Paul Never Says Believers Have Been Saved . . .

[cksalmon]

Hmmm very very Interesting here, so much for the idea of predestination. In Lynchburg VA they used a term I've never heard of "Eternal Security". So much for that idea too.

Hi MRSR--

With some small measure of irony, I might point out that Zakusa highlighted only half of the relevant process.

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

The verb epitrepō appears here in subjunctive form, suggesting that the action may or may not happen. Whether or not one goes on to perfection, and performs the works entailed therein, is, according to the verse Zakusa has cited, dependent ultimately upon God's permission. "We will do" depends on "if God permits [us to do so]." He may; he may not.

It might be too soon to chuck the notion of God's sovereignty in salvation just yet.

Best.

CKS

[rhinomelon]

Paul and the biblical saints failed your test Rhino.

Heb. 11: 35

35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

Philip. 3: 11

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

Why Is Paul trying to attain something that you say he already has?

Uh, because he's not dead?

This is the future aspect of salvation, the resurrection and glorification of the believer. It's like being in your father's will. When he dies, he has promised you a million dollars. Do you have it? Not until he dies. But you have that promise, you're in the will, and there's nothing that's going to change that, legally speaking. Sure, it's a bad analogy in some ways, but the aspect of the promise versus the fruition of that promise is what I'm getting at. I don't say that Paul had all that salvation is or ever will be, at that present moment in this life. None of us will, because the culmination of salvation lies after death (or the Second Coming, whichever comes first). But salvation is a reality in this life, which is what you all seem to be denying or avoiding.

However, there is also a huge sense of a conditional future blessing, a pregant construction, that one is not necessarily immune from harsh judgement in the last day.

Even being saved doesn't spare you from judgment. We are all judged by our works, with differing levels of reward in heaven (note: not separate heavens, but separate rewards in one heaven). I believe it is in I Corinthians 3 that Paul speaks of believers being judged, and all our works passing through the fire. The believer whose works are all burned up, basically worthless, will still be saved, but "only as one barely passing through the fire", i.e. by the skin of his teeth. Harsh it may be, but it is not damnation.

Its possible that many of us here me included, that once we start to hear that God does it all and we are saved that we might just think that you are talking about easy believism. Most people that I talked to in VA and WVA seemed to believe in some sort of doctrine that was close to this "easy believeism".

I think this is the assumption that many LDS bring to the table in discussions between them and evangelicals in particular. Hopefully you've seen enough in just this thread to begin to counter that kneejerk reaction!

Then he goes into Chapter two which is all about works based Salvation for Beleivers.

James 2 is certainly not about a "works-based salvation for believers". Showing the necessity of works along with faith, maybe, but not "works-based". It's statements like these that further evangelical stereotypes about LDS, that they care only about works and earning their own salvation.

All well and good... however... you missed one very important detail.

Rom. 8: 23

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Adoption does not occur until the ressurection at the last day and final judgment.

Again, I disagree. One can point to both a past event and a future consummation in the area of adoption as well. To borrow a phrase from eschatological studies, our adoption is "already but not yet". It is a reality now, but not yet complete or consummated. Romans 8:23 points to the future consummation. And Galatians 4 points to the "already" aspect of adoption:

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

So again, the past tense is still important.

Take care, everyone

[cksalmon]

Ummm... yes, G-d did. Otherwise, Jesus would not have been a light to the world (John 8:12). Unless of course "following" Him doesn't mean that we obey G-d the same way He did.

Zing!

-----------

This whole works vs. faith junk is just silly, IMO. They cannot be separated as they are essentially one-in-the-same. Works without faith doesn't necessarily get you where you need to be, and faith without works isn't even faith (pistis).

To have faith (pistis) is to have the fidelity and loyalty to follow Christ by performing the very acts that G-d wishes (or commands [?]) of us.

All this â??Faith is more important than worksâ?¦ Works is more important than faithâ? junk ever does is take away from the real culprit of our salvationâ?¦ G-dâ??s grace.

We will not tolerate your sensical suggestions here, Doc. Now. if you'd like to try again: more polarizing, less peacemaking.

CKS

PS. You inspired (=justifiably guilted) me to pull out that paper again. Ugh! I really need to tackle it, but I don't wanna.

[Zakuska]

James 2 is certainly not about a "works-based salvation for believers". Showing the necessity of works along with faith, maybe, but not "works-based". It's statements like these that further evangelical stereotypes about LDS, that they care only about works and earning their own salvation.

But heres the problem... where does the Stereo-type begin?

With the Evangelicals themselves. Is it not Evangelicals who think Mormons believe in a purely "works based Salvation"?

We don't... what have we been saying since clear back on ZLMB?

Works + Faith = Salvation

Not Faith Alone + Grace Alone... (Which leads to the LDS stereo-type of EV easy believism)

[consiglieri]

I am rapidly seeing that my efforts to restrict this thread to the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians is like trying to control a team of runaway horses.

I think that we can all agree that, if we look at every writer who had a book make it into the New Testament, we are going to find all sorts of things that support every conceivable view; whether that be Calvinism, Mormonism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, Universalism, or take your freaking pick!

That is why, once the steeds have slipped their reins, chaos generally ensues.

I was trying to avoid that chaos by restricting the discussion to 1 Corinthians. I think there is enough for us to disagree about in that one letter to keep us going without casting about to other writings.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Doctor Steuss]

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Those in Corinth were vile sinners.

Or maybe Mormons.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Those in Corinth were vile sinners.

Or maybe Mormons.

They were most defanitly Mormons.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi MRSR--

With some small measure of irony, I might point out that Zakusa highlighted only half of the relevant process.

Best.

CKS

May be you and Paul and the other Paul should have a chat then. Looks like many disagree here. Also I think AZ believer would like to chime in his/her views as well?

[T-Shirt]

The verb epitrepō appears here in subjunctive form, suggesting that the action may or may not happen. Whether or not one goes on to perfection, and performs the works entailed therein, is, according to the verse Zakusa has cited, dependent ultimately upon God's permission. "We will do" depends on "if God permits [us to do so]." He may; he may not.

This is nothing more than a common phrase meaning, "God willing". It is not intended to be read in the context that you propose.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

I was trying to avoid that chaos by restricting the discussion to 1 Corinthians. I think there is enough for us to disagree about in that one letter to keep us going without casting about to other writings.

What do you think?

I appreciate your efforts, and I agree with you. The context in which First Corinthians was written had to do with serious problems among the members in Corinth. There were divisions in the Church and instances of serious moral transgression. Paul even goes as far as instructing the Corinthians to excommunicate those who were guilty of those more serious sins and to no longer fellowship them. I can see no indication that Paul considers these Corinthians to be already "saved" in the sense that their salvation is sure. In fact, he seems to indicate that unless certain members are excommunicated, they will have no chance of being saved in the next life.

T-Shirt

[paulhadik]

Mola:

wasn't jumping on you, in fact I appreciate your questions

Once adopted by God, He keeps us

CKS uttered the magic words..."God's Sovereignty" Since the whole Act of salvation from justification, through sanctification and glorification, is His doing and for His glory (where I think we diverge from LDS somewhat) I can not defeat His plan.

Salvation is never God sitting up there hoping we make this right decision, crossing His fingers...

He saves us

I can't lose it, the adoption is an act on His part of quickening us from death to life; one time for all time

the sanctification and glorification is the process

[cksalmon]

This is nothing more than a common phrase meaning, "God willing". It is not intended to be read in the context that you propose.

Best regards,

T-Shirt

I'd suggest that it may have become so "common" in your mind, that it has lost all propositional content. It's not merely a pious platitude in the mouths of the biblical writers.

The context I propose is one in which the phrase "if God permits" actually retains propositional content. Apparently, the context you propose sees this as some sort of catchphrase that doesn't actually mean what it says: i.e., that God overrides human wills when and as he sees fit.

What on earth would the phrase "God willing" mean if not that X will not happen unless God is willing that it should?

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

Mola:

wasn't jumping on you, in fact I appreciate your questions

Once adopted by God, He keeps us

CKS uttered the magic words..."God's Sovereignty" Since the whole Act of salvation from justification, through sanctification and glorification, is His doing and for His glory (where I think we diverge from LDS somewhat) I can not defeat His plan.

Salvation is never God sitting up there hoping we make this right decision, crossing His fingers...

He saves us

I can't lose it, the adoption is an act on His part of quickening us from death to life; one time for all time

the sanctification and glorification is the process

[God] said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him—for we can prevent Him, if we choose—He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine. —

C. S. Lewis,

Beyond Personality

[paulhadik]

[God] said (in the Bible) that we were â??godsâ? and He is going to make good His words. If we let Himâ??for we can prevent Him, if we chooseâ??He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine. â??

C. S. Lewis,

Beyond Personality

so your argument is that I am actually more powerful than God? And that the key to successfully fulfilling His will if all up to me?

What kind of God is this?

[Bernard Gui]

Here is 1 Cor1:18 from the New English Bible (my favorite version):

"The message of the cross is sheer folly to those on the way to destruction, but to us, who are on the way to salvation, it is the power of God."

How come no one here ever uses the New English Bible?

Bernard

[Zakuska]

so your argument is that I am actually more powerful than God? And that the key to successfully fulfilling His will if all up to me?

What kind of God is this?

A God who will not force anyone to heaven.

Joshua 24

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

[AZBeliever]

Mola:

wasn't jumping on you, in fact I appreciate your questions

Once adopted by God, He keeps us

CKS uttered the magic words..."God's Sovereignty" Since the whole Act of salvation from justification, through sanctification and glorification, is His doing and for His glory (where I think we diverge from LDS somewhat) I can not defeat His plan.

Salvation is never God sitting up there hoping we make this right decision, crossing His fingers...

He saves us

I can't lose it, the adoption is an act on His part of quickening us from death to life; one time for all time

the sanctification and glorification is the process

Amen Paul Hadik...AZBeliever chiming in.

God saves sinners. Christ came to save His people from their sins. If God has appointed you for salvation, you are not going to thwart His plans:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

[Zakuska]

All men are sinners... so are you preaching a Universal Salvation then?

[paulhadik]

sigh....

how do you even come to that conclusion from what was stated? you are non sequitering the heck out of me today.

[BCSpace]

God saves sinners. Christ came to save His people from their sins. If God has appointed you for salvation, you are not going to thwart His plans:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

A violation of Biblical concepts as these verses actually speak against predestination.

God's chosen people are the Israelites according to the Bible. If there is predestination, why did God not just have these Gentiles born as Israelites? Did God change his mind here or modus operandi here?

To illustrate, notice that vs 46 and 47 show Paul and Barnabas giving the word to the Jews who rejected it and became"unworthy of everlasting life," even though they were the chosen people. The apostles then "turned to the Gentiles".

Of course the overall Biblical context can be summed up here.....

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

God's will is that all men are to be saved, hence the concept that some are predestined to be saved and some are not goes against Bible teaching. The fact that some are not saved (despite God's will) is a testament to agency as opposed to predestination.

[paulhadik]

So BC:

we have one of two things: A God who is in control and brings about His plan. Or a God who wishes for the best but is powerless to do anything about it.

This is the divide.

What you trumpet as man's free will becomes in fact God's inability and weakness.

This being the case, what assurance can you have in eternity that there won't again be war against Him after everyone gets there?

At what point in human events are you willing to allow God to interfere and subvert this "free will"? ever?

[Aquilifer]

So BC:

we have one of two things: A God who is in control and brings about His plan. Or a God who wishes for the best but is powerless to do anything about it.

This is the divide.

What you trumpet as man's free will becomes in fact God's inability and weakness.

This being the case, what assurance can you have in eternity that there won't again be war against Him after everyone gets there?

At what point in human events are you willing to allow God to interfere and subvert this "free will"? ever?

No, that's a false dichotomy. We don't view free will as God's inability and weakness, nor does He have to make us mindless automatons to be in control of His plan (that's where omniscience -- knowing the beginning and the end -- comes in). We view free will as something that He has given to us, and which he will not subvert and override. He is certainly capable of doing so, if He chooses.* But He has given us autonomy and will not strip us of that. It was the adversary's plan that stripped us of the ability to make choices. It is why we are here, to exercise our independence in mortality. There'd be as much of a point to taking away our agency at this point as a teacher would have giving us a test, but taking away the questions.

*Which itself raises a paradox in Mormon thought: if God did subvert free will, which He is certainly capable of doing, would He cease to be God?

[consiglieri]

so your argument is that I am actually more powerful than God? And that the key to successfully fulfilling His will if all up to me?

What kind of God is this?

From my point of view, this would be the kind of God who loves his children enough to actually let them play a real part in the plan of their salvation; a God who has sent them to this earth to be tested to see if they will do all things that they have been commanded.

So your argument is that God will do whatever God wills to do, regardless of what we do?

What kind of God is this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So BC:

we have one of two things: A God who is in control and brings about His plan. Or a God who wishes for the best but is powerless to do anything about it.

This is the divide.

What you trumpet as man's free will becomes in fact God's inability and weakness.

This being the case, what assurance can you have in eternity that there won't again be war against Him after everyone gets there?

At what point in human events are you willing to allow God to interfere and subvert this "free will"? ever?

Paul thank you for the replies. Im not even shure were to begin. So you believe that all good things come from God and man can do no good of himself?

Are good works evidence that one is saved?

Do you subscribe to the idea of predestination laid out by AZbeliever?

[paulhadik]

Paul thank you for the replies. Im not even shure were to begin. So you believe that all good things come from God and man can do no good of himself?

Are good works evidence that one is saved?

Do you subscribe to the idea of predestination laid out by AZbeliever?

Hey Mola:

first off we can all do comparatively good things that impress each other. But there is the interesting passage of the rich man calling Jesus "Good Teacher" and his reply of "there is no one good but God" which to me is a statement of Christ's definition of the word 'good' (pure holiness)

So yes, even hitler can play santa to the orphans but is God impressed?

After receiving the indwelling Spirit though God starts bearing fruit in my life, plus the blood of Christ covers my sin and I stand 'holy' before my Creator at the Judgement.

So good works must be present in a believers life. I think though we must be careful when we says 'he feeds the poor, therefore he must be a redeemed son of God' (Matthew 7 warns against this)

AZ and I share the same beliefs. I believe God has predestined believers. This is a word that simply means He brings certain things about.

So to others who have asked; I don't see that Scripture teaches this idea of "free will" where God sits back and lets us make our own decisions. Our will is corrupted by sin and must be brought to life (His act) before we could even hope to choose Him.

That's why we say God is sovereign. Some have asked "what kind of God is that?"

I can't understand what kind of God the other one is, the one who sits back and lets us rule. That's why you can never have security, you can lose salvation, and what guarantees do you have in the afterlife? I am not surprised on the emphasis of man's exaltation to Godhood because under this system man must become the emphasis. God's glorification will slowly fade as our own Godhood, then the Godhoods of future Gods push us all down the chain