Ordinances...

[Rescued One]

Apparently I'm not explaining myself well. I agree that the names are written in the book. By the qualification you gave, they are thus saved. What then, must they overcome as Rev 3:5 commands them to do?

Our faith overcomes the wiles of the devil (the world). And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. We are more than conquerors through him that loved us. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world, etc.

 

[jeffC]

[double post]

 

[jeffC]

[double post]

 

[Orontes]

This reply doesn't answer my question(s). Final means last. What justifies the claim the Bible is the last written word?

Can you prove that we need any knowledge beyond what is written in the Bible to be saved? If not, then I see no point in in looking for more information on the subject of Salvation. Do you know of any other book that holds more teaching about Christ and more information about his life?

None of the above answers my question: why is the Bible the final written word?

I can't answer your first question until you flush it out some. First you need to qualify what you mean by saved. Second you need to qualify which Bible are you referring to? Third, you need to determine what the proof standard is? Do this and then I can properly answer your question. Now, before you complain be aware, what you think saved means may not be the same as what others take it to mean. You should know there are multiple versions of the Bible. Are we simply to assume the Protestant Bible is the Bible? Why should be do that? Finally, I have no idea what you mean by prove. Are you referring to a logical argument?

I do know other books that hold more teachings and information about Christ.

Why will revelation never contradict the Bible? Does this mean it cannot? Does the Bible constrain God? The Bible itself has many examples of God changing course and of commandants to do a thing that are later changed. If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?

I assume you are referring to the Mosaic law that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Christ did not contradict the Mosaic law and the Mosaic law was mainly a prophecy about Christ. A course change did happen but it shows no contradiction. God would never contradict himself nor allow anyone whom was speaking a revelation to contradict something he previously revealed.

You didn't answer my questions here either. Note again: "If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?" I'm not simply referring to the Mosaic Law.

I was using an example of Christ using hyperbole but if it is hyperbolic accusations you must have, it will be given you.

Luke 6:41
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Why is this hyperbole? Are you confusing metaphor with hyperbole?

Unless you can prove that the use of hyperbole to make an accusation against a person or people is out of place in the Bible then you argument holds no ground and that it is a violation of the second greatest commandment, then your wasting your time bringing the subject up over and over again.

Do you understand what hyperbole means? It means excessive: from the Greek it literally means to over throw, as in miss the mark. A hyperbolic accusation would mean an accusation that is over the top and thereby unjustified by definition. To argue Christ used hyperbolic accusations would suggest something other than perfection. You may want to reconsider your position before you entrench too deeply.

I think I have demonstrated what I believe to be wrong doing. When the men came to capture Elijah, fire rained down from heaven and consumed them. The prophets of the Bible relied on God for protection, not a pistol or sword or any earthly weapon.

This is interesting. Elijah is OK because he unleashes fire to consume over a hundred guys, but Joseph Smith is condemned because he wounds three and two eventually died. I thought your argument was about prophets using violence. Wouldn't the consistent tact be to condemn Elijah because he didn't meekly submit?

I am very familiar with satire. You are comparing the lives of men whom lived before the law of Moses was given to a man who lived after Christ came, 1800 some odd years infact. No doubt, it was common for the things that were listed in the article to be done in their day, right or not. This is not to say that men were without Morals but that these men did not know the law given to Moses. And in a personal opinion, the article was comparing the lives of men chosen by God to a man I do not believe to be chosen by God.

If you are familiar with satire then you should see why your reply was somewhat off base: the whole Law of Moses reference being a perfect example.

If one believes there was a moral standard during the Period the Book of Genesis is concerned with then the point of the article should be clear. Sinai is not relevant.

Of course, the last sentence quoted above is the most telling. It would appear you are willing to justify anything if you assume the agent is 'chosen by God' but take the opposite stance if the fellow is on the wrong side of the Zealous line. You seem to demonstrate the article's point nicely.

Are you suggesting that Christ violated the second commandment by referring to men as fools?

No, I'm asking if you believe calling someone a fool follows the Second Great Commandment.

Prophets brought men back from the dead.

What is the relevance of this sentence?

If Joseph Smith knew when and how he were to be killed, would not the Christian thing to do be to surrender yourself before the shooting even starts?

