Paul Never Says Believers Have Been Saved . . .

[Zakuska]

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

Heb. 13: 16

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

I'd say thats an afirmative.

Heb. 11: 5

5 By 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.

What great work did Enoch do to please God so much?

God's glorification will slowly fade as our own Godhood, then the Godhoods of future Gods push us all down the chain.

How could that ever happen?

Matt. 5: 16

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

[consiglieri]

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?

All of which are Bible-based.

I thought that, at least at some level, you subscribed to a belief in the Bible.

Correct me if I am wrong.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

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

I quite agree, Paul. You should bear in mind that recent revisionings of God's providential role in the LDS paradigm are quite heavily influenced, in some quarters, by (a modified) Process philosophy. Blake Ostler, of course, is the prime example of this evolution. Ostler begins by defining God (ultimately) as love--other attributes take a backseat. His conclusion is that God cannot be truly loving unless he allows us complete and autonomous freedom to make our own choices--regardless of whether or not they fit in with his larger plan. Ostler does affirm that God knows all possibilities and is able to make universally-informed guesses as to our choices, and is, thus, able to plan for all eventualities. This, of course, is quite in keeping with the LDS emphasis on "free agency." It also resonates quite well with the Openness movement in Evangelicalism (think Greg Boyd and Clark Pinnock here).

Thus, man really is able to upset God's plans, to thwart them (at least presently, if not ultimately), and to do things other than God would have wished he would. With regard to the unfolding of the law of eternal progression, man is at least as powerful as God--and apparently more so: man can frustrate God's plans, but God, it seems, cannot similarly frustrate the plans of man lest he be deemed to violate "free agency."

In the end, the salvation of the individual Latter-day Saint rests in his own hands. He is responsible for demonstrating his worthiness for exaltation. For LDS, Christ's atonement secured a universal resurrection, but ultimate salvation depends upon the efforts of man.

So, who is really the instrumental agent of salvation for LDS?

Best.

CKS

[cksalmon]

All of which are Bible-based.

I thought that, at least at some level, you subscribed to a belief in the Bible.

Correct me if I am wrong.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig--

These issues are not unambiguously presented in the Bible (as I think you know--I think you might be trying to get a rise out of Paul). Our interpretation shapes the issues. And our interpretations are multifaceted and interdependent upon prior assumptions. Surely, you are not suggesting that the Bible (and specifically NT) unambiguously affirms your own beliefs. That those who don't accede to your understanding of the relevant passages are wrong a priori?

Curious and best to you, bro.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Thus, man really is able to upset God's plans, to thwart them (at least presently, if not ultimately), and to do things other than God would have wished he would.

Unless it was part of the plan to give men agency in the first place in which case God has taken it all into account. And since that happens to be part of the LDS 'paradigm', God's plans are not frustrated one whit.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; Moses 4:3

So, who is really the instrumental agent of salvation for LDS?

Christ as per the above.

[cksalmon]

Unless it was part of the plan to give men agency in the first place in which case God has taken it all into account. And since that happens to be part of the LDS 'paradigm', God's plans are not frustrated one whit.

As I wrote, "presently, if not ultimately." Or, are you suggesting that God always in every situation gets what he wants?

And if he doesn't get what he wants presently, then are not his present desires thwarted? I'm not commenting on the Grand Plan, but on its day-to-day outworking in our world.

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Unless it was part of the plan to give men agency in the first place in which case God has taken it all into account. And since that happens to be part of the LDS 'paradigm', God's plans are not frustrated one whit.

As I wrote, "presently, if not ultimately."

If God gave us agency, He must have known all the attendent consequences. Therefore His will is not frustrated by agency presently or ultimately.

Or, are you suggesting that God always in every situation gets what he wants?

Sure, even if we sin because that is us, exercising our agency, just as He wills. Agency is the overriding factor in the plan of salvation. Without it, we cannot know the bitter from the sweet, good from evil, etc. and therefore cannot be saved. Since God gave it to us by puting us in a position to exercise it, God remains the author of our salvation.

[consiglieri]

So, who is really the instrumental agent of salvation for LDS?

Best.

CKS

God and man.

It is a partnership.

Not a tyranny--of God or of man.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

Sure, even if we sin because that is us, exercising our agency, just as He wills.

So, does he will that we sin? Or, just that we exercise free agency which entails our sinning, as he already knew it would, which amounts to much the same thing?

Best.

CKS

[consiglieri]

Consig--

These issues are not unambiguously presented in the Bible (as I think you know--I think you might be trying to get a rise out of Paul). Our interpretation shapes the issues. And our interpretations are multifaceted and interdependent upon prior assumptions. Surely, you are not suggesting that the Bible (and specifically NT) unambiguously affirms your own beliefs. That those who don't accede to your understanding of the relevant passages are wrong a priori?

