Saved Through Faith...

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

It is God which works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil 2:13).

Ah I ghotcha... so we are like marianets so God is the one who is actually sinning... thats why he has to send christ... to mop up for all his mistakes. Cool! Eat drink and be merry!

In the Old Testament wives was not fornication since they were not under the New Covenant

They weren't? I wouldn't go there if I where you Johnny. The OT laws on fornication where a lot strickter than the NT laws.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

Great! So if a man illicits sexual intercourse from his wife, he's a fornicator too!

A fornicator is a polygamist because he has "wives" instead of "wife".

[Zakuska]

LDSMusic483

A fornicator is a polygamist because he has "wives" instead of "wife".

Was Abaraham a fornicator. hagar was his wife. What was the difference? David wasnt called a fornicator/adulturer until he took that which was not his. He already had TEN whom God had given him.

[LDSMusic483]

Was Abaraham a fornicator. hagar was his wife. What was the difference? David wasnt called a fornicator/adulturer until he took that which was not his. He already had TEN whom God had given him.

Oh but that is SOOOO Old Covenant. Back then it was okay to fornicate apparently. Or God decided to change the definition when Christ came.

[johnny]

Zakuska

Was Abaraham a fornicator. hagar was his wife. What was the difference? David wasnt called a fornicator/adulturer until he took that which was not his. He already had TEN whom God had given him.

Abraham was not under the New Covenant, he was not a fornicator for having "wives".

[LDSMusic483]

Zakuska

Abraham was not under the New Covenant, he was not a fornicator for having "wives".

So Johnny, what did fornicator mean in the old testament? Why did it's definition change? Why did Christ use it to say that a man shouldn't put away his wife except for fornication? If she's already married to him, how is she being polygamous? Or is that because he's being polygamous, she gets punished?

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

So Johnny, what did fornicator mean in the old testament? Why did it's definition change? Why did Christ use it to say that a man shouldn't put away his wife except for fornication? If she's already married to him, how is she being polygamous? Or is that because he's being polygamous, she gets punished?

The definition of fornication did not change. Under the New Covenant polygamy is considered fornication.

[LDSMusic483]

LDSMusic483

The definition of fornication did not change. Under the New Covenant polygamy is considered fornication.

And I've been carefully look at the lexicon, and I don't think it means what you are saying there. That verse is only used to mention it is used in it's plural form. It doesn't list that verse under those used for the definition you are trumpeting.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

He addressed "wife" and fornication in 1Cor 7:2.

That was Paul, not Jesus Christ, and Paul was not even talking about polygamy, he was adressing fornication.

Those under the New Covenant weren't involved in polygamy because it was fornication.

You still have not shown where Jesus addressed polygamy under the new covenant. You are refering to something, as proof, when it has not been shown to be true. I'm sure there is a fallacy for that...Affirming the Consequent or Begging the Question or some sort like that.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

And I've been carefully look at the lexicon, and I don't think it means what you are saying there. That verse is only used to mention it is used in it's plural form. It doesn't list that verse under those used for the definition you are trumpeting.

For 1Cor 7:2, the lexicon says the following for fornication is,

1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b ) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

[LDSMusic483]

That was Paul, not Jesus Christ, and Paul was not even talking about polygamy, he was adressing fornication.

You still have not shown where Jesus addressed polygamy under the new covenant. You are refering to something, as proof, when it has not been shown to be true. I'm sure there is a fallacy for that...Affirming the Consequent or Begging the Question or some sort like that.

His whole premise is based on this one verse he could find where it uses woman singular with the word fornication in the verse and he makes 1+1=5. But I'm still waiting for him to apply his literalness to the rest of the verse. Paul says that every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband. Quite the contrary to what Paul teaches even later in this chapter.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

That was Paul, not Jesus Christ, and Paul was not even talking about polygamy, he was adressing fornication.

The apostle Paul was addressing by saying to avoid fornication a man has a "wife" ...

You still have not shown where Jesus addressed polygamy under the new covenant. You are refering to something, as proof, when it has not been shown to be true. I'm sure there is a fallacy for that...Affirming the Consequent or Begging the Question or some sort like that.

An Apostle of Jesus addressed it ...

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

But I'm still waiting for him to apply his literalness to the rest of the verse. Paul says that every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband. Quite the contrary to what Paul teaches even later in this chapter.

I addressed that earlier, every man that is called to marriage has a wife .... what I have said is consistent with the rest of what Paul teaches. He teaches,

1Cor.7

[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

[17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

[Billy]

Its funny how people always forget that little detail? How many of Christs Grandfathers where Polygamists? I think Im going to go count that up.

Are you talking about God the father's father?

[LDSMusic483]

LDSMusic483

For 1Cor 7:2, the lexicon says the following for fornication is,

1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b ) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

And yet, it specifies, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals...but nowhere does it say polygamy? You see...the a, b, and c are used to expound upon the #1. They do that without including polygamy.

[Flyonthewall]

His whole premise is based on this one verse he could find where it uses woman singular with the word fornication in the verse and he makes 1+1=5. But I'm still waiting for him to apply his literalness to the rest of the verse. Paul says that every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband. Quite the contrary to what Paul teaches even later in this chapter.

Very shakey grounds indeed to proclaim something so adamantly.

[annewandering]

Christ gave us the gift of being resurrected. its really not very complicated. he opened the door. with faith we can go through the door. with works you determine where the door goes to.

if just getting to a door is enough for you then dont do anything. if you want to have eternal progression then you must do more. you must show God and yourself that your faith is not just words coming out of your mouth. you must show that the words coming out of your mouth are not hollow.

after all that is one of the reasons we came here.

[Mudcat]

Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Is the common claim "Grace through Faith" a form of boasting?

Every time I hear similar it seems a boast by the author. A method of stating that their belief is better because they focus on faith and deny works.

Bee Eff,

Outside of making the general observation that I am totally unsurprised that your OP has been turned into some sort of polygamy thread....and somehow I find this humorous. Not in a funny way, but more of a ....lol from exasperation way. Kinda like the other day when my mower wouldn't crank.... and I realized my 8 year old had filled the gas tank with water.

Anyways... In regards to the OP, emphasis mine, I just don't see how someone who says they are saved by the grace afforded them by the actions of someone other than themselves, could be construed as a personal boast. Essentially folks like me, who have said this, are saying that we couldn't do it, but Jesus did. We love him and love what he has done for us. I suppose if there is a boast to be found in there, it is a boast for Christ.... and deservingly so.

However, I think possibly from your POV, you may take this as a boast from particular people. Because some of the people who believe this, are saying it in a very exclusive sort of way. An exclusive way that is posited to exclude you or any other LDS from this saving grace. More of a “nah, nah, na boo boo.... I'm saved by grace and you are not.” Even posed in such a way, it isn't a boast, its an insult. I suppose its at that point where folks like that aren't necessarily folks like me. I can't excuse or apologize for them, but I can say I don't think Christ is in that sort of dialogue.

As far as I can tell, from the numerous discussions I have had with LDS on the subject, they believe that they couldn't do it on their own, but Jesus did. They love him and love what he has done for them.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I think LDS realize that works are related to eternal reward but not eternal salvation, because that comes by the grace if Christ. If I am wrong, I hope you will clarify.

Of the criticism's I have with the CoJCoLDS, this seems to be the thinnest and most insubstantial. It is based upon semantics and not intent of the heart, as far as I can tell.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[LDSMusic483]

Bee Eff,

Outside of making the general observation that I am totally unsurprised that your OP has been turned into some sort of polygamy thread....and somehow I find this humorous. Not in a funny way, but more of a ....lol from exasperation way. Kinda like the other day when my mower wouldn't crank.... and I realized my 8 year old had filled the gas tank with water.

Apologies for hijacking the thread. I don't even remember how we got off on the tangent...but it happens alot with me when Johnny's involved!

[Mudcat]

Apologies for hijacking the thread. I don't even remember how we got off on the tangent...but it happens alot with me when Johnny's involved!

I certainly wasn't making a personal assault on threadjackers LDSMusic.

I have jacked to many threads myself for my statement to bear any weight.

By all means continue.

Jack away!

No intent to slow your (or anyones) roll.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

The apostle Paul was addressing by saying to avoid fornication a man has a "wife" ...

Paul was addressing fornication NOT polygamy. If Paul said that in order for a man to get to work, let him use his own horse, would that mean that men should not have more than one horse?(note: not equating a wife with a horse, just making a point )There is more to a spouse than to just "avoid fornication".

An Apostle of Jesus addressed it ...

An Apostle of Jesus Christ did not touch the subject of polygamy, he addressed fornication. Paul was addressing specific questions by specific people. You are pulling a meaning from this letter that was never addressed.

[johnny]

Flyonthewall

Paul was addressing fornication NOT polygamy.

If you want to continue the discussion of polygamy open another thread so we don't continue to de-rail this thread.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall

If you want to continue the discussion of polygamy open another thread so we don't continue to de-rail this thread.

Agreed.

[LDSMusic483]

Flyonthewall

If you want to continue the discussion of polygamy open another thread so we don't continue to de-rail this thread.

Done

[Bee Eff]

Bee Eff,

Outside of making the general observation that I am totally unsurprised that your OP has been turned into some sort of polygamy thread....and somehow I find this humorous. Not in a funny way, but more of a ....lol from exasperation way. Kinda like the other day when my mower wouldn't crank.... and I realized my 8 year old had filled the gas tank with water.

Anyways... In regards to the OP, emphasis mine, I just don't see how someone who says they are saved by the grace afforded them by the actions of someone other than themselves, could be construed as a personal boast. Essentially folks like me, who have said this, are saying that we couldn't do it, but Jesus did. We love him and love what he has done for us. I suppose if there is a boast to be found in there, it is a boast for Christ.... and deservingly so.

However, I think possibly from your POV, you may take this as a boast from particular people. Because some of the people who believe this, are saying it in a very exclusive sort of way. An exclusive way that is posited to exclude you or any other LDS from this saving grace. More of a â??nah, nah, na boo boo.... I'm saved by grace and you are not.â? Even posed in such a way, it isn't a boast, its an insult. I suppose its at that point where folks like that aren't necessarily folks like me. I can't excuse or apologize for them, but I can say I don't think Christ is in that sort of dialogue.

As far as I can tell, from the numerous discussions I have had with LDS on the subject, they believe that they couldn't do it on their own, but Jesus did. They love him and love what he has done for them.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I think LDS realize that works are related to eternal reward but not eternal salvation, because that comes by the grace if Christ. If I am wrong, I hope you will clarify.

Of the criticism's I have with the CoJCoLDS, this seems to be the thinnest and most insubstantial. It is based upon semantics and not intent of the heart, as far as I can tell.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I apologize Mudcat. I should not have stated the absolute of "Every". There are always exceptions, and in this case I stereotyped. I have never received the impression that you were boasting in this fact, although I do not recall approaching the topic with you either.

Your post is very insightful, and does in fact voice much of what I feel oftentimes.

I do feel that it is a boast, because of its use in 'an exclusive way that is posited to exclude you or any other LDS from this saving grace. More of a â??nah, nah, na boo boo.... I'm saved by grace and you are not.â? '

Boats, definition:

• Show off
  
• Speaking of yourself in superlatives
  
• Sport: wear or display in an ostentatious or proud manner; "she was sporting a new hat"
  
• A brag, a loud appraisal of oneself
  

I think the behavior you describe qualifies as boasting.