Joseph Smith had already surrendered himself. He was in a jail. The mob attacked the jail and the jailers removed themselves, leaving Joseph to his fate.

[SIZE=+0]

Is this not showing love for your enemies to?

[SIZE=+0]By since he had such a great fore knowledge of the event, shouldnt he have surrendered himself to spare those with him and his enemies from harm, just as Christ did? Face it, Joseph Smith acted as a wolf on the day of his death, not as a lamb. [/SIZE]

[/SIZE]

How is a prisoner attacked while in a jail acting as a wolf? Who was he preying on?

It isnt a cover up in the fact that they destroyed the information of how things truly unfolded but it is a cover up in the sense that the true events are rarely told.

The events of Joseph Smith's murder are well known in Mormon circles. They are also readily accessible for any interested in the issue. One of the reasons is because of the accounts preserved by Mormon authors. The very expanded quote you reposted via Swart of Joseph having and using a pistol is from the Official History of the Church. Why would this be included if there were a cover up? Very strange. A cover up is an intentional deception by way of hiding evidence. Your charge is flawed. The fact you have dug in rather than simply admitting the error is telling.

If you believe I am deriding and making accusations without legitimate reasons that is fine. However, I would like to inform you that I do not consider it a lesiruely activity, infact I can hardly stand to even post in these forums. When I may 90% of my posts, It is more of a feeling of something that must be done rather then a feeling of enjoyment.

You can't hardly stand to post in these forums? Are you referring to CF or just where the Mormons are typically confined in CF? Is this because of guilt over attacking other people's faiths that you nonetheless feel must be done? I wonder, how does this all fit with the Sermon on the Mount? I think you would do better to put away your acrimony and accusations, it will lead you down a dark road.

 

[Orontes]

double post: something is running amuck.

 

[Orontes]

Hmm, something strange: test

 

[jeffC]

Our faith overcomes the wiles of the devil (the world).

Precisely. And that would be living faith, not dead faith (as per James 2). Dead faith is overcome faith (cf. 2 Pet 2:20). This is where free agency comes in. We either choose to confess our sins and repent or we don't. We either choose to accept every word that comes from the mouth of God, or we don't.

One mustn't allow his faith to be overcome by deception, as happened to some early Christians: 2 Tim 2:17,18 "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."

The faith of a believer must overcome; if he does not humble himself and repent of sins, his name will be blotted out of the Book of Life. The Lord was not winking slyly when he commanded the saints seven times to repent and overcome in order to receive eternal life in Rev ch. 2 & 3. Having ones name blotted out of the Book of Live as in ch 3:5 is a real consequence. It means, as in Heb 10:26, that there "remains no sacrifice of sins" for the unrepentant. "remains," Strongs# 620 as in the Christian had that blessing but lost it; left it behind; deserted or forsaken it.

Matt 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

My view is that in this life, there is no such thing as "always saved." To declare exemption from the final judgement seems hasty. But, in this life there is faith, hope, and the love of God in our hearts.

 

[jeffC]

What are you asking? Are you telling me that I can save myself? The saved don't become unsaved.

Of course I'm not saying that one can save himself; you know that. I also believe that the scriptures demonstrate fully and frequently that one is not truly saved until he or she has persevered to the end.

What is your definition for the person who is saved? In other words, I have heard evangelicals say that they know they are saved. What allows some to be so convinced of their own status, and then declare also that their friend who left Christ was never saved in the first place, though that friend may have been equally convinced of his own status?

 

[skylark1]

In other words, I have heard evangelicals say that they know they are saved. What allows some to be so convinced of their own status, and then declare also that their friend who left Christ was never saved in the first place, though that friend may have been equally convinced of his own status?

I realize that this was directed to Pheobe Ann, but I hope that you don't mind if I add a few comments.

1 Peter 3

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
​

If one is born again, then their salvation is protected by the power of God.

6In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,
7so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
​

Trials show proof of our faith. If one's faith is not genuine, then trials will reveal this. If one's faith is genuine, then trials will produce perserverence and mature our faith (Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. James 1:2-4).

8and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.
​

Salvation is obtained as an outcome of one's faith.

​

 

[Orontes]

I posted this last night, but both My and JeffC's posts somehow got posted farther back in the thread, mighty queersome.

This reply doesn't answer my question(s). Final means last. What justifies the claim the Bible is the last written word?

Can you prove that we need any knowledge beyond what is written in the Bible to be saved? If not, then I see no point in in looking for more information on the subject of Salvation. Do you know of any other book that holds more teaching about Christ and more information about his life?

None of the above answers my question: why is the Bible the final written word?

I can't answer your first question until you flush it out some. First you need to qualify what you mean by saved. Second you need to qualify which Bible are you referring to? Third, you need to determine what the proof standard is? Do this and then I can properly answer your question. Now, before you complain be aware, what you think saved means may not be the same as what others take it to mean. You should know there are multiple versions of the Bible. Are we simply to assume the Protestant Bible is the Bible? Why should be do that? Finally, I have no idea what you mean by prove. Are you referring to a logical argument?

I do know other books that hold more teachings and information about Christ.

Why will revelation never contradict the Bible? Does this mean it cannot? Does the Bible constrain God? The Bible itself has many examples of God changing course and of commandants to do a thing that are later changed. If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?

I assume you are referring to the Mosaic law that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Christ did not contradict the Mosaic law and the Mosaic law was mainly a prophecy about Christ. A course change did happen but it shows no contradiction. God would never contradict himself nor allow anyone whom was speaking a revelation to contradict something he previously revealed.

You didn't answer my questions here either. Note again: "If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?" I'm not simply referring to the Mosaic Law.

I was using an example of Christ using hyperbole but if it is hyperbolic accusations you must have, it will be given you.

Luke 6:41
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Why is this hyperbole? Are you confusing metaphor with hyperbole?

Unless you can prove that the use of hyperbole to make an accusation against a person or people is out of place in the Bible then you argument holds no ground and that it is a violation of the second greatest commandment, then your wasting your time bringing the subject up over and over again.

Do you understand what hyperbole means? It means excessive: from the Greek it literally means to over throw, as in miss the mark. A hyperbolic accusation would mean an accusation that is over the top and thereby unjustified by definition. To argue Christ used hyperbolic accusations would suggest something other than perfection. You may want to reconsider your position before you entrench too deeply.

I think I have demonstrated what I believe to be wrong doing. When the men came to capture Elijah, fire rained down from heaven and consumed them. The prophets of the Bible relied on God for protection, not a pistol or sword or any earthly weapon.

This is interesting. Elijah is OK because he unleashes fire to consume over a hundred guys, but Joseph Smith is condemned because he wounded three and two eventually died. I thought your argument was about prophets using violence. Wouldn't the consistent tact be to condemn Elijah because he didn't meekly submit?

I am very familiar with satire. You are comparing the lives of men whom lived before the law of Moses was given to a man who lived after Christ came, 1800 some odd years infact. No doubt, it was common for the things that were listed in the article to be done in their day, right or not. This is not to say that men were without Morals but that these men did not know the law given to Moses. And in a personal opinion, the article was comparing the lives of men chosen by God to a man I do not believe to be chosen by God.

If you are familiar with satire then you should see why your reply was somewhat off base: the whole Law of Moses reference being a perfect example.

If one believes there was a moral standard during the Period the Book of Genesis is concerned with then the point of the article should be clear. Sinai is not relevant.

Of course, the last sentence quoted above is the most telling. It would appear you are willing to justify anything if you assume the agent is 'chosen by God' but take the opposite stance if the fellow is on the wrong side of the Zealous line. You seem to demonstrate the article's point nicely.

Are you suggesting that Christ violated the second commandment by referring to men as fools?

No, I'm asking if you believe calling someone a fool follows the Second Great Commandment.

Prophets brought men back from the dead.

What is the relevance of this sentence?

If Joseph Smith knew when and how he were to be killed, would not the Christian thing to do be to surrender yourself before the shooting even starts?

Joseph Smith had already surrendered himself. He was in a jail. The mob attacked the jail and the jailers removed themselves, leaving Joseph to his fate.

Is this not showing love for your enemies to? By since he had such a great fore knowledge of the event, shouldnt he have surrendered himself to spare those with him and his enemies from harm, just as Christ did? Face it, Joseph Smith acted as a wolf on the day of his death, not as a lamb.

How is a prisoner attacked while in a jail acting as a wolf? Who was he preying on?