Curious and best to you, bro.

CKS

You are getting to know me far too well, it appears, about the "rise" part.

I don't like this cat. He reads minds. --Syd the Sloth

But honestly, if we can both agree that our interpretation of the Bible shapes the issues, and if we can further agree our interprations are multifaceted and interdependent upon prior assumptions, then who is there who can possibly tell us with any degree of certainty what the Bible really means?

(Cue music: "How Lovely Was The Morning")

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So, does he will that we sin? Or, just that we exercise free agency which entails our sinning, as he already knew it would, which amounts to much the same thing?

Best.

CKS

I must confess an extreme minority viewpoint within the LDS movement that believes the primary purpose of this earth life is precisely for us to sin.

(Cue boos and hisses from the Mormon peanut gallery.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "A majority of one")

[BCSpace]

So, does he will that we sin? Or, just that we exercise free agency which entails our sinning, as he already knew it would, which amounts to much the same thing?

It is not the same thing. He does not will that we sin, but He knows we will (hence a Savior was provided) because of the conditions He placed us in.

God and man.

It is a partnership.

Agreed. Man must choose to be saved and must choose how many and to what extent he will fulfill the requirements for salvation.

[cksalmon]

It is not the same thing. He does not will that we sin, but He knows we will (hence a Savior was provided) because of the conditions He placed us in.

It seems that you're suggesting that God placed us in conditions that inevitably lead to sin. You wrote: "He knows we will [sin] because of the conditions He placed us in."

How is this different than God willing that we sin? He put us in conditions where he knew (infallibly?) that we would sin. This is a distinction without a difference, I think. God put us in certain conditions knowing that we would sin, but he really didn't want us to sin--even though he knew we would given the conditions he placed us in? Then why would he place us in those conditions, unless he actually wants us to sin? Couldn't he have done otherwise?

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

It is not the same thing. He does not will that we sin, but He knows we will (hence a Savior was provided) because of the conditions He placed us in.

It seems that you're suggesting that God placed us in conditions that inevitably lead to sin. You wrote: "He knows we will [sin] because of the conditions He placed us in."

I am indeed so suggesting and declaring it as LDS doctrine as well.

How is this different than God willing that we sin? He put us in conditions where he knew (infallibly?) that we would sin. This is a distinction without a difference, I think.

If your parents throw you into a pool to learn how to swim, it's it their will that you drown?

[cksalmon]

I must confess an extreme minority viewpoint within the LDS movement that believes the primary purpose of this earth life is precisely for us to sin.

--Consiglieri (Italian for "A majority of one")

I wouldn't say that it was "the primary purpose," but I would agree that it was a purpose. Now, that's something that Reformed Christians and Mormons actually have in common--notwithstanding Keller's terrible book Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians: Let's Talk.

Best to you.

CKS

[cksalmon]

If your parents throw you into a pool to learn how to swim, it's it their will that you drown?

That's not a good analogy, I don't think. You've stated that God desires for us to sin. I'm not discussing the ultimate motivation. But, one wouldn't drown (per your analogy) unless one's parents threw one into the pool. God has (per your analogy) desired that some of his children would drown. He infallibly knew that some would, and yet he threw them into the pool anyway. He knew the consequences of his action. Thus, he willed (desired) that some would drown--or did he really not know that some would? Was he just hoping for the best? Or, did he have sure knowledge of all the children's fates?

And why would a parent throw a (non-swimming) child into a pool in order to teach them how to swim? I wouldn't recommend it. Instead, I'd recommend teaching them how to swim.

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

So According to CKSalmon and others...

God is the Ultimate Micro Manager.

But According to LDS...

The Prophet Joseph Smith was once asked how he had been able to inspire and govern a people who appeared to be as productive and happy as the Latter-day Saints. His answer was short and to the point: â??I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.â? As with many prophetic utterances, this statement cuts deep, to the very heart of the matter of self-governance, an issue of central importance to addicted people.

God teaches us what his commandments are but he does not force us to obey them.

[cksalmon]

So According to CKSalmon and others...

God is the Ultimate Micro Manager.

But According to LDS...

Um...okay. Can I have the link?

Is this a statement about God's providential intervention in His universe? Is this a statement of LDS doctrine, as you've suggested? Do share. Where can I find the source from which you've quoted?

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

The particular quote comes from Meridian Magazine. But BY gave several discourse that quoted Joseph Smith in this saying as well. The jist of it is exactly how many LDS see the Sovereignty of God.

Yes he is all powerful and all those Omni's. BUT... He will never take away our free will. Because that is the only thing we have that is truley ours... its the only thing we can really give to God.and that not of ourselves because he gave it to us.

