God in mormonism

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said (post #317) : Here are the issues and I will address some, not all of your questions, because they are derived from an improper syllogism:

Billiardsball, the context is that YOU have proffered the theory that a momentary, fleeting, belief in an acceptance of Jesus as one’s savior will then save them even if this momentary and fleeting belief is immediately repudiated, lost, and replaced by disbelief, repudiation of God accompanied by a life completely committed to despicable actions such as torture and rape of children; murder and oppression and worship of satan in the place of God will still guarantee heaven for such individuals.

It is YOUR syllogism that such individuals are forced by God into heaven along with individuals who have lived “Mother Teresa-like” and “Gandi-like” and “Abraham-like” lives who kept their faith and lived lives of self-sacrifice and repentance who lived in desireous obedience to God.

I have taken the position that this modern theory is, obviously, quite different than early Christian belief in repentance and effort to be obedient to moral principles God the Father and Jesus, his son have described.


2) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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. (emphasis is Clears')

Firstly, the scriptures you have offered from ephesians and then romans do NOT say “all WHO HAVE HAD faith”. They refer to those who HAVE faith. If you actually do have the training in Greek that you claim, this would have been very clear to you. If you simply read english, this should be clear.

You have been warned multiple times in this thread alone, NOT to engage in this sort of manipulating of scriptures to support your theories Readers are not particularly stupid. Readers see these subtle changes as deceptions, and you will lose credibility and influence if you attempt to deceive them in such ways.

Regarding the meaning of “ALL” in this context. You first indicated that ALL are saved by momentary faith, but then backtracked and have told us murderers with faith in Jesus are not saved, you have also indicated hypocrites and apostates who have faith in Jesus were not saved (#306). You are going to have to plug these additional leaking holes in your modern theory of salvation if you are going to keep it from sinking even more quickly, (if you are going to try to support it at all).



3) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

I did not feel an obligation to answer a question you asked another poster.

Pointing out I did not answer a question placed to a different post seems a bit hypocritical since readers cannot help but notice YOU have still not answered the very basic question regarding YOUR quote from Romans 3 : “ 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.” ?

However, since you now ask Regarding your discussion with Thanda :

The difference between your model and Thandas seems to be that of “salvation as a process” versus “salvation as a light switch”. Thanda's model of salvation acknowledges that we are not mature nor constant in faith, repentance, obedience etc, but are striving toward maturity in these principles.

The PROCESS of salvation may include a waxing and waning of faith and of obedience and of repentance inside a continual overall process towards preparation to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony with others. Your new theory is rather like a horn button that is momentarily pushed that then guarantees salvation in heaven without a process of preparation wherein one learns to actually live in a social heaven in joy and harmony. This is only one major difference between your model and Thandas’ model. Your model has rapists, liars, oppressors, satan worshipers, blasphemers of God, and similar characters in heaven, alongside the Mother Teresas and Abrahams. Either that, or your theory must then create other supporting theories to help this irrational and illogical “syllogism” you theory creates.

For example, perhaps you could create yet another theory where God takes away the original personality out of the oppressor and rapist and places another, different, personality into it and then save that second personality God has created rather than saving the oppressor himself. In which case the original personality is not saved at all. Your model is an illogical and irrational “push of a momentary horn button” for salvation and Thandas involves in a “process of becoming” a person who is given salvation.

I do not see ANY advantage of your modern theory over the earliest and more original Christian beliefs that processes such as repentance and attempts towards obedience are involved in salvation.


4) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

Firstly, To say "A" felon's statement, as though it was only a single inmate claiming to have believed in Jesus when they were a child, yet is another mis-characterization of my description.

My experience in delivering medical care to prisoners was with an inmate population of approximately 5,000 inmates, with new ones replacing released ones on a regular basis. This history of an american inmate, having believe in Jesus when they were children repeats itself many, many times.

It’s obvious to readers that you are trying to avoid the fact that individuals may believe in Jesus as a child with the same sincerity that you and I do, but later, as they grow, may come to repudiate that belief and occasionally live terrible lives. Certainly we have many examples in this very forum of athiests describing their Christian beliefs, before evolving into athiests.

Secondly, The fact that you describe inmates as “horrors”, itself reflects a strange categorization and bias. If your theory insists that these “horrors” are going to be in heaven WITH YOU, it seems that you should see them as “brothers and sisters”.

I saw no frank “horrors” in these individuals. Rather, I very much enjoyed my time in giving medical care to these individuals and in trying to be polite and kind to them and encouraging them to acquire skills to lives the best and most dignified lives as they were able. I called them “sir” and “ma’am” when I could. These individuals were not “horrors”, but instead, were people much like you or I. I very much enjoyed my time with them and the wonderful opportunity to try to understand them and the mechanics whereby their lives evolved the way they did.



5) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

If murderers who believe in Jesus cannot be saved, then your insistence that “ALL” may be saved by momentary belief has yet one more hole in it (among the many other logical “holes”) that you must patch to save your sinking theory. For example, IF your definition of “ALL”, EXCLUDES murderers, then “ALL” does NOT mean absolutely “ALL”. I agree with the early Christian concept that even Christians who murder do not receive salvation in heaven alongside individuals like Abraham.


6) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

This is yet another error you are making. We ARE in disagreement about your misuse of verbs in the biblical text.

For example, you claimed in #1 that “…all who HAVE HAD FAITH in Christ are born again/saved…”. This is an obvious misuse of the text and it’s verb. It says all who HAVE FAITH. Your quote represents a deceptive change of the text, including the verb form. You are mis-quoting the bible text to support your personal theory. Your claim that you are trained in greek, yet inability to see these very basic points is not encouraging nor does it enhance the credibility of your various theories and your multiple claims.



Billiardsball;

You quoted specific verses in Romans 3 as support for your theory, yet have repeatedly avoided answering the simple 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.” ?

You have been asked to answer this simple question many times and in multiple forms. Though readers can read and make their own decisions, Are you ready to simply admit to readers that these verses you offered in support of your theory that “momentary faith guarantees salvation” do not actually support your specific theory?


Clear
φισιακσεω

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

If the penal model is unbiblical, why do you think thousands of Protestant and nondenominational sects, each of which culled the scriptures to form statements of faith, hold to it so closely?

Is my understanding of Moroni and Mormon tenets something I either accept or do not accept? The NT tenets are each authenticated by the apostles' OT exegesis and by OT prophecy.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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).

1. I don't appreciate what you are saying about me google-ing but misunderstanding Greek tragic referents. I believe I mentioned I began my Bachelor's in Religion with the emphasis on NT studies over two decades ago. I was avoiding a "battle" over Greek referents because a) Paul was being all things to all people b) Greek referents neither make the Bible open to interpretation nor inerrant.

2. Your statement in #2 above presupposes that the early fathers somehow wrote or collated the NT in hindsight. They did neither. They themselves had to start somewhere, and having started with the Bible itself, based on what you wrote, were themselves guilty of theological subjectivism.

3. I agree 100%. My point was more relating to Clear's harping on every word and tense when he (and you?) are saying Romans et al is not proscriptive, but descriptive, and without inerrancy, subjective.

4. There are so many unorthodoxies and heresies in the RCC it's hard to know where to begin. There was a Reformation because a doctrinal reformation was badly needed. Nor will I adhere to an ad populum "most Christians don't believe in penal substitution" because 1) most born agains do! 2) if I was looking for a popularity contest, I wouldn't have chosen to be a Messianic Jew.

5. If spiritual death is dependent on following/not following Christ, what did Christ die for? To redeem? To ransom? You have "not to substitute". Also, when I asked if God is unable to save bad people, I was not expecting your answer - bad people reject Christ, which implies that good people accept Christ. I think Romans says utterly the opposite, "there is no distinction... all fall short..." I'm kind of surprised by your response.

Please take my comments in the kind spirit in which they are intended. We should probably wrap on this soon. I'm achieving my desire to better understand LDS beliefs and practice, for which I'm appreciative.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Billiardsball said (post #317) : Here are the issues and I will address some, not all of your questions, because they are derived from an improper syllogism:

Billiardsball, the context is that YOU have proffered the theory that a momentary, fleeting, belief in an acceptance of Jesus as one’s savior will then save them even if this momentary and fleeting belief is immediately repudiated, lost, and replaced by disbelief, repudiation of God accompanied by a life completely committed to despicable actions such as torture and rape of children; murder and oppression and worship of satan in the place of God will still guarantee heaven for such individuals.

It is YOUR syllogism that such individuals are forced by God into heaven along with individuals who have lived “Mother Teresa-like” and “Gandi-like” and “Abraham-like” lives who kept their faith and lived lives of self-sacrifice and repentance who lived in desireous obedience to God.

I have taken the position that this modern theory is, obviously, quite different than early Christian belief in repentance and effort to be obedient to moral principles God the Father and Jesus, his son have described.


2) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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. (emphasis is Clears')

Firstly, the scriptures you have offered from ephesians and then romans do NOT say “all WHO HAVE HAD faith”. They refer to those who HAVE faith. If you actually do have the training in Greek that you claim, this would have been very clear to you. If you simply read english, this should be clear.

You have been warned multiple times in this thread alone, NOT to engage in this sort of manipulating of scriptures to support your theories Readers are not particularly stupid. Readers see these subtle changes as deceptions, and you will lose credibility and influence if you attempt to deceive them in such ways.

Regarding the meaning of “ALL” in this context. You first indicated that ALL are saved by momentary faith, but then backtracked and have told us murderers with faith in Jesus are not saved, you have also indicated hypocrites and apostates who have faith in Jesus were not saved (#306). You are going to have to plug these additional leaking holes in your modern theory of salvation if you are going to keep it from sinking even more quickly, (if you are going to try to support it at all).



3) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

I did not feel an obligation to answer a question you asked another poster.

Pointing out I did not answer a question placed to a different post seems a bit hypocritical since readers cannot help but notice YOU have still not answered the very basic question regarding YOUR quote from Romans 3 : “ 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.” ?

However, since you now ask Regarding your discussion with Thanda :

The difference between your model and Thandas seems to be that of “salvation as a process” versus “salvation as a light switch”. Thanda's model of salvation acknowledges that we are not mature nor constant in faith, repentance, obedience etc, but are striving toward maturity in these principles.