It isnt a cover up in the fact that they destroyed the information of how things truly unfolded but it is a cover up in the sense that the true events are rarely told.

The events of Joseph Smith's murder are well known in Mormon circles. They are also readily accessible for any interested in the issue. One of the reasons is because of the accounts preserved by Mormon authors. The very expanded quote you reposted via Swart of Joseph having and using a pistol is from the Official History of the Church. Why would this be included if there were a cover up? Very strange. A cover up is an intentional deception by way of hiding evidence. Your charge is flawed. The fact you have dug in rather than simply admitting the error is telling.

If you believe I am deriding and making accusations without legitimate reasons that is fine. However, I would like to inform you that I do not consider it a lesiruely activity, infact I can hardly stand to even post in these forums. When I may 90% of my posts, It is more of a feeling of something that must be done rather then a feeling of enjoyment.

You can't hardly stand to post in these forums? Are you referring to CF or just where the Mormons are typically confined in CF? Is this because of guilt over attacking other people's faiths that you nonetheless feel must be done? I wonder, how does this all fit with the Sermon on the Mount? I think you would do better to put away your acrimony and accusations, it leads down a dark road.

 

[Rescued One]

Precisely. And that would be living faith, not dead faith (as per James 2). Dead faith is overcome faith (cf. 2 Pet 2:20). This is where free agency comes in. We either choose to confess our sins and repent or we don't. We either choose to accept every word that comes from the mouth of God, or we don't.

Faith is a gift of God. Dead faith isn't faith at all.

Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

4By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

5By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


We are more than conquerors through him that loved us. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world, etc.

One mustn't allow his faith to be overcome by deception, as happened to some early Christians: 2 Tim 2:17,18 "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."

John 16
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The faith of a believer must overcome; if he does not humble himself and repent of sins, his name will be blotted out of the Book of Life.

We are more than conquerors through him that loved us. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world, etc.

1 John 5
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

John 6
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The Lord was not winking slyly when he commanded the saints seven times to repent and overcome in order to receive eternal life in Rev ch. 2 & 3. Having ones name blotted out of the Book of Live as in ch 3:5 is a real consequence.

If God blots the born again believer's name out, then that means that He gave people to Christ and then cast them out even though He promised He wouldn't. He wasted the new birth on them. Why would He do that? Why did He bother to regenerate them?

John 6
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Romans 5
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Philippians 1
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


Where do you come up with the idea that Christians don't repent? Is our faith dead? Then we are not Christians. Dead faith isn't faith at all.

Matt 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."

John 6
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Hebrews 13
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

My view is that in this life, there is no such thing as "always saved."

Then tell me about temporary salvation. What is that?

To declare exemption from the final judgement seems hasty. But, in this life there is faith, hope, and the love of God in our hearts.

It seems hasty to those who don't have that assurance. I was without assurance at one time. If the Father gave me to Christ, will Christ then cast me out? Will someone else pull me out of the Father's hand? Am I not a conqueror? Is the Spirit of Christ in me now only to leave me later? Why did He say, "...and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen?"

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 10
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

1 John 5
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[jeffC]

Faith is a gift of God. Dead faith isn't faith at all.

But this comment makes my point. Dead faith is not the reason the saints at Sardis were in the Book of Life. Though they were selected to be saved at the final judgement, yet they were told to overcome in order to avoid being blotted out. As you pointed out, their faith must remain alive if it is to overcome. A person can choose to abandon their faith. Faith can be overcome, as happened to some early Christians. Thus, a person whose name was once in the Book of Life can be blotted out from that book.

We are more than conquerors through him that loved us. We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world, etc.

Do you deny free will? How does one know that God dwells in him? John makes is very clear that if one is not doing righteousness and keeping His commandments, God does not dwell in that person. We only have God's support in our righteous choices. God will not continue to dwell in an unrepentant vessel. A Christian can sin willingly and equally willingly choose not to repent - even if in doing so he ceases to be a Christian.

John 16
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Did the early Christians who fell away not also have access to the Spirit of Truth? Of course they did.

1 John 5

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

John 6
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Romans 5
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Philippians 1
6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:John 6
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Hebrews 13
5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

John 6
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 10
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Again, one has to be doing something to avoid being cast out: one has to be believing and faithful. This requires personal choice. The context of Heb 13:5 is in that of remaining faithful ourselves because the Lord is faithful in His promises. To interpret John 10:29 as trumping free will is to misunderstand the fullness of Jesus' message. The Lord has promised eternal life IF we endure to the end. Recall what Heb 10:26 says about those who sin willingly - the Savior will withdraw His sacrifice without repentance.

If God blots the born again believer's name out, then that means that He gave people to Christ and then cast them out even though He promised He wouldn't. He wasted the new birth on them. Why would He do that? Why did He bother to regenerate them?

Christ's sacrifice paid for the sins of the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike. Is Christ responsible for the unbeliever who refuses to come to Him? Would He say that his sacrifice was "wasted?" I don't think so - the offer of His mercy is given freely to all humanity. We are the ones who squander His mercy and blessings by our unbelief.

Where do you come up with the idea that Christians don't repent? Is our faith dead? Then we are not Christians. Dead faith isn't faith at all.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm trying not to be accusative or make this topic personal. My point here is only that it is possible for one who was a Christian in every sence of the word and even felt of the goodness of the Holy Spirit to forget, lose their faith and turn away. To say that this is not possible is to deny the free will that God has given us. Christ's message to the saints in Rev. 2 & 3 was to overcome and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life. Why give such a command if it was not possible that they do otherwise?

This goes back to the question I asked previously: "What is your definition for the person who is saved? In other words, I have heard evangelicals say that they know they are saved. What allows some to be so convinced of their own status, and then declare also that their friend who left Christ was never saved in the first place, though that friend may have been equally convinced of his own status?"

Then tell me about temporary salvation. What is that?

As I said, my view is that in this life the status of ones salvation is not finally determined. Salvation is finally determined as the Lord separates the sheep from the goats at the final Judgement. Even if one is awarded the promise of salvation in this life, they receive it only by their faith. If their faith dies, the condition that brought the promise is no longer active - as Heb 10:26 says, there "remaineth" no sacrifice of sins for that person. "Remaineth" means that the Christian himself forsook the promise, not the other way around.

Confusion arrises because the past participle "saved" is used to describe a future state. Overwhealmingly the word saved in the Bible is refered to in a future tense. There is no better example than Matt 10:22 "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." There are many ways that one can apply the term saved as though it is in past tense. Not the least of these is that Jesus' sacrifice for sin is already complete, for future and past sins, yes for the saved but also the unsaved. But it is an error to interpret this to mean that those who are born again can not be condemned for their choices in any circunstance, just as it is an error to say that because the atonement was infinite all are saved. To do so denies free will and forces the creation of that Calvinistic loophole when one must explain why someone who was a Christian fell away from Christ - which regretably happens.

 

[jeffC]

I realize that this was directed to Pheobe Ann, but I hope that you don't mind if I add a few comments.

1 Peter 3

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
5who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
​

If one is born again, then their salvation is protected by the power of God

....

Salvation is obtained as an outcome of one's faith.

Hi Skylark,

Please add to the discussion anytime. I've always benefited from our communications.

I share your sentiments on the nature of trials and how they can benefit us. The root of the issue I am discussing is that I do not find it scriptural to say that our free will is trumped by the power of God. If we choose God, it is absolutely true that nothing external to ourselves will seperate us from God. Still, though He is but an arms-reach away, we must choose to follow him. When one accepts Christ and His message, then one is born anew in Christ. This does not prevent a person from willingly choosing not to follow Christ's commandments.

Salvation is obtained as an outcome of one's faith; if in this life one's faith dies, so to does their promise of salvation. The Biblical basis for my belief is in my discussion with Phoebe.

The question I asked Phoebe is how does one know they are saved such that they will never fall away? I am asking in a practical sence what is the difference between the two Christians who both believe fervently that they are saved and yet one falls away and the other does not?

 

[Fit4Christ]

Hi Skylark,

Please add to the discussion anytime. I've always benefited from our communications.

I share your sentiments on the nature of trials and how they can benefit us. The root of the issue I am discussing is that I do not find it scriptural to say that our free will is trumped by the power of God. If we choose God, it is absolutely true that nothing external to ourselves will seperate us from God. Still, though He is but an arms-reach away, we must choose to follow him. When one accepts Christ and His message, then one is born anew in Christ. This does not prevent a person from willingly choosing not to follow Christ's commandments.

Salvation is obtained as an outcome of one's faith; if in this life one's faith dies, so to does their promise of salvation. The Biblical basis for my belief is in my discussion with Phoebe.

The question I asked Phoebe is how does one know they are saved such that they will never fall away? I am asking in a practical sence what is the difference between the two Christians who both believe fervently that they are saved and yet one falls away and the other does not?

Your scenario is incomplete. Anyone who loves Christ with all their heart, mind, body, and soul and calls on His name shall be saved. The Bible guarantees that. The only way to "fall away" is to have a heart condition. It's possible that everyone but the Master Physician cannot detect it, though.

 

[jeffC]

Your scenario is incomplete. Anyone who loves Christ with all their heart, mind, body, and soul and calls on His name shall be saved. The Bible guarantees that. The only way to "fall away" is to have a heart condition. It's possible that everyone but the Master Physician can detect it, though.

Sorry, I didn't follow your metaphor.

 

[Rescued One]

Salvation is obtained as an outcome of one's faith; if in this life one's faith dies, so to does their promise of salvation.

Faith is a gift of God. It doesn't die.

John 7
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Philippians 1
6Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Until when?

Romans 5
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 8
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.


God doesn't save people for only a week.

The question I asked Phoebe is how does one know they are saved such that they will never fall away?

Because I read my Bible and am constantly reminded.

I am asking in a practical sence what is the difference between the two Christians who both believe fervently that they are saved and yet one falls away and the other does not?

How would you or I know who fervently believes besides ourselves? If someone falls away it is obvious that they didn't fervently believe.

 

[Rescued One]

My point here is only that it is possible for one who was a Christian in every sence of the word and even felt of the goodness of the Holy Spirit to forget, lose their faith and turn away.

Not possible. God doesn't pay for our sins with the blood of His Son and then decide to condemn us in spite of that blood.

Christ's message to the saints in Rev. 2 & 3 was to overcome and endure to the end in order to receive eternal life. Why give such a command if it was not possible that they do otherwise?

Does a mother warn her child that the fire will burn and then allow the child to be burned?

If God gave me faith and faith is how I overcome, please explain how I will fail to overcome.

 

[Rescued One]

Christ's sacrifice paid for the sins of the whole world, believer and unbeliever alike.

If His blood paid for unbelievers' sins, they would not be condenmned.


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.

 

[ZealouS]

I posted this last night, but both My and JeffC's posts somehow got posted farther back in the thread, mighty queersome.



None of the above answers my question: why is the Bible the final written word?

I can't answer your first question until you flush it out some. First you need to qualify what you mean by saved. Second you need to qualify which Bible are you referring to? Third, you need to determine what the proof standard is? Do this and then I can properly answer your question. Now, before you complain be aware, what you think saved means may not be the same as what others take it to mean. You should know there are multiple versions of the Bible. Are we simply to assume the Protestant Bible is the Bible? Why should be do that? Finally, I have no idea what you mean by prove. Are you referring to a logical argument?

The Bible is the final word becase through it we have come to know of the Gospel of Christ. Originally I answered your questions with questions and now you have a simple to the point answer.

I use the NIV and KJV Bibles, I believe these Bibles to be the word of God.

How else can one be saved other then a belief in Jesus Christ. Salvation to me means being saved from spiritual death, which Christ promised for those who believe in him.

As far as proof goes, you need not bother putting together "proof" because I know that the teachings Christ handed to us are sufficient for salvation.

I do know other books that hold more teachings and information about Christ.

Really? I was not aware of any other book that followed the life of Christ more thoroughly then accounts in the Bible written by his Apostles. I am interested to hear which books they are.

You didn't answer my questions here either. Note again: "If the text admits Divine variance then why wouldn't that be the case beyond the text as well?" I'm not simply referring to the Mosaic Law.

You will have to show me where the contradictions are located for me to believe that revelation and the written word of God will contradict one another.

Why is this hyperbole? Are you confusing metaphor with hyperbole?

Do you understand what hyperbole means? It means excessive: from the Greek it literally means to over throw, as in miss the mark. A hyperbolic accusation would mean an accusation that is over the top and thereby unjustified by definition. To argue Christ used hyperbolic accusations would suggest something other than perfection. You may want to reconsider your position before you entrench too deeply.

Here is the meaning of hyperbole takin for Dictionary.com

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.I am no english master but I think that Christ was using an exaggeration ( did the men really have a plank in their eye?) to make sure that his point go across. However, I will admit that a metaphor was also being used.

I do believe that Christ used extreme examples in speech to make people understand what he was saying and really feel the weight there of.

This is interesting. Elijah is OK because he unleashes fire to consume over a hundred guys, but Joseph Smith is condemned because he wounded three and two eventually died. I thought your argument was about prophets using violence. Wouldn't the consistent tact be to condemn Elijah because he didn't meekly submit?

2 Kings 1:12
12 "If I am a man of God," Elijah replied, "may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!" Then the fire of God fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men.

The fire was from God, not from Elijah. You appear to have mistaken the event as something Elijah did according to his own power.

If you are familiar with satire then you should see why your reply was somewhat off base: the whole Law of Moses reference being a perfect example.

If one believes there was a moral standard during the Period the Book of Genesis is concerned with then the point of the article should be clear. Sinai is not relevant.

Of course, the last sentence quoted above is the most telling. It would appear you are willing to justify anything if you assume the agent is 'chosen by God' but take the opposite stance if the fellow is on the wrong side of the Zealous line. You seem to demonstrate the article's point nicely.

Why would I folllow someone whom I do not to believe to be chosen by God? Would you follow someone whom was not chosen by God? You judge me as being closed minded, as if I have claimed to have set the standards of what a follower of Christ should be and what a prophet should be. I have established what I belief according to what the Bible has spken of.

No, I'm asking if you believe calling someone a fool follows the Second Great Commandment.

I believe that if it is truth and the man truly is a fool, then you are not violating it. The usage would most likely determine weither or not it is in violation of the Second Greatest Commandment. For a definent answer you can ask God.

What is the relevance of this sentence?

I was pointing out the fact that a prophet is more likely to raise a man from the dead then to try and protect him from dying by slaying others.

Joseph Smith had already surrendered himself. He was in a jail. The mob attacked the jail and the jailers removed themselves, leaving Joseph to his fate.

Did he surrender himself when he knew the mob was coming to kill him, stepping through the door arms raised, preventing the gun fight? It is my understanding that it takes two or more parties to fight.

How is a prisoner attacked while in a jail acting as a wolf? Who was he preying on?

I think a wolf is more likely to attack when it is cornered then a sheep. Just my own opinion though.

The events of Joseph Smith's murder are well known in Mormon circles. They are also readily accessible for any interested in the issue. One of the reasons is because of the accounts preserved by Mormon authors. The very expanded quote you reposted via Swart of Joseph having and using a pistol is from the Official History of the Church. Why would this be included if there were a cover up? Very strange. A cover up is an intentional deception by way of hiding evidence. Your charge is flawed. The fact you have dug in rather than simply admitting the error is telling.

I illustrated my point in the directions to the link in question. There is no mention of a gun or JS shooting people in that link. If I were able to post links on the matter I would no doubt be able to post many stories of Joseph Smith death that mention nothing of Joseph Smith shooting 3 men. Fact is fact.

I have grown weary of judging the actions of Joseph Smith. I do believe his actions speak louder of what type of man he was then anything he has ever said but God is to be his judge. I will from now on try to prove falsehood by showing truth.

You can't hardly stand to post in these forums? Are you referring to CF or just where the Mormons are typically confined in CF? Is this because of guilt over attacking other people's faiths that you nonetheless feel must be done? I wonder, how does this all fit with the Sermon on the Mount? I think you would do better to put away your acrimony and accusations, it leads down a dark road.

I dislike debate, but sometimes it feels like the only way to reach people. Expeically when the debate focuses on words alone, such as fool and hyperbole. I feel there is no room for a true spiritual debate when you are talking to someone who wants to strain, disect, and examine every word you say, all the while missing what you are really saying.


The Sermon on the Mount is beautiful and Christ would no doubt have you and I united, not debating words. However, I do not appreciate being called bitter and any accusation I have made I have backed up with examples.

Christ guide us to truth,
Jed

 

[Swart]

Here is the meaning of hyperbole takin for Dictionary.com

The meaning of the word 'hyperbole' has been explained a million times.