A perfect example is the Garden.

1) He created everything...

2) told them not to eat the fruit (ie taught a correct Principle)

3) But left it up to them to ultimately choose

[Tanyan]

Although the title of this thread sounds like a blow at evangelical soteriology, it is not my invention, but is rather a statement from The Oxford Bible Commentary on Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians.

Specifically, it deals with 1 Corinthians 1:18, which in the KJV says that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness, but to them that are saved, the power of God.

The NRSV changes that to read, "but to them that are being saved." (Note that the New International Version also follows this reading.)

The full quote from the Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1112 is as follows, emphasis in original:

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/

[cksalmon]

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/

Tanyan--

Seems like you post this link once every couple of weeks. It also seems that, typically, when you post the link, you do so without actually adding any content to the thread itself--as if you think that the mere existence of Dan Corner's site is a discussion-ender. I suppose because Dan Corner is hardcore anti-Calvinism, anti-security (oh, and, anti-Mormon [for your reference only, Tanyan--I don't endorse Corner's views--here's what Corner thinks of Mormonism]. And he's against Messianic Christian groups, and Catholics, and JW's, too). Do you find his writings about Mormonism convincing? Personally, I find them shallow and ill-informed. That's what I think of his writings on conditional security as well.

His is a minority position in Evangelicalism, but I suppose Corner's site must be the most impressive EV site you've found on the web that teaches against eternal security (given your quite frequent linking to it).

Corner is a hyper-Arminian (or, as someone has described him, an "Arminian fundamentalist"). Thus, I can see why his take on "free will" and conditional security appeals to Latter-day Saints such as yourself. There was an interesting session at the 2005 Sunstone Symposium with Mark Hausam (a Calvinist) and Blake Ostler that bears on this discussion. Hausam presented a paper entitlted "It's All in Arminius: Mormonism As a Form of Hyper-Arminianism" (SL05265)--it'll only cost you $2 to download. I believe Hausam is dead-on.

Food for thought.

Best.

CKS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I agree with alot of wich you said. It would be foolish to disagree. How ever at what point is one saved? Is it a process or just a single event. I believe like most LDS that salvation ultimatly doesnt happen till your dead, and the judgement take place. Since this life is a test it ends then.Imo.

There are many scriptures that tell us that we will be judged according to our deeds and rewarded accrdingly.

Also Im not trying to get into a whole works vs faith and grace. They go hand in hand, you cant have on with out the other.

Of topic a little I just noticed that Im a seasond member. Does that mean I tatse more salty?

[cksalmon]

The particular quote comes from Meridian Magazine. But BY gave several discourse that quoted Joseph Smith in this saying as well.

Such as?

And from which source are you deriving this LDS doctrine? Meridian? or JoD?

[Zakuska]

Such as?

"Concerning government: Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them tot do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. "How?" responded the gentleman; "to us it is very difficult." Mr. Smith replied, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

John Taylor on November, 1851 in the Millennial Star 13:22 page 339.

And from which source are you deriving this LDS doctrine? Meridian? or JoD?

Niether...

Its derived from several Standard works. The Temple ceremony, as well as the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[cksalmon]

"Concerning government: Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them tot do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. "How?" responded the gentleman; "to us it is very difficult." Mr. Smith replied, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

John Taylor on November, 1851 in the Millennial Star 13:22 page 339.

Niether...

But you intimated that this principle is analogous to how the LDS God interacts with the universe. The Millennial Star quotation makes no reference whatsoever to how God interacts with the universe. You've provided a second-hand quotation attributed to Joseph Smith. Are you extracting doctrine from this?

You haven't yet pointed me to any of the several discourses by Brigham Young that expound upon and theologize this quotation. ["But BY gave several discourse that quoted Joseph Smith in this saying as well."] I'm assuming BY's discourses make spiritual application of the quotation at hand.

Its derived from several Standard works. The Temple ceremony, as well as the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Again, such as?

I'm asking for specific references to specific passages that theologize or expound upon or demonstrate your suggestion, not the Millennial Star reference.

I don't see of the relevance of the quotation to the way in which God governs the universe. And, yet, you stated "according to LDS..." and provided the quotation as if it has some bearing on the way LDS believe God governs the universe. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking you to point out specific passages that demonstrate the relevance of the JS quotation.

Best.

CKS

[Zakuska]

Hows this?

2 Nephi 10

21 But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the isles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren.

22 For behold, the Lord God has led away from time to time from the house of Israel, according to his will and pleasure. And now behold, the Lord remembereth all them who have been broken off, wherefore he remembereth us also.

23 Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselvesâ??to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

24 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

25 Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen.