Nothing Short Of Perfection

[BilliardsBall]

1) Clear asked : "How does a modern theory that original but non-existent manuscripts apply to individuals who only have and interact with manuscripts and bibles that have errors? What application is there for such a theory other than to create a bragging point?"
Billiardsball responded : "Because over 99.5% of the text is demonstrably accurate and surely contained what the originals contained!"

I asked what the application is for an erroneous theory, other than a bragging point, and, you respond with a bragging point. This has to be the epitome of irony. Confirming my point will not restore life to your theory of inerrancy.

While you, as a non-historian may assume that the current text "surely contained what the originals contain", this naive assumption is another counter-historical theory. Since no scholar in the world knows what the original autographic texts contained, and since these texts do not exist, we cannot know what they said. We can know what extant texts tell us. Those are the limitations of authentic and real of history and the difference between history and bragging.

Your theory of inerrancy is dead. No amount of pseudofact or bragging can bring it back to life.


2) Billiardsball asked : "Are you willing to state the over 99.5% of Mormon canonical books are true?
I've explained that my belief is that ALL ancient records have errors, including all books the Mormons refer to as “canonical”. However, my belief that other records also contain error is irrelevant since, whether they are errant or inerrant, it will not restore life to your biblical inerrancy theory.


3) Clear said : “This is the moral problem with your theory that once a person believes in God and Jesus, even IF they stop believing and then choose to knowingly follow Satan and rape and molest and murder little children. In your theory, they still receive a heavenly reward despite continuing to freely choose evil.”

Billiardsballs replied : “... I never promulgated this “theory”.

In the God in Mormonism thread you DID promulgate this theory.

If you remember, your theory was that once one “got on the bus” to heaven by accepting salvation, one could not then, get back off the bus regardless of these sins. You offered multiple examples of this theory that no one could leave the heaven bound bus once they accepted Christ regardless of these sins. You said : “ Would it be better to simply say that the bus driver stops for us and says, "Next stop, Heaven!" I was on a bus the other day where someone asked to be let out in a dangerous place mid-block, and the bus driver said, "We have to go to the next stop. That is the rule." (Billiardsball, post # 179)

Your theory removed moral choice from the equation. This defect in your theory is partly why Orontes spent considerable time, exposing the flaws in this theory you promulgated.

In post # 190, speaking against your theory, Orontes said : “An automatic salvation system reference is based on your earlier comments. You have stated you "have no choice in the matter" "you nature has been changed" and have had issues with simply agreeing in your bus/salvation analogy that one could get off the bus. If one cannot leave, they are bound/ captured. Since your stance is the bus is to salvation and heaven, riders are bound for heaven regardless of will or action. This is where all the problems reside. It repudiates free will and morality. If you hold one maintains their free will (which means one can choose differently) then the problems go away. Can one get off the bus?”

Over and over you tried to maintain that one could not get off the "heaven-bound" bus despite committing these sorts of despicable sins. It was in response to your theory that I said : “Heaven cannot BE inhabited by individuals still intent on rape, molesting and murder. We have already been over this issue in the “God in Mormonism” thread. You still remember the results of that discussion I presume?”

Do you remember now? Do you want me to quote more of what you said to help you remember this point and make it more clear to you and to readers? This theory that one may torture and rape children and oppress will still NOT resurrect the dead inerrancy theory.

If you now, however, repudiate this idea and feel that such individuals must repent and change before they can be saved in heaven, then I will accept your word that you no longer believe in this theory of "salvation without repentance".


4) When Clear suggested the Holy Ghost also served as confirmation of God’s existence and confirmation that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, billiardsball responded : The Bible says a person's "heart" deceives and lies to them!

Firstly, the spirit of God is NOT the same thing as "a person's heart" which "deceives and lies". The spirit of God does not deceive, nor does he lie to mankind.

Secondly, the changes wrought upon mankind by the spirit of God is an external force that is not the same thing as mans’ own intuition and mans’ own desires. Though the spirit of God effects mans intuition and mans' desires, it is a force external to the heart and mind of mankind.

Clear then asked Billiardsball: If you feel your own personal “heart” deceives and lies to you than why trust it regarding the theory of “inerrancy”, especially since the data, the logic and rational, objective thought demonstrated error exist in all existing texts?

Billiardsball responded : “Because the Bible is also clear that we are not to be led by emotions or even faith, but the facts of the gospel and of fulfilled prophecy.” (underline is mine - clear)

Firstly : You already ARE being led by your faith in your theory of inerrancy. You are allowing your own heart and emotions and your own interpretations guide you into this faith in your theory of inerrancy since data, and rational, logical thought are against your theory of inerrancy.

Secondly : You are led by your faith in this new theory that the existing text "surely contained what the originals contained!" since data and rational, logical and historical thought can neither confirm this claim, nor does historical data support this claim.

Thirdly : Your suggestion that we are not to be led by faith is unusual.

For example, religious faith is central to religion. Faith in God is a powerful force which motivates mankind to seek and learn further principles concerning salvation. Though an atheist may study the bible, without faith in God, the bible and its witness that God lives may feel less spiritually relevant to the reader.

Your new theory where faith is abandoned will not resurrect your dead inerrancy theory.



5) Billiardsball points out that his Mormon friends have faults.

Clear responded : “…pointing out that your mormon friends have faults is irrelevant to and will not save your theory of “inerrancy”.
Billiardsball responds : " I’m rather referring to the insane clinging to the tents of Joseph Smith, after Mr. Smith has been proven time and again to disobey Bible doctrine and to be a false teacher.

Whether Joseph Smith was inspired or whether he was uninspired is irrelevant to your theory of inerrancy since, neither case restores life to your inerrancy theory.



In any case Billiardsball, I hope you are NOT discouraged by historical reality, but instead, that you may come to have good experiences and a good journey as you consider history and how authentic and real history relates to Christian religion.


Clear
δρσιτζδρω

Clear,

Your testimony (unless I read it wrong, I’m not meaning to put words in your mouth) had you disenchanted with a moderately evangelical church and retreating to the safety of the LDS movement. You are not just attacking me, you are attacking all evangelicals/fundamentalists who have pointed to simple truth:

Something approaching 99.98% of the words in the 66 books are confirmed via multiple source texts/documents, therefore it is evident that we have a great deal of reliability in the current Bible, and also pointing to the originals.

When you say “my theory of inerrancy is dead” you are distancing still yourself further from all those most Mormons claim are ALSO Christians, real, born-again Christians. My theory IS the prevailing theory among most evangelicals. You are contributing to the stereotype some Christians have that Mormons look down their nose at Christians. Stop it.

Also, you have done a tremendous, if pharaisical/inquisitor job, of dicing my words and statements to shove rapist and murderer Christians in my face. Have I not agreed with you multiple times on multiple threads that Jesus takes care with His born-again children to change them? Didn’t Jesus change you? I wonder, because you seem to take a lot of care on this and other threads to assault me and what I believe and those millions who believe it, and fervently. If Jesus really changed you, why do you obsess over rapists and murderers? I’m certain you met many people in your corrections work who professed salvation. I’m certain you would agree that many people in jail say they are “now saved” and that this is partly an effort to receive early parole, better treatment while inside, etc. If you would stop ranting long enough, I could tell about my prison ministry and that of my family’s, but you are so certain based on your (sizable) amount of anecdotal evidence that people can really get born again than rape and murder that you won’t listen to me or, far more importantly to the scriptures with patience, which scriptures say:

“Now WE KNOW that no murderer has the Spirit of Christ!”

If we agree that THIS verse is “not errant”, than we simply disagree on assurance. I have murderers who get saved and then God stops them/changes them so that they no longer murder, and you have people being born again, then God’s Spirit leaves and they lose salvation, then they murder again. May these persons repent again, so that they are born again, again, and again and again and again?

The rest of your post just blathers on about me, my faith, my inconsistencies and illogic, etc. Meanwhile you have yet to answer my question (still):

How do you know that revelation is superior to the words of God, and how do you know Mormon revelation is superior to others, since you believe neither the Bible nor the Mormon books to be inerrant?

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

There is nothing sectarian in my statement: revelation is revelation. There is no qualifier on the recipient. Any person of good intent can receive revelation if they are open to it. This is the point of Mormonism: people can know for themselves whether X or Y is correct by appealing to the source of all, God. Loyalty to a text over direct communication with the Lord is simply dogmatism. It is pharisaic.

I am very aware the Bible is considered foundational to Protestantism, the point is that is a flawed position. It is flawed because, as I pointed out, revelation is logically prior to the text, and the vehicle through which the very books of the Bible were created.

You didn't respond to this:

" If you assume inerrancy, it doesn't have any theoretical cash value. I'll explain, if the text is without error, then it is perfect. If the reader is imperfect then, to the degree the reader is imperfect, to that same degree, he is cut off from understanding the text. Only the perfect can comprehend what is perfect, which is the realm of God. In trying to glorify the Bible by asserting an inerrant, perfect text, you place it out of reach of the devotee."
​

Inerrancy fails on a structural level, independent of the multiple errors that can be found within the text itself.

It is not "pharisaic" to point to text over direct revelation, it is biblical. Three of many such admonitions come to my mind:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"

"Because of that experience [personally walking with Christ for years!], we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place--until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts."

"To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

Etc. God has many warnings for those who go against his text, including a dreadful warning against false prophets who add new canon past the NT! EVERY time that verse in Revelation is read aloud at a Bible study, someone says, "How does that affect the work of Joseph Smith?"

And I can certainly respond to this question you've asked re: imperfect readers of a perfect text:

1. In school, I learned by taking quizzes and tests, and then having my teachers show me where I met the perfect questionnaires (100% of the question and answer sets were correct) and where I didn't meet them and:

2. The amount of correctness/revelation/knowledge/enlightenment of the Bible is directly, inextricably linked to one's adherence to the text! Two examples:

a) I know Christians who believe some pretty bad doctrine but are blessed because they are fundamental to the text (as opposed to the liberal and cultic expositors who are delusional)

b) read Psalm 119 and tell me about how you would like to rephrase David's 170 verses about adhering to God's Word!

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

1) Billiardsball said : “Your testimony (unless I read it wrong, I’m not meaning to put words in your mouth) had you disenchanted with a moderately evangelical church and retreating to the safety of the LDS movement. “
You have, again, misinterpreted. I was NOT disenchanted with any Christianity when I discovered restorational theology. I very much enjoyed my native evangelical churches I attended and I still love the people. When I occasionally visit them, I still enjoy the minister and the people. I see the evangelicals generally, as very, very good people doing the best they can, just like most other Christians. I feel like they are the salt of the earth.


2) Billiardsball said : “You are not just attacking me, you are attacking all evangelicals / fundamentalists …. "
A discussion about the myth of inerrancy is not a personal attack on you. Instead it is a discussion regarding the theory of inerrancy you have adopted and are trying to teach to others. To avoid becoming emotional, it may help if you can try to see the difference between a personal attack and a criticism of your theory.

It is also not an attack on evangelicals whom you have generalized as believing in the inerrancy myth. My two best friends have been Lutheran scholar and a Baptist minister. Both are evangelical and both understand the myth of inerrancy is incorrect, but both have insight sufficient to understand the psychological reasons and value of self-reassurance which underlie its creation.

Like these evangelicals who know inerrancy is incorrect, I do not blame you at all for adopting it.

I DO think it is unrealistic for you to expect that your theory of inerrancy should go unchallenged in a public forum where many of the posters have historical education. IF you had claimed the myth of Santa Claus was not a myth and there really WAS a santa that did all the wonderful things we believed as children, I think the adult forums would challenge this myth as well.


The myth of Santa Claus as a parallel to the myth of inerrancy
Like the myth of inerrancy, the myth of santa claus is a common myth that many of us believed in when young and naive. Both myths, the myth of "Santa Claus" and the myth or "textual inerrancy", provided reassurance and confidence and provided some good emotional and psychological feelings during a time of increasing maturity.

One can certainly argue that these myths were, in certain ways, beneficial and enjoyable, and that upon learning the truth that there was no santa clause and that biblical records were not perfect, we may have felt some mild, temporary degree of anxiety and melancholy. However, life moves on and, normal, healthy, maturing individuals learned to move on, into a mature world of more objective truth and rational thought.

If a child spoke of inerrancy of the biblical texts in the same way they spoke seriously of santa, I would probably NOT try to correct them but, given the context, simply give them a generic supportive comment. However, if an adult speaks of santa, or biblical inerrancy, then I don’t feel the same obligation to protect their naïve beliefs because my expectations for rational and logical thought are higher than for the child.

I think that, in the context of public forum where adult individuals are learning about the bible, there may be some unintended consequences for teaching the myth of biblical inerrancy as a "Christian belief" (as opposed to a personal belief). For examples :


The effect of adult Christians who adopt outrageous errors such as the theory on inerrant text and then claim to “know” it is true.

Firstly, those educated enough to know the truth may view a Christian witness for inerrancy as either a lie, or as an error in judgment sufficient to damage the credibility of the Christians' witness.

Secondly, the misuse of the claim to “know” something is true when it is obviously false and so easily shown to be so, places that specific Christian witness into the category of “abuse” of a claim to knowledge which the Christian does not really have.

In your case, when your “facts” have proven over and over to be incorrect, what happened to your credibility in this forum? In the same way your credibility has taken a hit, to claim an error is a “fact” and the claim to “know” an error is true, further damages the Credibility of the Christian witness, perhaps irreparably. Credibility is a finite resource that can be squandered like any other resource. When it is gone, it is difficult to regain.

Thirdly, all of us are, initially, naïve to facts. If a naïve person believes this witness, and then centers their religious faith upon this specific witness being true, then what happens once they become more educated and discover the main object of their firm and honest faith was never true?

The persons ability to have faith itself may be damaged and they may become disaffected away from that faith and the doubt may spread to other, more important principles (some of which may be perfectly true). They may over generalize and come to feel like Christianity did not live up to it’s promise, and blame Christianity itself for the disaffectation. They may come to doubt certain aspects of deity which are true and more important than the myth that caused the initial doubt.

Fourthly, Part of moral maturation involved acquiring the ability to recognize what one knows from what one merely believes. The distinction is important in learning to correctly judge what things we are allowed to claim knowledge of, and what things we merely have accepted as principles of belief. Self honestry is, to a certain extent, connected with self knowledge.


The motive for creating and promulgating these myths :
The motive underlying the creating and spreading of such myths is mainly for emotional and psychological support, rather than being based on firm, objective data.

It was enjoyable to dream of santa as a child. Perhaps it was reassuring to believe that a bit of wonderful "magic" was involved in the sudden appearance of gifts beneath the tree. It was, also, a bit of motive to be “good”, so as to remain off the “naughty list”.

The myth of inerrancy has some parallels in that religionists LIKE to feel that God watched over the bible in such a way as to prevent any error. It feels good to embellish symbols of our beliefs so as to endow them with characteristics which distinguish them from the profane objects around us, just as one can see from your comments.


The type of “data” underlying and supporting the two myths
Another thing both the Santa Claus and inerrancy myths have in common is the type of data both myths are built upon. These myths are supported by uncomfirmed, radical, audacious claims that are repeated over and over (and thus become accepted as true) rather than being based on objective and confirmed data.

For examples : Santa doesn’t just live in a house, but he lives in the north pole. He has a wonderful workshop with elves, but no one has actually ever seen his house or his sleigh, nor rein-deer that can actually fly. The “fact” that he can slip down impossibly thing chimneys is well known, despite the fact that no one has ever see this phenomenon. In a similar way, inerrancy claims are based on repeated claims, offered as fact, yet just as difficult to confirm. One may claim 99.99999% accuracy (which is NOT inerrancy), yet, in the real world, no one can find a single text that conforms to that claim.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

For example, LOOK at your claim :
Billiardsball said : “ “Something approaching 99.98% of the words in the 66 books are confirmed via multiple source texts/documents.”

However, if you simply take a look at a single page in any critical bible, you will see that scholars see a far different set of objective data.
Below is a page from NA-27. It shows variant readings and the letters below represent multiple manuscripts that both agree with and are different from a specific base text.

If readers look at these pictures of NA-27, which is a critical bible (i.e a bible showing variants in hundreds of manuscripts), they will see that the biblical text show variants of biblical text in EVERY sentence in certain pages and, I can't think of a single page of size that doesn't show variants.

A standard greek text is shown above and the areas below show important variants.
Sometimes words are added in one family of manuscripts that lack in other families, word orders differ, other words are added, other times words are missing, other times the tense is changed between families, occasionally entire sentences are different, etc.

Old Testament Critical texts look similar and vary similarly. For example, in stutengartsia, (a standard old testament critical text), there are variants (differences and various versions) on every single page. No scholar in the world knows what the original text actually said.

While one sees silly claims of "inerrancy" or 99.9999999% “purity”, the actual evidence easily obliterates these myths and their claims. Inerrantists live in a different world than those educated sufficiently to see the data for themselves.

The point is, that the claims that support myths are not consistent with the real world in which individuals live and interact with early texts and these myths cannot further a true understanding of life as it actually is. While believers in inerrancy may communicate well with one another, they cannot then negotiate the larger, real world of ancient language and multiple ancient texts without an assault on their beliefs just as you and I live in different historical worlds.

Any explorer to the north pole who spends time and effort to reach santas workshop, may spend considerable labor and time, only to be disenchanted upon finding the real world was not like the myth, there was no santas workshop to be found.

In a similar manner, it is not helpful and healthy to remain in the world of myth IF, gaining religious knowledge and religious education is a goal. One cannot remain in the world of myth if one is going to discuss the world of reality.

Truly, honestly, it does not bother me that you retain the belief in inerrancy.

It does not bother me in the least if forum members wish to adopt this belief. It is their choice. However, it is unrealistic for you to speak of myth as a “fact” on a public forum and expect that no one will want to discuss how your myth conflicts with reality.



3) You claimed that reality "distanced" me from mormons and evangelicals.
I believe most mormons understand that all ancient biblical texts have error, however, you could be correct that most evangelicals believe in "inerrancy". I honestly don’t know how much most evangelicals know about the early text.


4) Billiardsball said : “ You are contributing to the stereotype some Christians have that Mormons look down their nose at Christians. Stop it.
My discussion on inerrancy has not been sectarian in the least. YOUR allusion to and spreading of a stereotype contributes to the spreading of a stereotype. You should stop bringing up stereotypes.


5) Billiardsball said : “….you seem to take a lot of care on this and other threads to assault me and what I believe and those millions who believe it, and fervently. If Jesus really changed you, why do you obsess over rapists and murderers?
A single statement in this thread that a doctrine which saves individuals in heaven who remain committed to sin is hardly an "obsession". IF you now believe that these individuals MUST repent of sins before being prepared to enter heaven then I will accept this change in attitude. I also believe that your original theory excluded murderers, but instead applied to the other sins mentioned.


6) Billiardsball said : “… scriptures say: “Now WE KNOW that no murderer has the Spirit of Christ!”
Is there anyone on the forum who can find this quote in the scriptures?
Googling doesn't bring up this "scripture" quote.

Billiardsball, are you certain that you are not lapsing into your old habit of creating non-existent quotes to support your theology?
Can you tell us the reference for this quote?



7) Billiardsball said : “ How do you know that revelation is superior to the words of God, and how do you know Mormon revelation is superior to others, since you believe neither the Bible nor the Mormon books to be inerrant?
As Orontes has already pointed out, authentic revelation is not a sectarian principle. I am a mormon, and I do not believe that a specific Revelation from God to a person has more value depending upon the sect they belong to. I believe that a specific equivalent revelation to a Jew, or to a mormon, or to a Catholic, or to a Baptist, or to a Muslim or to any person seems to have the same value as a principle of truth. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is not "more true" or "superior" when given to an old Moses anciently than it is when given to a Baptist, or Catholic, or Mormon, or Islamic, or Agnostic youth in our day (or any other person, in any other religion).



In any case Billiardsball, you are certainly welcome to believe that no ancient records have errors in them regardless of objective data and rational logic. However, if you are going to offer this theory on a public forum, you will have opposing views from those who have been exposed to education and historical data and who use rational thought and logic. You do not need to feel you are personally being attacked, merely that your data and theory is being examined publicly.


Good luck as you enter the world of historical realities (if that is something you choose to do) and I hope your life and journey is pleasant.


Clear
δρακτζφטω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clear,

1. You have not yet done enough reading or research on the accuracy of the Bible as we have it today, and its canon, and the illogic (and illegality) of the LDS founders and LDS doctrine.

2. New International Version
Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

New Living Translation
Anyone who hates another brother or sister is really a murderer at heart. And you know that murderers don't have eternal life within them.

English Standard Version
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Berean Study Bible
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer.

Berean Literal Bible
Everyone hating his brother is a murderer; and you know that any murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him.

New American Standard Bible
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

King James Bible
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

International Standard Version
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life present in him.

NET Bible
Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For everyone who hates his brother murders a person, and you know that eternal life cannot abide in anyone who murders a person.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Everyone who hates another believer is a murderer, and you know that a murderer doesn't have eternal life.

New American Standard 1977
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer and ye know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

King James 2000 Bible
Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

American King James Version
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

American Standard Version
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.

Darby Bible Translation
Every one that hates his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

English Revised Version
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Webster's Bible Translation
Whoever hateth his brother, is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Weymouth New Testament
Every one who hates his brother man is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has the Life of the Ages continuing in him.

World English Bible
Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.

Young's Literal Translation
Every one who is hating his brother -- a man-killer he is, and ye have known that no man-killer hath life age-during in him remaining,

All you have to do is tell me whether you will affirm that we have to have the Holy Spirit to have eternal life, since you argued this incessantly on other threads with me, that is, I believe the Spirit is a part of the believer's abiding assurance, and you disbelieve in assurance, therefore, you think the Spirit leaves Christians. Thanks!

PS. Please answer one of my recent questions to you, such as addressing the illogic of saying someone can be born again, and again, and again, and again...?

 

[Orontes]

It is not "pharisaic" to point to text over direct revelation, it is biblical. Three of many such admonitions come to my mind:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"

"Because of that experience [personally walking with Christ for years!], we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place--until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts."

"To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."

Etc. God has many warnings for those who go against his text, including a dreadful warning against false prophets who add new canon past the NT! EVERY time that verse in Revelation is read aloud at a Bible study, someone says, "How does that affect the work of Joseph Smith?"

And I can certainly respond to this question you've asked re: imperfect readers of a perfect text:

1. In school, I learned by taking quizzes and tests, and then having my teachers show me where I met the perfect questionnaires (100% of the question and answer sets were correct) and where I didn't meet them and:

2. The amount of correctness/revelation/knowledge/enlightenment of the Bible is directly, inextricably linked to one's adherence to the text! Two examples:

a) I know Christians who believe some pretty bad doctrine but are blessed because they are fundamental to the text (as opposed to the liberal and cultic expositors who are delusional)

b) read Psalm 119 and tell me about how you would like to rephrase David's 170 verses about adhering to God's Word!

Master Billiards,

I read your reply. I’ll respond by breaking up the post some.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" –Gal 1:8

"Because of that experience [personally walking with Christ for years!], we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place--until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts." -
2 Peter 1:19

"To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." – Isaiah 8:20 ​

Note: when you quote a thing, you should cite the source. I added the Biblical sources to the verses.


None of the above supports your notion that a religious text is superior to direct revelation. The very notion itself is absurd. As I explained previously, scripture, as such, is the product of revelation. To therefore assert the product of revelation is superior to that which created it and is therefore dependent on it, is a non sequitur.


The scriptures you cite do nothing for your case. That you reference them suggests you don’t understand the texts.

Per Gal. 1:8 says nothing about written texts being superior to revelation. The thrust is about fealty to the gospel over any who preach a different version. This is because the Gospel is a singular thing and not subject to alteration. Note: preach is not confined to text alone.

Per 2 Peter 1:19: The whole thrust of 2 peter 1 is about taking on the Divine Nature and making one’s calling and election sure. There is nothing about textual superiority to revelation. You would do well to read the surrounding verses:

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

The verses reinforce the importance of revelation. They actually move contra your notion of textual superiority.

Per Isaiah 20:8: This verse says nothing about the superiority of scripture to revelation. The surrounding verses relate to those who seek after practitioners of magic where Isaiah writes that such, if they go against the Law of Moses and testimony have no light in them.

Etc. God has many warnings for those who go against his text, including a dreadful warning against false prophets who add new canon past the NT! EVERY time that verse in Revelation is read aloud at a Bible study, someone says, "How does that affect the work of Joseph Smith?"

The above understanding is anachronistic. Let me provide the verse you are thinking of and explain:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. – Rev. 22:18-19​

The Book of Revelation was written in the First Century (80-90 AD). The New Testament didn’t exist. The New Testament, in the version you would recognize as orthodox (the 27 standard books), was first created in 367 AD by Athanasius. There are earlier versions, but they do not contain the same books, some add books, others have some removed. The Book of Revelation appears to have been a rather late inclusion. In fact, the movement to create a Christian canon was in response to Marcion whose Christo-gnostic movement first compiled a canon of Christian texts in the Second Century. Per Revelations 22:18-19: the warnings of not adding to the text refer to itself, the Book of Revelation. There was no other referent. Your Bible Study group is being poorly served.

And I can certainly respond to this question you've asked re: imperfect readers of a perfect text:

1. In school, I learned by taking quizzes and tests, and then having my teachers show me where I met the perfect questionnaires (100% of the question and answer sets were correct) and where I didn't meet them and:

2. The amount of correctness/revelation/knowledge/enlightenment of the Bible is directly, inextricably linked to one's adherence to the text! Two examples:

a) I know Christians who believe some pretty bad doctrine but are blessed because they are fundamental to the text (as opposed to the liberal and cultic expositors who are delusional)

b) read Psalm 119 and tell me about how you would like to rephrase David's 170 verses about adhering to God's Word!

Your points do not respond to the logical problem. Per 1) there is no figure of a teacher. There is a perfect text and an imperfect reader. There is nothing to bridge the gap. 2) has the same problem, one cannot assert the value of adherence to the text, without thereby assuming there is a known correct understanding of X to adhere to. There is no way to determine that a given interpretation is the correct one. You are left with imperfect subjective readings. Your position fails.

I have given you two basic logical problems with your attempt to establish Biblical authority by appealing to inerrancy

One, scripture is the product of revelation. It is dependent on it. Therefore, revelation is always already both logically prior and superior to religious text alone.

Two, Inerrancy creates a dilemma whereby the perfect text cannot be understood by the imperfect devotee. You have created an unbridgeable gap between the two and have thereby cut yourself off from the very thing you sought to magnify.

You would be better served by considering Paul’s words: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” – 1 Cor. 13:12 Paul’s statement of seeing through a glass darkly is a categorical. It refers to an epistemic condition. In the world of men, there is no perfect knowledge position X. It is in fact pharisaic to assert one has an inherited text and therefore has no need for revelation. Men are better served by being humble and open to the same spirit of revelation that informed the scriptures. Religious experience is the core to the devotional life, absent it, one is left with dogmatism.

 

[Clear]

Billiardsball; I cannot tell if you think forum members can't read, or if you are consciously trying to trick them, or if you are just being very, very, very sloppy in "quoting", or if you really can't tell the difference between the words "spirit of Christ" and "eternal life".... You just gave forum readers 23 more examples of why they cannot trust your "quotes", your interpretations, and your general use of scriptures.

Billardsball claimed “… scriptures say: “Now WE KNOW that no murderer has the Spirit of Christ!” (post # 221)
Clear asked : “Is there anyone on the forum who can find this quote in the scriptures? Googling doesn't bring up this "scripture" quote. Billiardsball,are you certain that you are not lapsing into your old habit of creating non-existent quotes to support your theology?
Can you tell us the reference for this quote?


Billiardsball,:

Do you realize NONE of your 23 examples from post #225 match your claimed “quote” of post #221 ? If you remember, you have been caught and taken to task previously for “creating” non-existent scripture quotes. This is not a good thing.


1) The “scripture” you quote in 221 speaks of murderers not having “the Spirit of Christ!”
2) The scriptures you quote in #225 speaks of murderers not having “eternal life”.
3) The "scripture" you quoted in post 221 does not exist.
4) The scriptures you DO quote in post 225, reveal you are taking improper liberties in your quotes of “scripture” in post #221.

While I cannot tell whether you meant to deceive readers, I think this is a good example of how reckless you are with texts and your personal interpretation of the text and explain why your credibility takes so many hits so often.


DO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ACTUALLY KNOW OF A SCRIPTURE IN EXISTENCE WHICH SAYS “NOW WE KNOW THAT NO MURDERER HAS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST!”.

Anyone?

Clear

p.s. I'll be traveling the next couple of days. I'll try try to check in.
δρακσεδρω

 

[kaoticprofit]

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Gentlemen,

We are so far afield of the OP (again) that I direct your attention to my (I've simplified it for convenience's sake) thought process:

1. Nobody's perfect except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our imperfection
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

This is what you have been warring against. Let me restate what I wrote:

1. Nobody's perfect (because they commit sin) except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our sin
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

Everyone sins. Do you really want to war against these concepts, still? I must conclude that if you do, that contrary to my previous experience with members of LDS, that the Mormons must be at this time some kind of wacky, non-Christian cult.

And if you insist that rather, you believe Jesus died and rose for human sin, but that it's highly important to correct my doctrine, my history, my false understandings, I repeat, you are merely assaulting what non-Mormon fundamentalists and evangelicals believe, that is, you are being cultic and non-Orthodox in your doctrine and outlook. Repent.

 

[Orontes]

Gentlemen,

We are so far afield of the OP (again) that I direct your attention to my (I've simplified it for convenience's sake) thought process:

1. Nobody's perfect except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our imperfection
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

This is what you have been warring against. Let me restate what I wrote:

1. Nobody's perfect (because they commit sin) except Jesus
2. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to pay for our sin
3. Trust Jesus and be saved

Everyone sins. Do you really want to war against these concepts, still?

Master Billiards,

I would restate your points thusly:

1. No mortal man was/is perfect except Christ
2. Christ as a perfect being, performed the atonement.
3. The atonement includes Christ's death on the cross and rising from the dead
4. Only through Christ may men be saved

I must conclude that if you do, that contrary to my previous experience with members of LDS, that the Mormons must be at this time some kind of wacky, non-Christian cult.

