God Possibly May Not Have Given Billions An Opportunity To Be Saved

[PacMan]

Rob,

The problem is that some of the scriptures that you’ve cited dealing with mercy do not also clearly relate to salvation. That is why they are relevant.

Here is where knowing Greek (and knowing English as well!) is helpful. The Greek wording uses the word hina followed by the verb for having mercy in the subjunctive mood. This construction, hina + subjunctive, expresses purpose, not permission or possibility. The construction means that God's purpose was to show mercy to all. In English, "so that he might" can also express the same idea of purpose.

Hmm...and I though being a polyglot would have gotten me further. Oh well.

In any event, I fully understand that the “may” or “might” expresses purpose. How you conclude I think something differently is beyond me…although jumping to conclusions unfortunately has not been an anomaly. What I said was that the phrase is not definitive, and I stand by that. Indeed, it is God’s desire that all be saved, but if it were definitive the word “will” would have been appropriate. The fact, however, that it is God’s will or purpose or desire that all be saved leaves me boggled as to what your point is. If God wants it, can he not make it happen? Not unless he gives people the opportunity.

Your language here, "extended to all," is ambiguous. Do you mean that God actually is merciful to every individual, or that God offers mercy to every individual, or that God provides everyone with an explicit opportunity to receive this mercy, or what?

That mercy is extended to all. If one does not have the opportunity to receive it, it cannot be accepted. And if it cannot be accepted, it's impossible to suggest that God wants all to receive it (and the scriptures are clear on this point). Anything else is double-talk.

More ambiguity. Does "repent and accept Him as Savior" mean "obedience" in the sense of obeying the gospel message to acknowledge one's sinfulness and throw oneself on the mercy of God in Christ as one's only hope for salvation? I agree with that idea. Or, does it mean "obedience" in the sense that if you're really repentant and really accept Christ as Savior you will join the LDS Church, get baptized, receive the LDS priesthoods, sustain the living prophet, faithfully give your tithes, become worthy to enter the temple, perform proxy baptisms and other rites for the dead, etc., etc., etc.? If that's what you mean, I respectfully disagree.

Non sequitur and complete red herring. What constitutes obedience is another topic altogether. It suffices that we agree to the basic premise. But it is obvious that if God’s purpose is that all receive mercy, it makes no sense that this “obedience” – whatever it is – is precluded because they don’t know how to receive it.

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether God is obligated to provide every individual with an explicit invitation to accept Jesus Christ as Savior.

The Bible makes it clear that the will of God is that saving mercy is available to all, and that it is God’s desire that all receive it. To suggest that some will be damned not ever having the invitation is to read God’s word as revealing him the hypocrite, or worse. Based on what the Bible conclusively says, your conclusion is logically (and biblically) impossible.

On 1 Cor. 15:22 – we will need to disagree. As a starting point, your biblical translation is not a translation at all. It’s but a quasi-translation with commentary inserted to fill in gaps when the "translators" were concerned that the lay person would misunderstand (or otherwise understand correctly to the chagrin of the erred cleric). And in this case, the gaps have been filled in with rubbish. Nothing in the Greek (or the multitude of other translations) come close to supporting the translation you proffer. The text is not limiting, but defining the advancement of death and the advancement of the resurrection to all. This is precisely why there will be different glories in the resurrection - because it is given to all. (See v. 41-42).

In any event, it was a bad example because the mercy here is unto resurrection – not salvation (obviously two distinct concepts). That’s my bad. But, it’s just another example of how mercy can refer to something other than salvation.

PacMan

Edited June 23, 2011 by PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

Out of abundance of caution to make sure it is not missed, I will specially dedicate this post so it cannot be past over, again:

For the third time, please explain 1 Timothy 2:3-4. Your silence on it is now creating a great deal of curiosity. Considering your confidence in questioning the capacity of others' grasp on the English language, I must assume that your finely-tuned abilities and excellent reading comprehension couldn't possibly miss the conspicuous citation. If my assumption is correct, then it follows that you are choosing to ignore the citation. Why? Why the purposeful evasion?

Of course, if I have conflated your bombastic derision with actual capability, I certainly apologize. In any event, I await your enlightenment.

