Different Gods

[Ran77]

I'm not sure that they are vastly different. What if he'd said to just call the TV repairman Jesus and all's well?

I am okay with you not being sure that they are different.

 

[Ran77]

I'm sure we can all agree to that statement. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the question of the thread.

Here is the original questions of the thread:

"Because there is so much difference in the two books for them to represent the same being do we conclude that there are two of me? Has the second author created the existence of a whole new Ran? Or is it a matter of each person having come to their conclusions because of a difference in perspective?"


I think it responded to those questions. What is there left to answer? (Because there is a difference between answering a question and not being given a response that agrees with your view.)

 

[Martinius]

Didn't I tell you before that I didn't care about opinions that did not have the force of scripture on their side? When you say these things, you aren't disagreeing with my opinion. You're disagreeing with the plain words of the scripture.

I described in prior posts my view of over dependence on scripture. I am no longer surprised when people say that one shouldn't believe or trust anything that isn't in scripture. But I wonder how they reconcile that with the first disciples who did not have the scripture that some today use as their crutch?

Just because you do not know the teachings of Jesus Christ, doesn't mean they are unknowable for anyone else. In fact, all you have to do is read them. Outside of Jesus Christ, there is no salvation.

I have been reading and studying the Bible for over a half century. And I have heard and seen many who can recite and quote verses of scripture all day and all night; yet way too often they don't seem to have any real clue as to what Jesus was all about or what it means to be a disciple. Reciting is not understanding.

Notice that through all of this, you don't actually use the scripture. So you attack the scripture, make assertions about it, but don't back any of it up. I don't care about it. Unless you have scripture, there is no reason to believe in the Jesus of your imagination.

You will have to take my word for it that the Jesus I know and follow is very much in my heart. Again, quoting Chapter and Verse does not make one Christian.

And the one place you don't tell them to go is the scripture. In fact, you couldn't care less if they had Jesus at all, because you are denying all exclusivity of Christ. Interesting, isn't it?

I am not sure from where you got those impressions and ideas, but they are quite incorrect. I apologize for having confused you. If you had really read my posts you would have found that I care about Jesus MOST of all, and several times I recommend that people read the Gospels to discover Jesus and internalize his message and meaning and to live out his will.

I know this may be way too subtle for some, but has it ever occurred to you that the Jesus of others may not be exactly the same as YOUR Jesus? That the Jesus some claimed to have followed while enslaving some people and slaughtering others may not be the same Jesus that someone like Mother Teresa followed? And even more subtle, that the Holy Spirit (who IS God, as we all believe) has appeared in various ways and forms to different people in different places and could have done just that throughout human history? We should not be so smug and ego-centric as to think that the Western European view of God is the only way God could be.

A simple question, which no one who holds that particular view of God can adequately answer, is why God would appear in that one way for that one (very small) group of people at that one time, thereby purposely ignoring 99% of humanity then and about 80% of it even today? I cannot conceive of my God being that arbitrary, callous and unloving as to do that. Ergo, there is something that most of us are missing in our understanding of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All I ask is that people think about that. God is not the God of SOME; God is Lord of all, everyone of us. Some have a difficult time accepting that, even though God tells us that...in scripture.

 

[Enkil]

I described in prior posts my view of over dependence on scripture. I am no longer surprised when people say that one shouldn't believe or trust anything that isn't in scripture. But I wonder how they reconcile that with the first disciples who did not have the scripture that some today use as their crutch?

You're missing the point. You are making declarative statements about what the Gospel really teaches, while denying what we know of the Gospel from the only sources of the Gospel... which are the Gospels which have been handed down to us. Whether the "first disciples" did this or that is only your speculation. Your religious opinions are only your speculation, and do not change the written word of the scriptures and the intentions of the authors, whose ultimate author is God. Whether you wish to dispute the latter claim or not is not any of my concern. What I care about is an accurate representation of what Jesus Christ actually taught, from the evidence we have available.

I have been reading and studying the Bible for over a half century. And I have heard and seen many who can recite and quote verses of scripture all day and all night;

Virtually every Jehovah's Witness, Mormon and Gnostic I've run into this forum have made similar claims as this. Yet the only thing you're all sure about is that the scripture, as it plainly stands, isn't true. I'm more concerned with what the scripture plainly says, and not in the speculations from self-proclaimed scripture masters as you say.

Either this is true:

Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Or it isn't. I couldn't care less about all the differing theories of how words don't mean exactly what they say.

You will have to take my word for it that the Jesus I know and follow is very much in my heart. Again, quoting Chapter and Verse does not make one Christian.

Being born again makes one Christian, and not just a claim that one is Christian. Every person on this forum claims to be a Christian, yet most people on this forum (the Unorthodox section anyway) are pretty confident that the Jesus of their imagination is firmly in their heart, despite some believing he is the brother of Lucifer, another that he is an emanation from some other group of deities, and still others that he's the Archangel Michael.

I know this isn't a popular opinion, at least in the little world of the Unorthodox Theology area of the forum, but Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who died and rose again for our sins, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.

That is what the scripture plainly says, and I have no reason to disbelieve it. You might, but that certainly doesn't override anything in my experience. I'm not interested in opinion, but in logical argument and reality.

I am not sure from where you got those impressions and ideas, but they are quite incorrect. I apologize for having confused you. If you had really read my posts you would have found that I care about Jesus MOST of all, and several times I recommend that people read the Gospels to discover Jesus and internalize his message and meaning and to live out his will.

I know this may be way too subtle for some, but has it ever occurred to you that the Jesus of others may not be exactly the same as YOUR Jesus? That the Jesus some claimed to have followed while enslaving some people and slaughtering others may not be the same Jesus that someone like Mother Teresa followed? And even more subtle, that the Holy Spirit (who IS God, as we all believe) has appeared in various ways and forms to different people in different places and could have done just that throughout human history? We should not be so smug and ego-centric as to think that the Western European view of God is the only way God could be.

Notice that despite me asking you over and over again to do it, you still are not providing scripture. None of these arguments are actually anything more than the subjective opinions of someone demanding we ignore objective reality in exchange for your subjective opinions.

A simple question, which no one who holds that particular view of God can adequately answer, is why God would appear in that one way for that one (very small) group of people at that one time, thereby purposely ignoring 99% of humanity then and about 80% of it even today? I cannot conceive of my God being that arbitrary, callous and unloving as to do that. Ergo, there is something that most of us are missing in our understanding of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All I ask is that people think about that. God is not the God of SOME; God is Lord of all, everyone of us. Some have a difficult time accepting that, even though God tells us that...in scripture.

I like how you spend most of your posts telling us why we shouldn't believe the scripture, but then you appeal to the scripture at the end, without actually being specific of course.

But as touching the salvation of all or some. Even Christ Himself says that there are those who belong to Him, and those who do not.

Mat 13:37-42 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; (38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; (39) The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. (40) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; (42) And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Those who belong to Christ were known and chosen by Him before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4-6 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, (6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Not one of these will ever be lost from the hand of God. The Gospel is preached through the entire world, save perhaps the most remotest of places, and even then missionaries go out to find them everyday. If 80 percent of the world is damned, it isn't because they didn't hear the Gospel. It's because they rejected it. But God's purpose wasn't to wink and nod at the vanities of men. His purpose wasn't for you to embrace superficial ideas of what is right and wrong, but to have new life, Truth, a fountain of living water pouring out from within you. It is a relationship and a Life that not only surpasses all of the common worldly ideas, but also openly confounds them. His purpose is to gather together a peculiar people, whose foundation is on faith in Him, who are not saved by their own works (as every world religion appeals to), but by the sovereignty of God, who shall be to us a Husband.

This is not the good works of atheists or charity workers. It is not the ritual cleansings and the handshakes of the Mormon; it is not the obedience of the Jehovah's Witness and their 144,000; nor is it the esoteric "wisdom" of the Gnostics. It is, in fact, the free and unmerited grace and power of God. That's the real irony of it all, by the way, I'm not sure if you noticed it. The doctrine that is maligned for being the most exclusive and unfair, is actually the only one that requires nothing at all from the believer, aside from believing of course.

 

[he-man]

I am pleased and surprised to find us in agreement on this very essential matter.

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus

 

[Albion]

Here is the original questions of the thread:

"Because there is so much difference in the two books for them to represent the same being do we conclude that there are two of me? Has the second author created the existence of a whole new Ran? Or is it a matter of each person having come to their conclusions because of a difference in perspective?"


I think it responded to those questions. What is there left to answer? (Because there is a difference between answering a question and not being given a response that agrees with your view.)

