For JWs and LDS

[A New Dawn]

Yes, I can see that. I guess I would ask... if God gives a person faith, does he have to believe?

I would say yes. This is why I say yes ....... If God gives us faith, He has already changed our heart condition so it aligns with his own. Because of our changed heart condition, we can't help but believe.

This is my belief based on what I have read in, and interpreted from, the Bible. There are others who don't believe this exact belief.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I would say yes. This is why I say yes ....... If God gives us faith, He has already changed our heart condition so it aligns with his own. Because of our changed heart condition, we can't help but believe.

This is my belief based on what I have read in, and interpreted from, the Bible. There are others who don't believe this exact belief.

Thanks. What you are describing sounds like irresistible grace, although in this case it would be something more like irresistible faith. Sound like an accurate summary? Also, can man act contrary to faith once it has been given?

 

[A New Dawn]

Thanks. What you are describing sounds like irresistible grace, although in this case it would be something more like irresistible faith. Sound like an accurate summary? Also, can man act contrary to faith once it has been given?

It is irresistible grace.

Can man act contrary to it? He can try, but it would be a lie, and he would eventually come around. My question would be, why would he?

 

[TasteForTruth]

It is irresistible grace.

OK.

Can man act contrary to it? He can try, but it would be a lie, and he would eventually come around. My question would be, why would he?

Well, why do any of us do things which God doesn't want for us, which cause us or others pain, etc.? My response is that we do those things at all because we are under influences in mortality which entice us the other direction—and we yield to them primarily because we want to, for reasons most easily defined in the moment of the choice.

So from what you wrote above it sounds like a person to whom God has given faith can attempt to resist that faith and act contrary to it, but will fail. Is that correct?

 

[A New Dawn]

OK.

Well, why do any of us do things which God doesn't want for us, which cause us or others pain, etc.? My response is that we do those things at all because we are under influences in mortality which entice us the other direction—and we yield to them primarily because we want to, for reasons most easily defined in the moment of the choice.

So from what you wrote above it sounds like a person to whom God has given faith can attempt to resist that faith and act contrary to it, but will fail. Is that correct?

I think we need to separate attempting to resist faith from being human and still sinning out of our humanness. I just don't believe that one who's truly had their hearts turned by God will resist. It might take them a while to adjust, or to find out how to go about changing their life so it reflects that change made by God. I also believe that even people who have a life-altering event are still tempted to sin, in fact, I feel that, often, believers have a big old target on their backs that Satan likes to throw darts at. LOL. I believe that the difference between a believer and one whose heart hasn't been changed is that a believer doesn't live in habitual sin. They are constantly repenting when they know that what they have done is abhorrent to God.

I'm just not sure where this is going to know how to respond.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Nice dodge. Actually, we are discussing a flaw with your argument.

Very well. Here are your questions -

How does the 10 Commandments fit into this? Isn't that a list of duties that God expects man to perform? If so, do you believe that men should perform them?

The 10 Commandments don't fit into this. It is not a list of duties that God expects man to perform. It is the core of the covenant made between God and Israel at Mount Sinai. All those who have entered into that covenant are required by God to perform them. I am under the New Covenant made between God the the Church on Mount Calvary. What covenant are you under?

 

[bbbbbbb]

This has always perplexed me. Faith is a knowledge of things you know to be true, but can not see. We can faith in all things. How can God implant faith into someone?

Fatboys, do you care to respond to my earlier reply to your post?

 

[TasteForTruth]

I'm just not sure where this is going to know how to respond.

I'm not sure what there is to worry about. We're just exploring our beliefs to establish a common frame of reference, if possible.

I think we need to separate attempting to resist faith from being human and still sinning out of our humanness. I just don't believe that one who's truly had their hearts turned by God will resist. It might take them a while to adjust, or to find out how to go about changing their life so it reflects that change made by God. I also believe that even people who have a life-altering event are still tempted to sin, in fact, I feel that, often, believers have a big old target on their backs that Satan likes to throw darts at. LOL. I believe that the difference between a believer and one whose heart hasn't been changed is that a believer doesn't live in habitual sin. They are constantly repenting when they know that what they have done is abhorrent to God.

OK. Let me clarify a few more things. You say that we need to separate "sinning out of humanness" from "resisting" God's irresistible grace (and the accompanying faith). Since committing your run-of-the-mill sins does not appear to constitute "resisting" God's grace, could you explain what "resisting" God's grace looks like? Maybe an example?

 

[he-man]

Thanks. I think that we have the difference shown in your reply between that of orthodox Christian and Mormonism. In orthodox Christianity either one is a Christian and has the sure destination of eternal life in heaven with Jesus Christ or he is not and has a destination in the Lake of Fire for eternity. In Mormonism one is rarely deemed so unworthy as to deserve the outer darkness, by few are also deemed worthy enought to achieve the hisghest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. The great mass of humanity, including the majority of Mormons end up somewhere in between. Thus, a Mormon can declare virtually everyone on earth to be a Christian in the sense that they will not end up in the outer darkness, but also in good conscience declare that only truly worthy Christians (which, of course, is limited to Mormons) actually will spend eternity in the presence of the Savior.

That is Error #3666
"raiment" or "remnant"?

Isaiah 14:19 (KJV) says: "But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, [and as] the raiment of those that are slain..." The Hebrew word translated as "raiment" is 'lebush', which appears 28 times in the Bible, translated variously in the KJV as "clothing," "apparel," "garment," "vestment," "vesture," and, here, as "raiment."
This passage also appears in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 24:19, but "raiment" is replaced by "remnant." Joseph Smith's "inspired" version of the Bible also has "remnant."​

Which is correct? There are over eight Hebrew words meaning "remnant" in the Bible, occurring dozens of times, none of them having the remotest similarity to 'lebush.' The explanation is quite obvious: Joseph Smith, in dictating the Book of Mormon to his scribe, and reading from his King James Bible, said "raiment" correctly, but the scribe misheard "remnant." And Joseph never caught the error. "Remnant" doesn't even make sense in the context.
The word translated as "bind" in Matt 16:19 is the Greek word 'deo', and it means to "tie up [like a prisoner]," that is, to restrict someone's freedom, with a negative connotation. It is used in that meaning about thirty times in the New Testament. Paul uses it three times to refer to a person being bound by the law to the spouse, (Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:27, 39), but even in those three passages he is speaking of being restricted in contrast to being free.

A similar passage in John's gospel (20:23) hints at the correct intent of the passages: the release from sin.​

The Book of Mormon has the same passage as Matt 16:19, at Helaman 10:7, but changes "bind" to "seal." Joseph Smith's "inspired" translation is identical to the King James version of Matt 16:19.​

"Evangelists" are mentioned only three times in the New Testament. Philip was an evangelist in Caesarea (Acts 21:8), but there is no hint as to why he was called that. Evangelists are listed among other callings (prophets, teachers, pastors, apostles) at Ephesians 4:11, without defining what an evangelist is. But Paul hints at what an evangelist is in 2 Timothy 4:1-5, where it seems clear that an evangelist is one who works at spreading the Gospel.​

Since the Greek word for "gospel" is 'euangelion' and the verb meaning "to preach the gospel" is 'euangelizein', clearly the Greek word for "evangelist" (euangelistes) means "preacher of the gospel."​

However, Joseph Smith declared: "An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 151) He goes on to say that the function of a "patriarch" in the Mormon church is to give blessings. It is not primarily to preach or to spread the gospel.
There are thus two problems with the "evangelists" of the sixth "Article of Faith." First, Joseph Smith gave a completely new meaning to the word, justified neither scripturally nor linguistically. And second, there is no such title or office in the Mormon church. ​

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#KINGJAMES​

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not sure what there is to worry about. We're just exploring our beliefs to establish a common frame of reference, if possible.

OK. Let me clarify a few more things. You say that we need to separate "sinning out of humanness" from "resisting" God's irresistible grace (and the accompanying faith). Since committing your run-of-the-mill sins does not appear to constitute "resisting" God's grace, could you explain what "resisting" God's grace looks like? Maybe an example?

It's hard to describe something I don't believe to be possible, but I can describe how one can be a believer and still be sinning. I believe that an example would be, maybe a drug addict who has had an encounter with God. Prior to God changing their heart, they are mired in sin. They see no problem with what they are doing to themselves and, presumably, what they are doing to others in order to get money for drugs. After God has changed their hearts, they are likely still addicts, but they know that what they are doing is wrong (both to themselves and to others), and they may still struggle with the addiction, but now they are actively trying to resist their enslavement. The difference between before and after is the heart condition.

 

[Rescued One]

When God changes a person's heart and grants the gift of faith at the same moment, I believe he has begun the good work in us. He will bring that work to completion. The work had a beginning and it will continue until the individual is completely conformed to Christ. The struggle with sin is completely eradicated when we meet our Savior face to face.

Example:

The Good Shepherd purchased the sheep with His own blood, and though the sheep may generally follow Him, it may not see all the danger in or near the path. The Shepherd cares for His sheep and if one is in need of His help, He sees the danger and carries the sheep in His arms.

He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
Isaiah 40:11

If God abandons the work He began, why does the New Testment instruct us with the following?

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Hebrews 12:6

Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
Deuteronomy 8:5

 

[TasteForTruth]

It's hard to describe something I don't believe to be possible, but I can describe how one can be a believer and still be sinning. I believe that an example would be, maybe a drug addict who has had an encounter with God. Prior to God changing their heart, they are mired in sin. They see no problem with what they are doing to themselves and, presumably, what they are doing to others in order to get money for drugs. After God has changed their hearts, they are likely still addicts, but they know that what they are doing is wrong (both to themselves and to others), and they may still struggle with the addiction, but now they are actively trying to resist their enslavement. The difference between before and after is the heart condition.

I guess the reason I'm still seeking clarification is because it doesn't make any sense to me. And it doesn't seem to make sense to you, either. Just an observation.

For example, you have a hard time describing "resisting" God's grace because you don't think it's possible. OK. Yet you say that people can try to resist it. But you can't come up with an example of how a person might try. OK, so let's try this one step at a time:

I'm a drug addict. I deal drugs, use drugs, steal money to get drugs, etc.
Am I under God's grace at this time?

 

[A New Dawn]

I guess the reason I'm still seeking clarification is because it doesn't make any sense to me. And it doesn't seem to make sense to you, either. Just an observation.

For example, you have a hard time describing "resisting" God's grace because you don't think it's possible. OK. Yet you say that people can try to resist it. But you can't come up with an example of how a person might try. OK, so let's try this one step at a time:

I'm a drug addict. I deal drugs, use drugs, steal money to get drugs, etc.
Am I under God's grace at this time?

It depends on if He has changed your heart condition. If He has, then yes. If He hasn't, then no.

(This answer is assuming we are talking about the grace of salvation. There are common graces that God gives to all that I assume we are not talking about.)

 

[TasteForTruth]

It depends on if He has changed your heart condition. If He has, then yes. If He hasn't, then no.

(This answer is assuming we are talking about the grace of salvation. There are common graces that God gives to all that I assume we are not talking about.)

Yes, I'm asking about the grace of salvation.

Well if he's actively doing drugs, stealing, etc., is he under God's grace. That's the question.

 

[A New Dawn]

Yes, I'm asking about the grace of salvation.

Well if he's actively doing drugs, stealing, etc., is he under God's grace. That's the question.

The answer is dependent on whether God has worked in his heart or not. It isn't actions that save us or damn us, it is whether or not God has changed his heart from stone to flesh.

 

[he-man]

The answer is dependent on whether God has worked in his heart or not. It isn't actions that save us or damn us, it is whether or not God has changed his heart from stone to flesh.

So, why did the Mormons not follow the teachings of the Bible?

The Elias of the Restoration. According to Joseph Smith, says McConkie, Christ is the Elias (JST "Inspired Version" John 1:21-28).
McConkie clarifies: "By revelation we are also informed that the Elias who was to restore all things is the angel Gabriel who was known in mortality as Noah. (D&C 27:6-7) ...

From the same authentic source we also learn that the promised Elias is John the Revelator. (D&C 77:9, 14)." McConkie then concludes that 'Elias' is a "composite personage." It is a "name and a title."

John the Baptist is a good example of an 'Elias,' says McConkie. Now, which explanation makes more sense and is more likely the case? McConkie's (Elias is a hitherto unknown prophet of Abraham's time, with a Greek name, or maybe
Abraham himself, or Melchizedek, or Gabriel - who is also Noah - and Christ, and Elijah, and John the Baptist, and John the Revelator, and a "spirit or doctrine")?

Or the more obvious conclusion that Joseph Smith was simply ignorant of the fact that the King James New Testament uses the Greek version of Old Testament names?​

Moral: all it takes is one stupid mistake to form the basis for an entire complicated theology​

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#KINGJAMES

 

[TasteForTruth]

The answer is dependent on whether God has worked in his heart or not. It isn't actions that save us or damn us, it is whether or not God has changed his heart from stone to flesh.

I see. So it is possible that God has already worked in my drug-addict-thief's heart and changed it from stone to flesh. And the fact, or not, that he continues to deal drugs to children, do drugs himself, and steal from others to perpetuate his habit—those things are neither indicators that his heart has or has not been changed, nor do they affect his salvation. Is that correct?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Moral: all it takes is one stupid mistake to form the basis for an entire complicated theology
http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#KINGJAMES

Yes, and Mormons don't have a monopoly on it, either. There are some real doozies out there,

 

[A New Dawn]

I see. So it is possible that God has already worked in my drug-addict-thief's heart and changed it from stone to flesh. And the fact, or not, that he continues to deal drugs to children, do drugs himself, and steal from others to perpetuate his habit—those things are neither indicators that his heart has or has not been changed, nor do they affect his salvation. Is that correct?

Someone who is a drug addict, whom God worked in his heart, is still a drug addict. But he is a drug addict who struggles against the chains of the addiction so they can free themselves from the active phase of the addiction (they will always be addicts).

Christ died for all of our sins. He didn't just die for some of our sins, or half our sins. He died for all of them. That is why we don't have to work for our salvation. They have already been absolved at the point we are justified (past tense). What happens after that is the work of sanctification. Sanctification is the part of salvation where we are being saved (present tense) from the power of sin. It is us participating with the Holy Spirit to be conformed to the image of Christ. Glorification is the future tense of salvation, in which we will be saved from the presence of sin. Justification and glorification are God's work in us (no help from us needed), sanctification is us cooperating with the Holy Spirit.

In the example of the drug addict, when God works his work on the addict's heart, that is justification, and all the addict's sins are forgiven. After that, the addict participates with the Holy Spirit and struggles to break the bondage the drugs hold over him. It is part of the sanctification process. He doesn't cease being a drug addict immediately upon justification, so there will likely be times the drugs have more power over him than the HS, but it is the struggle to become clean that is the fruit of the HS's work in him.

I'm not sure if I can explain this clearer, but what I see as a problem for LDS is that they seem to see salvation as a future event, with everything we do bearing on God's decision whether or not we are going to be saved, while for us, salvation is an on-going process that started at the time of justification and goes till we are sitting in glory with God.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Someone who is a drug addict, whom God worked in his heart, is still a drug addict. But he is a drug addict who struggles against the chains of the addiction so they can free themselves from the active phase of the addiction (they will always be addicts).

Christ died for all of our sins. He didn't just die for some of our sins, or half our sins. He died for all of them. That is why we don't have to work for our salvation. They have already been absolved at the point we are justified (past tense). What happens after that is the work of sanctification. Sanctification is the part of salvation where we are being saved (present tense) from the power of sin. It is us participating with the Holy Spirit to be conformed to the image of Christ. Glorification is the future tense of salvation, in which we will be saved from the presence of sin. Justification and glorification are God's work in us (no help from us needed), sanctification is us cooperating with the Holy Spirit.

In the example of the drug addict, when God works his work on the addict's heart, that is justification, and all the addict's sins are forgiven. After that, the addict participates with the Holy Spirit and struggles to break the bondage the drugs hold over him. It is part of the sanctification process. He doesn't cease being a drug addict immediately upon justification, so there will likely be times the drugs have more power over him than the HS, but it is the struggle to become clean that is the fruit of the HS's work in him.

I'm not sure if I can explain this clearer, but what I see as a problem for LDS is that they seem to see salvation as a future event, with everything we do bearing on God's decision whether or not we are going to be saved, while for us, salvation is an on-going process that started at the time of justification and goes till we are sitting in glory with God.

Thanks for your explanation. I'm working on this... let's not get ahead of the horse.

What constitutes sin?