So here is the question: If God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth," why is he so incapable of bringing the truth to them so that they might be obedient and thereby be saved? Sounds like he's not only substituting a stone for bread, but throwing it at the skull of the ignorant while they are turned around and looking the other way.

PacMan

Edited June 23, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

The problem is that some of the scriptures that you’ve cited dealing with mercy do not also clearly relate to salvation. That is why they are relevant.

Here was my definition of mercy and the biblical citations I offered in support:

"In the Bible, God's 'mercy' generally denotes his granting to sinful human beings exemption or reprieve or relenting of his righteous anger or wrath, not holding their sins against them; in practical terms, it is God refraining from destroying people who deserve it (Deut. 13:7; Ps. 51:1; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 19:22; 60:10; Jer. 36:7; Dan. 9:9; Hab. 3:2; Zech. 1:12; Rom. 9:18, 23; Eph. 2:3-4; James 2:13)."

Now, do you or do you not disagree with the above statement? If you do, on what basis do you disagree with it? Do you think the definition offered does not apply in any of the texts I cited, and if so, which ones?

On Romans 11:32, you wrote:

In any event, I fully understand that the “may” or “might” expresses purpose. How you conclude I think something differently is beyond me…although jumping to conclusions unfortunately has not been an anomaly. What I said was that the phrase is not definitive, and I stand by that. Indeed, it is God’s desire that all be saved, but if it were definitive the word “will” would have been appropriate. The fact, however, that it is God’s will or purpose or desire that all be saved leaves me boggled as to what your point is. If God wants it, can he not make it happen? Not unless he gives people the opportunity.

I have already shown from the immediate and larger contexts of Romans 11:32 that "all" there means all groups of people, specifically both Jews and Gentiles.

You wrote:

That mercy is extended to all. If one does not have the opportunity to receive it, it cannot be accepted. And if it cannot be accepted, it's impossible to suggest that God wants all to receive it (and the scriptures are clear on this point). Anything else is double-talk.

I have already explained that everyone has an opportunity to receive God's mercy. The knowledge that God exists, that he is just, and that we are sinful is accessible to all people. Anyone who humbles himself before the Creator and throws himself or herself on the Creator's mercy may be saved. How many people do this who have not heard of Jesus is an open question, but the opportunity is there.

You wrote:

On 1 Cor. 15:22 – we will need to disagree. As a starting point, your biblical translation is not a translation at all. It’s but a quasi-translation with commentary inserted to fill in gaps when the "translators" were concerned that the lay person would misunderstand (or otherwise understand correctly to the chagrin of the erred cleric). And in this case, the gaps have been filled in with rubbish. Nothing in the Greek (or the multitude of other translations) come close to supporting the translation you proffer. The text is not limiting, but defining the advancement of death and the advancement of the resurrection to all. This is precisely why there will be different glories in the resurrection - because it is given to all. (See v. 41-42).

I'm sorry, but your comments are dismissive of an exegesis that is well grounded in the most careful academic, scholarly study of Paul. I would suggest, for example, that you study Anthony Thiselton's extended discussion of this passage in The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1224-29.

You wrote, also concerning 1 Corinthians 15:22:

In any event, it was a bad example because the mercy here is unto resurrection – not salvation (obviously two distinct concepts). That’s my bad. But, it’s just another example of how mercy can refer to something other than salvation.

This is quite humorous. You were so sure that 1 Corinthians 15:22 supported your position, but it doesn't, because it is inconsistent with your doctrine of the three heavenly kingdoms. So now, incredibly, you claim that it is "obvious" that resurrection and salvation are "two distinct concepts." In some contexts they can be, but not here in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is talking about what the Corinthians must believe in order to be "saved" (1 Cor. 15:2). And might I point out that 1 Corinthians 15:22 does not even use the word "mercy"?

Edited June 23, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Earlier, you had acknowledged that it would be unfair to claim that I was ignoring or avoiding a question merely because I didn't address it. You seem to have forgotten that.

You wrote:

So here is the question: If God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth," why is he so incapable of bringing the truth to them so that they might be obedient and thereby be saved? Sounds like he's not only substituting a stone for bread, but throwing it at the skull of the ignorant while they are turned around and looking the other way.