The PROCESS of salvation may include a waxing and waning of faith and of obedience and of repentance inside a continual overall process towards preparation to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony with others. Your new theory is rather like a horn button that is momentarily pushed that then guarantees salvation in heaven without a process of preparation wherein one learns to actually live in a social heaven in joy and harmony. This is only one major difference between your model and Thandas’ model. Your model has rapists, liars, oppressors, satan worshipers, blasphemers of God, and similar characters in heaven, alongside the Mother Teresas and Abrahams. Either that, or your theory must then create other supporting theories to help this irrational and illogical “syllogism” you theory creates.

For example, perhaps you could create yet another theory where God takes away the original personality out of the oppressor and rapist and places another, different, personality into it and then save that second personality God has created rather than saving the oppressor himself. In which case the original personality is not saved at all. Your model is an illogical and irrational “push of a momentary horn button” for salvation and Thandas involves in a “process of becoming” a person who is given salvation.

I do not see ANY advantage of your modern theory over the earliest and more original Christian beliefs that processes such as repentance and attempts towards obedience are involved in salvation.


4) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

Firstly, To say "A" felon's statement, as though it was only a single inmate claiming to have believed in Jesus when they were a child, yet is another mis-characterization of my description.

My experience in delivering medical care to prisoners was with an inmate population of approximately 5,000 inmates, with new ones replacing released ones on a regular basis. This history of an american inmate, having believe in Jesus when they were children repeats itself many, many times.

It’s obvious to readers that you are trying to avoid the fact that individuals may believe in Jesus as a child with the same sincerity that you and I do, but later, as they grow, may come to repudiate that belief and occasionally live terrible lives. Certainly we have many examples in this very forum of athiests describing their Christian beliefs, before evolving into athiests.

Secondly, The fact that you describe inmates as “horrors”, itself reflects a strange categorization and bias. If your theory insists that these “horrors” are going to be in heaven WITH YOU, it seems that you should see them as “brothers and sisters”.

I saw no frank “horrors” in these individuals. Rather, I very much enjoyed my time in giving medical care to these individuals and in trying to be polite and kind to them and encouraging them to acquire skills to lives the best and most dignified lives as they were able. I called them “sir” and “ma’am” when I could. These individuals were not “horrors”, but instead, were people much like you or I. I very much enjoyed my time with them and the wonderful opportunity to try to understand them and the mechanics whereby their lives evolved the way they did.



5) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

If murderers who believe in Jesus cannot be saved, then your insistence that “ALL” may be saved by momentary belief has yet one more hole in it (among the many other logical “holes”) that you must patch to save your sinking theory. For example, IF your definition of “ALL”, EXCLUDES murderers, then “ALL” does NOT mean absolutely “ALL”. I agree with the early Christian concept that even Christians who murder do not receive salvation in heaven alongside individuals like Abraham.


6) Billiardsball said (post #317) : 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.

This is yet another error you are making. We ARE in disagreement about your misuse of verbs in the biblical text.

For example, you claimed in #1 that “…all who HAVE HAD FAITH in Christ are born again/saved…”. This is an obvious misuse of the text and it’s verb. It says all who HAVE FAITH. Your quote represents a deceptive change of the text, including the verb form. You are mis-quoting the bible text to support your personal theory. Your claim that you are trained in greek, yet inability to see these very basic points is not encouraging nor does it enhance the credibility of your various theories and your multiple claims.



Billiardsball;

You quoted specific verses in Romans 3 as support for your theory, yet have repeatedly avoided answering the simple 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.” ?

You have been asked to answer this simple question many times and in multiple forms. Though readers can read and make their own decisions, Are you ready to simply admit to readers that these verses you offered in support of your theory that “momentary faith guarantees salvation” do not actually support your specific theory?


Clear
φισιακσεω

Hi Clear,

You are repeating the statement that I refuse to answer a question that I've answered several times. And yes, I don't think a backslidden Christian can rape and murder, and I find the scriptures support this understanding.

I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense like "have faith" and "are being saved" but you need the context. And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..." Either saving faith is utterly 24/7 or being born again is a one-time act with ongoing consequences. I might as well ask why you believe that someone can have 50-year-long, abiding faith and then be lost because of a momentary LACK of faith? Is that not the logical counterpoint of your question? You will say then, "Because that's not how it works, it's an overall kind of lifestyle thing" which breaks the ONGOING nature of the Greek. Please stop attempting to beat me over the head with the Greek until your own doctrine follows the actual Greek. All are saved by momentary faith, because God neither needs a lot of faith to be faithful, or He would be in denial of His own nature, and because we are saved by grace. Grace is beyond mercy and is a bestowal of unmerited favor. I think you think good, faithful people are saved but not bad people. How is that salvation by grace? It kind of sounds like the RCC to me, yes, and also Islam and a dozen other religions.

Since we are talking about the Lord, please do not demean the cross by calling it "push button". I was born again in a wonderful time and moment, but it wasn't anything but agony and difficulty for our Savior. Also, you are conflating salvation (a one-time occurrence, once for all) with sanctification (an ongoing process for believers and backsliders who are saved, but not apostates and hypocrites who are unsaved). We know God chose different words in the NT for different applications. I also don't understand the logical difficulty with being saved quickly instead of slowly. God made the world and all we see fairly rapidly. And you would say a righteous man lives by ongoing faith. And I would agree! Are you saying that one gets born again and then behaves faithfully by dint of effort or by the Spirit? Doesn't Paul also say "If by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live..."? How long did you or Thanda or I have ongoing, abiding faith before God empowered us to have such faith? I was a crumb, got saved. My life changed going forward. There are stumbles and stops and starts along the way for all. But I had to start somewhere (some when).

4. The individuals were not horrors, the horrors were the things inmates do inside, including professing belief where there is none. And again, if you can avoid sharing the weight of your anecdotal prison experience, I will also try to stick to canon Bible and LDS canon texts rather than my own anecdotal prison and other experience. Thanks.

5. I didn't say or imply that a murderer can never be saved in the future. I'm saying that the text says we know (or should know!) that someone who professes trust in Jesus then commits a murder isn't saved. Or do you really believe that everyone in the prison or elsewhere who told you "I love Christ!" or "I'm a Christian now!" really was telling the truth?

6. Again, context. We agree that the text says have ongoing faith. I will restate that the NT uses other similar verbs to indicate in clear context one-time actions with ongoing consequence. I will add that if once saved is always saved, the saved person always HAS faith, the more so since the Bible doesn't mention faith in anyone or anything but God, the Bible calls Christianity the faith and the way and so on.

Respectfully, Billiards Ball.

 

[Orontes]

If the penal model is unbiblical, why do you think thousands of Protestant and nondenominational sects, each of which culled the scriptures to form statements of faith, hold to it so closely?

Is my understanding of Moroni and Mormon tenets something I either accept or do not accept? The NT tenets are each authenticated by the apostles' OT exegesis and by OT prophecy.

Thanks.

Master Billiards,

I would assume most who hold to a penal model do so because it was what they were taught, the same way most hold to Original Sin. Neither the penal model or original sin are Biblical, neither are rational, but people hold to them out of tradition.


If one asserts an angelic visitation, or one asserts Moses parted the Red Sea, or Christ rose from the dead outside of personal experience there is a base level where one either accepts or no. The reason one accepts may be out of tradition (as I noted above: people often opt for the stance of the larger environment they are a part of), the position is part of a larger meme they agree with, there is an appeal to authority etc. Your statement that the NT tenets are authenticated by the apostles’ OT exegesis and OT prophecy is an appeal to authority: Judaism doesn’t accept such a view, because they reject the authority you are appealing to. Now Mormonism claims that all are able to receive a personal witness: personal revelation (that is personal experience) as to the veracity of truth claims about the Divine and the Gospel. Mormonism goes to the source: Deity for validation of truth claim X or Y.

 

[Orontes]

1. I don't appreciate what you are saying about me google-ing but misunderstanding Greek tragic referents. I believe I mentioned I began my Bachelor's in Religion with the emphasis on NT studies over two decades ago. I was avoiding a "battle" over Greek referents because a) Paul was being all things to all people b) Greek referents neither make the Bible open to interpretation nor inerrant.

2. Your statement in #2 above presupposes that the early fathers somehow wrote or collated the NT in hindsight. They did neither. They themselves had to start somewhere, and having started with the Bible itself, based on what you wrote, were themselves guilty of theological subjectivism.

3. I agree 100%. My point was more relating to Clear's harping on every word and tense when he (and you?) are saying Romans et al is not proscriptive, but descriptive, and without inerrancy, subjective.

4. There are so many unorthodoxies and heresies in the RCC it's hard to know where to begin. There was a Reformation because a doctrinal reformation was badly needed. Nor will I adhere to an ad populum "most Christians don't believe in penal substitution" because 1) most born agains do! 2) if I was looking for a popularity contest, I wouldn't have chosen to be a Messianic Jew.

5. If spiritual death is dependent on following/not following Christ, what did Christ die for? To redeem? To ransom? You have "not to substitute". Also, when I asked if God is unable to save bad people, I was not expecting your answer - bad people reject Christ, which implies that good people accept Christ. I think Romans says utterly the opposite, "there is no distinction... all fall short..." I'm kind of surprised by your response.

Please take my comments in the kind spirit in which they are intended. We should probably wrap on this soon. I'm achieving my desire to better understand LDS beliefs and practice, for which I'm appreciative.

Master Billiards,


Per 1) I’m happy to take you at your word. Answer then my question: why does Paul make the Medea reference in Romans 7 and again in 8? What is the point he is tying it to?


Per 2) you didn’t answer my question: (if you’re unconcerned with Early Christianity) by what matrix do you draw any conclusions, personal fancy? As to my statement, it doesn’t presuppose anything, I asked a question. As to the collation of the New Testament (NT), and the scriptures in general: it was very much ad hoc. One can see this by the base fact not all Christian sects agree or use the same texts. Protestant Bibles are not the Same as Catholic ones, neither are the same as Eastern Orthodox ones which are again different from say the Bible of the Ethiopic Church. The standard list of NT books was drawn up by Athanasius in the 4th Century. The larger tenor of creating such, appears very much in response to the canon the dubbed heretic Marcion had created.