And if you insist that rather, you believe Jesus died and rose for human sin, but that it's highly important to correct my doctrine, my history, my false understandings, I repeat, you are merely assaulting what non-Mormon fundamentalists and evangelicals believe, that is, you are being cultic and non-Orthodox in your doctrine and outlook. Repent.

The above seems rather hostile. I would say that Mormons are not Evangelicals, therefore one shouldn't be surprised if they do not accept Evangelical doctrines. Mormonism is not a product of the Reformed Tradition and rejects the Calvinistic underpinnings of such. The cult reference seems an uninteresting ad hominem. I think you are right though, Mormonism is not orthodox. Mormonism rejects the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the conclusions of Creedal Christendom. It's focus is on prophets and personal revelation.

My participation in this thread has focused on four points. The first three were introduced by you, as I recall and the fourth by me was it related to the Penal Substitution discussion. Those points were:

1) The Penal Substitution Model (which I reject)
2) Christ can make one perfect (which I reject)
3) The Bible is inerrant. (which I reject)
4) The reality and importance of repentance (which you reject)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Orontes:

Where do you think I get my "stuff" from? It isn't all from reading Calvin. LOL.

1. No mortal man was/is perfect except Christ (Romans 3, etc.)
2. Christ as a perfect being, performed the atonement (John 14, etc.)
3. The atonement includes Christ's death on the cross and rising from the dead (1 Cor 15, etc.)
4. Only through Christ may men be saved (Acts 4, etc.)

But I think I now understand your syllogism (and Clear's) although I'm unsure if you both represent what all Mormons believe:

1. People sin
2. Christ died as an example, to show us the love of God, and how we may overcome sin
3. We save ourselves via overcoming sin, and personal repentance
4. [implied] Everyone, including Mormons and evangelicals sin, still, so no one is going to Heaven (or the new Earth that is coming)!

 

[jeager106]

"new earth that is coming" always made more sense to me than spending
an eternity in some "heavenly domain".
I like living on earth. Would be wonderful to live here without sickness, crime, war,
death, creed, corruption.............................................................

 

[Orontes]

Orontes:

Where do you think I get my "stuff" from? It isn't all from reading Calvin. LOL.

1. No mortal man was/is perfect except Christ (Romans 3, etc.)
2. Christ as a perfect being, performed the atonement (John 14, etc.)
3. The atonement includes Christ's death on the cross and rising from the dead (1 Cor 15, etc.)
4. Only through Christ may men be saved (Acts 4, etc.)

But I think I now understand your syllogism (and Clear's) although I'm unsure if you both represent what all Mormons believe:

I agree, I don't think you get all your stuff from Calvin. Some of it is your own fancy, some via Calvin, some from other sources.

I don't think anything I or Clear has written is out of the mainstream of Mormon Thought. Note: the points I wrote above on Christ isn't a syllogism, they are just four points I hold, something any Mormon would agree with.

1. People sin
2. Christ died as an example, to show us the love of God, and how we may overcome sin
3. We save ourselves via overcoming sin, and personal repentance
4. [implied] Everyone, including Mormons and evangelicals sin, still, so no one is going to Heaven (or the new Earth that is coming)!

I wouldn't agree with points 2) through 4)

Per 2) I don't think Christ died simply to be an example. I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences.
Per 3) I don't think men can save themselves. Christ is an essential and indispensable element in any salvatory model.
Per 4) This is simply a non sequitur.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"new earth that is coming" always made more sense to me than spending
an eternity in some "heavenly domain".
I like living on earth. Would be wonderful to live here without sickness, crime, war,
death, creed, corruption.............................................................

I use Heaven for convenience for readers. Most Christians realize Jesus is coming to Earth to dwell with us. Heaven and Earth will touch.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree, I don't think you get all your stuff from Calvin. Some of it is your own fancy, some via Calvin, some from other sources.

I don't think anything I or Clear has written is out of the mainstream of Mormon Thought. Note: the points I wrote above on Christ isn't a syllogism, they are just four points I hold, something any Mormon would agree with.





I wouldn't agree with points 2) through 4)

Per 2) I don't think Christ died simply to be an example. I hold that the atonement has real metaphysical consequences.
Per 3) I don't think men can save themselves. Christ is an essential and indispensable element in any salvatory model.
Per 4) This is simply a non sequitur.

What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?

What is your salvatory model? It absolutely looks like you and Clear are calling people to save themselves, so please explain, if you do not mind repeating.

 

[rrosskopf]

What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?

Mormons absolutely believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ, without which no man can return to live in the presence of God.

Perhaps an illustration would clear things up. Imagine that your sins are a backpack filled with rocks. You are powerless to remove a single rock, because it is on your back, and your arms simply don't reach. Jesus can help remove those rocks, if you let him get close. Jesus, through his atonement, helps us remove the rocks or sins from that backpack. What Jesus cannot do and will not do is take away someones rocks, if they won't let Jesus get close to them. Our sins are what separate us from God. Our sins are not inevitable, nor are they insurmountable; they are based on our stupidity and fear. Many people cling to their sins. They love their sins. They won't let Jesus anywhere near their sins.

We are truly saved by grace, but grace will not rob agency. There is no grace for people who insist on keeping their sins. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Our "salvatory model" starts with remorse; through the preaching of the gospel, a person becomes aware of their sins and wants to be free of them. The first step is for them to make a covenant with God to keep his commandments. This is done through a drama, or mystery known as baptism. We act out the process of birth, as well as the process of death and resurrection, and the washing away of our sins. This is a token of our covenant to keep the commandments of God. When it is witnessed by the agents of God with proper authority, and administered with proper authority, it is binding.

After baptism, the initiate receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. It is the baptism of fire. The Holy Ghost helps us recognize our sins, and will strive with us during the process of learning to love the righteousness of God. The Holy Ghost helps us to use the atonement of Jesus Christ, giving it power in our lives. If we continually resist the Holy Ghost, then we will lose it, and our conversion to righteousness will be halted. When we are once again brought to remorse, we will once again seek its presence and humbly submit ourselves to its influence. Conversion is the mighty change of heart, and it comes through the influence and action of the Holy Ghost.

The sacrament of bread and water is another mystery or drama; we imagine ourselves eating the flesh of Jesus, and drinking his blood as a symbol of our continued covenant to repent of our sins and keep Gods commandments, allowing the atonement of Christ to soften our hearts and change our souls, giving place for the spirit of God.

These are the basics - the milk spoken of by Paul. The greater dramas or mysteries are found in the Temple, and are the meat of the gospel, but the basics cannot be circumvented; one must first master the basics before they can go to the Temple and receive the higher ordinances of salvation. I know this is a strange thing to most Christians, as the Catholic church stopped teaching the higher mysteries around 700 AD, long before the Protestant reformation. The knowledge was lost. Today, only the Mormons practice these higher ordinances of salvation. Many churches don't even practice baptism and the eucharist (what we call the sacrament). People have forgotten why these things are important.

 

[Orontes]

What are the "metaphysical consequences" of a non-atoning atonement?

What is your salvatory model? It absolutely looks like you and Clear are calling people to save themselves, so please explain, if you do not mind repeating.

Master Billiards,

I don't know what an non-atoning atonement is, other than it is self contradictory.

As far as what I posted: that I hold there are real metaphysical consequences to the atonement, these would include such things as resurrection and the status of a sanctified soul, both of which occur only in and through Christ.


As to a salvatory model: no one can save themselves. Neither Clear or myself have ever suggested otherwise. rrosskopt, who posted above, is yet another example of Mormon sentiment. No Mormon ever argues man can save himself. All are dependent on Christ.

Here is the larger salvatory model:

A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ

Per G) Spiritual death is due to sin. Parts 1) through 3) noted below are further detail on G).

1) Salvation depends on Christ as the essential element to the equation.
2) Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.
3) per 1) and 2) while man is dependent, he nonetheless remains part of the equation. (Using logical verbiage: the subject's will and actions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve salvation.)


As to man's will and actions noted in 3) no man can be drug to heaven against their will. Determinism is anathema to a moral universe. In order to be a participant in the at-one-ment, one must be repent, be born again (this includes baptism) and endure to the end, which includes being an active participant in pursuit of the good.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Mormons absolutely believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ, without which no man can return to live in the presence of God.

Perhaps an illustration would clear things up. Imagine that your sins are a backpack filled with rocks. You are powerless to remove a single rock, because it is on your back, and your arms simply don't reach. Jesus can help remove those rocks, if you let him get close. Jesus, through his atonement, helps us remove the rocks or sins from that backpack. What Jesus cannot do and will not do is take away someones rocks, if they won't let Jesus get close to them. Our sins are what separate us from God. Our sins are not inevitable, nor are they insurmountable; they are based on our stupidity and fear. Many people cling to their sins. They love their sins. They won't let Jesus anywhere near their sins.

We are truly saved by grace, but grace will not rob agency. There is no grace for people who insist on keeping their sins. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Our "salvatory model" starts with remorse; through the preaching of the gospel, a person becomes aware of their sins and wants to be free of them. The first step is for them to make a covenant with God to keep his commandments. This is done through a drama, or mystery known as baptism. We act out the process of birth, as well as the process of death and resurrection, and the washing away of our sins. This is a token of our covenant to keep the commandments of God. When it is witnessed by the agents of God with proper authority, and administered with proper authority, it is binding.

After baptism, the initiate receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. It is the baptism of fire. The Holy Ghost helps us recognize our sins, and will strive with us during the process of learning to love the righteousness of God. The Holy Ghost helps us to use the atonement of Jesus Christ, giving it power in our lives. If we continually resist the Holy Ghost, then we will lose it, and our conversion to righteousness will be halted. When we are once again brought to remorse, we will once again seek its presence and humbly submit ourselves to its influence. Conversion is the mighty change of heart, and it comes through the influence and action of the Holy Ghost.

The sacrament of bread and water is another mystery or drama; we imagine ourselves eating the flesh of Jesus, and drinking his blood as a symbol of our continued covenant to repent of our sins and keep Gods commandments, allowing the atonement of Christ to soften our hearts and change our souls, giving place for the spirit of God.

These are the basics - the milk spoken of by Paul. The greater dramas or mysteries are found in the Temple, and are the meat of the gospel, but the basics cannot be circumvented; one must first master the basics before they can go to the Temple and receive the higher ordinances of salvation. I know this is a strange thing to most Christians, as the Catholic church stopped teaching the higher mysteries around 700 AD, long before the Protestant reformation. The knowledge was lost. Today, only the Mormons practice these higher ordinances of salvation. Many churches don't even practice baptism and the eucharist (what we call the sacrament). People have forgotten why these things are important.

Jesus used this come to Him and rocks comparison. He said for those who come, it is as if their sins were as far as East from West.

I've come to Jesus, my pack's rocks have been thrown unto the bottom of the deepest ocean. Hallejujah, but if I turn aside later, does Jesus go to the ocean and dig up my rocks and put them back in my pack? Does that sound like the "love of Jesus"?

When it is witnessed by the agents of God with proper authority, and administered with proper authority, it is binding.

I understand, but here is where Orontes and Clear will raise up Protestantism like it is the mother of Hell, when I point out that again Mormonism is Catholic-like.

Repeating:

When it is witnessed by the agents of God with proper authority, and administered with proper authority, it is binding.

Jesus was my salvation and witness. There was me, there was Him, and I was saved. If I understand the quote you are sharing accurately, it smacks of the simony and priestly "class" the Reformation fought so hard against, and paid for with the loss of millions of lives over several centuries.

Many churches don't even practice baptism and the eucharist (what we call the sacrament). People have forgotten why these things are important.

Many churches where? The Moon? Mars? EVERY church I've ever been to--and in the course of work and life--having worked fulltime in missions--I've been to MANY churches--repeating--EVERY church I've been to had baptisms and the breaking of bread. Neither are salvific.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Master Billiards,

I don't know what an non-atoning atonement is, other than it is self contradictory.

As far as what I posted: that I hold there are real metaphysical consequences to the atonement, these would include such things as resurrection and the status of a sanctified soul, both of which occur only in and through Christ.


As to a salvatory model: no one can save themselves. Neither Clear or myself have ever suggested otherwise. rrosskopt, who posted above, is yet another example of Mormon sentiment. No Mormon ever argues man can save himself. All are dependent on Christ.