The issue is not what God is capable of doing, so you are knocking down a straw man.

First, as I pointed out before, all people have access to enough truth about God to know that they need to throw themselves on his mercy.

Second, here again the expression "all people" probably is a generalization meaning that God wants the truth of the gospel to be spread to all people generally. Earlier in the same passage Paul writes, "\I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Tim. 2:1-2 NET). Paul does not mean that his readers are to offer prayers for each individual person who had ever lived and who would ever live. He meant that they were to pray for all people generally, people without discrimination, including those in authority. Similarly, verse 4 means that God wants all people generally to be saved. In context, Paul is urging his Christian readers to pray for the people in their society, in their community, so that such people might be receptive to the gospel. The whole passage presupposes that it is in this life that people need to "come to the knowledge of the truth." It was to spread the gospel to the nations that Christ appointed Paul to be an apostle (v. 7).

Third, this is yet another passage that fails to draw the conclusion you want. Paul says nothing here about God providing postmortem opportunities for salvation. You are reaching beyond this and all of the other passages you have cited to try to support a theological construct that none of the passages teaches.

[cdowis]

I would rephrase that to say you cannot have a "Bible only" discussion without agreement that parsing the Greek is the only way to understand the text on its own terms.

OK, so the JST can be tossed away.

It's been my experience that most lifelong Mormons aren't even aware of the theological debate, let alone understand or be able to articulate anyone elses' position. Do you think your regular random Church member could articulate the difference between Luther and Calvin? Not that it matters when it comes to living one's own belief.

So your discussion here is to educate ordinary member of the church. I think they are not even aware that this forum exists.

But if you're going to be engaging those from other faiths - especially in a debate context - it is essential that you have a good grasp on the other opinion, or any discussion will unavoidably be a mishmash of misunderstandings and strawmen being hacked to shreds.

It then belongs to me to educate them on the facts.

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and scholars. The early Christians found the truth thru revelation and the prophets. The historic church finds it thru parsing the Greek in the Bible, a technique similar to the one used by scribes and Pharasees.

I would then ask them a very basic question -- what was the fundamental difference between Saul and Paul.

Saul was a Pharasee, he did believe in Christ (the messiah), but rejected Jesus. Paul was a prophet, and received revelation. And that is precisely the difference between the LDS church and the historic Christian church.

Like Paul and the Pharasees, they claim to believe in the Messaiah of the Bible, but, like Paul, reject the messengers dispatched by that living Christ.

Just as much as our positions on Salvation and Exaltation are nearly always relegated to a misunderstood Strawman by our opponents, many Mormons tend to do the same with other positions they don't agree with. It unfortunately even happens in General Conference from time to time.

I think this path of thinking leads to a destination of a very dark place.

Edited June 24, 2011 by cdowis

[PacMan]

Rob,

Now, do you or do you not disagree with the above statement? If you do, on what basis do you disagree with it? Do you think the definition offered does not apply in any of the texts I cited, and if so, which ones?

Well, yes. It is incorrect for being incomplete. For example, God can grant mercy to those who have not sinned (i.e. infants). Furthermore, he can be affirmatively merciful in otherwise neutral circumstance (extending mercy to the cripple born with infirmity not due to his sin or God’s wrath). Christ’s healings were always merciful and generally independent of the individual’s sinfulness. Do you disagree?

I have already shown from the immediate and larger contexts of Romans 11:32 that "all" there means all groups of people, specifically both Jews and Gentiles.

Well, then Paul is completely disingenuous in telling people what he said while really meaning “it applies to your group, although there’s a good chance God will chose to just damn you.” Sorry, but it’s a complete insertion into the text without support. But we will disagree here.

I have already explained that everyone has an opportunity to receive God's mercy. The knowledge that God exists, that he is just, and that we are sinful is accessible to all people.

All groups or all people? Your double talk is confusing. Assuming you are talking about all people, as in individuals, that’s completely false. The knowledge is NOT accessible to all people. Namely the North Koreans.

How many people do this who have not heard of Jesus is an open question, but the opportunity is there.

What? This is complete nonsense! People that know not where to find the truth do NOT have the opportunity to accept it! There is absolutely nothing in logic or equity, biblical or otherwise to support such a preposterous idea. An opportunity is not available if it someone does know about it.

I'm sorry, but your comments are dismissive of an exegesis that is well grounded in the most careful academic, scholarly study of Paul.

I can back-door issues with careful academics and scholarly study too. It’s still wrong.

This is quite humorous. You were so sure that 1 Corinthians 15:22 supported your position, but it doesn't…

Really? Your arrogant ability to reach inside my mind is astonishing. Including the citation to debate the general proposition of mercy without distinction (assuming no distinction) was stupid because the premise was fundamentally stupid and not worth discussing arguendo.

…but it doesn't, because it is inconsistent with your doctrine of the three heavenly kingdoms. So now, incredibly, you claim that it is "obvious" that resurrection and salvation are "two distinct concepts." In some contexts they can be, but not here in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is talking about what the Corinthians must believe in order to be "saved" (1 Cor. 15:2). And might I point out that 1 Corinthians 15:22 does not even use the word "mercy"?

What are you talking about? Seriously, you need to come down off your mound of self-import and get the clue that when you make judgments about what people think, you’re flat wrong! It is now approaching embarrassing levels of hubris. Indeed, the fact that all are resurrected explains exactly why there are different degrees of glory. If only those that were resurrected were those accepting of Jesus, then why in the world are there varying degrees? The fact is that resurrection for all is necessary because death is cast upon all due to the actions of one. That is not justice, and why the atonement covers the mortal consequences of Adam’s transgression – for all. Salvation from sin and the judgment for the individual action is another matter entirely.

PacMan

[David T]

I would rephrase that to say you cannot have a "Bible only" discussion without agreement that parsing the Greek is the only way to understand the text on its own terms.

OK, so the JST can be tossed away.

When it comes to interpreting what the Bible historically (and currently) actually says? Yes. I find the JST far more useful for teaching and applying new and modern doctrinal understanding than for understanding original ancient context. It is very useful for applied Restorationist doctrine - not for determining the original recorded and written words of Jesus and Paul.

It's been my experience that most lifelong Mormons aren't even aware of the theological debate, let alone understand or be able to articulate anyone elses' position. Do you think your regular random Church member could articulate the difference between Luther and Calvin? Not that it matters when it comes to living one's own belief.

So your discussion here is to educate ordinary member of the church. I think they are not even aware that this forum exists.

I think many here would consider themselves 'ordinary members of the church'. I don't consider that a bad, or derogatory thing. Most simply see no reason to seek out detailed understanding of others' faith. I have met many with a "Why learn about their doctrine? It's all wrong anyway," approach.

But if you're going to be engaging those from other faiths - especially in a debate context - it is essential that you have a good grasp on the other opinion, or any discussion will unavoidably be a mishmash of misunderstandings and strawmen being hacked to shreds.

It then belongs to me to educate them on the facts.

On the fact that you believe so-and-so, sure. No one else can accurately educate someone else on what you specifically and personally believe.

The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and scholars. The early Christians found the truth thru revelation and the prophets. The historic church finds it thru parsing the Greek in the Bible, a technique similar to the one used by scribes and Pharasees.

I think living prophets, theologians, and scholars are all extremely useful and valuable, and each have unique roles and purposes.

Saul was a Pharasee, he did believe in Christ (the messiah), but rejected Jesus. Paul was a prophet, and received revelation. And that is precisely the difference between the LDS church and the historic Christian church.

And even after he was a Christian, Paul re-interpreted and misunderstood scriptures. I don't disagree that it's okay to find a new application for scripture. That doesn't change that I find understanding of original intent useful. I'm okay with having a different understanding of the Gospel (and scriptures) than Paul did. I don't need to find Paul teaching 19th-21st Century Mormon Understandings of Doctrine.

Just as much as our positions on Salvation and Exaltation are nearly always relegated to a misunderstood Strawman by our opponents, many Mormons tend to do the same with other positions they don't agree with. It unfortunately even happens in General Conference from time to time.