Hmmm. When I read the OP, I read this:

The claim is that LDS worship a different God because our understanding of Him is different than that of our critics. I would like to explore that in more detail here....According to the logic of our critics - there are actually two different people. They are not the same person understood in two different ways. They are each their own seperate entity.

Really? Does that make sense to the rest of you?

.

 

[Martinius]

You're missing the point. You are making declarative statements about what the Gospel really teaches, while denying what we know of the Gospel from the only sources of the Gospel... which are the Gospels which have been handed down to us.

I think we are each missing the other's points. I don't think I have made declarative statements about what the Gospel really teaches; rather, I challenge and encourage people to read the Gospels and figure it out for themselves. Of course what we know of the Gospels comes (mostly) from those Gospels. THAT is exactly what I want people to do. Not to necessarily take my opinion, or your opinion, for what it means, but to find out for themselves. I think that process is vitally important, as something that someone discovers for themselves has greater and more lasting value than something that someone else tells them.

Whether the "first disciples" did this or that is only your speculation. Your religious opinions are only your speculation, and do not change the written word of the scriptures and the intentions of the authors, whose ultimate author is God. Whether you wish to dispute the latter claim or not is not any of my concern. What I care about is an accurate representation of what Jesus Christ actually taught, from the evidence we have available.

You could have fooled me, but I thought these forums were meant for the exact purpose of discussing and speculating and sharing ideas and opinions. If I want a sermon I will go to church.

Virtually every Jehovah's Witness, Mormon and Gnostic I've run into this forum have made similar claims as this. Yet the only thing you're all sure about is that the scripture, as it plainly stands, isn't true.

Please don't include me amongst those who say that scripture "isn't true". That is NOT what I think. I again apologize if that is the impression I gave you. However, it is correct that we do not view the scriptures in exactly the same way, or that our own understandings and interpretations of some parts of it are not the same. But that is nothing new in the history of the church.

I'm more concerned with what the scripture plainly says, and not in the speculations from self-proclaimed scripture masters as you say.

Well, it appears that there is a world of disagreement over what scripture "plainly says", at least when considered as a whole. But you know, I am trying to do exactly what you say, to get to the "plain truth" in scripture. My conclusion so far is that the core of it, the nuts and bolts of what it is all about, can be found primarily in the Gospels, and more specifically in the words and actions of Jesus. If we claim to be Christian, if we expect to be disciples of the Christ, would we not go to his words and his deeds to learn how it is we each should live our lives and how we should relate to God and to one another? So, that is not to say the rest of the Bible is not true, or not important, or not necessary, but that those four books take precedence over all the others. That, as you will certainly say, is my opinion. Actually, it is a key part of my faith.

Either this is true:

"John 3:18: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Or it isn't. I couldn't care less about all the differing theories of how words don't mean exactly what they say.

I am sorry you don't care, because Bible scholars and church theologians, and various ministers have made careers out of discussing what all those words meant or mean. Yet I agree with you, and have said in this thread that one should push all that aside and look for the central truths that God wants us to know and to live by.

Being born again makes one Christian, and not just a claim that one is Christian.

I will hesitate on the first clause, as I am not certain that being "born again" is ALL that is needed. I will concur on the second clause, and say that not everyone who claims to be "a Christian" is Christian.

Every person on this forum claims to be a Christian, yet most people on this forum (the Unorthodox section anyway) are pretty confident that the Jesus of their imagination is firmly in their heart, despite some believing he is the brother of Lucifer, another that he is an emanation from some other group of deities, and still others that he's the Archangel Michael.

Actually, not all here are Christians. And isn't this particular forum for those very people? If you don't like to read those ideas or have people discuss them, then you should move to another forum (just a friendly suggestion).

I know this isn't a popular opinion, at least in the little world of the Unorthodox Theology area of the forum, but Jesus Christ is God incarnate, who died and rose again for our sins, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.

That is a short version of most creeds. Again, this forum often goes beyond those statements. So what? It won't affect your faith or your soul, will it?

That is what the scripture plainly says, and I have no reason to disbelieve it. You might, but that certainly doesn't override anything in my experience. I'm not interested in opinion, but in logical argument and reality.

You should, of course, go with what you believe to be right and true.

Notice that despite me asking you over and over again to do it, you still are not providing scripture. None of these arguments are actually anything more than the subjective opinions of someone demanding we ignore objective reality in exchange for your subjective opinions.

Three reasons. First, I expect that you know and can easily find the appropriate passages in the Gospels that include what I am talking about. Sometimes I will include the Chapter and Verse reference. Second, in past threads here and elsewhere I have read (and have sometimes been drawn into) long running arguments where both sides cited dozens upon dozens of scripture passages. Often with an OT passage opposing an NT passage. Or one Epistle author against another. To what result? The positions of the debaters did not change. Such arguments are futile and counter-productive. Third, as I have said several times, I want people to search it out for themselves and discover what Jesus is saying and doing in the Gospels, and not to take my word for it, your word for it, a minister's word for it, or even the Pope's word for it. And I want people to read ALL of it, not just one or two verses. One must often do that to get the full meaning and context of what Jesus is saying.

I like how you spend most of your posts telling us why we shouldn't believe the scripture, but then you appeal to the scripture at the end, without actually being specific of course.

I thought you would enjoy that. Again, I am sure most of the people here either know what I was referring to, or can easily find it in their Bibles. And I must dispute your accusation; I have not told anyone that they shouldn't "believe" the scripture. I encourage people to read and use it, but to do so with an open mind, not a closed one. Something that Jesus himself seems to have encouraged in his disciples.

But as touching the salvation of all or some. Even Christ Himself says that there are those who belong to Him, and those who do not....Those who belong to Christ were known and chosen by Him before the foundation of the world.

But those who belong to Christ are known by him alone, and should not be assumed by us. And if Christ (God) knows who belongs to him (originally only the Chosen People, the Jews) how is it that the Gentiles got in? Where they already chosen, even though they had no knowledge of God, and likely worshipped pagan dieties? My question on the last part would be: Why did God create all of us, if God knew from the very beginning who would be saved, and more importantly, who those exact people were? If that is true, then the purpose and meaning of the church, our faith and our spiritual lives are totally gone, since it would appear to no longer be necessary. But that is really a topic for another thread.

Not one of these will ever be lost from the hand of God. The Gospel is preached through the entire world, save perhaps the most remotest of places, and even then missionaries go out to find them everyday. If 80 percent of the world is damned, it isn't because they didn't hear the Gospel. It's because they rejected it.

I must disagree with your position, as there must be millions upon millions of Chinese (for one example) who have not heard the Gospel. And what about the question I asked earlier: What about all those who lived and died BEFORE the Gospel could have reached them. Has God condemned them all? Whose failure is that?

...The doctrine that is maligned for being the most exclusive and unfair, is actually the only one that requires nothing at all from the believer, aside from believing of course.

There is much more to what you said here, but I truncated it and recommend that readers refer to your entire post. My last point on this is that I agree with you half way. I too think that nothing is required from the "believer" but to "believe in" God. But I also have an issue with works of mercy and charity. I think that is not something one must do TO EARN a spot in heaven, it is something that one does IF one IS Christian. It is a sign. Self-righteousness without mercy, compassion, charity and love for one another is not what it means to be Christian.

With that, it is time to depart from this thread, and leave it to others to continue the discussion, if they so wish. Thanks for reading and thinking about what I posted; if it is still not clear, please send me a PM or email. Peace to all.

 

[Ran77]

It is, in fact, the free and unmerited grace and power of God. . .The doctrine that is maligned for being the most exclusive and unfair, is actually the only one that requires nothing at all from the believer, aside from believing of course.

Yahoo! Did you catch that, everyone? The LDS are saved. We believe and thus we are saved. Let's all cheer for the good news.

 

[Ran77]

Hmmm. When I read the OP, I read this:

It seems that you did not read the part with the questions then. What you just quoted is to aid my presentation of the questions I listed in my post. (I know, because I wrote it.) And the post we are discussing did indieed respond to those questions.

Why bother to create an argument over this?

 

[Phantasman]

Amen !!!

Then why do Orthodox people pick and chose what they want to believe? Back up a verse there in Ephesians and read the beginning:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus

Christ.


If Paul says God AND Jesus, they are obviously NOT the same being. Yet Orthodoxy believes so because they chose their own verses and try to make people believe parts rather than all of what is truth.


3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:


Paul is saying (as in many places) to worship God. Our blessings come from God. It is God whom we worship, not Christ.


How about 1 Corinthians 11

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Is Jesus still God? Is Paul lying? If the head of Christ is God, how can God be the head of himself? I'm sure you'll find something (or make something up) to try to prove your lame man made idea's are correct, rather than to admit that you may be following a wrong path. I have more when you're ready.


BTW- Paul always starts his letters distinguishing between the Father and the Son.

 

[Albion]

It seems that you did not read the part with the questions then.

Funny. I see several question marks in that passage.

Are you sure that you aren't simply trying to escape from fact that most people didn't think you could avoid the reality of LDS following a God which is of their own making...IOW a second God, although Bible language is used for the Father and Christ?

 

[Albion]

Then why do Orthodox people pick and chose what they want to believe?

I don't know that it's accurate to say that "they" do. There are Christians who certainly DO pick and choose to suit their own predetermined beliefs or perhaps just preferences. However, the reality of many different denominations owes mainly to sincere differences of interpretation, not "pick and choose what they want to believe."

 

[Enkil]

You could have fooled me, but I thought these forums were meant for the exact purpose of discussing and speculating and sharing ideas and opinions. If I want a sermon I will go to church.

That's the thing. Your arguments are pure sentimentalism. You're asking us to take something as truth based purely on emotional type arguments, instead of actually addressing what the Bible says. What other argument can I give to a sentimentalist argument other than "Well, that's not what the plain words of the Bible says. Why should I believe any of this?" Really, what do you expect me to say?

Please don't include me amongst those who say that scripture "isn't true". That is NOT what I think. I again apologize if that is the impression I gave you. However, it is correct that we do not view the scriptures in exactly the same way, or that our own understandings and interpretations of some parts of it are not the same. But that is nothing new in the history of the church.

Then let us stop the charade of just talking about the scriptures you allegedly believe or disbelieve, and actually analyze them. Any other argument simply has no power at all.

Well, it appears that there is a world of disagreement over what scripture "plainly says", at least when considered as a whole. But you know, I am trying to do exactly what you say, to get to the "plain truth" in scripture. My conclusion so far is that the core of it, the nuts and bolts of what it is all about, can be found primarily in the Gospels, and more specifically in the words and actions of Jesus. If we claim to be Christian, if we expect to be disciples of the Christ, would we not go to his words and his deeds to learn how it is we each should live our lives and how we should relate to God and to one another? So, that is not to say the rest of the Bible is not true, or not important, or not necessary, but that those four books take precedence over all the others. That, as you will certainly say, is my opinion. Actually, it is a key part of my faith.

Okay, lets start with this:

Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I am sorry you don't care, because Bible scholars and church theologians, and various ministers have made careers out of discussing what all those words meant or mean.

Instead of talking about it, how about we do it.

If you don't like to read those ideas or have people discuss them, then you should move to another forum (just a friendly suggestion).

Who says I don't want to hear them? I'm responding to you, right? I'm just asking you to give an argument that is based on concrete facts. Why should I take a purely emotional argument as any kind of concrete fact on what the scripture actually says?

Three reasons. First, I expect that you know and can easily find the appropriate passages in the Gospels that include what I am talking about. Sometimes I will include the Chapter and Verse reference. Second, in past threads here and elsewhere I have read (and have sometimes been drawn into) long running arguments where both sides cited dozens upon dozens of scripture passages. Often with an OT passage opposing an NT passage. Or one Epistle author against another. To what result? The positions of the debaters did not change.

Go for it, because any other type of exchange is utterly meaningless. I'm ready when you are, and I'm pretty sure Universalism isn't a position that you can actually defend using the scripture. So less talking about it and more doing.

But those who belong to Christ are known by him alone, and should not be assumed by us.

Gal 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If someone is preaching a different Gospel than what the scripture plainly teaches, I think we can be safe to say that their salvation is very unlikely.

And if Christ (God) knows who belongs to him (originally only the Chosen People, the Jews) how is it that the Gentiles got in?

The same way everyone gets in. Through the blood of Jesus Christ. It was predicted long before it happened.

Isa 52:14-15 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: (15) So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Where they already chosen, even though they had no knowledge of God, and likely worshipped pagan dieties?

Once you convert, you no longer worship Pagan deities.

Mat_4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Why do you think they were crying for help?

Act 16:8-10 And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. (9) And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. (10) And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Because there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

My question on the last part would be: Why did God create all of us, if God knew from the very beginning who would be saved, and more importantly, who those exact people were? If that is true, then the purpose and meaning of the church, our faith and our spiritual lives are totally gone, since it would appear to no longer be necessary. But that is really a topic for another thread.

It's a topic you can have right now. I don't see how it follows that God's foreknowledge of the children of God and the children of the Devil implies the end of our "spiritual lives." One would think that such an opposition in the world would imply just the opposite.

I must disagree with your position, as there must be millions upon millions of Chinese (for one example) who have not heard the Gospel.

There are actually expectations that China, in the coming decades, will surpass the United States in the number of Christians. The persecution of the Communists actually makes them much hotter and purer for God. It's only when people are rich and comfortable that they start becoming Universalists or other weird beliefs. In fact, the Asian countries are fixing to be greater senders of missionaries than even our own Western countries.

And what about the question I asked earlier: What about all those who lived and died BEFORE the Gospel could have reached them. Has God condemned them all? Whose failure is that?

Wouldn't it be their own failure?:

Rom 1:17-25 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

The real question is, is God obligated to ensure universal salvation for all creation? Is He not allowed to pick for Himself His own people?

Rom 9:6-25 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. (10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth (12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (17) For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. (18) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (19) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Doesn't look like it.

 

[Ran77]

Funny. I see several question marks in that passage.

There are exactly two in the part of my post you quoted. "Really?" which is rhetorical and "Does that make sense to you?" which is there to direct the discussion back to the questions I listed in my post.

How odd that you are attempting to make something out of this.

Are you sure that you aren't simply trying to escape from fact that most people didn't think you could avoid the reality of LDS following a God which is of their own making...IOW a second God, although Bible language is used for the Father and Christ?

Oh, I'm quite sure. I'm not concerned about what "most" people think.

 

[Phantasman]

I don't know that it's accurate to say that "they" do. There are Christians who certainly DO pick and choose to suit their own predetermined beliefs or perhaps just preferences. However, the reality of many different denominations owes mainly to sincere differences of interpretation, not "pick and choose what they want to believe."

Then maybe the statement should be, "why do Orthodox Christians ignore the black and white that determines a standard that conflicts with what their belief entails"? To take a verse that Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and turn it into God is Jesus, while Paul constantly refers to God as the Father and Jesus as the son, post resurrection, tells me that they take one verse and fly with it as Tertullian did and convinced many churches to teach the same.

A perfect example of following men (who were coming as antichrist) or God.

 

[Enkil]

Then maybe the statement should be, "why do Orthodox Christians ignore the black and white that determines a standard that conflicts with what their belief entails"? To take a verse that Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and turn it into God is Jesus, while Paul constantly refers to God as the Father and Jesus as the son, post resurrection, tells me that they take one verse and fly with it as Tertullian did and convinced many churches to teach the same.

A perfect example of following men (who were coming as antichrist) or God.

The same Paul who differentiated between the Father and the Son, also called the Son the Creator and the Son God eternal. Just because you can cherry pick scriptures, doesn't mean that it changes the meaning of the whole. There is no controversy within the Bible about the divinity of Christ. It's just you, all you, accusing others of what you are in fact doing.

 

[Albion]

There are exactly two in the part of my post you quoted. "Really?" which is rhetorical and "Does that make sense to you?" which is there to direct the discussion back to the questions I listed in my post.

How odd that you are attempting to make something out of this.

Yeh, I was thinking the same about your post.

 

[Albion]

Then maybe the statement should be, "why do Orthodox Christians ignore the black and white that determines a standard that conflicts with what their belief entails"? To take a verse that Jesus says "I and the Father are one" and turn it into God is Jesus, while Paul constantly refers to God as the Father and Jesus as the son, post resurrection, tells me that they take one verse and fly with it as Tertullian did and convinced many churches to teach the same.

Well, the problem there is that you suppose that "I and the Father are one" is black and white. Even a quick look should tell you that it's not so.

The Father and the Son are one...in what way? Does this mean that they're one being? Or could it mean one in purpose? Or of one mind? Anyone should be able to see that this is not open and shut, black and white, regardless of which interpretation he leans towards..

 

[Ran77]

Yeh, I was thinking the same about your post.

Cool. Then we are done.

 

[Phantasman]

Well, the problem there is that you suppose that "I and the Father are one" is black and white. Even a quick look should tell you that it's not so.

The Father and the Son are one...in what way? Does this mean that they're one being? Or could it mean one in purpose? Or of one mind? Anyone should be able to see that this is not open and shut, black and white, regardless of which interpretation he leans towards..

Yep. I don't suppose that. I'm not Orthodox. One mind, yes. One entity, no.