Per3) I have never suggested the Book of Romans was inerrant. I have said I don’t think you understand it. The epistle is a quintessential example of Classical rhetoric, and I don’t think you are familiar with such. I base this on your many posts.

Per 4) My statement was not an ad populum. Rather it was a response to your statement that the Penal Model must surely color our understanding of the atonement. I was pointing out that it does not for literally billions of Christians. Further, the central thrust of my critique of the penal model has been that is it irrational and evil. You have not been able to reply to either charge. This led to my challenging you to adhere to the dictates of reason and abandon the absurdity, or abandon claims to a rational position. In an earlier post, you stated you were rational, therefore you should respond to this challenge directly. I don't think your loyalty to the penal model is rational. I'm not sure why you feel the need to cling to the obvious absurdity as you do, but it undercuts your claims to reason.


Per 5) Christ’s atonement is about allowing a chance for all to be at-one with Him and the Father, who are one (John 17). Labeling people good or bad is rather simplistic and has little value. The point I made was Christ is not able to save one who rejects Him. This is obvious. No one can be drug to heaven against their will. No one can be forced to be good. Both notions are absurdities. Recall the earlier reference to forgiveness. The concept of forgiveness, of necessity, means the individual has a role to play in the process. The key point is people must be participants in their own salvation. People cannot climb to heaven on their own, but must pursue the good to the degree they are able. In logical terms: it is a necessary, not a sufficient condition.

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ You are repeating the statement that I refuse to answer a question that I've answered several times.

The problem is that what you call “answers” have been Irrelevant or irrational or illogical. (For a good example of illogic, READ your comment in #3 below…)

What readers want is relevant, logical, and rational answers. For example, your "answer" that “other verbs” might indicate continuous effects is irrelevant since your specific claim that (that evil individuals are guaranteed heaven) regards FAITH and not “other verbs".

Is there ANYTHING in Romans 3:22-24 that supports your theory that a momentary sincere belief guarantees a Christian who then repudiates that belief and goes on to live a life of immorality and oppression and torture and rape of children will then go to Heaven with individuals like Abraham?

Billiardsball, IF, in 20 years from now, you end up as a pedophile who tortures and rapes children and who is a committed Satanist, will YOU still be guaranteed to be in heaven beside Abraham?



2) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And yes, I don't think a backslidden Christian can rape and murder, and I find the scriptures support this understanding.

The multiple Christians I referred to in my example expressed deep faith that Jesus was their savior when they were youths. Are you saying these Christians CAN have a deep and sincere faith in Jesus as their savior and NOT be saved before they repudiated the Christianity of their relatively innocent youth?



3) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense…”

This very bizarre admission simply says you are comfortable disregarding basic grammar to support your theory.

How does pretending a non-continuous verb is continuous (“ongoing” as you say) help your theory in the real world where language follows grammatical rules?

Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek?

To admit you must disregard correct grammar in order support your theory UNDERMINES, rather than supports your theory.



4) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..."

1) I do not know a single, legitimate translator who would intentionally render a present-tense verb in past tense or in future tense. Instead, they would be embarrassed to make that mistake.

You cannot possibly have studied greek and make this incredibly silly, strange, claim. On the planet where most of us lives, it makes a different whether our rent has been paid (past), is being paid (present continuous), or will be paid (future).

2) Tell us, who are these “many fine teachers” who are translators of greek that take a simple present continuous form of a verb and render it into a past or future form?

3) Give us examples where these “fine teachers” render Πιστεύω as a past or future without the original greek itself being a past or future form. To use your word Πιστεύω as an example : Πιστεύω appears ONLY 5 times in the New Testament (mk 9:24, Jn 9:38, Acts 8:37, Acts 27:25, 1Cor 11:18). In NONE of these textual occurrences, can Πιστεύω be properly rendered as a past or future verb such as “I did believe” or “had believed” or “I will, in the future, believe”.

You grammatical examples are becoming more erroneous, more irrational and more illogical. The accumulating errors and illogic do NOT build credibility in your claims, nor do they support your personal theory of momentary faith produces eternal salvation.
Do you still claim to forum members that you are trained in Greek?



5) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “All are saved by momentary faith, because God neither needs a lot of faith to be faithful,

Are you offering this comment in support of your theory, or against your theory?

Your conclusion is unrelated to your premise. Whether God “needs” a lot of faith or whether he "needs" no faith at all, he can require that any individual, have any type of faith that serves his purpose. This is yet another example of an irrelevant and illogical statement that does NOT support your theory that momentary faith guarantees Christian torturers and rapists and child molesting oppressors are guaranteed a place in heaven beside Abraham.



6) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “I think you think good, faithful people are saved but not bad people. How is that salvation by grace? It kind of sounds like the RCC to me, yes, and also Islam and a dozen other religions.

Again, you are making an illogical and erroneous assumption. Especially since I have not told you I believe these things. It feels like you want a create controversy to change the subject away from your theory.



7) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “Also, you are conflating salvation (a one-time occurrence, once for all) with sanctification (an ongoing process ….

I can agree with you that the act of actually entering heaven after judgement as a saved being is probably a discrete occurrence. However, in the early Christian movement, that specific, single event of entering heaven was inseparably tied to multiple prior processes such as faith, repentance, the action of the spirit on one’s own spirit, etc (other processes were involved in becoming sanctified in early Christian theology)

I believe Pauls' description of winning a race (i.e. being crowned winner as a single occurrence) occurring as a result of the process of running (as a longer process) has some demonstrative value in describing early Christian tradition.

When Paul says “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Tim 4:7) the imagery of running, as the indispensable process whereby one ultimately wins the prize is a simple but accurate model of the importance of one or more processes involved in achieving the goal of winning. Running was the necessary process to the occurrence of Winning. "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize." (1 Cor 9:24)



8) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ The individuals were not horrors, the horrors were the things inmates do inside, including professing belief where there is none. And again, if you can avoid sharing the weight of your anecdotal prison experience, I will also try to stick to canon Bible and LDS canon texts rather than my own anecdotal prison and other experience. Thanks.

Why do you feel qualified in dismissing other Christians in their belief in this way?
Do you think you are actually qualified to judge and then dismiss the sincerity of several thousand children who later became prison inmates from your armchair; without meeting them; without talking to them; without coming to know them on any level other than to know they are in prison? Really?

What if, in 20 years, you turn out to be one of these inmates, having done some terrible acts. Do we then simply disregard your present, honest claims to believe?

Your own claim to be a believing Christian is, itself, anecdotal and not based on scientific evidence or objective analysis by another person. To simply dismiss the claims of an entire population because it disagrees with your religious theory is strange.


9) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I didn't say or imply that a murderer can never be saved in the future. I'm saying that the text says we know (or should know!) that someone who professes trust in Jesus then commits a murder isn't saved.

Then your point that “ALL” can be saved by momentary faith cannot be correct. If your theory that "backsliders" can be saved, but "apostates and hypocrites" cannot be saved, these are further exceptions to your theory that "ALL" are saved. These represent additional leaks to this sinking theory.



10) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ Or do you really believe that everyone in the prison or elsewhere who told you "I love Christ!" or "I'm a Christian now!" really was telling the truth?

I believe some of them are as trustable in some of their claims to belief in God and Jesus as you have been with the forum in some of your claims to belief in God and Jesus.



Billiardsball, I honestly hope you have a good spiritual journey in this life.

Clear
φιακνεφιω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

I would assume most who hold to a penal model do so because it was what they were taught, the same way most hold to Original Sin. Neither the penal model or original sin are Biblical, neither are rational, but people hold to them out of tradition.


If one asserts an angelic visitation, or one asserts Moses parted the Red Sea, or Christ rose from the dead outside of personal experience there is a base level where one either accepts or no. The reason one accepts may be out of tradition (as I noted above: people often opt for the stance of the larger environment they are a part of), the position is part of a larger meme they agree with, there is an appeal to authority etc. Your statement that the NT tenets are authenticated by the apostles’ OT exegesis and OT prophecy is an appeal to authority: Judaism doesn’t accept such a view, because they reject the authority you are appealing to. Now Mormonism claims that all are able to receive a personal witness: personal revelation (that is personal experience) as to the veracity of truth claims about the Divine and the Gospel. Mormonism goes to the source: Deity for validation of truth claim X or Y.

And you are continuing to assume I hold to a penal model as taught to me, forgetting that I am a Jew who converted as an adult after seeing the action Christ undertook on my behalf.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,


Per 1) I’m happy to take you at your word. Answer then my question: why does Paul make the Medea reference in Romans 7 and again in 8? What is the point he is tying it to?


Per 2) you didn’t answer my question: (if you’re unconcerned with Early Christianity) by what matrix do you draw any conclusions, personal fancy? As to my statement, it doesn’t presuppose anything, I asked a question. As to the collation of the New Testament (NT), and the scriptures in general: it was very much ad hoc. One can see this by the base fact not all Christian sects agree or use the same texts. Protestant Bibles are not the Same as Catholic ones, neither are the same as Eastern Orthodox ones which are again different from say the Bible of the Ethiopic Church. The standard list of NT books was drawn up by Athanasius in the 4th Century. The larger tenor of creating such, appears very much in response to the canon the dubbed heretic Marcion had created.


Per3) I have never suggested the Book of Romans was inerrant. I have said I don’t think you understand it. The epistle is a quintessential example of Classical rhetoric, and I don’t think you are familiar with such. I base this on your many posts.

Per 4) My statement was not an ad populum. Rather it was a response to your statement that the Penal Model must surely color our understanding of the atonement. I was pointing out that it does not for literally billions of Christians. Further, the central thrust of my critique of the penal model has been that is it irrational and evil. You have not been able to reply to either charge. This led to my challenging you to adhere to the dictates of reason and abandon the absurdity, or abandon claims to a rational position. In an earlier post, you stated you were rational, therefore you should respond to this challenge directly. I don't think your loyalty to the penal model is rational. I'm not sure why you feel the need to cling to the obvious absurdity as you do, but it undercuts your claims to reason.


Per 5) Christ’s atonement is about allowing a chance for all to be at-one with Him and the Father, who are one (John 17). Labeling people good or bad is rather simplistic and has little value. The point I made was Christ is not able to save one who rejects Him. This is obvious. No one can be drug to heaven against their will. No one can be forced to be good. Both notions are absurdities. Recall the earlier reference to forgiveness. The concept of forgiveness, of necessity, means the individual has a role to play in the process. The key point is people must be participants in their own salvation. People cannot climb to heaven on their own, but must pursue the good to the degree they are able. In logical terms: it is a necessary, not a sufficient condition.

