God in mormonism

[Thanda]

He seems, however, to be jealous for His own name, and never for the names of other gods. Why is that, do you think?

That would probably be because regardless of the existence of any other Gods he is our God and the only means for our salvation.

 

[Thanda]

I merely judge Paul to have both been saved and to have had his struggles and moments. I spent some time this morning thinking about what you suggested regarding constancy of faith saving us, as if our faith itself saves us, as if we save ourselves, rather than grace having been already received through faith, as in Romans. I thought of the best people I know, and Paul never came to mind. I thought of David, Abraham, Noah, Job et al. Why is it, do you think, that the Bible recorded their failures AFTER they were "believers"? I mean, David killed a man to have his woman, and prayed "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation," not "Restore unto me Thy salvation."

It is also just as possible that David no longer had the joy of God's salvation because he no longer had God's salvation. David committed adultery (and maybe even rape - she was married and there is a good chance she would not have wanted to cheat on her husband) and then he committed murder. David had at some point in his life been one of the most righteous people on earth. Clearly he could not have gone from extremely righteous to extremely wicked in the space of a day. Without doubt he had harboured sin in his heart for a long time before he finally acted it all out. That is, if we judge wickedness and righteousness by the level of faith, David had become wicked long before he actually acted out his wickedness. This wasn't just a slip, or a little mistake - this was premeditated adultery and or rape and cold blooded murder. Now I'm not such a great guy but even for me murder is very far from my heart. David became a wicked man. Whether his repentance was ever sufficient for him to be restored to eternal life is not for me to judge. But this I will judge, if he did not repent sufficiently then he would surely go to hell according to the word of God.

 

[Thanda]

I'm trying to understand where this doctrine of "Hang onto faith perpetually or you are lost" comes from. Are you testifying that you never have any doubts about God or any of God's teachings or etc.? If so, you have more faith than me, so how much faith must I have to be saved? I'd love to be saved!

The doctrine comes from the scriptures and I have quoted a few of them to you already. I do have doubts but faith (that which relates to achieving salvation) is not about knowing everything for sure - it is only about trusting God completely. And just for clarity I don't yet trust God completely - that is why I don't claim to be saved.

You ask "how much faith must I have to be saved". This is an interesting question. And it is the reason I am only replying today. I pondered this question and I also pondered how we can come to receive such a faith. I had a discussion with a friend whose faith I really admire and a few thoughts emerged from the conversation.

God can heal us (from sin as well as from disease) in an instant. That is, he has power to rid us of sin right now - but only if we let him. God respects our free will and will never try to infringe upon it. Therefore the speed and the extent to which he is able to heal us depends completely upon our willingness to be healed.

This brings us to the next question: why don't we allow God to heal us completely? You earlier posited an answer to this question by saying it is because of the flesh. However this answer is in adequate: by the same tongue that we lie with we are able to preach the gospel; by the same hand that we kill with we are able lift a drowning man from a river; by the same sexual passions that we commit adultery with we are able to fulfill God's first commandment to man. The body that we inhabit is neither good nor evil. However we can use it for good or evil if we choose. The problem therefore doesn't seem to lie in the flesh, it seems to lie within ourselves (the spirit of man within us). It seems we corrupt the bodies God gives us by choosing to use them to commit sin rather than to work righteousness. The only solution to our sinfulness therefore is for us to relinquish control of our bodies and our lives over to someone who knows how to use them properly and righteously.

And who is this person? None other the Lord Jesus Christ. He showed when he was on Earth that he knows how to use a body for purely righteous works. He showed that we can trust him to take control of our bodies and our lives. So what we need to do is let go of the steering wheel and let him drive. You alluded to this earlier with your bus analogy but here I take it further. We need to surrender our wills to his. I believe each of us has a voice inside that seeks to tell us what is right and what we should do. This voice is of God. We need to stop fighting against this voice. We need to let this voice govern our lives our words and our actions.

War is a good analogy for this. We are each of us at war. Who are we at war with? We are at war with God. We have made God our enemy. God wants us to surrender and give him control so he can save us. But at best, most of us only surrender a part of our lives. In other words we are willing for God to win a few battles but we are not willing for him to win the war. And in every city which God has not won there resides sin, hell, death and the devil. So we need to give up the whole war and give him, not just some cities, but the whole kingdom. He needs to become the decision maker of our lives. We must not do anything with our lives or anything we call our own unless we obtain approval from him. We should always seek his will concerning what we should do. And if we always seek his will and we always seek to do it, he will always give us power to always do his will. That is he will give us power to be sinless.

In connection with this here are a couple of verses from the Book of Mormon with are significant:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child,submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:19)

36 Yea, and cry unto God for all thy support; yea, let all thy doings be unto the Lord, and whithersoever thou goest let it be in the Lord; yea, let all thy thoughts be directed unto the Lord; yea, let the affections of thy heart be placed upon the Lord forever.

37 Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day. (Alma 37)​

We are not required to make ourselves perfect: we are however required to let God make us perfect; we are required to stop fighting against Him.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING MISCHARACTERIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON COMMUNICATION

Billiardsball said to Katzpur #293 : “I'm glad you are telling me what Mormons believe, because I'm having trouble eliciting such clarity from Clear and Orontes “

Orontes commented # 299 : “My engagement in this thread has been concerning your views (specifically your position on the atonement), not a delineation of Mormon stances.* Stating you are having a hard time eliciting clarity on what Mormons believe is to mischaracterize our exchanges. “

Orontes; I agree that Billiardsballs statement is a mischaracterization and I hope it does not represent a return to old habits that caused him so much grief in the earlier portion of this thread. Mischaracterization; false claims; overstatements; misstatements; accidental “paraphrasing” of biblical texts, other sorts of inaccuracies etc. all inhibit honest and accurate communication and do nothing to improve communication between individuals. It also affects credibility.




2) REGARDING THE COMPASSION THEORY OF ATONEMENT

While we are (still) waiting for Billiardsball to tell us if he thinks the scriptural text of Romans 3 :24-26 (discussed in post # 276) which he offered in support of his theory that momentary faith guarantees heaven for those who murder and torture and rape children (etc), actually DOES support his theory, it might be a good time to return to aspects of the “compassion theory of atonement” you described in post #263.

While my post # 297 and its’ context of Jesus’ position as a “rightful-heir” touches on the context of how a caretaker can take moral responsibility for someone he has legal/moral connections to (not as a penal model, but as a strict accounting model) under one covenant or set of conditions, and then create a different covenant (or set of conditions to set accounts aright), that post did not touch on the surrounding issues of motives as to why Jesus would volunteer to atone for mankind, and it only relates indirectly to why God the Fathers created his plan to populate an earth with the spirits of mankind and what he wanted to accomplish by doing so.

Your first statement in the summary/overview of the compassion theory said : “1) We begin as moral beings, alienated from God. “ (Orontes, post # 263)

Conditions of these spirits in their initial state before coming to earth
In early Judeo-Christian textual doctrinal descriptions, Judeo-Christians taught that the spirits of mankind were in a state of cognisant existence before coming to earth through the mechanism of Birth into bodies.

Does your quoted statement #1 mean that these spirits are morally “competent” or merely have moral ability (i.e. they can make independent moral choices)? IF you assume a relative moral “incompetence” where they can make choices but do not fully understand the consequences, (or immature competence for any other reason) then does your model include a mechanism of education so as to allow these spirits to BECOME morally educated and fully competent?

Thanks for the additional clarification.

Clear
φιφιειδρω

 

[Orontes]

2) REGARDING THE COMPASSION THEORY OF ATONEMENT

While we are (still) waiting for Billiardsball to tell us if he thinks the scriptural text of Romans 3 :24-26 (discussed in post # 276) which he offered in support of his theory that momentary faith guarantees heaven for those who murder and torture and rape children (etc), actually DOES support his theory, it might be a good time to return to aspects of the “compassion theory of atonement” you described in post #263.

While my post # 297 and its’ context of Jesus’ position as a “rightful-heir” touches on the context of how a caretaker can take moral responsibility for someone he has legal/moral connections to (not as a penal model, but as a strict accounting model) under one covenant or set of conditions, and then create a different covenant (or set of conditions to set accounts aright), that post did not touch on the surrounding issues of motives as to why Jesus would volunteer to atone for mankind, and it only relates indirectly to why God the Fathers created his plan to populate an earth with the spirits of mankind and what he wanted to accomplish by doing so.

Your first statement in the summary/overview of the compassion theory said : “1) We begin as moral beings, alienated from God. “ (Orontes, post # 263)

Conditions of these spirits in their initial state before coming to earth
In early Judeo-Christian textual doctrinal descriptions, Judeo-Christians taught that the spirits of mankind were in a state of cognisant existence before coming to earth through the mechanism of Birth into bodies.

Does your quoted statement #1 mean that these spirits are morally “competent” or merely have moral ability (i.e. they can make independent moral choices)? IF you assume a relative moral “incompetence” where they can make choices but do not fully understand the consequences, (or immature competence for any other reason) then does your model include a mechanism of education so as to allow these spirits to BECOME morally educated and fully competent?

Thanks for the additional clarification.

Clear
φιφιειδρω

Point 1) is referring to the standard mortal condition. It is not meant to suggest babies are morally aware. Rather, I was simply noting the normal state of affairs of men that includes moral standing (understanding the difference and meaning of good and evil) in the normal coarse of development and a separateness from God. The Preexistence isn't referred to. The Preexistence informs how we got here and is important on theodicy grounds, but is nonetheless separate from a formal atonement theory because in the Preexistence we were still in the presence of Deity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Billardsball said : (# 281) “Sorry, I just reread this post. I'm not trying to duck the Ephesians issue, Eph 4:30 comes to mind and the nature of kingly seals being open-able only by kings or there designated representatives... ...Which brings to mind the difference regarding atonement theory in Christianity... Jesus isn't merely a scapegoat or atonement but a king over a kingdom. A king has wide-ranging power to make treaties or war and more on behalf of his people. I understand Orontes's concern about the illogic of penal substitution among peers, but not among a king who ordains the lives of his subjects. Even the high priest (unwittingly) prophesied of the expedience of the king Jesus dying for Israel. “


Billiardsball,

I like the direction of your considerations here since I think there is some validity to them. I also believe that there is a moral connection inside the atonement between the Messiah and his adherents, that exists by virtue of his relationship to us and which caused him certain responsibility for us and which is an operative principle of his atonement which he and God agreed upon.

For example, If I, as a 3 year old, accidently break a neighbors window with a rock, I cannot actually pay for the window (I have no source of money) nor do I yet have a mechanism to pay this debt. My Father (or a “caretaker”) may pay the debt that I cannot pay and may then set conditions creating a different mechanism to satisfy my debt to him who paid my debt (i.e. to make amends.)

In this case however, it is not a frank “punishment” such as in a penal model that is being described, but rather an objective “settling” of moral accounts between child who is not yet completely morally competent and another, morally competent and able caretaker who acts as a mediator to the third party (or moral system) to whom the moral debt is owed.

As a partial parallel, in early Christian tradition, the Messiah pays for moral damage we do while we are gaining moral competency. His responsibility to us occurs in his role as the rightful-heir, the "κληρονομος" who inherits a kingdom from his Father (with us as subjects) and who himself, becomes the king of a kingdom in the early textual traditions.

For example, in abbaton (387 a.d.), when the resurrected Jesus is teaching his disciples about the discussion he was having with God, his Father, as God was about to put Adams spirit into Adams’ body, the controversy centers upon the fact that if God the Father places Adams spirit into the body he made for him and carries out the Fathers plan to inhabit the earth with the rest of the spirits of mankind, then “ very many sins shall come forth … and many fornications, and slanderous abuse, and jealousy, and hatred and contention shall come forth from his hand, and many murders and sheddings of blood shall come forth from his hand….”. That is, much evil was expected to be done upon the earth if God continued with this plan to embody and educate the spirits of mankind upon the earth. (This is what did, in fact, happen)

Jesus explained to his apostles :"And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.” And My Father said unto Me, “If I put breath into him, My beloved son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to primal state.” And I said unto My Father, “Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.”

In this mechanism, Jesus is agreeing, even volunteering to serve as an advocate and mediator who agrees to pay the price for moral damages that are both dreaded, and anticipated will happen as part of the moving forward of God the Fathers’ plan.

It is partly this moral payment which the pre-mortal Jesus agreed to, which allows him to mediate between mankind and which qualifies him to modify the strict moral judgment that would befall mankind when they are brought to judgment.

The modification of strict justice is described in this early christian text thusly. The resurrected Jesus, at the Judgment, “ shall look upon all My clay [mankind], and when I see that he is going to destruction I shall cry out to My Father, saying, “My Father, what profit is there in My Blood if he goeth to destruction?” And straightway the voice of My Father shall come unto Me from the seventh heaven, and none shall hear it except Myself, for I and My Father are one, saying “Power belongeth unto Thee, O My Son, to do whatsoever Thou pleaseth with Thy clay." ("thy clay : "at this point, mankind is under the authority of Jesus and his Kingdom. They are "his" "clay".)

Thus, in this model, the son of God, as the inheritor, determines the outcome for those who accept his new covenant and his kingdom.



2) Billiardsball said : #280 I see no need, still, to discuss in the Greek what does not exist in the English.

Historians discuss the Greek because the original biblical text does not exist in English and English translations all inadvertently (and some intentionally) add to AND subtract from original meanings. Koine Greek has the most accurate meaning in Koine greek. Readers have already seen multiple examples where the English differs from the Greek text in many important ways. You, yourself have given readers multiple examples of mistakes in interpretation caused by your reliance on English translations.

You claim to have training in Greek. If you will use your training and read the greek versions, you will better see the need to use your training in Greek.



3) Billiardsball said # 280 The English does not say "momentary" in Romans 3. It also does not say anything regarding "sincerity".

Yes, this was my point as well. Neither the English NOR the greek allow you to insert the meaning of “momentary” to a greek text concerning faith, yet the Greek of your example verse in Romans 3:22 DOES indicate the existence of faith (rather than a prior faith lost). This is what I meant when I asked you :

#276 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)

These questions from post # 257 and again in post # 276 have still not been answered. WHY do you think these verses you offered show rapists and murderers and torturers of children will go to heaven by virtue of having had a momentary faith which they then refused and defied God and chose Satanic worship instead?



4) Regarding your comment that “…Thanda's concept (if I understand it) that faith has to be 27/7 or it cannot be salvific faith.”

I cannot speak to Thanda’s understanding, but I think Thanda is pointing out that the development of ever-greater and ever more perfect faith is a process that will be reached at some point in the process of achieving salvation and becoming more perfect in these principles.


Good journey Billiardsball

Clear
φιειφυσεω

Thank you for your very thoughtful and kind comments. They are most appreciated.

I don't understand, however, why any saved person, whether they are a vile criminal or a run-of-the-mill sinner, would have a momentary faith and then worship Satan. Normal people when saved from drownings and burning buildings express gratitude to their saviors. Paul was a vile criminal, he claims to have been. David stood in recognition of horrible sin. Both poured out doxologies to God in gratitude for salvation. I agree with you that good, real faith produces real good works.

However, there are biblical words with different shades of meaning for apostates, hypocrites, believers and backsliders. The first two were never saved, the second two were.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I honestly can't even recall having said that, BilliardsBall. In looking back, it just seems to me right now that everyone else appeared to be addressing all of your questions adequately. I guess maybe I was wrong. At any rate, I'll at least pop in and respond to this post.

I'm not really sure I can do any better job than they've been doing, but I'll give it a try. Mormons believe that, when all is said and done, we are saved through the love and grace of Jesus Christ. Without Him it would be virtually impossible for any of us to save ourselves. As the Bible puts it, we're all sinners and all fall short of what it takes to make it back to our Father in Heaven. That said, when a person claims to believe in Jesus Christ, it goes without saying that he does more than merely believe that Jesus exists. He recognizes that there is this absolutely perfect person who loved us so much that He would be willing to lay down His life for us. It seems to me to be impossible to comprehend such love without loving Him in return. And loving requires action! You can't just say you love someone and do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the depth of that love. Jesus said that if we love Him, we are to keep His commandments. Mormons simply believe that to be the case. The individual who says he loves Jesus Christ and fails to show that love really doesn't love Him at all. While Jesus' own love for that individual is sufficient for Him to be resurrected and avoid an eternity in Hell, only those who live in such a way that their love for their Savior is evident to Him and to others will be rewarded with Eternal Life in His presence, in the presence of our Father in Heaven and surrounded by family members bound to be united throughout eternity. All that's really saying is that where much is given, much is expected.

Thanda's a guy, by the way. Deathbed conversion is a kind of a tricky subject. Apparently the thief who hung next to the Savior on the cross experienced a conversion of this sort, although we can't really know all of the facts concerning his background or possible exposure to Jesus' teachings prior to his death. I would say that the condition of someone's heart is what really makes the difference, and the condition of a person's heart is something only God can really know. Along this same line, I just love a quote by LDS Apostle Dieter F. Uchtdorf. He said, "The more we learn about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the more we realize that endings here in mortality are not endings at all."

Sorry, Thanda. I don't know where I got that from.

Katzpur, how do you interpret the saying, "we are saved by grace after all we can do"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

My engagement in this thread has been concerning your views (specifically your position on the atonement), not a delineation of Mormon stances.* Stating you are having a hard time eliciting clarity on what Mormons believe is to mischaracterize our exchanges.




I want you to note Katzpur's post above. There are two things that should be really striking when compared to the atonement model you've been advocating.


One) The key predicate of her post and the informing element is love. The core concept of the Penal Substitution Model is justice. The Penal Model has Christ act to appease an abstract notion of justice. This has it's own host of logical problems, but leaving them aside, this tells you something about the universe of your theology.

Two) In her post love is reciprocal I think Katzpur would agree that the way this is manifest on a base level is through repentance. Consider the role of repentance in your conception. Where is it? It seems markedly lacking under your "saved" rubric. Contrast that paucity or lack to the number of times repentance is voiced in the Bible. This is a massive textual indictment of your stance.


Master Billiards,


Your theology at first glance appeals to the Bible, yet it's clear you do not understand Koine Greek, you do not understand the Classical setting of the text** and seem completely unaware of the distinction between a text and the hermeneutic that one applies to it. This is damning stuff for one where the Bible is supposed to be the proof text.


* I did lay out my own view on the atonement when asked. You never replied to it.

** Just one simple example. You have several exchanges with Thanda where you reference Romans. The Book of Romans is a quintessential example of Greek literary rhetoric which makes perfect sense given its intended audience and that Paul was a Hellenized Jew. I know from your citations you are wholly unfamiliar with this. Case in point, you make explicit reference to some verse(s) and are unaware that cited verbiage to the educated Greco-Roman would be as famous to them as to the Modern English speaker "to be or not to be" is. The citation(s) I'm referring to is from Greek tragedy and is a key trope Paul uses to inform the whole thrust of his piece.

I'm not seeking to mischaracterize your stance. And your comments and others clarify it, thanks.

Entire chapters of Romans speak to models of atonement. The entire chapter of Romans 4 is about Abraham, not any Greek tragedy. In it, Abraham is not saved via the sacrifice of Issac but via a much earlier statement of faith, a radical "hope against hope".

I will ask that everyone be consistent. Clear made a moving personal statement that he was excited in his studies to learn that LDS beliefs were there in both the Bible and outside sources. Apparently, however, no one has the right to identify a penal substitution model in the Bible or outside sources. Let's be consistent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I explained to you why I think it is irrelevant and I also explained to you why it is likely speaking about eternal life. Do you have any counter arguments in relation to these verses?



Until you provide me five people in the Bible who had faith but no works I will have to take your interpretation of those 150 verses as being somewhat suspect.

I guess it depends on something I still don't know about what you believe; whether that faith that saves has to be ongoing, continual. Because both you and I can easily provide 50, not 5 examples, of Bible heroes who made big mistakes. Indeed, all but Jesus Christ, right?

Again, I agree with you (I think) that someone who is truly saved will live a life of gratitude, but Thanda seems to think such a life must never show a single iota of wavering. Is that what the church of LDS believes? Why are we arguing? Why not simply post some LDS canon quotations here so my questions are answered? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) REGARDING MISCHARACTERIZATION AND ITS EFFECT ON COMMUNICATION

Billiardsball said to Katzpur #293 : “I'm glad you are telling me what Mormons believe, because I'm having trouble eliciting such clarity from Clear and Orontes “

Orontes commented # 299 : “My engagement in this thread has been concerning your views (specifically your position on the atonement), not a delineation of Mormon stances.* Stating you are having a hard time eliciting clarity on what Mormons believe is to mischaracterize our exchanges. “

Orontes; I agree that Billiardsballs statement is a mischaracterization and I hope it does not represent a return to old habits that caused him so much grief in the earlier portion of this thread. Mischaracterization; false claims; overstatements; misstatements; accidental “paraphrasing” of biblical texts, other sorts of inaccuracies etc. all inhibit honest and accurate communication and do nothing to improve communication between individuals. It also affects credibility.




2) REGARDING THE COMPASSION THEORY OF ATONEMENT

While we are (still) waiting for Billiardsball to tell us if he thinks the scriptural text of Romans 3 :24-26 (discussed in post # 276) which he offered in support of his theory that momentary faith guarantees heaven for those who murder and torture and rape children (etc), actually DOES support his theory, it might be a good time to return to aspects of the “compassion theory of atonement” you described in post #263.

While my post # 297 and its’ context of Jesus’ position as a “rightful-heir” touches on the context of how a caretaker can take moral responsibility for someone he has legal/moral connections to (not as a penal model, but as a strict accounting model) under one covenant or set of conditions, and then create a different covenant (or set of conditions to set accounts aright), that post did not touch on the surrounding issues of motives as to why Jesus would volunteer to atone for mankind, and it only relates indirectly to why God the Fathers created his plan to populate an earth with the spirits of mankind and what he wanted to accomplish by doing so.

Your first statement in the summary/overview of the compassion theory said : “1) We begin as moral beings, alienated from God. “ (Orontes, post # 263)

Conditions of these spirits in their initial state before coming to earth
In early Judeo-Christian textual doctrinal descriptions, Judeo-Christians taught that the spirits of mankind were in a state of cognisant existence before coming to earth through the mechanism of Birth into bodies.

Does your quoted statement #1 mean that these spirits are morally “competent” or merely have moral ability (i.e. they can make independent moral choices)? IF you assume a relative moral “incompetence” where they can make choices but do not fully understand the consequences, (or immature competence for any other reason) then does your model include a mechanism of education so as to allow these spirits to BECOME morally educated and fully competent?

Thanks for the additional clarification.

Clear
φιφιειδρω

I guess the "problem" in citing Romans 3 is that you have excerpted the entire statement. The entire statement (emphasis mine):

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for ALL THOSE who believe; for there is NO distinction; 23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

...It really depends on what the words ALL and NO mean. Please tell me that in both Greek and English God condemns ALL but offers justification to ALL. All would include Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, fundamentalists, evangelicals, paedophiles, rapists, Jews, Nazis, murderers, Mother Theresa, etc.

Again, there are present tense verbs in the scriptures that refer to one-time acts with ongoing consequences.

 

[Thanda]

I guess it depends on something I still don't know about what you believe; whether that faith that saves has to be ongoing, continual. Because both you and I can easily provide 50, not 5 examples, of Bible heroes who made big mistakes. Indeed, all but Jesus Christ, right?

Again, I agree with you (I think) that someone who is truly saved will live a life of gratitude, but Thanda seems to think such a life must never show a single iota of wavering. Is that what the church of LDS believes? Why are we arguing? Why not simply post some LDS canon quotations here so my questions are answered? I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Yes it must be on going and continual - that's been the whole point I've been trying to make.

I am asking whether you can provide any examples of people who had faith but had no works. Our argument is about whether faith and works go together or whether faith can stand alone when it comes to salvation.

What Big mistakes did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob make. What of Noah, Moses and Elijah? You have attempted to say that an unrepentant sinner who was once saved will still be saved. Which great sins did any of these men I mentioned do of which they never repented?

Where there is faith there is always works - without exception.

 

[Orontes]

I'm not seeking to mischaracterize your stance. And your comments and others clarify it, thanks.

Entire chapters of Romans speak to models of atonement. The entire chapter of Romans 4 is about Abraham, not any Greek tragedy. In it, Abraham is not saved via the sacrifice of Issac but via a much earlier statement of faith, a radical "hope against hope".

I will ask that everyone be consistent. Clear made a moving personal statement that he was excited in his studies to learn that LDS beliefs were there in both the Bible and outside sources. Apparently, however, no one has the right to identify a penal substitution model in the Bible or outside sources. Let's be consistent.

Master Billiards,

There is no inconsistency in what I've argued.

Per Romans: The Greek tragic literary referents are in chapters 7 and 8 (the middle on Paul's piece). They inform chapter 4 and everything else going on in the work. It is the trope Paul builds his piece around. I don't think you understand Romans, the conclusions you've drawn from it are all contortions.

To the right to identify the Penal Substitution Model and the Bible: assertion is not justification. There is no penal substitution model in the Bible. No one had ever heard or thought of it until Calvin created it in the 16th Century. Now consider that: not any of the Patristic Fathers: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr etc., not The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus). No one in the Greek Tradition, no one in the Latin Tradition, it didn't exist until a Frenchman penned it into existence while living in the Alps. How is that possible? Unless one is appealing to revelation as the source, something Calvin never claimed, this is a problem.

The other massive problem(s) with the Penal model is what I brought up previously: it is irrational and evil. If you hold to it, despite the anachronism, you must be able to deal with these two issues, unless you believe God is irrational and evil.

Given these major flaws, why do you continue to hold to it? What is the appeal?

 

[Clear]

1) Regarding Billiardsballs’ theory that one who momentarily believes in Jesus as their savior can then repudiate that belief, defy God and do despicable acts such as torturing and raping children and even turn to worship satan, yet is still guaranteed to go to heaven. :

Billiardsball said (post # 306):


“I don't understand, however, why any saved person, whether they are a vile criminal or a run-of-the-mill sinner, would have a momentary faith and then worship Satan. Normal people when saved from drownings and burning buildings express gratitude to their saviors. Paul was a vile criminal, he claims to have been. David stood in recognition of horrible sin. Both poured out doxologies to God in gratitude for salvation. I agree with you that good, real faith produces real good works.


I agree that it is probably difficult for average people to imagine how a sweet child who believes in Jesus turns into a non-christian, God defying, murderous, adult. Still, this is exactly what some individuals do and it becomes more understandable and more realistic to those who experience it on a different scale than you have experienced.

I became deeply familiar to a large population of individuals who had done just this thing to varying degrees. My medical group accepted the contract to deliver medical care to a state prison. I practiced prison medicine for five years and also became the medical crisis director for this prison, including psychiatric crises. I am an expert in and was chosen to author the chapter on prison medicine specialty in a medical book published by lippincott. Thus, I have had experience with many, many individuals who have lived the type of life you say you cannot imagine. They are, admittedly, the types of lives that I could not have imagined before working with such individuals. I interviewed and became deeply acquainted with many murderers and rapists, those who, in actuality, did torture and rape children and commit despicable atrocities and were, in many cases, able to justify what they did in various ways. I was able to discuss any aspect of their lives with any prisoner in any depth I wanted to. I became acquainted with their histories as children and as adults, their crimes, their motives, their thoughts about religion, life etc. I spoke in their church service. I knew some of them very well.

For example : The inmate I was a closest acquaintance with had murdered his grandparents in a gruesome manner. I had other acquaintances with multiple inmates who had raped multiple children. Others who had simply murdered individuals who had picked them up as hitch-hikers. Often, such individuals develop an entirely different set of rules to live by than you have, so far, imagined. For example, I had not seen one specific prisoner-acquaintance in sick call for a few months. When I finally saw him in sick call a few months later, I asked him where he had been. He explained he had been paroled, had been out in society, and was back in prison for another aggravated kidnapping of yet another woman. He said he was going to serve several more years and he honestly lamented to me that he should have killed the woman he kidnapped since a prisoner typically serves more time for a kidnapping than one does for a murder. (His words were : "I don't know what I was thinking, I knew I should have killed her.")

Many of these people described their childhood as Christians, who had Christian works for a short period, but had, as they grew, become cynical and angry and came to repudiate God and his commandments. Many of these prior Christians became athiests, and some remained Theists but were angry at God for creating a world which caused so much pain and suffering (perhaps they were, themselves abused and mis-treated and blamed God for iniquities in the world… there were multiple reasons as to why they left faith and chose the life they chose, I'm simply mentioning one or two...)

So, whether you can imagine it or not, there are individuals who were believers in Jesus, just as you believe in Jesus, and who turned from that life to the despicable life of a murderer; a rapist; a torturer and raper of children to worshipers of satan (or at least a satanic life). Your theory says that these are guaranteed to go to heaven. This modern theory of yours is very, very different than the earliest orthodox Christian doctrine.


2) Billiardsball said : “ However, there are biblical words with different shades of meaning for apostates, hypocrites, believers and backsliders. The first two were never saved, the second two were. “
So what? This still doesn't help your theory. For example, you indicate apostates were never saved but “backsliders” were. What do you think αποστασια (apostasy) actually referred to in early Koine Greek when used inside early Christian doctrine?


3) Billiardsball said (post 310) “ ...It really depends on what the words ALL and NO mean. Please tell me that in both Greek and English God condemns ALL but offers justification to ALL. All would include Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, fundamentalists, evangelicals, paedophiles, rapists, Jews, Nazis, murderers, Mother Theresa, etc.
Yes, salvation is offered to All who BELIEVE (παντας τους πιστεθοντας - א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst). As we have already seen, re-cycling this irrelevant, specific point that Salvation is OFFERED to all WHO BELIEVE does not support your theory of “momentary belief” guarantees salvation specifically to subsequent NON-believing individuals who chose the life of murder and torture and rape of children and repudiation of God and worship of Satan.


4) Billiardsball said (post # 310) Again, there are present tense verbs in the scriptures that refer to one-time acts with ongoing consequences. “

This is yet another completely irrelevant point. If there are other such verbs that have to do with hand washing, or singing, or walking, or whistling, they are irrelevant. Remember, we are talking of your specific reference to FAITH in Romans 3:22 rather than "other" verbs.

As I pointed out in post #276 : “ 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)”

Your point has nothing to do with Πιστεθοντας in vs 22, since the definition of this cognate assumes the EXISTENCE of faith and NOT to a “momentary” faith or a “Lost prior faith” or a “repudiated” faith. You claim you are trained in Greek. Read the greek.


Lastly, you STILL have not answered the question : “ Why would any of these specific verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation in heaven ” for murdering, child torturing, child raping, God repudiating, faithless, Satan worshipers.” ?

Clear
φιφυσεσεω

 

[Thanda]

I agree with you that good, real faith produces real good works.

I did not notice this line before. I am glad we agree on this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes it must be on going and continual - that's been the whole point I've been trying to make.

I am asking whether you can provide any examples of people who had faith but had no works. Our argument is about whether faith and works go together or whether faith can stand alone when it comes to salvation.

What Big mistakes did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob make. What of Noah, Moses and Elijah? You have attempted to say that an unrepentant sinner who was once saved will still be saved. Which great sins did any of these men I mentioned do of which they never repented?

Where there is faith there is always works - without exception.

Faith is faith. Repentance is repentance. Are you saying people are saved by faith, repentance or a combination of both. The scriptures say "faith".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

There is no inconsistency in what I've argued.

Per Romans: The Greek tragic literary referents are in chapters 7 and 8 (the middle on Paul's piece). They inform chapter 4 and everything else going on in the work. It is the trope Paul builds his piece around. I don't think you understand Romans, the conclusions you've drawn from it are all contortions.

To the right to identify the Penal Substitution Model and the Bible: assertion is not justification. There is no penal substitution model in the Bible. No one had ever heard or thought of it until Calvin created it in the 16th Century. Now consider that: not any of the Patristic Fathers: Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr etc., not The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus). No one in the Greek Tradition, no one in the Latin Tradition, it didn't exist until a Frenchman penned it into existence while living in the Alps. How is that possible? Unless one is appealing to revelation as the source, something Calvin never claimed, this is a problem.

The other massive problem(s) with the Penal model is what I brought up previously: it is irrational and evil. If you hold to it, despite the anachronism, you must be able to deal with these two issues, unless you believe God is irrational and evil.

Given these major flaws, why do you continue to hold to it? What is the appeal?

No one heard of the penal substitution model until the 16th century. No one knew about the angel Moroni until the 19th century. I believe we can attempt to make a case for either or both in the Bible, from the Bible. I didn't arrive at the penal substitution model via reading the Institutes. Again, the penal model does not logically exclude the ransom model, etc. I guess while I understand how you are stating Greek tragedy informs our understanding of Romans 4 as well as 7 and 8, how you take statements like this... are they metaphors? Referent to Greek tragic tropes? Literal? Figurative?

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God… to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness… How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised… so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them… the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith… with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. 23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

One appeal to my way of thinking re: penal substitution... it's biblical. The high priest unwittingly prophesied that it was expedient to kill one person to save a nation... Jesus's arrest led to a murderer being set free on the Pesach, Barabbas... there were two scapegoats annually, one set free, one taken into the wilderness...

Also, and I do not know the answer, are you saying the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, et al, do not adhere to a penal substitution model? Each is far older than the 16th century... every Catholic person I encountered says Jesus died for their sins rather than as an example or model of lifestyle and faith.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Regarding Billiardsballs’ theory that one who momentarily believes in Jesus as their savior can then repudiate that belief, defy God and do despicable acts such as torturing and raping children and even turn to worship satan, yet is still guaranteed to go to heaven. :

Billiardsball said (post # 306):


“I don't understand, however, why any saved person, whether they are a vile criminal or a run-of-the-mill sinner, would have a momentary faith and then worship Satan. Normal people when saved from drownings and burning buildings express gratitude to their saviors. Paul was a vile criminal, he claims to have been. David stood in recognition of horrible sin. Both poured out doxologies to God in gratitude for salvation. I agree with you that good, real faith produces real good works.


I agree that it is probably difficult for average people to imagine how a sweet child who believes in Jesus turns into a non-christian, God defying, murderous, adult. Still, this is exactly what some individuals do and it becomes more understandable and more realistic to those who experience it on a different scale than you have experienced.

I became deeply familiar to a large population of individuals who had done just this thing to varying degrees. My medical group accepted the contract to deliver medical care to a state prison. I practiced prison medicine for five years and also became the medical crisis director for this prison, including psychiatric crises. I am an expert in and was chosen to author the chapter on prison medicine specialty in a medical book published by lippincott. Thus, I have had experience with many, many individuals who have lived the type of life you say you cannot imagine. They are, admittedly, the types of lives that I could not have imagined before working with such individuals. I interviewed and became deeply acquainted with many murderers and rapists, those who, in actuality, did torture and rape children and commit despicable atrocities and were, in many cases, able to justify what they did in various ways. I was able to discuss any aspect of their lives with any prisoner in any depth I wanted to. I became acquainted with their histories as children and as adults, their crimes, their motives, their thoughts about religion, life etc. I spoke in their church service. I knew some of them very well.

For example : The inmate I was a closest acquaintance with had murdered his grandparents in a gruesome manner. I had other acquaintances with multiple inmates who had raped multiple children. Others who had simply murdered individuals who had picked them up as hitch-hikers. Often, such individuals develop an entirely different set of rules to live by than you have, so far, imagined. For example, I had not seen one specific prisoner-acquaintance in sick call for a few months. When I finally saw him in sick call a few months later, I asked him where he had been. He explained he had been paroled, had been out in society, and was back in prison for another aggravated kidnapping of yet another woman. He said he was going to serve several more years and he honestly lamented to me that he should have killed the woman he kidnapped since a prisoner typically serves more time for a kidnapping than one does for a murder. (His words were : "I don't know what I was thinking, I knew I should have killed her.")

Many of these people described their childhood as Christians, who had Christian works for a short period, but had, as they grew, become cynical and angry and came to repudiate God and his commandments. Many of these prior Christians became athiests, and some remained Theists but were angry at God for creating a world which caused so much pain and suffering (perhaps they were, themselves abused and mis-treated and blamed God for iniquities in the world… there were multiple reasons as to why they left faith and chose the life they chose, I'm simply mentioning one or two...)

So, whether you can imagine it or not, there are individuals who were believers in Jesus, just as you believe in Jesus, and who turned from that life to the despicable life of a murderer; a rapist; a torturer and raper of children to worshipers of satan (or at least a satanic life). Your theory says that these are guaranteed to go to heaven. This modern theory of yours is very, very different than the earliest orthodox Christian doctrine.


2) Billiardsball said : “ However, there are biblical words with different shades of meaning for apostates, hypocrites, believers and backsliders. The first two were never saved, the second two were. “
So what? This still doesn't help your theory. For example, you indicate apostates were never saved but “backsliders” were. What do you think αποστασια (apostasy) actually referred to in early Koine Greek when used inside early Christian doctrine?


3) Billiardsball said (post 310) “ ...It really depends on what the words ALL and NO mean. Please tell me that in both Greek and English God condemns ALL but offers justification to ALL. All would include Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, fundamentalists, evangelicals, paedophiles, rapists, Jews, Nazis, murderers, Mother Theresa, etc.
Yes, salvation is offered to All who BELIEVE (παντας τους πιστεθοντας - א2 D F G 33 M it vgcl sy; Ambst). As we have already seen, re-cycling this irrelevant, specific point that Salvation is OFFERED to all WHO BELIEVE does not support your theory of “momentary belief” guarantees salvation specifically to subsequent NON-believing individuals who chose the life of murder and torture and rape of children and repudiation of God and worship of Satan.


4) Billiardsball said (post # 310) Again, there are present tense verbs in the scriptures that refer to one-time acts with ongoing consequences. “

This is yet another completely irrelevant point. If there are other such verbs that have to do with hand washing, or singing, or walking, or whistling, they are irrelevant. Remember, we are talking of your specific reference to FAITH in Romans 3:22 rather than "other" verbs.

As I pointed out in post #276 : “ 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)”

Your point has nothing to do with Πιστεθοντας in vs 22, since the definition of this cognate assumes the EXISTENCE of faith and NOT to a “momentary” faith or a “Lost prior faith” or a “repudiated” faith. You claim you are trained in Greek. Read the greek.


Lastly, you STILL have not answered the question : “ Why would any of these specific verses support your theory of “Momentary belief guarantees Salvation in heaven ” for murdering, child torturing, child raping, God repudiating, faithless, Satan worshipers.” ?

Clear
φιφυσεσεω

Here are the issues and I will address some, not all of your questions, because they are derived from an improper syllogism:

1. Repeating all who have had faith in Christ are born again/saved. Once we can agree what "all" means, your question about momentary faith is moot.

2. I've noticed you have not addressed my concerns brought to Thanda, which revolve around whether we believe we are saved by a momentary faith or an ongoing faith! If faith must be "ongoing" we can refer to the Greek you are citing to show it also must be not merely ongoing or persistent or consistent but perpetual. My testimony to you is I do not have permanent faith.

3. I'm sorry you were in a corrections system where you saw such horrors. I think you have a bias regarding parsing a felon's statement, "Yeah, I used to be a Christian" with whether all who SAY they are following or have followed Christ truly are following or have followed Christ. I deal with atheists somewhat often. Most American atheists grew up in a Christian home. Do you believe ALL atheists who grew up in a Christian home had saving faith or perhaps were some of them apostates who were never saved?

4. You keep mentioning murderers. "We know that no murderer has the Spirit of Christ in him." So, either a murderer was never saved or you believe that people may forfeit salvation. Jesus said in John 3, "Whoever is born again will NEVER perish." It sounds like you would have to agree that one is not born again when one is first in saving faith in Jesus, but rather that they would have to be born again after death. Is this why LDS teaches the opportunity for post-death conversion? That's what I heard is a tenet of LDS.

Really, we can argue about the verbs used for faith--although we are NOT arguing, we are agreeing on the verbs, rather we are arguing their context. But how is it, do you think that someone who is born again CANNOT perish and HAS ETERNAL life but in your view can lose eternal life (salvation)? Especially since I've mentioned Romans 4 and so on--thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Also, and I want to say this humbly and kindly, so please don't take it the wrong way:

1. I'm familiar with the precepts, thoughts and practices underlying higher criticism, textual criticism, church fathers and their correspondence and doctrines, etc. Yes, Paul was echoing Medea with "wretched man that I am!" Yes, Paul was speaking the locals' culture when he created all these tensions of duality between the sin nature and the Spirit in Romans--that would have been a very Greek tragedy thing to do. But though literary referents may color our understanding of Romans 7--it's Paul, it's not Paul, it's a Christian view of unbelievers--Romans 4 remains obviously and definitely, specifically and clearly about when and how Abraham was saved, not a Christian view of "duality and tension in the Greek soul". Further, Paul says he tries to be all things to all people. Some "prosopopoiia" is the way I speak to people when I myself am witnessing. How does Paul being "relevant" when he speaks doctrine make Paul non-authoritative or the scriptures non-literal? "Master Billiards presupposes X about Romans 7 and 8" is neither a refutation of penal substitution from the SCRIPTURE nor an explanation of why Paul feels the necessity of--as seems to be claimed, eight chapters of literary referents (yes, Romans 1 contains the kinds of duality and lists of sins from tragedies) before embarking on three more chapters of why Israel and the Gentiles are on different paths that are really the same path--toward Jesus Christ. Is Israel literal? Are Gentiles literal persons? We all know the entire NT quotes pagan poets for a sentence or two--do we really think Paul is using eight chapters or more, the length of multiple shorter epistles, to show his affinity to Greek literature while quoting dozens of OT persons and verses? That makes no sense--which is why there is a classical hermeneutic for Romans 1-8, each statement centered around Paul's main thesis, "...the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation... [for] the righteous person will live by faith."

2. Such things as "but the early fathers never spoke of this" are not as appealing as you seem to think to me as a fundamentalist. Nor are these arguments from silence convincing. The early fathers were dealing with practical subjects like heresy and avoiding being killed. It seems more likely to me that they didn't talk about penal substitution because it was obvious! See point 4 below.

3. The same goes for argumentation rooted in the exactitudes of Greek. If you don't believe the Greek is inerrant, why should we argue in it? And what is the perceived benefit for non-Greek readers?

4. I don't think we ought to argue against/for penal substitution much longer--except it must surely color our understanding of the gospel. I've been thinking of Isaiah's statements today, that Jesus received the punishment due all Israel; that Jesus took the sins of the people, that Jesus died a substitutionary death, etc. No, it does not seem logical for a human to take another human's punishment. Further God hates when the innocent are punished! So why punish Jesus Christ? Why indeed.

5. I have been meditating on the question of God saving rapists and so on. After all, I personally have led people to Christ who didn't even adhere to church fellowship. Were they saved? I am disappointed if the three or four of you posting here are stating that LDS theology is saying that God can save very good, faithful people, but is somehow unable to save bad people. "What is it that people are saved from?" asked Thanda. Themselves, I'd say. Their heinous sin. Hell. The second death. The sting of the first death. The question "How can God save someone with momentary faith who then [grossly] sins?" denies both that all sin offends God, who is intolerant of sin, and that it takes momentary, not abiding faith, to save anyone. That is, one is born again once, not born again and again and again. Do LDS canon books affirm the reality of the born again experience? I have no idea and would like to please know.

Again, please take my comments in the spirit of humility in which they are intended. I apologize for the length of this post.

 

[Orontes]

No one heard of the penal substitution model until the 16th century. No one knew about the angel Moroni until the 19th century. I believe we can attempt to make a case for either or both in the Bible, from the Bible. I didn't arrive at the penal substitution model via reading the Institutes. Again, the penal model does not logically exclude the ransom model, etc. I guess while I understand how you are stating Greek tragedy informs our understanding of Romans 4 as well as 7 and 8, how you take statements like this... are they metaphors? Referent to Greek tragic tropes? Literal? Figurative?

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God… to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness… How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised… so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them… the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith… with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. 23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, 24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

One appeal to my way of thinking re: penal substitution... it's biblical. The high priest unwittingly prophesied that it was expedient to kill one person to save a nation... Jesus's arrest led to a murderer being set free on the Pesach, Barabbas... there were two scapegoats annually, one set free, one taken into the wilderness...

Also, and I do not know the answer, are you saying the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, et al, do not adhere to a penal substitution model? Each is far older than the 16th century... every Catholic person I encountered says Jesus died for their sins rather than as an example or model of lifestyle and faith.

Thanks.

Master Billiards,

Conflating the invention of the Penal Substitution Model in the 16th Century to the angel Moroni is a mistake. Moroni references are all based on revelation. This is something one either accepts or not. Further, on an epistemic level revelation is not tied to or based upon the past. Revelation can be completely new and/or unique. Calvin never claim the Penal Model was revelatory. Therefore, the direction of any scrutiny is different. If the notion didn't exist prior to the 16th Century, under the rubric of Christian Theology, that is a problem. Further the base structure of the Penal model remains an issue: it is irrational and unjust. You have no counter to either of these charges. The only verdict then is God is irrational and unjust, or the Penal Modal is wrong.

The Penal Model isn’t Biblical. The idea of one dying to save a nation is not thereby a connection to the Penal Model: neither is the citation of Barabbas or scapegoats references. You need to pay attention to the details of the Penal Model. Does Barabbas become a clean and just man because of Christ’s death? Obviously not.

The Penal Model and the Ransom Theory are distinct. They cannot be combined or joined. The Ransom model has man as enslaved to the Devil, Man is his by right and their freedom must be bought. This is the role of the Christ: He bargains man's freedom with His life. The Devil was under no obligation to accept the offer. The Ransom model has a very strong Manichean element that informs it. The Penal Model operates along completely different lines. The devil is rather irrelevant. It is God's justice that must be appeased. Christ suffers the penalty for others.

Per Catholic and Orthodoxy vis-à-vis the Penal Model: no, they do not recognize it. The Penal Model is Calvin’s creation. It only has favor among Reformed Protestantism. Most Catholics or followers of Orthodoxy that are familiar with Christian Theology and especially theories of the atonement would tell you that one great flaw of the Penal Model is it does not recognize forgiveness. Forgiveness is a rather central precept of Christendom, therefore the Penal Model is deeply flawed.

As to self-identifying Catholics or Orthodox who may use language like Christ died for them: that does not equate to an adoption of a Penal Model. Recall, the U.S. is basically a Protestant nation per its history. The verbiage of Protestantism is often intermingled into general faith statements, even by those who are not Protestant themselves.


You make reference to Romans in this post but more extensively in a following post. I will reply to Romans in the next post.

 

[Orontes]

Also, and I want to say this humbly and kindly, so please don't take it the wrong way:

1. I'm familiar with the precepts, thoughts and practices underlying higher criticism, textual criticism, church fathers and their correspondence and doctrines, etc. Yes, Paul was echoing Medea with "wretched man that I am!" Yes, Paul was speaking the locals' culture when he created all these tensions of duality between the sin nature and the Spirit in Romans--that would have been a very Greek tragedy thing to do. But though literary referents may color our understanding of Romans 7--it's Paul, it's not Paul, it's a Christian view of unbelievers--Romans 4 remains obviously and definitely, specifically and clearly about when and how Abraham was saved, not a Christian view of "duality and tension in the Greek soul". Further, Paul says he tries to be all things to all people. Some "prosopopoiia" is the way I speak to people when I myself am witnessing. How does Paul being "relevant" when he speaks doctrine make Paul non-authoritative or the scriptures non-literal? "Master Billiards presupposes X about Romans 7 and 8" is neither a refutation of penal substitution from the SCRIPTURE nor an explanation of why Paul feels the necessity of--as seems to be claimed, eight chapters of literary referents (yes, Romans 1 contains the kinds of duality and lists of sins from tragedies) before embarking on three more chapters of why Israel and the Gentiles are on different paths that are really the same path--toward Jesus Christ. Is Israel literal? Are Gentiles literal persons? We all know the entire NT quotes pagan poets for a sentence or two--do we really think Paul is using eight chapters or more, the length of multiple shorter epistles, to show his affinity to Greek literature while quoting dozens of OT persons and verses? That makes no sense--which is why there is a classical hermeneutic for Romans 1-8, each statement centered around Paul's main thesis, "...the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation... [for] the righteous person will live by faith."

2. Such things as "but the early fathers never spoke of this" are not as appealing as you seem to think to me as a fundamentalist. Nor are these arguments from silence convincing. The early fathers were dealing with practical subjects like heresy and avoiding being killed. It seems more likely to me that they didn't talk about penal substitution because it was obvious! See point 4 below.

3. The same goes for argumentation rooted in the exactitudes of Greek. If you don't believe the Greek is inerrant, why should we argue in it? And what is the perceived benefit for non-Greek readers?

4. I don't think we ought to argue against/for penal substitution much longer--except it must surely color our understanding of the gospel. I've been thinking of Isaiah's statements today, that Jesus received the punishment due all Israel; that Jesus took the sins of the people, that Jesus died a substitutionary death, etc. No, it does not seem logical for a human to take another human's punishment. Further God hates when the innocent are punished! So why punish Jesus Christ? Why indeed.

5. I have been meditating on the question of God saving rapists and so on. After all, I personally have led people to Christ who didn't even adhere to church fellowship. Were they saved? I am disappointed if the three or four of you posting here are stating that LDS theology is saying that God can save very good, faithful people, but is somehow unable to save bad people. "What is it that people are saved from?" asked Thanda. Themselves, I'd say. Their heinous sin. Hell. The second death. The sting of the first death. The question "How can God save someone with momentary faith who then [grossly] sins?" denies both that all sin offends God, who is intolerant of sin, and that it takes momentary, not abiding faith, to save anyone. That is, one is born again once, not born again and again and again. Do LDS canon books affirm the reality of the born again experience? I have no idea and would like to please know.

Again, please take my comments in the spirit of humility in which they are intended. I apologize for the length of this post.

Master Billiards,


Per 1) This paragraph needs to be proof read. It has unintelligible parts. I don’t know what’s going on with the quotation marks etc. You should clean it up and repost it. From what I can glean from it: I think you have done some internet hunting to come up with the Medea reference. You get a gold star. You also get a star for the reference to prosopopoiia. But, I don’t think you understand what you were trying to put together in this paragraph. If you think you do: why is Paul making the Medea reference? What was the point? If you know that, you should be able to answer to what is going on in Romans 4.



Per 2) This idea people believed something, but never mentioned it because it was obvious begs the question. It’s a logical fallacy in other words. If you as a Fundamentalist are unconcerned with the theology of early Christianity, the very tradition that created the New Testament; by what matrix do you draw any conclusions? Is everything simply based on your fancy? Theological subjectivism is another logical fallacy and its own refutation.


Per 3) I don’t’ believe any text is inerrant. The benefit of studying Greek or the larger cultural milieu in which a Greek text was created is to better understand what the meaning of said text is. This applies across the board. If one is studying the poetry of Goethe then knowing German and the cultural context is beneficial. If one is studying the work of Lao Tzu then knowing Chinese and the cultural context is beneficial. It is not simply an issue of language study, but as I stated, the context in which a thing was written. Far too many Protestants read the Bible and draw a series of conclusions where the only basis for those conclusions is their own whimsy. This isn’t sound. There are others who perhaps study the text (including the original language) but have no grasp of the context. They typically end up simply mining the text to reinforce their own biases. This isn’t sound either.


Per 4) The Penal Model doesn’t color my understanding of the Gospel because it is wrong and an absurdity. It doesn’t color the thinking of literally billions of Christians for the same reason: as I noted earlier Catholicism, and Orthodoxy utterly reject it and always have. I agree it isn’t logical for the innocent to suffer and the guilty go free. If you recognize this, then you must decide if your faith has any accord with reason. If it is does, you must reject the Penal Model. If it does not, then you can accept it, but can no longer claim a rational basis for your position. This puts you on the same footing as those who believe in a flat earth, or the moon is made of blue cheese.


Per 5) If you are asking what a Mormon position is, some qualifying is needed. In Mormonism the base problem is twofold. From the Fall man has inherited a twofold death. One is physical death. The other is spiritual death. Physical death is overcome through the resurrection of Christ. All who are born will be resurrected, independent of moral standing. This is an act of grace. Spiritual death is dependent on one choosing to follow the Savior. One cannot be forced to be good. One cannot be drug to Heaven. In simple terms: Christ knocks at the door, but we must open it. Being a disciple is not a guarantee of any final result, one can fall: free agency, the ability to choose remains. That said, to your questions:

1. Are people led to Christ saved who didn’t/don’t adhere to Church fellowship? - One can believe in Christ without any formal fellowship. Christian status is simply believing Jesus is the Christ. Mormons would agree with the larger traditional Catholic and Orthodox positions that at some point one must participant in certain saving ordinances (i.e. baptism administered by one with authority) in order to bind the temporal to the eternal. The divide between Mormons and Catholics and Orthodox would be who has that authority to perform those ordinances.
   
   
2. Is God unable to save bad people? – per spiritual death, no God cannot save one who rejects Him.
   

LDS belief asserts one must be born again. This includes baptism by water and by fire (the Holy Ghost).