--forgot to answer. I have been saved from perishing--the second death, in Hell. John 3:16. I have been saved to eternal life. Eternal life is knowing Jesus and His Father.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
At this time I'm not sure I would like to mine through the Bible to find the verses - at a later time I might. But this was more of a logical conclusion. In any quality relationship (whether business or marriage or whatever) there always needs to be trust. And in any relationship where one is a teacher to another, the learner must exercise faith. Angels for example have to trust and obey God voice. Those who failed to do so (like Lucifer) were cast out of heaven. Indeed what would be the point of the Lord stressing to us the importance of faith if faith was only an earthly principle and not an eternal one?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Salvation is neither a decision nor a road - it is a state of being. And that state of being is reached by consistently making the right choices throughout your life. Take God and the angels as an example. In order for God and the angels to call themselves righteous and good they always have to do good and righteous things. God can't say, "I once did good things therefore I can be evil now but people must still consider me good." He always has to live up to the standard of righteousness he himself has set.
If you don't like the idea of salvation being gained by multiple decisions then you are welcome to think of it as one decision you make once in your life and which you stick to for the rest of your life.
I have already explained what Romans 3 is about. It is about the law of Moses. Furthermore I have already agreed with you that we are saved by faith. But you yet to challenge my assertion that there is any true faith that exists which doesn't automatically and intrinsically have works attached to it. Can you name five people that you know of in the Bible who had faith but had no works to show for their faith?
Your argument appears to be a bit of a contradiction - firstly you extol the great importance of faith above everything else. Then when I agree with you that faith is important and we should always have it and develop it you turn around and say no faith is only important at one point in time (when we accept Jesus) and is not necessary at any other point in time after that both in this life and the next. Now for a principle that we only need at one point in time it sure is emphasised a lot in the Bible - perhaps the Bible writers erred. Perhaps they should have spent more time speaking about other principles that are more useful than faith.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that you already have eternal life? Do you know Jesus and God in the way that Abraham, Seth, Enoch, Elijah and the likes knew him?
Post # 257
Billiardsball Said (post # 269) “I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature. “
Be at peace Billiardsball, my post # 257 did not affirm you are "lost" by deathbed recantation of faith, rather the post was meant to show that the specific scripture you offered us (Romans 3) to support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief does NOT support your theory. I quoted each verse and asked how the verse supported your theory. When you read post # 257 (below), do you actually see evidence that the text supports this theory? Does anyone else see evidence to support this theory?
My post # 257 reads : QUOTE :
"1) Your claim disallowing works as salvific is irrelevant since no one is arguing that works themselves are salvific (so far...).
2) Romans 3 does not make the work of moral repentance obsolete nor does it guarantee salvation to murderers and those who torture and rape children or others who may have temporarily believed in Jesus as their savior and then turned to defy, dishonor and repudiate God.
Since you brought up Ephesians in support of this modern theory and then as we looked closer at it, discovered it also did not support this theory, perhaps we can take a close look at your quote of Romans 3 24-26 and see if it supports your theory. Since you say you have been trained in Greek, I include the Greek below (NA-27)
Νυνι δε χωρις νομου δικαιοσυνη θεου πεφανερωται μαρτθρουμενη υπο του νομου και των προφη των δικαιοσθνηδε θεου δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου εις παντας και επι παντας(א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) τους πιστεθοντας ου γαρ εστιν διστολη παντες γαρ ημαρτον και υστερουνται της δοξης του θεου δικαιουμεν οι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι δια της απολυτρωσεως της εν χριστω Ιησου ον προεθετο ο θεος ιλαστηριον δια πιστεως εν τω αυτο αιματι εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτο δια την παρ εσιν / εν τω νυν αιωνι (1908) / εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν(1875) των προγεγονοτων αμαρτηματων εν τη ανχη του θεου προς την εν δειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου εν τω νυν καιρω εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως Ιησου.
21 But now, God’s justice has been manifest without law as the law and the prophets bear witness [to] Justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all (א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) of the believing. Indeed, [it] does not distinguish. For all sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)
24 measured justice is given by him (God), [and] grace through the fulfillment that [is] in Christ Jesus who God chose as an appeasement, through faith [in the present season because of [your] hardness 1875] in his blood, to demonstrate his justice in the current season through the remission (of punishment) of former sins.
If the point is that God himself gives a measured justice and that this justice is mercifully tempered through the fulfillment of Christs mission, where in these sentences does it support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
26 Gods’ delay in demonstrating his justice in the present season [serves] to be himself just, and [to] justify those of faith in Jesus.
If God delays meting out justice for a time, how does this point support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
END QUOTE
Now, the questions I asked you in post # 257 are still yet to be answered.
Do you actually see evidence in this specific text that supports your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
Clear
δρνεακσιω
Billiardsball Said (post # 269) “I am categorically unwilling to debate whether faith is a one-time act or an ongoing act, since I foremost believe it is a grave error of logic to insist it is ongoing... if you will affirm that I can have a saving faith for 50 years and then on my deathbed recant faith and be lost, you are agreeing with Calvin utterly. And I repudiate "perseverance of the saints" as heretical in nature. “
Be at peace Billiardsball, my post # 257 did not affirm you are "lost" by deathbed recantation of faith, rather the post was meant to show that the specific scripture you offered us (Romans 3) to support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief does NOT support your theory. I quoted each verse and asked how the verse supported your theory. When you read post # 257 (below), do you actually see evidence that the text supports this theory? Does anyone else see evidence to support this theory?
My post # 257 reads : QUOTE :
"1) Your claim disallowing works as salvific is irrelevant since no one is arguing that works themselves are salvific (so far...).
2) Romans 3 does not make the work of moral repentance obsolete nor does it guarantee salvation to murderers and those who torture and rape children or others who may have temporarily believed in Jesus as their savior and then turned to defy, dishonor and repudiate God.
Since you brought up Ephesians in support of this modern theory and then as we looked closer at it, discovered it also did not support this theory, perhaps we can take a close look at your quote of Romans 3 24-26 and see if it supports your theory. Since you say you have been trained in Greek, I include the Greek below (NA-27)
Νυνι δε χωρις νομου δικαιοσυνη θεου πεφανερωται μαρτθρουμενη υπο του νομου και των προφη των δικαιοσθνηδε θεου δια πιστεως Ιησου Χριστου εις παντας και επι παντας(א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) τους πιστεθοντας ου γαρ εστιν διστολη παντες γαρ ημαρτον και υστερουνται της δοξης του θεου δικαιουμεν οι δωρεαν τη αυτου χαριτι δια της απολυτρωσεως της εν χριστω Ιησου ον προεθετο ο θεος ιλαστηριον δια πιστεως εν τω αυτο αιματι εις ενδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτο δια την παρ εσιν / εν τω νυν αιωνι (1908) / εν τω νυν καιρω δια την πωρωσιν(1875) των προγεγονοτων αμαρτηματων εν τη ανχη του θεου προς την εν δειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αυτου εν τω νυν καιρω εις το ειναι αυτον δικαιον και δικαιουντα τον εκ πιστεως Ιησου.
21 But now, God’s justice has been manifest without law as the law and the prophets bear witness [to] Justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ in all and upon all (א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst) of the believing. Indeed, [it] does not distinguish. For all sin and come short of the Glory of God.
Why would any of these verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation” when “πιστεθοντας” in vs 22 itself does not reference a temporary or momentary noun, nor is there any adjective that makes it so in this sentence? In fact, once they do not have faith, then, by definition, they are not πιστεθ-οντας. (existence of faith)
24 measured justice is given by him (God), [and] grace through the fulfillment that [is] in Christ Jesus who God chose as an appeasement, through faith [in the present season because of [your] hardness 1875] in his blood, to demonstrate his justice in the current season through the remission (of punishment) of former sins.
If the point is that God himself gives a measured justice and that this justice is mercifully tempered through the fulfillment of Christs mission, where in these sentences does it support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
26 Gods’ delay in demonstrating his justice in the present season [serves] to be himself just, and [to] justify those of faith in Jesus.
If God delays meting out justice for a time, how does this point support your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
END QUOTE
Now, the questions I asked you in post # 257 are still yet to be answered.
Do you actually see evidence in this specific text that supports your theory that murderers and rapists and those who oppress and torture are guaranteed a heaven simply by having a sincere but momentary belief?
Clear
δρνεακσιω
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
There are certainly conditions attached. Some that come to mind:
*It is apart from works (Romans 3)
*Abraham's faith wasn't credited as righteousness when he offered Issac upon the altar, it was credited while he was yet uncircumcised, trusting in God's promise to make him and Sarah the progenitors of many nations (Romans 4)
*Foolish people believe that salvation comes by works of the Law. These people may have also been placed under a demonic spell
There are many things that are important in the Bible. Faith is stressed in the Bible, I believe, in part so that non-believers could read the Bible and be converted. But in addition to your question:
Why would the Bible speak so often of faith?
We can ask:
Why would the Bible say faith and hope are temporary entities?
God doesn't need faith or hope, right?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
**
I see... we agree that salvation is a decision, but you add that if one doubts at any time through one's life one is lost. How does Jesus offer us temporary life that is eternal?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If I'm never to perish and have been given eternal life (John 3:16) then yes, I need not fear the second death. Atheists tend to think of life and death in terms of function and cessation of function, however, the Bible is explicit that their consciousness after death, at least at the resurrections of the righteous and wicked to Heaven, the new Earth and universe, and Hell.
Since I have Jesus's promise that I have eternal life, I have it presently, forever going forward. I would mess up Heaven if I went today, for perfection will be mine after the resurrection, but I'm yet imperfect. The next thing I know after death will be immediate, conscious fellowship with Christ.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I see no need, still, to discuss in the Greek what does not exist in the English. The English does not say "momentary" in Romans 3. It also does not say anything regarding "sincerity".
However, "present tense in Greek equals continuous action" is unsupported in Romans 3, as I understand it. There are numerous present tense verbs in the Bible which are clearly one-time events with ongoing consequences.
Further, I do not wish to sound assumptive, but I'm sure you would agree that saving faith is sincere, not insincere faith. Where we may disagree is on the issue of how long one must have sincere faith to receive justification. Our God, who made all we know in six days, probably could have done so in six seconds--or six billion years. Why do you believe He is unable to save someone with a small, brief spark of bright faith? His eyes roam the world looking for such persons. Surely if we had faith even mustard seed size, we could tell a mountain to remove itself.
Abraham was justified by faith, not while sacrificing Issac when both were circumcised as in James 2, but while Issac was yet unborn and Abraham, yet uncircumcised. Romans 4 explains how Abraham believed a great promise--an awesome promise of many nations, after first considering his motility dead since he was about one hundred years old and also the deadness of Sarah's womb, yet his strong faith assumed that what God had promised, He was also able to perform, therefore his faith was credited to him as righteousness. In the same way, if someone has faith strong enough to assert that Jesus Christ's atoning death on the cross and His resurrection are able to perform salvation, and they wish to receive the gift of salvation, they may have the gift of salvation.
And if I am being vulnerable and honest, I would have to admit that my faith is sincere on any given issue, but also and often, temporary. The logical end of "present tense in Greek equals continuous action" is Thanda's concept (if I understand it) that faith has to be 27/7 or it cannot be salvific faith. I just had a conversation with a Christian (didn't know he was one before the conversation) because I witnessed to him and he said, "I'm not perfect, and I stumble, but I rely on Jesus for salvation."