No, I'm sorry. I was studying Romans 10 this week and saw 11 OT quotations in it. I will repeat that Paul was using some Greek referents to help convey to the Gentile mind the duality he was experiencing, the rending of his soul at his inability to obey in his flesh what he obeyed in his mind.

The penal model rests--of necessity--on a classic understanding of the trinity. I now understand that Mormons have different views on this and other matters. That's fine. I'm not looking to beat a dead horse. I was invited here by Katzpur to learn and we've shifted topics. Likely my fault, for which I apologize. But I'd like to say that when someone pushes you out of the path of a moving bus than gets hit by the bus, we respond with gratitude for a salvific act without protesting the injustice of someone taking our punishment. You can rescue someone from death without it being tied to punishment and legality. That's why the penal model should be not at issue between us.

My matrix of understanding rests upon the scriptures and the promise of God to inspire true believers to comprehend and interpret the scriptures. Your framework likely includes that but the apparent acceptance that the first extant commentary(s) on a scriptural matter are definitive. You know what's older than some of the early Christian sources you and Clear have cited? Apocrypha, no doubt influenced by Satan. I read Marcion and Tertullian with the same eye regardless of whether they are considered definitive or heretics, for we are not to despise a word of prophecy but weigh it against the scriptures for truth.

Feel free to state your position/assumptions about the Medea reference because you haven't. I will again say by echoing classic literature and stories Paul is helping his audience "get" that we are wretched people saved by God though Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ You are repeating the statement that I refuse to answer a question that I've answered several times.

The problem is that what you call “answers” have been Irrelevant or irrational or illogical. (For a good example of illogic, READ your comment in #3 below…)

What readers want is relevant, logical, and rational answers. For example, your "answer" that “other verbs” might indicate continuous effects is irrelevant since your specific claim that (that evil individuals are guaranteed heaven) regards FAITH and not “other verbs".

Is there ANYTHING in Romans 3:22-24 that supports your theory that a momentary sincere belief guarantees a Christian who then repudiates that belief and goes on to live a life of immorality and oppression and torture and rape of children will then go to Heaven with individuals like Abraham?

Billiardsball, IF, in 20 years from now, you end up as a pedophile who tortures and rapes children and who is a committed Satanist, will YOU still be guaranteed to be in heaven beside Abraham?

**Well, perhaps you can show me in Romans 3:22-24 where it discusses someone who repudiates belief? I can't think of a statement in the whole chapter that discusses repudiating belief. Nor do I understand why you feel the necessity to use an emotional argument rather than a scriptural one. We should be discussing the mechanism of salvation rather than your ire at God's choices as to whom He saves. And your question presupposes a number of things. 1) I will not be a pedophile because I'm thankful for my salvation. 2) Romans also says, "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Is this a perpetual, ongoing lifestyle of calling or a one-time request? If I study in a library for several days and do not call upon the Lord aloud for sake of other students, have I lost my salvation? You simply cannot assault my understanding that salvation involves a once-for-all choice unless you can defend how the Greek or English says "lifestyle, mostly, much of the time" rather than "always".


2) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And yes, I don't think a backslidden Christian can rape and murder, and I find the scriptures support this understanding.

The multiple Christians I referred to in my example expressed deep faith that Jesus was their savior when they were youths. Are you saying these Christians CAN have a deep and sincere faith in Jesus as their savior and NOT be saved before they repudiated the Christianity of their relatively innocent youth?

No. I'm rather questioning how they knew and more importantly, you knew that their childhood faith was sincere.



3) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense…”

This very bizarre admission simply says you are comfortable disregarding basic grammar to support your theory.

How does pretending a non-continuous verb is continuous (“ongoing” as you say) help your theory in the real world where language follows grammatical rules?

Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek?

To admit you must disregard correct grammar in order support your theory UNDERMINES, rather than supports your theory.

**Sorry, you are wholly unaware of the differences between have and have had and has in English?



4) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..."

1) I do not know a single, legitimate translator who would intentionally render a present-tense verb in past tense or in future tense. Instead, they would be embarrassed to make that mistake.

You cannot possibly have studied greek and make this incredibly silly, strange, claim. On the planet where most of us lives, it makes a different whether our rent has been paid (past), is being paid (present continuous), or will be paid (future).

2) Tell us, who are these “many fine teachers” who are translators of greek that take a simple present continuous form of a verb and render it into a past or future form?

3) Give us examples where these “fine teachers” render Πιστεύω as a past or future without the original greek itself being a past or future form. To use your word Πιστεύω as an example : Πιστεύω appears ONLY 5 times in the New Testament (mk 9:24, Jn 9:38, Acts 8:37, Acts 27:25, 1Cor 11:18). In NONE of these textual occurrences, can Πιστεύω be properly rendered as a past or future verb such as “I did believe” or “had believed” or “I will, in the future, believe”.

You grammatical examples are becoming more erroneous, more irrational and more illogical. The accumulating errors and illogic do NOT build credibility in your claims, nor do they support your personal theory of momentary faith produces eternal salvation.
Do you still claim to forum members that you are trained in Greek?

**It is disingenuous of you to make claims regarding the ongoing nature of faith in salvation since both of us know that many fine translators and expositors look at pisteuo and the aorist tense and context and other things and conclude salvation is done via a one-time choice of faith, not an ongoing faith. I admit for my part that many fine Greek scholars--including you--believe it is an ongoing, continual, perpetual unto death faith. I don't take away from your intelligence in recognizing this fact. However, you are not admitting the context--the unsaved Greek reader can read John 3:16 or etc. and trust Christ THERE AND THEN. You are assuming, as many fine but misguided people do, that the entire Bible is written for Christians only. It is not.



5) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “All are saved by momentary faith, because God neither needs a lot of faith to be faithful,

Are you offering this comment in support of your theory, or against your theory?

Your conclusion is unrelated to your premise. Whether God “needs” a lot of faith or whether he "needs" no faith at all, he can require that any individual, have any type of faith that serves his purpose. This is yet another example of an irrelevant and illogical statement that does NOT support your theory that momentary faith guarantees Christian torturers and rapists and child molesting oppressors are guaranteed a place in heaven beside Abraham.

**I see you've dropped Christian murderers from your list, probably in recognition of John's statement, "we know no murderer has the Spirit of Christ". Momentary faith, if it is the kind of faith I'm thinking of, where one is born again, does allow someone to backslide and remain saved. However, by suggesting that backslidden people can become torturers and rapists, you are ignoring the fact I've stated several times over already--when you know you're saved, gratitude, is the natural response.



6) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “I think you think good, faithful people are saved but not bad people. How is that salvation by grace? It kind of sounds like the RCC to me, yes, and also Islam and a dozen other religions.

Again, you are making an illogical and erroneous assumption. Especially since I have not told you I believe these things. It feels like you want a create controversy to change the subject away from your theory.

**I apologize. But it sure does sound like you are judging people based on their works. Would you like some scripture references on this subject, against your practice?



7) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “Also, you are conflating salvation (a one-time occurrence, once for all) with sanctification (an ongoing process ….

I can agree with you that the act of actually entering heaven after judgement as a saved being is probably a discrete occurrence. However, in the early Christian movement, that specific, single event of entering heaven was inseparably tied to multiple prior processes such as faith, repentance, the action of the spirit on one’s own spirit, etc (other processes were involved in becoming sanctified in early Christian theology)

I believe Pauls' description of winning a race (i.e. being crowned winner as a single occurrence) occurring as a result of the process of running (as a longer process) has some demonstrative value in describing early Christian tradition.

When Paul says “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Tim 4:7) the imagery of running, as the indispensable process whereby one ultimately wins the prize is a simple but accurate model of the importance of one or more processes involved in achieving the goal of winning. Running was the necessary process to the occurrence of Winning. "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize." (1 Cor 9:24)

**Sure, Paul kept THE Christian faith, not HIS faith. He contended for the faith and ran a race. Unfortunately, if what you say is proscriptive as well as descriptive, only ONE person ever could be saved because only ONE gets the prize.



8) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ The individuals were not horrors, the horrors were the things inmates do inside, including professing belief where there is none. And again, if you can avoid sharing the weight of your anecdotal prison experience, I will also try to stick to canon Bible and LDS canon texts rather than my own anecdotal prison and other experience. Thanks.

Why do you feel qualified in dismissing other Christians in their belief in this way?
Do you think you are actually qualified to judge and then dismiss the sincerity of several thousand children who later became prison inmates from your armchair; without meeting them; without talking to them; without coming to know them on any level other than to know they are in prison? Really?

What if, in 20 years, you turn out to be one of these inmates, having done some terrible acts. Do we then simply disregard your present, honest claims to believe?

Your own claim to be a believing Christian is, itself, anecdotal and not based on scientific evidence or objective analysis by another person. To simply dismiss the claims of an entire population because it disagrees with your religious theory is strange.

**Did you mean to use the word "entire"? Are you saying EVERY convict you worked with who claimed to be a Christian or to have been a Christian was sincere? Can you be the only person I know in prison ministry who takes what prisoners say without a grain of salt? Again, you are not being logical. MY Christian testimony is anecdotal but YOURS isn't? Please be consistent.


9) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I didn't say or imply that a murderer can never be saved in the future. I'm saying that the text says we know (or should know!) that someone who professes trust in Jesus then commits a murder isn't saved.

Then your point that “ALL” can be saved by momentary faith cannot be correct. If your theory that "backsliders" can be saved, but "apostates and hypocrites" cannot be saved, these are further exceptions to your theory that "ALL" are saved. These represent additional leaks to this sinking theory.

**I see you were indeed not conversant with these terms. A backslider is never described in scripture as an apostate or hypocrite and vice versa. A Christian can backslide. "Return, oh backslidden Israel, for I am wed to you, says the Lord..." But while a hypocrite may someday convert, Jesus told the Pharisees they were hypocrites and many later converted, someone who is a hypocrite or apostate isn't a Christian.



10) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ Or do you really believe that everyone in the prison or elsewhere who told you "I love Christ!" or "I'm a Christian now!" really was telling the truth?

I believe some of them are as trustable in some of their claims to belief in God and Jesus as you have been with the forum in some of your claims to belief in God and Jesus.

**Well, and they didn't get away with their crimes. They were in prison. I guess God knows what He's doing.



Billiardsball, I honestly hope you have a good spiritual journey in this life.

Clear
φιακνεφιω

 

[Orontes]

And you are continuing to assume I hold to a penal model as taught to me, forgetting that I am a Jew who converted as an adult after seeing the action Christ undertook on my behalf.

Master Billiards,

Your question to me was why so many different sects (thousands was your word) hold to the Penal Model. My answer was to that, not your individual journey.

 

[Orontes]

No, I'm sorry. I was studying Romans 10 this week and saw 11 OT quotations in it. I will repeat that Paul was using some Greek referents to help convey to the Gentile mind the duality he was experiencing, the rending of his soul at his inability to obey in his flesh what he obeyed in his mind.

The penal model rests--of necessity--on a classic understanding of the trinity. I now understand that Mormons have different views on this and other matters. That's fine. I'm not looking to beat a dead horse. I was invited here by Katzpur to learn and we've shifted topics. Likely my fault, for which I apologize. But I'd like to say that when someone pushes you out of the path of a moving bus than gets hit by the bus, we respond with gratitude for a salvific act without protesting the injustice of someone taking our punishment. You can rescue someone from death without it being tied to punishment and legality. That's why the penal model should be not at issue between us.

My matrix of understanding rests upon the scriptures and the promise of God to inspire true believers to comprehend and interpret the scriptures. Your framework likely includes that but the apparent acceptance that the first extant commentary(s) on a scriptural matter are definitive. You know what's older than some of the early Christian sources you and Clear have cited? Apocrypha, no doubt influenced by Satan. I read Marcion and Tertullian with the same eye regardless of whether they are considered definitive or heretics, for we are not to despise a word of prophecy but weigh it against the scriptures for truth.

Master Billiards,

Pushing someone out of the way of an coming bus, and quite possibly dying in the act of saving another, is not the penal model. The Penal Model is based on a justified punishment for wrong action (sin). Because God is just, one must pay the price for the breech. Christ offers Himself instead of the actual sinner. Christ suffers, the sinner goes free. The gratitude of the sinner is not the relevant element. The criticism and flaw in the penal model is it is unjust. Recall the parallel example I gave you before: if, for example, you had committed murder and were condemned to die for it. Your brother steps forward. He says because he loves you, he will accept your punishment so you can go free. The love of your brother, your gratitude for his sacrifice are not the issue. The problem is justice has not been satisfied: the guilty one is fee and an innocent suffered. The Penal Model fails to establish a just system. It sets up an evil model in its place.


The vast bulk of Christians are Trinitarian. Most do not hold to a Penal Model. I don’t think trinitarianism is relevant to the Penal Model.


Note: I don't see any commentaries as definitive. The reason Clear or I have made any reference to extra Biblical material that derive from the same early Christian Time Period, is only to demonstrate the larger belief system that existed at the time. This is helpful and relevant because if someone assets X as the truth, then one can look if others held to that same position. Being able to trace the genealogy of an idea is beneficial. If there is no traceable theoretical genealogy, that tells you something about the idea and it would need to justify itself along different criteria.


You see the Apocrypha as inspired by Satan? That's interesting. You do realize the Septuagint included the Apocrypha: the same Greek Bible Paul used? It became the scripture used by Greek Christianity up to the Present. The Apocrypha was also used in the Latin Christian Tradition. It was part of Luther's Bible. It was part of the King James Version and only vanished from Bible publications in the U.S. in the 19th Century because it fell out of fashion.

 

[Orontes]

Feel free to state your position/assumptions about the Medea reference because you haven't. I will again say by echoing classic literature and stories Paul is helping his audience "get" that we are wretched people saved by God though Jesus Christ.

(I split this reply because I think I would run into space issues)

To Romans:

The passage: Romans 7: 19-25 and Romans 8: 1-2

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.​

You seem to think Paul speaks as a victim of his own sinful nature: constantly born down by the evils of the flesh. This wretched man can only hope for the redeemer Christ to pull him from his despair. And thus we can see it is not anything Paul, as a fallen man can do (and thus reject the pride of any works based approach), but only through Christ that any hope is possible.

The exegesis:

Context does not simply mean the verses that surround a chosen passage or even the book or the Bible proper, but actually entails the entire socio-cultural milieu any piece of literature was written in. The Greco-Roman World is the context. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was fully able to communicate to a Greek speaking audience on their own terms. A simple example would be his referencing the Greek poet Aratus when speaking to the Aeropagus on Mars Hill (Book of Acts). In Romans a similar tact is taken.

The idea Paul is speaking of his own personal travails as a sinner is an anachronistic reading of the text that is only possible by one divorced from the linguistic-cultural context of the passage. It also ignores the use of prosopopoeia that you referenced earlier. I'll illustrate: if I asked what does "to be or not to be" mean? Some might give a response on existential angst. Most would tie it to Shakespeare. Some may even tie it to Hamlet. The above phrasing from verse 19 would have a similar impact on a Greek speaking audience. The phrase is a Medean turn. What does that mean? It refers to Medea from Greek Tragedy just before she kills her children because of her anger at her husband.* The phrase is most commonly found in Euripides's "Medea':

"I am being overcome by evils. I know that what I am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection "

It can also be found in the larger Maeda literature of contemporary's and near contemporaries of Paul. For example. Epictetus:

"What he wants to do he doesn't do, and what he doesn't want he does."

Ovid's Medea:

I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse"

Verse 24's phrase Paul's uses is almost an exact phrasing of his contemporary Seneca who wrote in his Medea Tragedy:

"O wretched woman that I am!" The phrase is "talaiporos ego anthropos".

What is going on here? Why would Paul refer to a figure from Greek myth and why this specific phrasing? The reason is because the figure of Medea and the phrasing was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to illustrate akrasia which refers to weakness of the will or lack of self-mastery. Attaining self-mastery was a central principle in Greek and Roman Thought. This is why writers in Athens would often sing the praises of their mortal enemies the Spartans (often seen as those most able at self-mastery). It is one of the reasons why Stoicism became the dominant ethos of the early Roman Empire. It is also why Greco-Romans might become interested in Jewish Thought. The Law of Moses was portrayed as a vehicle for self-mastery (Philo of Alexandria is a simple example of this). What Paul is skillfully doing in the passage is both showing how it is pathe that leads to wrong doing (hamartein), but also he is engaging in a trope when he turns the notion back on his audience. "Medea" was used as an illustration of the dangers of the foreign: the evils that can occur when the other is let within. The Romans/Greeks were very aware of the barbarian ( barbarorum) and sought to maintain the divide. Only a barbarian (like Medea) would kill their own children as revenge on their spouse. Paul's use turns the Romans/Greeks into the other vis-a-vis the Law of Moses. They are compared to the foreign Medea, the ones who have gone against the good and corrupted themselves. Once this is established, Paul then is able to show it is not adherence to a foreign law of Moses that will bring self-mastery, but rather through Christ via the spirit.

The Conclusion

Now what you should notice is there is none of the stark divide between a grace vs. works dynamic which is a complete misreading of Paul's rhetoric. This also means that the very question of a "gospel of grace" is a failure to understand the text and ties into a larger mistaken Justification Theology that makes stark distinction between the saved and the other. This is common with Evangelical readings because they approach Paul as a believer and then begin to mine the text as a believer, rather than understanding who the text was actually written for and the rhetoric employed. The problem is then compounded by the base unfamiliarity with Greco-Roman Thought. The rub is basically that for the Greco-Roman, as for the Mormon, Paul's work was/is concerned with bringing the person into a relation with Deity, not drawing arbitrary justification lines in the sand and declaring who is saved or not.


*Maeda appears in the Epic” Argonautica” that tells the story of Jason and the Argonauts. Maeda is the princess living in Colchis that has the golden fleece. She falls in love with Jason and helps him steal the fleece. The key element is she is a non-Greek. The Tragedy begins years after the fleece story where Maeda has been with Jason for several years, they have two children and Jason is flirting with the idea of divorcing his wife to marry a princess.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

Pushing someone out of the way of an coming bus, and quite possibly dying in the act of saving another, is not the penal model. The Penal Model is based on a justified punishment for wrong action (sin). Because God is just, one must pay the price for the breech. Christ offers Himself instead of the actual sinner. Christ suffers, the sinner goes free. The gratitude of the sinner is not the relevant element. The criticism and flaw in the penal model is it is unjust. Recall the parallel example I gave you before: if, for example, you had committed murder and were condemned to die for it. Your brother steps forward. He says because he loves you, he will accept your punishment so you can go free. The love of your brother, your gratitude for his sacrifice are not the issue. The problem is justice has not been satisfied: the guilty one is fee and an innocent suffered. The Penal Model fails to establish a just system. It sets up an evil model in its place.


The vast bulk of Christians are Trinitarian. Most do not hold to a Penal Model. I don’t think trinitarianism is relevant to the Penal Model.


Note: I don't see any commentaries as definitive. The reason Clear or I have made any reference to extra Biblical material that derive from the same early Christian Time Period, is only to demonstrate the larger belief system that existed at the time. This is helpful and relevant because if someone assets X as the truth, then one can look if others held to that same position. Being able to trace the genealogy of an idea is beneficial. If there is no traceable theoretical genealogy, that tells you something about the idea and it would need to justify itself along different criteria.


You see the Apocrypha as inspired by Satan? That's interesting. You do realize the Septuagint included the Apocrypha: the same Greek Bible Paul used? It became the scripture used by Greek Christianity up to the Present. The Apocrypha was also used in the Latin Christian Tradition. It was part of Luther's Bible. It was part of the King James Version and only vanished from Bible publications in the U.S. in the 19th Century because it fell out of fashion.

Why stick to a penal model then, if we feel it is illogical? We could have ransom theory, debt theory, etc. and I can see where the scriptures support varied models. I would venture that we still have two problems:

If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit, how will sinners expiate their sin? How will we atone? How will we escape the judgment of God and Hell?

If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit/if guilt may not transfer, why does the Bible state both that animals must die in response to human sin (including "guilt" offerings) and that Christ's death has ended and replaced this sacrificial system?

I don't want to go on an apocrypha tangent, but there is more you need to know:

*In the case of intertestamental apocrypha, the church councils knew the Jews didn't believe a lot of it either

*The OT says 6,000 (?) times "This is the word of the Lord" and the apocrypha contains zero such statements--indeed it says things like "Here is wisdom my grandfather taught me"

*The NT contains hundreds of OT quotations and arguably one or two apocryphal quotations--unless we've misdated Enoch and etc. to be before and not after the NT writings

*The apocrypha contains violent and grotesque incidents that arguably go beyond the scriptures' retelling of events

*Paul quoting Septuagint does not imply his affirmation of the apocrypha as truth

*The Latin Christian tradition is responsible for the martyrdom of perhaps as many as five million biblicists, the crusades, the inquisitions, the persecution of the Jewish people, the forbidding of scripture translations and readings in the vernacular, etc. not to mention simony, papal abuses, etc. that instigated the reformers -- the fact that the RCC and Greek Orthodox adhere to the apocrypha is a great reason not to believe it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

(I split this reply because I think I would run into space issues)

To Romans:

The passage: Romans 7: 19-25 and Romans 8: 1-2

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.​

You seem to think Paul speaks as a victim of his own sinful nature: constantly born down by the evils of the flesh. This wretched man can only hope for the redeemer Christ to pull him from his despair. And thus we can see it is not anything Paul, as a fallen man can do (and thus reject the pride of any works based approach), but only through Christ that any hope is possible.

The exegesis:

Context does not simply mean the verses that surround a chosen passage or even the book or the Bible proper, but actually entails the entire socio-cultural milieu any piece of literature was written in. The Greco-Roman World is the context. Paul as a Hellenized Jew was fully able to communicate to a Greek speaking audience on their own terms. A simple example would be his referencing the Greek poet Aratus when speaking to the Aeropagus on Mars Hill (Book of Acts). In Romans a similar tact is taken.

The idea Paul is speaking of his own personal travails as a sinner is an anachronistic reading of the text that is only possible by one divorced from the linguistic-cultural context of the passage. It also ignores the use of prosopopoeia that you referenced earlier. I'll illustrate: if I asked what does "to be or not to be" mean? Some might give a response on existential angst. Most would tie it to Shakespeare. Some may even tie it to Hamlet. The above phrasing from verse 19 would have a similar impact on a Greek speaking audience. The phrase is a Medean turn. What does that mean? It refers to Medea from Greek Tragedy just before she kills her children because of her anger at her husband.* The phrase is most commonly found in Euripides's "Medea':

"I am being overcome by evils. I know that what I am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection "

It can also be found in the larger Maeda literature of contemporary's and near contemporaries of Paul. For example. Epictetus:

"What he wants to do he doesn't do, and what he doesn't want he does."

Ovid's Medea:

I see the better and approve it, but I follow the worse"

Verse 24's phrase Paul's uses is almost an exact phrasing of his contemporary Seneca who wrote in his Medea Tragedy:

"O wretched woman that I am!" The phrase is "talaiporos ego anthropos".

What is going on here? Why would Paul refer to a figure from Greek myth and why this specific phrasing? The reason is because the figure of Medea and the phrasing was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to illustrate akrasia which refers to weakness of the will or lack of self-mastery. Attaining self-mastery was a central principle in Greek and Roman Thought. This is why writers in Athens would often sing the praises of their mortal enemies the Spartans (often seen as those most able at self-mastery). It is one of the reasons why Stoicism became the dominant ethos of the early Roman Empire. It is also why Greco-Romans might become interested in Jewish Thought. The Law of Moses was portrayed as a vehicle for self-mastery (Philo of Alexandria is a simple example of this). What Paul is skillfully doing in the passage is both showing how it is pathe that leads to wrong doing (hamartein), but also he is engaging in a trope when he turns the notion back on his audience. "Medea" was used as an illustration of the dangers of the foreign: the evils that can occur when the other is let within. The Romans/Greeks were very aware of the barbarian ( barbarorum) and sought to maintain the divide. Only a barbarian (like Medea) would kill their own children as revenge on their spouse. Paul's use turns the Romans/Greeks into the other vis-a-vis the Law of Moses. They are compared to the foreign Medea, the ones who have gone against the good and corrupted themselves. Once this is established, Paul then is able to show it is not adherence to a foreign law of Moses that will bring self-mastery, but rather through Christ via the spirit.

The Conclusion

Now what you should notice is there is none of the stark divide between a grace vs. works dynamic which is a complete misreading of Paul's rhetoric. This also means that the very question of a "gospel of grace" is a failure to understand the text and ties into a larger mistaken Justification Theology that makes stark distinction between the saved and the other. This is common with Evangelical readings because they approach Paul as a believer and then begin to mine the text as a believer, rather than understanding who the text was actually written for and the rhetoric employed. The problem is then compounded by the base unfamiliarity with Greco-Roman Thought. The rub is basically that for the Greco-Roman, as for the Mormon, Paul's work was/is concerned with bringing the person into a relation with Deity, not drawing arbitrary justification lines in the sand and declaring who is saved or not.


*Maeda appears in the Epic” Argonautica” that tells the story of Jason and the Argonauts. Maeda is the princess living in Colchis that has the golden fleece. She falls in love with Jason and helps him steal the fleece. The key element is she is a non-Greek. The Tragedy begins years after the fleece story where Maeda has been with Jason for several years, they have two children and Jason is flirting with the idea of divorcing his wife to marry a princess.

I understand. There are entire books written by scholars on these aspects of understanding Paul. A "barbarian" was not a Greek, a Greek was not a Jew, Paul was obligated "both to Greeks and to barbarians" and sets this up in Romans 1.

However, although Paul recommends self-mastery elsewhere, as in "the spirit of a prophet is subject to the prophet", it appears to readers a little differently, not only because they are assuming a text about salvation as you wrote, but because Paul says, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ who will save me FROM the body of this death" and not "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ who will save me IN this body [self-mastery]".

I do admit my notions regarding eschatology also influence my reading of Romans. How is it/when is it that ALL Israel WILL BE saved AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? Not "some" Israel because some in Israel were already called and some were hardened... unfortunately some religious groups spiritualize racial, national Israel with the statement that "He is a Jew who is one inwardly" twisted to become Christians and the church, when the next chapter asks "What advantage has the Jew... theirs are the oracles of God..." and in a later chapter, "...the adoptions as sons... the COVENANTS, the GIVING OF THE LAW... the TEMPLE SERVICE and the promises whose are the patriarchs... from WHOM is the Christ..." Eschatology teaches a literal war on a literal plain of Meggido, a literal return of Messiah and then ALL Israel will be saved... to self-mastery? Why is self-mastery rather than redemption with an infilling of the Holy Spirit required in the END?

...And I'm not debating your understanding of the Romans text, but the question arises, how did Abraham achieve self-mastery rather than salvation believing God for descendants while he was yet uncircumcised (4)? He immediately went out with Hagar and made his own progeny that was not Issac. Again, Romans reminds us that not all Israel are Israel... through Issac [and Jacob] your descendants will be named...

Thanks for your patience with me. I still think Paul is using choice phrases to be all things to all people, to win some.

 

[Orontes]

Why stick to a penal model then, if we feel it is illogical? We could have ransom theory, debt theory, etc. and I can see where the scriptures support varied models. I would venture that we still have two problems:

If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit, how will sinners expiate their sin? How will we atone? How will we escape the judgment of God and Hell?

If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit/if guilt may not transfer, why does the Bible state both that animals must die in response to human sin (including "guilt" offerings) and that Christ's death has ended and replaced this sacrificial system?

I don't want to go on an apocrypha tangent, but there is more you need to know:

*In the case of intertestamental apocrypha, the church councils knew the Jews didn't believe a lot of it either

*The OT says 6,000 (?) times "This is the word of the Lord" and the apocrypha contains zero such statements--indeed it says things like "Here is wisdom my grandfather taught me"

*The NT contains hundreds of OT quotations and arguably one or two apocryphal quotations--unless we've misdated Enoch and etc. to be before and not after the NT writings

*The apocrypha contains violent and grotesque incidents that arguably go beyond the scriptures' retelling of events

*Paul quoting Septuagint does not imply his affirmation of the apocrypha as truth

*The Latin Christian tradition is responsible for the martyrdom of perhaps as many as five million biblicists, the crusades, the inquisitions, the persecution of the Jewish people, the forbidding of scripture translations and readings in the vernacular, etc. not to mention simony, papal abuses, etc. that instigated the reformers -- the fact that the RCC and Greek Orthodox adhere to the apocrypha is a great reason not to believe it.

Master Billiards,

I pointed out several atonement models earlier in the thread, so I agree there are many to choose from. The Penal Model is deeply flawed and in fact an evil model for the reasons I noted previously. Other models may be inadequate to the task, but they aren't necessarily evil. To your two questions:

1)If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit, how will sinners expiate their sin? How will we atone? How will we escape the judgment of God and Hell?

2) If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit/if guilt may not transfer, why does the Bible state both that animals must die in response to human sin (including "guilt" offerings) and that Christ's death has ended and replaced this sacrificial system?​

Per 1): The expiation of sin begins with repentance The penitent soul has turned from the dark and to a better path. In and through this turn, they open themselves to Christ. Christ then can take on their pain and suffering (not as an appeasement for an arbitrary notion of Divine justice that must be placated, but because Christ loves us and is willing to share in all the darkness that is us in order to have an eternal relationship of love). In other words: the escape from damnation, and the stagnant self absorption entailed in such, begins in opening to a relation with another. That ultimate other is Christ who uniquely can reach into our very core and experience all that is us. He reaches out to us, knowing the pain such a relationship will cause Him, but still reaches out. For the atonement to have full effect, we must accept His hand.

Per 2) Animal sacrifice in the OT doesn't have a literal power to remove sin. Sacrificial animal death doesn't have magical powers. Animal sacrifice was a similitude of the coming sacrifice of Christ. It, like the whole of the Law of Moses, was meant to remind and prepare those for a higher law. Per the verb transfer: I would prefer the word compassion, as in its root meaning "suffer with". Our sins are shared by Christ, when we turn to Him and thus the burden lightened, and then removed. Christ via the spirit can take on all our grief, loneliness, sorrow etc. because He can feel all of it. If however, we refuse a relationship with Christ, all that same pain and guilt remains with us and the consequences thereof. The atonement is an at-one-ment, if we turn from it, then the ramifications of our actions remain with us. Note: this is not a one time affair, any more than our life is a single instance. This life is a probationary state where we are given the opportunity to experience good and evil and decide. Our decisions run through our life.

As to the Aprocrypha: I don't hold it as scripture, but I don't think it is evil either. Your hostility to Catholicism and Orthodoxy is interesting. I'm not sure what a "biblicist" is. Are these Protestants? If you're referring to the deaths from the wars of religion after the Reformation commenced, you should note that Protestant armies were equally bloodthirsty. The Peasants War during the time of Luther or The Thirty Years War are simple examples.

 

[Orontes]

I understand. There are entire books written by scholars on these aspects of understanding Paul. A "barbarian" was not a Greek, a Greek was not a Jew, Paul was obligated "both to Greeks and to barbarians" and sets this up in Romans 1.

However, although Paul recommends self-mastery elsewhere, as in "the spirit of a prophet is subject to the prophet", it appears to readers a little differently, not only because they are assuming a text about salvation as you wrote, but because Paul says, "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ who will save me FROM the body of this death" and not "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ who will save me IN this body [self-mastery]".

I do admit my notions regarding eschatology also influence my reading of Romans. How is it/when is it that ALL Israel WILL BE saved AFTER the fullness of the Gentiles has come in? Not "some" Israel because some in Israel were already called and some were hardened... unfortunately some religious groups spiritualize racial, national Israel with the statement that "He is a Jew who is one inwardly" twisted to become Christians and the church, when the next chapter asks "What advantage has the Jew... theirs are the oracles of God..." and in a later chapter, "...the adoptions as sons... the COVENANTS, the GIVING OF THE LAW... the TEMPLE SERVICE and the promises whose are the patriarchs... from WHOM is the Christ..." Eschatology teaches a literal war on a literal plain of Meggido, a literal return of Messiah and then ALL Israel will be saved... to self-mastery? Why is self-mastery rather than redemption with an infilling of the Holy Spirit required in the END?

...And I'm not debating your understanding of the Romans text, but the question arises, how did Abraham achieve self-mastery rather than salvation believing God for descendants while he was yet uncircumcised (4)? He immediately went out with Hagar and made his own progeny that was not Issac. Again, Romans reminds us that not all Israel are Israel... through Issac [and Jacob] your descendants will be named...

Thanks for your patience with me. I still think Paul is using choice phrases to be all things to all people, to win some.

Master Billiards,

Self mastery is not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. Giving in to the physical appetites begins in the mind. I don't think being saved "from" or "in" impacts the rhetorical posture Paul opted for.

You shouldn't mix your eschatological penchant with Romans itself. Self mastery comes in and through the Holy Spirit. That is the point Paul is making to his Greco-Roman audience. It is not anything from their own flawed traditions, or fealty to the Law of Moses, but in accepting Christ and taking in the spirit that one can achieve real self mastery. No one in the Classical World had a religious posture of a fallen wretch torn by their sinful nature, begging for salvation. It is a completely anachronistic understanding. The Greco-Roman was interested in becoming their best self. Paul's argument is this is only possible through Christ.

Per Abraham: he achieved self mastery and salvation (they are not mutually exclusive) by coming into a covenant relation with God. This is the same model Paul is advocating for the Greco-Roman. All must enter into that same covenant relationship.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

I pointed out several atonement models earlier in the thread, so I agree there are many to choose from. The Penal Model is deeply flawed and in fact an evil model for the reasons I noted previously. Other models may be inadequate to the task, but they aren't necessarily evil. To your two questions:

1)If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit, how will sinners expiate their sin? How will we atone? How will we escape the judgment of God and Hell?

2) If Christ did not take the punishment sinners merit/if guilt may not transfer, why does the Bible state both that animals must die in response to human sin (including "guilt" offerings) and that Christ's death has ended and replaced this sacrificial system?​

Per 1): The expiation of sin begins with repentance The penitent soul has turned from the dark and to a better path. In and through this turn, they open themselves to Christ. Christ then can take on their pain and suffering (not as an appeasement for an arbitrary notion of Divine justice that must be placated, but because Christ loves us and is willing to share in all the darkness that is us in order to have an eternal relationship of love). In other words: the escape from damnation, and the stagnant self absorption entailed in such, begins in opening to a relation with another. That ultimate other is Christ who uniquely can reach into our very core and experience all that is us. He reaches out to us, knowing the pain such a relationship will cause Him, but still reaches out. For the atonement to have full effect, we must accept His hand.

Per 2) Animal sacrifice in the OT doesn't have a literal power to remove sin. Sacrificial animal death doesn't have magical powers. Animal sacrifice was a similitude of the coming sacrifice of Christ. It, like the whole of the Law of Moses, was meant to remind and prepare those for a higher law. Per the verb transfer: I would prefer the word compassion, as in its root meaning "suffer with". Our sins are shared by Christ, when we turn to Him and thus the burden lightened, and then removed. Christ via the spirit can take on all our grief, loneliness, sorrow etc. because He can feel all of it. If however, we refuse a relationship with Christ, all that same pain and guilt remains with us and the consequences thereof. The atonement is an at-one-ment, if we turn from it, then the ramifications of our actions remain with us. Note: this is not a one time affair, any more than our life is a single instance. This life is a probationary state where we are given the opportunity to experience good and evil and decide. Our decisions run through our life.

As to the Aprocrypha: I don't hold it as scripture, but I don't think it is evil either. Your hostility to Catholicism and Orthodoxy is interesting. I'm not sure what a "biblicist" is. Are these Protestants? If you're referring to the deaths from the wars of religion after the Reformation commenced, you should note that Protestant armies were equally bloodthirsty. The Peasants War during the time of Luther or The Thirty Years War are simple examples.

I can agree with your per 1 and per 2--however, it is common for both Jews and Christians to understand the ancient sacrifices not as examples for repentance or merit but as "kill this, go free". Again, however, I can understand your perspective regarding other models. That's fine.

A "Biblicist" is someone who adheres to the scriptures as the highest source of truth. This is not true for the RCC and the Greek Orthodox and related churches. And yes, Protestants, some more Biblicist than not, were violent. But did Protestant churches inquest and burn Jews, Christians and witches? Are Protestants still insisting 500 years after the Reformation that anyone who says faith alone saves is anathema and destined for perdition? You believe faith saves. You believe works are evidence of faith. Do you say I'm anathema to the church and truth and must suffer in Purgatory or Hell BECAUSE I say we're saved by grace through faith, not of works, so that no one can boast in Heaven--a wholly biblical statement? Of course not.

I have some concerns about the Greek Orthodox and related churches, but not Orthodoxy. However, we cannot quote any early church father and say some or all of their particular statements are de facto accurate without checking their statements against the light of scripture. You are familiar, I'm sure, with the NT statements to test statements, prophesies, doctrines and more against scripture itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

Self mastery is not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. Giving in to the physical appetites begins in the mind. I don't think being saved "from" or "in" impacts the rhetorical posture Paul opted for.

You shouldn't mix your eschatological penchant with Romans itself. Self mastery comes in and through the Holy Spirit. That is the point Paul is making to his Greco-Roman audience. It is not anything from their own flawed traditions, or fealty to the Law of Moses, but in accepting Christ and taking in the spirit that one can achieve real self mastery. No one in the Classical World had a religious posture of a fallen wretch torn by their sinful nature, begging for salvation. It is a completely anachronistic understanding. The Greco-Roman was interested in becoming their best self. Paul's argument is this is only possible through Christ.

Per Abraham: he achieved self mastery and salvation (they are not mutually exclusive) by coming into a covenant relation with God. This is the same model Paul is advocating for the Greco-Roman. All must enter into that same covenant relationship.

I understand and I know that besides the Greek mind, the Jewish mind would consider itself noble and not a "wretch from birth" but rather, achieving the better self via the revelation(s) of Messiah. However, we must account for other statements, like David's and Job's of being conceived in sin and going astray since birth. And again, the time that Abraham came into this unique union we're speaking of was upon acknowledging God's ability to provide an heir. He then went out promptly and made his own heir that wasn't the chosen one, a theme consistent in Romans and Galatians also.

I would question also what is meant by self-mastery. Logically, very good people cannot enter Heaven, because very good people make mistakes, say hurtful things at times and cause hurts. No one can mar the new Heaven or Earth without making it a dystopia rather than a utopia. Very good, actualized, self-controlled persons cannot make it to Heaven. Perfect people can. We might even say if this is better for a dialogue that Christ didn't die to be punished for our punishment or to cover our sin but rather to perfect us. We see partial perfections now called sanctification and ultimate perfection at the Rapture.

 

[Clear]

Hi Billiardsball and Orontes - I'm sorry I did not reply quickly. I am both changing employment and moving and am busy. Hopefully things will slow down this next week.

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT MOMENTARY BELIEF SAVES EVIL INDIVIDUALS IN HEAVEN

1) Clear said : " Is there ANYTHING in Romans 3:22-24 that supports your theory that a momentary sincere belief guarantees a Christian who then repudiates that belief and goes on to live a life of immorality and oppression and torture and rape of children will then go to Heaven with individuals like Abraham? "
Billiardsball answers : “ Well, perhaps you can show me in Romans 3:22-24 where it discusses someone who repudiates belief? “

Requesting evidence rebutting your theory is not evidence supporting your theory.
Biblical literature is replete with descriptions of various types of apostasy, repudiation, and other forms of disobedience to God and his prophetic guidance. The much larger Judeo-Christian genre of historical literature also describes human religious experience of apostasy, repudiation and other forms of disobedience and evolution of belief. If one reads Judeo-Christian literature, then they will find description of apostasy.

To ask that we funnel consideration of your theory from two verses is transparent desperation and creates historical blindness. Your question is NOT evidence for your theory that momentary belief saves the Satanists and “despicables” in heaven together with Abraham.


2) Billiardsball said : We should be discussing the mechanism of salvation rather than your ire at God's choices as to whom He saves.
This is another mis-characterization. I am not irate at God, but instead, I think God knows what he is doing with mankind whom he deeply loves. Does this comment that has nothing to do with your theory mean you want to change the subject? If you want to stop trying to support your theory, we can stop talking about it. My current model of God's salvation for mankind is somewhat different than Orontes and Yours.


3) Billiardsball said " I will not be a pedophile because I'm thankful for my salvation."
Christian Pedophiles and oppressors and rapists who feel “saved” by Jesus probably feel and felt the same thankfulness you feel. What about the actual question? If you (or I, or anyone else) DO become a despicable rapist/pedophile/oppressor/torturer/satanist, etc., will you (and us) still be saved in heaven beside individuals like Abraham who lived exemplary lives?


4) Billiardsball said " Romans also says, "whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" and "with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation". Is this a perpetual, ongoing lifestyle of calling or a one-time request?
If you really do have historical training in Greek that you claimed, then you would have understood that “ομολογεται” is NOT a simple “confession” in its normal historical usage in religious Koine Greek but instead, represented an ongoing agreement or covenant whether in social or business usage.

Are you still claiming to forum members that you are trained in historical Greek?



5) Billiardsball said " You simply cannot assault my understanding that salvation involves a once-for-all choice unless you can defend how the Greek or English says "lifestyle, mostly, much of the time" rather than "always".
My intent was never to change your mind. Since your theory was never historical or rational or logical I did not believe that historical information, nor logic nor rational thought was going to change your mind.

Rather I wanted to demonstrate to OTHER readers of this thread who ARE thinking historically and rationally and logically, that your theory is not connected with historical Christian doctrine. If readers wish to believe they can be saved by adhering to your modern theory rather than believe in the early, Historical, rational and logical Christian Doctrine, that is their choice.


6) Re Billiardsballs claim that No despicable individuals (whether in prison OR outside prison) who rape or torture or oppress children were ever sincere Christians. Re : Prisoners who claim to be or have been Christians :

billiardsball said : I'm rather questioning how they knew and more importantly, you knew that their childhood faith was sincere.
re : How they knew they were sincere : I supposed they assumed they had been sincere in their childhood beliefs upon the same principle you presently assume that you are sincere. However, Personal insight is not always accurate.

Still, if you theorize that they can mistake being sincere and later recognize they were not sincere, then I suppose all of us can, in the same way, fool ourselves upon this same principle and think we are saved when we are not (if we use your criteria and principle on this point).

Since our own hypocrisy is, frequently, recognized in "hind-sight" for what it is, you may claim to be saved; think you are saved inside your theory and later discover that you are not. .

Your theory that no despicable adult was ever a sincere Christian when they were young is yet another unusual theory that you will have hold to in order to support your theory of “momentary faith guarantees salvation in heaven”. It is illogical to suppose that no Christian Child will ever choose to become an atheist (especially since some forum athiests were Christians) and that none will choose to do evil acts in certain moments of anger or loss of control.

I must point out that it feels like the increasing number of unusual, irrational and illogical theories you create to support you single modern theory of “easy believism” of “momentary faith saves evil individuals” is becoming burdensome.

For examples,
Your theory that “…someone who is a hypocrite or apostate isn't a Christian.” Is illogical.
Your theory that Christians cannot display simple hypocrisy is unusual, especially when we have obvious evidence that they are occasionally hypocritical.
Your theory that a large portion of the bible (apocrypha) was influenced by Satan is unusual.
Your theory that prisoners cannot be saved Christians inside your model of salvation is irrational.
Your theory that correct greek grammar does not apply to your theory of easy believism is irrational.

To try to use such theories to "prop up" your main theory is not helping your cause.


7) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ I will be comfortable in saying, "have had" [saving] faith since the Greek and English use present, ongoing tense…”
Clear replied : " This very bizarre admission simply says you are comfortable disregarding basic grammar to support your theory. How does pretending a non-continuous verb is continuous (“ongoing” as you say) help your theory in the real world where language follows grammatical rules? Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek? To admit you must disregard correct grammar in order support your theory UNDERMINES, rather than supports your theory."
Billiardsball said **Sorry, you are wholly unaware of the differences between have and have had and has in English?

READ what you are saying. You are mixing “present, ongoing tense” (continuous) with past tense in a greek text. It is irrational to consciously and intentionally disregard and disobey basic rules of grammar in order to try to support your theory. Are you still claiming to forum members that you have been trained in Greek?



8) Billiardsball said (post # 324) “ And no, I don't want a ten-page refutation of the fact you should already know, that many fine teachers confirm that pisteuo may have us render it in the English, "...God so loved the world, that whoever has trusted, is trusting or will trust..."
Clear replied : " 1) I do not know a single, legitimate translator who would intentionally render a present-tense verb in past tense or in future tense. Instead, they would be embarrassed to make that mistake.
You cannot possibly have studied greek and make this incredibly silly, strange, claim. On the planet where most of us lives, it makes a different whether our rent has been paid (past), is being paid (present continuous), or will be paid (future).
2) Tell us, who are these “many fine teachers” who are translators of greek that take a simple present continuous form of a verb and render it into a past or future form?
3) Give us examples where these “fine teachers” render Πιστεύω as a past or future without the original greek itself being a past or future form. To use your word Πιστεύω as an example : Πιστεύω appears ONLY 5 times in the New Testament (mk 9:24, Jn 9:38, Acts 8:37, Acts 27:25, 1Cor 11:18). In NONE of these textual occurrences, can Πιστεύω be properly rendered as a past or future verb such as “I did believe” or “had believed” or “I will, in the future, believe”.

You grammatical examples are becoming more erroneous, more irrational and more illogical. The accumulating errors and illogic do NOT build credibility in your claims, nor do they support your personal theory of momentary faith produces eternal salvation.
Do you still claim to forum members that you are trained in Greek?
Billiardsball said **It is disingenuous of you to make claims regarding the ongoing nature of faith in salvation since both of us know that many fine translators and expositors look at pisteuo and the aorist tense and context and other things and conclude salvation is done via a one-time choice of faith, not an ongoing faith. I admit for my part that many fine Greek scholars--including you--believe it is an ongoing, continual, perpetual unto death faith. I don't take away from your intelligence in recognizing this fact. However, you are not admitting the context--the unsaved Greek reader can read John 3:16 or etc. and trust Christ THERE AND THEN. You are assuming, as many fine but misguided people do, that the entire Bible is written for Christians only. It is not.

We are not talking about a sincere person simply coming to a belief. Your theory claims a sincere person can have a momentary sincere belief that will then save them in heaven once that belief in Jesus is repudiated and Satanism is firmly adopted and a life of despicable torture and rape of children and oppression of others replaces this belief. In your theory, the evil and most despicable anti-christian is saved in heaven with Abraham and Mother Teresa like individuals who attempted to obey God and worship him and sacrificed for him.

This new additional illogical and irrational grammatical theory you are suggesting, is not helpful to your grammatical cause. You can’t simply create new grammatical rules that only serve to support your theory. Are you still claiming to forum members that you are “trained in Greek”?

Billiardsball : You still have not told us : WHO ARE THESE MANY TRANSLATORS WHO RENDER Πιστεύω IN A PAST OR FUTURE TENSE?
NAME THEM, GIVE US EXAMPLES since the bible has none where Πιστεύω is rendered the way you say it is rendered by "many fine translators" of greek". I don't know ANY who make this mistake. I've given you example of EVERY single occurrence of Πιστεύω in the bible. NONE of these occurrences can be correctly translated as you suggest. Your claim is simply bizzare.

Also, Your description of my own belief is incorrect. Please don’t tell me what I believe. If you don’t know, ask me, rather than mis-characterizing my belief. I believe faith may wax stronger; it may wane; it may stop and restarts (etc.) for many individual Christians during their religious journey



9) Billiardsball said “ I see you've dropped Christian murderers from your list, probably in recognition of John's statement, "we know no murderer has the Spirit of Christ".
Yes,I dropped murderers this list because you stated you did not believe murderers were saved and I did not want to mis-represent your theory.


10) However, by suggesting that backslidden people can become torturers and rapists, you are ignoring the fact I've stated several times over already--when you know you're saved, gratitude, is the natural response.
Sincere child-Christians who later became torturers and rapists and oppressors are not responding “normally”. They may have become a rapist or oppressor or liar or do despicable actions during "abnormal" times and circumstances when their faith waned, when they were angry, frustrated, when they felt life had been unfair; or they had lost faith or will to "be good", etc. (e.g. they were sincere Christians who were temporarily depressed, intensely lonely, angry, etc..)



Regarding Billiardsballs' dismissal that Prisoners could ever have sincerely believe in Jesus when they were small children
11) Clear Said : "To simply dismiss the claims of an entire population because it disagrees with your religious theory is strange."
Billiardsball responded : " **Did you mean to use the word "entire"?

If you are dismissing “all” inmates everywhere in the world, at all times in the history of the world who sincerely believed in Jesus when they were children and then committed despicable acts, then you are dismissing this “entire” population.

If you theorize that ALL despicable Christians in the world never really “sincerely believed in Jesus” when they were children and accepted Christ as their savior, this is yet another theory that you will have to provide data to support. This is yet another theory you will have created in order to support your original theory that unrepentant Satanists and committed oppressors and rapists and those who torture children and still want to torture children will be saved in heaven beside Abraham.


12) Billiardsball said : "**I see you were indeed not conversant with these terms. A backslider is never described in scripture as an apostate or hypocrite and vice versa."
1) Perhaps we can discuss this point and you can enlighten me on these greek/hebrew terms and their correct historical usage. Since you are referring to Christianity, Give me some New Testament verses that uses “backslider” in greek/hebrew (rather than "apostasy".) that supports this theory on your historical useage of this specific term versus “apostate”. Teach me the Greek and Hebrew that you know about this usage.

Also, since you are referring to a Jewish usage in the single reference to משבה that you, (as a Jew) are referring to. WHY do you assign this hebrew word the meaning “backsliding” rather than another rendering (such as turning or apostasy - which is more accurate historically - e.g. Jews of 300 b.c. used επστραφητι με in the verse you refer to) in this specific instance?


Billiardsball, Why should anyone prefer your modern Christian interpretational theory over the interpretation of the ancient and most original Christians in their interpretations and doctrines?


In any case Billiardsball, I honestly and truly wish you a good spiritual journey.

Clear
φυτωτζφυω