Here is the larger salvatory model:

A) There is a God
B) There is man
C) Man is separated from God.
D) The separation and barrier is twofold: man suffers from physical death and spiritual death
E) Christ is the vehicle through which the barriers can be breeched.
F) Physical death is overcome through resurrection via Christ
G) Spiritual death may be overcome through the atonement of Christ

Per G) Spiritual death is due to sin. Parts 1) through 3) noted below are further detail on G).

1) Salvation depends on Christ as the essential element to the equation.
2) Salvation has a moral component, therefore choice (agency) is necessarily involved.
3) per 1) and 2) while man is dependent, he nonetheless remains part of the equation. (Using logical verbiage: the subject's will and actions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve salvation.)


As to man's will and actions noted in 3) no man can be drug to heaven against their will. Determinism is anathema to a moral universe. In order to be a participant in the at-one-ment, one must be repent, be born again (this includes baptism) and endure to the end, which includes being an active participant in pursuit of the good.

I know you know "endure to the end" is not assurance, but rather, the fifth point of Calvinism. I'm neither Calvinist nor an Arminian. Once saved, always saved. "No one can be drug to Heaven against their will" is true of everyone who doesn't trust in Jesus for salvation, yes. However, anyone who trusts God--no judgment (John 3:16).

If the poster above reflects Mormon "sentiment" than certainly Mormon sentiment is that one is saved by priestcraft and works. I'm uncomfortable with that, not because I'm a Calvinist or Modernist, but a lover of the Bible:

"A person is justified by faith, and not by works... you have died to the Law that you might be joined to the body of Christ... now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..."

If I can be a bit more direct, as a Jew who believes the Decalogue, I find the concept that I cannot be made perfect--which means sinless, and that's all it means--by Jesus Christ's atonement--but rather, over dint of MY effort, I will become DIVINE and a GOD over time, untrue, heresy and blasphemy. How many hundreds of verses say there is only One God?

Sorry to switch the goalposts there but the OP is about whether Jesus makes us perfect (sinless) or whether we are gods in embryo, not just a Mormon vanity but the beliefs of many old age and new age religions.

 

[Orontes]

I know you know "endure to the end" is not assurance, but rather, the fifth point of Calvinism. I'm neither Calvinist nor an Arminian. Once saved, always saved. "No one can be drug to Heaven against their will" is true of everyone who doesn't trust in Jesus for salvation, yes. However, anyone who trusts God--no judgment (John 3:16).

If the poster above reflects Mormon "sentiment" than certainly Mormon sentiment is that one is saved by priestcraft and works. I'm uncomfortable with that, not because I'm a Calvinist or Modernist, but a lover of the Bible:

"A person is justified by faith, and not by works... you have died to the Law that you might be joined to the body of Christ... now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested..."

If I can be a bit more direct, as a Jew who believes the Decalogue, I find the concept that I cannot be made perfect--which means sinless, and that's all it means--by Jesus Christ's atonement--but rather, over dint of MY effort, I will become DIVINE and a GOD over time, untrue, heresy and blasphemy. How many hundreds of verses say there is only One God?

Sorry to switch the goalposts there but the OP is about whether Jesus makes us perfect (sinless) or whether we are gods in embryo, not just a Mormon vanity but the beliefs of many old age and new age religions.

Master Billiards,

Your post is a muddle. It is a muddle because you make assertions that we've discussed before that have been shown to be void of substance.

1) Perfection is not the same as sinlessness. The words have different meanings. There is no connection between the two words. Perfection, in any theological sense, entails the maximalization of all positive traits. Sinlessness simply means absence of sin.

2) Per faith and works: this is a false dichotomy. To have faith is to trust, trust is an action and thereby work of the subject. Therefore at even the most basic level the distinction you attempt fails.

3) Per enduring to the end: I am not referring to Reformed Christianity's "perseverance of the saints" that was the fifth point of the Synod of Dort in 1618. This is not "once saved, always saved". The concept of enduring to the end predates the 17th Century and can be found in the New Testament. One simple example: "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt 24:13 The effort of the subject is required. One is not divorced from their own salvation, but must be engaged throughout their life.

4) Per Priesthood and/or ritual: hostility to such is to be opposed to Christianity from its foundations up through the Modern Era. Your theology is a creature of the Post-Reformation and therefore a new thing. If you present something as new, you need to be able to justify it vis-a-vis the tradition you are rejecting. Prophets and revelation would be one option, but that is not part of your positioning. This means you are left with bald assertion. Note: you can't simply make Biblical appeal as the Bible itself contains rituals: baptism, laying on of hands etc. that you reject. Moreover, the Bible is a product of a Tradition you reject. One can't reject a tradition and still hold to the product of that rejected tradition.

5) Per deification:

Deification is atonement: at-one-ment, to be one with Heavenly Father. It means being part of an indwelling loving relationship where you know as you are known. The idea of deification (or theosis) is not unique to Mormonism. Deification has been part of the Christian Movement from its earliest writings. It can be found in the New Testament, to the writings of multiple Patristic Fathers ( Christian theologians before the Ecumenical Councils) and on into the emergence of the Orthodox Tradition(s). Deification is part of the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy and can be found in the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It is only with Protestantism that the idea became, among some, heretical. Below are some simple examples:


From the Roman Catholic Church:

"The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods" - Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, article 460.


One example from Eastern Orthodox teaching:

-"First, deification is not something reserved for a few select initiates, but something intended for all alike. The Orthodox Church believes it is the normal goal for every Christian without exception." –Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos (author of "The Orthodox Church")

Here are a few examples from Christian antiquity:

"The Logos of God, Jesus Christ our Lord . . . was made that which we are, in order that he might perfect us to be what he is. – Irenaeus (2nd Cen), Haer. 4.33.4

"We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods" -Irenaeus (2nd Cen)

"Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior" -Clement of Alexandria (2nd Cen), 'Stromata 7:10'

" Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us." –Athanasius (4th Cen), Against the Arians, 1.39

"But He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods." –St. Augustine (5th Cen), On the Psalms, 50:2.

Hostility to deification is to be hostile to at-one-ment. There is no at-one-ment in a rubric that requires a servile condition.