I think this path of thinking leads to a destination of a very dark place.

You're entitled to your opinion.

If you want to continue this particular train of thought/discussion, please create another thread. It is off topic for this Focused Discussion.

Edited June 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[PacMan]

PacMan,

Earlier, you had acknowledged that it would be unfair to claim that I was ignoring or avoiding a question merely because I didn't address it. You seem to have forgotten that.

Honestly, my comment about your reading comprehension was tongue-in-cheek. Please don’t tell me I was on to something.

First, as I pointed out before, all people have access to enough truth about God to know that they need to throw themselves on his mercy.

Ah…so therefore God is not a respecter of persons because your premise is that “all people have access to enough truth about God….” Now we are getting somewhere. So, we agree that every person will have access to enough truth about God to receive His extended mercy? Great. So, all that we disagree with is whether that can happen on this earth. To believe that any given person can have enough such truth in this life, however, is naïve. Go live in Asia as I have and learn something of the communist grasp over minds of the masses and their stemmed access to information. Learn something about Chairman Mao, Kim, and other cruel dictators where people have never even heard the name Jesus. To believe that there is such access is naively normative, and a descriptive farce. If this is really what you believe, then you need to go back and recalculate the equation the requires such an erroneous conclusion. It is wrong, because people today don’t even know anything about God sufficient to believe that he exists.

Second, here again the expression "all people" probably is a generalization meaning that God wants the truth of the gospel to be spread to all people generally.

I don’t understand why you presume that the early apostles were so incompetent at saying what they really meant. The fact is that when talking of “all” or “whomsoever,” you first resorted to context – i.e. that Paul was speaking of Israel. Now it is clear that’s not the case, you are trying to explain away the phrases by an unbiblical insert. Let me say definitively that there’s no “probably” about it.

Paul does not mean that his readers are to offer prayers for each individual person who had ever lived and who would ever live. He meant that they were to pray for all people generally, people without discrimination, including those in authority. Similarly, verse 4 means that God wants all people generally to be saved.

Rob, there’s nothing similar about that. Paul is urging prayer for the purpose of having a “peaceful and quiet life.” God wants to save all, having nothing to do with him being able to have a “peaceful and quiet life.” Your analysis does not make sense.

Third, this is yet another passage that fails to draw the conclusion you want. Paul says nothing here about God providing postmortem opportunities for salvation.

Strawman. Although doctrinally true, my conclusion is that God will give all (meaning every last person) the opportunity to have sufficient knowledge at some point to accept or reject Him (i.e. be obedient). And the passages that I have cited support that he wants them to be saved, he wants them to have knowledge, and as a loving God and a non respecter of persons, he will offer that opportunity by giving them the necessary access.

Given your statement above about your belief that “all people have access to enough truth about God” for purposes of receiving His mercy, I don’t believe you disagree with this. Rather, it seems that the narrow disagreement is where this knowledge is necessarily received. Taking the analysis into a realm that we can actually test, I can say with personal experience that you are 100% wrong.

Best,

PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

I had written:

Here was my definition of mercy and the biblical citations I offered in support:

"In the Bible, God's 'mercy' generally denotes his granting to sinful human beings exemption or reprieve or relenting of his righteous anger or wrath, not holding their sins against them; in practical terms, it is God refraining from destroying people who deserve it (Deut. 13:7; Ps. 51:1; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 19:22; 60:10; Jer. 36:7; Dan. 9:9; Hab. 3:2; Zech. 1:12; Rom. 9:18, 23; Eph. 2:3-4; James 2:13)."

Now, do you or do you not disagree with the above statement? If you do, on what basis do you disagree with it? Do you think the definition offered does not apply in any of the texts I cited, and if so, which ones?

You replied:

Well, yes. It is incorrect for being incomplete. For example, God can grant mercy to those who have not sinned (i.e. infants). Furthermore, he can be affirmatively merciful in otherwise neutral circumstance (extending mercy to the cripple born with infirmity not due to his sin or God’s wrath). Christ’s healings were always merciful and generally independent of the individual’s sinfulness. Do you disagree?

You had insisted earlier, and I of course had agreed, that words have different definitions in different contexts. Therefore, searching for one definition that would fit every conceivable context would be a mistake. I offered a definition that was specific to the context of God's mercy in salvation, as I have also already explained.

As quoted above, I asked you if you thought my definition did not apply in any of the texts I cited and if so in which of those texts it did not apply. You did not answer this question. In fact, you did not cite a single text in which my definition would not apply. In your generalizations about God being merciful to infants, the crippled, and the sick, you brought up not a single text. I, on the other hand, provided a list of biblical texts from a dozen different books of the Bible, both OT and NT, in which my definition clearly applies.

I grant that we might choose to use the word mercy in other ways. You yourself pointed out that words can have different meanings in different contexts. But the definition I gave was pertinent to the subject at hand--God's salvation of sinners--and is supported by an excellent cross-section of biblical texts across the canon.

I wrote: "I have already explained that everyone has an opportunity to receive God's mercy. The knowledge that God exists, that he is just, and that we are sinful is accessible to all people." You replied:

All groups or all people? Your double talk is confusing. Assuming you are talking about all people, as in individuals, that’s completely false. The knowledge is NOT accessible to all people. Namely the North Koreans.

So, North Koreans are not made in God's image? They do not have access to the evidence of nature and the human conscience that God exists and that human beings have violated God's righteous standards (Rom. 1:18-2:16)? Paul teaches in Romans 2, which I have cited for you more than once, that God justly judges people who have never even heard of the written Law because they have God's law written on their hearts--that is, they know in their hearts that God exists and that they are accountable to certain righteous standards. I don't see why this would apply, say, to South Koreans but not North Koreans.

Regarding my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:22, I had written: "I'm sorry, but your comments are dismissive of an exegesis that is well grounded in the most careful academic, scholarly study of Paul." You replied:

I can back-door issues with careful academics and scholarly study too. It’s still wrong.

Your response illustrates the truth of one of the principles I have been defending: a person can be given access to knowledge and not know it because he refuses to look.

[CV75]

Paul teaches in Romans 2, which I have cited for you more than once, that God justly judges people who have never even heard of the written Law because they have God's law written on their hearts--that is, they know in their hearts that God exists and that they are accountable to certain righteous standards.

At what point do individuals who are judged worthy of salvation in this manner recognize and confess that their Savior is indeed the very Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary, the same that died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and at what point do they thank and worship Him and follow all that He teaches? Is there a point where they transcend living righteously according to their conscience and begin personally worshiping Christ?

Is there a difference between the righteous standards delivered to someone by the power of the human conscience and the righteous standards delivered by the power of the Lord's apostles, and do these differences matter enough for one to move beyond the first and experience the second?

Edited June 24, 2011 by CV75

[PacMan]

Rob,

Let’s not get hung-up on the definition of “mercy.” As long as we agree that there is different applicability, we are good to go. I simply raised the issue to show that some of the citations you point to (relating to Israel) are in context of the more “temporal” rather than “salvational” mercies.

As quoted above, I asked you if you thought my definition did not apply in any of the texts I cited and if so in which of those texts it did not apply. You did not answer this question. In fact, you did not cite a single text in which my definition would not apply.

Yes I did. Go look again.

So, North Koreans are not made in God's image? They do not have access to the evidence of nature and the human conscience that God exists and that human beings have violated God's righteous standards (Rom. 1:18-2:16)?

This is complete non sequitur! What in the world does God’s image have anything to do with people that have nothing by which to compare that image?! There are those, and many of them, whom have been (for a lack of a better term) brainwashed at the earliest of ages. They don’t even have the knowledge sufficient to ask the questions to ask whether there is a God, let alone who He is and where He can be found.

Paul teaches in Romans 2, which I have cited for you more than once, that God justly judges people who have never even heard of the written Law because they have God's law written on their hearts--that is, they know in their hearts that God exists and that they are accountable to certain righteous standards. I don't see why this would apply, say, to South Koreans but not North Koreans.

Untrue. From Romans 1 on, Paul begins by saying that wicked people – even without God’s law – can be judged and condemned for their deeds. If you read his examples, he is basically saying that God will judge the hypocrites regardless of being Jew or Gentile (v. 14). To further clarify, in the case of the Gentile Paul says they can be condemned by their own law, which is true enough. But this does not preclude or assume access to truth, and certainly does not suggest that “they know in their hearts that God exists.” Indeed, v. 12 states damnation is available to those w/out God’s law but nothing is similarly said of salvation. The closest you can get is where Paul says that the Gentile that happens to do good will receive “glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good.” (v.10) – but this is not salvation. Indeed, if Paul meant to say salvation, I think he could have said it. Your commentary is therefore incorrect and fallaciously affirms the consequent.

Your response illustrates the truth of one of the principles I have been defending: a person can be given access to knowledge and not know it because he refuses to look.

Despite consistent cautions on presuming things you don’t know, why do you continue? Is your hubris really that insatiable?

Looking forward to your reply on my yet-responded-to post #108.

PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

I had written:

"As quoted above, I asked you if you thought my definition did not apply in any of the texts I cited and if so in which of those texts it did not apply. You did not answer this question. In fact, you did not cite a single text in which my definition would not apply."

You replied:

Yes I did. Go look again.

I looked again. You did not. Here is what you wrote in response to that question:

Well, yes. It is incorrect for being incomplete. For example, God can grant mercy to those who have not sinned (i.e. infants). Furthermore, he can be affirmatively merciful in otherwise neutral circumstance (extending mercy to the cripple born with infirmity not due to his sin or God’s wrath). Christ’s healings were always merciful and generally independent of the individual’s sinfulness. Do you disagree?

As you can see, you did not cite a single biblical text.

Regarding Romans 1:18-2:16, your cursory and dismissive response ignores a mountain of Christian exegesis and reflection on that passage. I invite you to do some reading on the subject before we discuss the passage's implications further.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Regarding your post #108, much of the substance of your remarks there was already addressed in my response to another of your posts. As for the rest, I feel we are fast experiencing diminishing returns for our efforts and don't find anything else there of compelling importance for me to answer. Sorry, but I think this thread has satisfied nackhadlow's purpose and we can probably move on to other matters.

[cdowis]

del

Edited June 25, 2011 by cdowis

[PacMan]

PacMan,

I had written:

"As quoted above, I asked you if you thought my definition did not apply in any of the texts I cited and if so in which of those texts it did not apply. You did not answer this question. In fact, you did not cite a single text in which my definition would not apply."

You replied:

I looked again. You did not. Here is what you wrote in response to that question:

As you can see, you did not cite a single biblical text.

For one, I quoted Psalms and addressed the others referring to destruction. You're quoting the wrong part.

Regarding Romans 1:18-2:16, your cursory and dismissive response ignores a mountain of Christian exegesis and reflection on that passage. I invite you to do some reading on the subject before we discuss the passage's implications further.

Ummm, because it's wrong. I think the meaning is rather clear, but if you want to whimsically toss it to the wind, so be it.

Regarding your post #108, much of the substance of your remarks there was already addressed in my response to another of your posts. As for the rest, I feel we are fast experiencing diminishing returns for our efforts and don't find anything else there of compelling importance for me to answer. Sorry, but I think this thread has satisfied nackhadlow's purpose and we can probably move on to other matters.

That is likely. In the end, let us look at the argument:

To prove my point, I have suggested only read what is and is not read. Where mercy is limited to some, it is in temporal - not saving - contexts. And all the other broad invitations I deem to be read as written.

To prove your point, you have suggested that when promises of salvation to all or invitations are extended to "whomsever," text actually limits it to Israel. Until Israel has no place in the conversation, then "perhaps" the reference is limited to groups. You spoken of parts and sub-parts, and completely re-written the word of the apostles in doing so. You have suggested that Paul has written something completely against the clear reading. And in the end, you proffer a naive understanding of the world and the world's understanding of God.

On of the things most important of the gospel, I believe, is that the truth is simplistic and makes sense. Which explanation would that be? Although, I do give your explanation credit - you would surely give Ruth Bader Gingsburg a run for interpretive money.

PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Our discussion has definitely run its course. Thanks for trying.

[David T]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: It's run it's course. Thanks, Rob, for humoring me.

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff