Faith alone

[cksalmon]

Ya know, sometimes I am humored by people like you who have no clue. First, I am not LDS. Second, I grew up Lutheran (missouri synod) and had two scholarships to Lutheran colleges that I turned down. So, I HAVE done the research.

But, please, continue making an idiot out of yourself. And while you are at it, tell us why Luther truly tried to ditch the Book of James.

Oh, goodness. That was my line, Atticus. First: If you were actually raised Lutheran, you were apparently woefully under-catechized in your ostensible faith. Easy question: Can you explain to me, sort of connect the dots, how not going to a "Lutheran college" entails that you know anything about what Luther wrote? I'm not seeing the connection.

cks

[Balzer]

Evangeicals have the mind set that good works are worth nothing.

Do you have some sort of reference for this conclusion or is this just a personal opinion?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[cksalmon]

hi.

[Zakuska]

Do you have some sort of reference for this conclusion or is this just a personal opinion?

Respectfully,

Balzer

Sure.... Isaiah... Works are nothing more than filthy rags.

[Balzer]

Sure.... Isaiah... Works are nothing more than filthy rags.

True. But perhaps you could expand on that a bit? Or do you reject that scripture?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Zakuska]

Of course I don't reject the scripture. I do reject the missuse an misiterpretation of it by Ill informed Evangelical street preachers who think it some how is a linch pin against the LDS.

[Balzer]

Of course I don't reject the scripture. I do reject the missuse an misiterpretation of it by Ill informed Evangelical street preachers who think it some how is a linch pin against the LDS.

I don't know any street preachers, and couldn't begin to know whether or not they are ill informed, but I was asking about your very broad assertion that "Evangeicals have the mind set that good works are worth nothing." As you might've guessed, I take issue with that statement. I don't know a single Christian who thinks good works are worth nothing. And, to be honest, I seriously doubt even the average street preacher thinks works are worth nothing. I think your assertion is groundless. Even if someone does not agree that works are necessary to salvation, they surely don't agree that works are worthless. I wonder how exactly this verse is misused or misinterpreted in your view? It seems pretty clear to me.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Zakuska]

I don't know any street preachers, and couldn't begin to know whether or not they are ill informed, but I was asking about your very broad assertion that "Evangeicals have the mind set that good works are worth nothing." As you might've guessed, I take issue with that statement. I don't know a single Christian who thinks good works are worth nothing. And, to be honest, I seriously doubt even the average street preacher thinks works are worth nothing. I think your assertion is groundless. Even if someone does not agree that works are necessary to salvation, they surely don't agree that works are worthless. I wonder how exactly this verse is misused or misinterpreted in your view? It seems pretty clear to me.

Respectfully,

Balzer

If something is not worth the dirt you walk on which is what one of them screemed out his bullhorn as we where walking by. Id say its pretty much "worth nothing".

[AtticusFinch]

Oh, goodness. That was my line, Atticus. First: If you were actually raised Lutheran, you were apparently woefully under-catechized in your ostensible faith. Easy question: Can you explain to me, sort of connect the dots, how not going to a "Lutheran college" entails that you know anything about what Luther wrote? I'm not seeing the connection.

cks

Oh good, I had thought you were done making an idiot out of yourself.

Let me educate you. First: Lutheran Private School. Second, tops in my Catechism Class. Third, One Scholarship for Bible/Catechism Knowledge, second, another scholarship because I was chosen by my pastor to participate in a week-long Catechism Workshop due to my knowledge where I won the Scholarship. One was to Concordia Lutheran College, one was to Texas Lutheran College.

I have no doubt you are unable to see the connection.

And nice dodge on my question.

You are dismissed.

[Balzer]

If something is not worth the dirt you walk on which is what one of them screemed out his bullhorn as we where walking by. Id say its pretty much "worth nothing".

Yeah I guess I'd have to agree with you there. Never seen a guy screaming this stuff from a bullhorn tho. (told you I didn't get out much) Although I can understand what the bullhorn guy is trying to say, and, I'm not sure he's completely wrong. Filthy Rags, not worth the dirt we walk on, same thing?

Makes you wonder, if our works are as filthy rags, why do we still perform them?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Pahoran]

Aaaahhhh, the mormon default position. Bible bad, bom good.

Really?

What Mormon has ever said that, let alone adopted it as a "default position?"

So tell us, Hoops: is "When you can't deal with the argument, bear false witness" the default anti-Mormon position, the default EV Protestant position, or the default Southern Baptist position?

Because it is clearly the default Hoops22 position.

Please, if you have any legitimate questions, ask away. But these are simply too sophomoric to consider.

Here's one: what is the method you use for determining when a New Testament teaching is "for Israel?"

Is it simply whenever that teaching is incompatible with your (allegedly Bible-derived) theology?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hoops22]

I'm simply drawing a reasonable conclusion from the information given in the post. The only way mormonism's unique doctrine(s) can stand is by making the Bible into something that has been rejected for thousands of years - something it is not.

What Mormon has ever said that, let alone adopted it as a "default position?"

Well, we know of one at least, don't we? My memory seems to recall other examples as well.

So tell us, Hoops: is "When you can't deal with the argument, bear false witness" the default anti-Mormon position, the default EV Protestant position, or the default Southern Baptist position?

I'll let you know when I actually resort to such tactics. Fortunately, not necessary.

Because it is clearly the default Hoops22 position.

Really? Doesn't seem clear at all.

Here's one: what is the method you use for determining when a New Testament teaching is "for Israel?"

Is it simply whenever that teaching is incompatible with your (allegedly Bible-derived) theology?

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, here's a simple game plan to follow. When the passage/book is addressed to Israel, that kinda narrows the scope down a smidge. It's really not that tough.

[Zakuska]

Well, here's a simple game plan to follow. When the passage/book is addressed to Israel, that kinda narrows the scope down a smidge. It's really not that tough.

Oh really?

Well Paul tells us WE are Israel...

Romans 9

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So wouldn't that mean anything addressed to Israel would be speaking directly to us?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh really?

Well Paul tells us WE are Israel...

Romans 9

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So wouldn't that mean anything addressed to Israel would be speaking directly to us?

Yeah that would take to much sense. I tried this allread with Hoops, he remaind "unconvinced". However I didn't quote a bible verse as I thought it was pretty obvious.

As all that are Chirt's are Isreal though not though any blood lines. This is the Abrhamaic covenant. When Christ is talking to Isreal he is talking to all that are his which includes us and Hoops.

[Vance]

The problem I have with this "age of grace" gibberish is this concept.

What Jesus taught is preeminent!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (even to the teachings of Paul, when you think there is a conflict).

Deu 18:15 ? The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

. . .

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; HIM SHALL YE HEAR IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU.

23 And it shall come to pass, that EVERY SOUL, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that IN ALL THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE THE PREEMINENCE.

Sorry Hoops but the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul.

Hoops,

You have yet to address (or concede) that the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul with regard to salvation. Your attempt to disregard the teachings of Jesus in lieu or your interpretation of Paul really doesn't align with the Bible as a whole.

[Zakuska]

Whats even more intresting with this verse though... he flat out says the Law is for US. Why Is Paul teaching Beleivers that the Law of Moses is for us?

Things the make you go Hmmm.

[Vance]

Another instance where "sola scriptura" is thrown out the window by those who claim it is a true doctrine.

I guess all those promises God made to Abraham are null and void to the likes of Hoops.

Promises like this one.

Luke 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, AND TO HIS SEED FOR EVER.

. . .

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

No worries I guess, because Hooops isn't of Abraham's seed these verses don't apply to him.

AND

Neither does this one apply to Hoops.

Abraham 2:10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;

And neither do these.

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham?s children, ye would DO THE WORKS OF ABRAHAM.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

I guess to Hoops, these verses also mean nothing.

ROMANS 1:7 To ALL THAT BE IN ROME, beloved of God, called to be saints:

. . .

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, OR TO HIS SEED, through the law (of Moses), but through the righteousness of faith. (In other words Abraham had the Gospel of Jesus Christ AKA "the faith").

. . .

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure TO ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law (of Moses), but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL,

Or this one.

1 Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (in other words to the members of the Church, whether Jew or Gentile)

. . .

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

. . .

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: WHOSE DAUGHTERS YE ARE, as long as ye do well (DO WELL? did he really write DO WELL?), and are not afraid with any amazement.

Obviously those who join the true Church are Abraham's seed, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

Hoops' rejection of Abraham and the epistle of James is telling.

Hoops,

Do you just ignore the inconvenient truth?

[mrmendoza]

Yep. The faith alone crowd has never heard of this verse. Is James even in the Bible?

"A bible! A Bible! Sola Scriptora!" Except when it doesn't apply to me!

Mike

[Hoops22]

Hoops,

You have yet to address (or concede) that the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul with regard to salvation. Your attempt to disregard the teachings of Jesus in lieu or your interpretation of Paul really doesn't align with the Bible as a whole.

Are the words of Paul ALSO the words of Jesus? Where, exactly, do you stand on that?

[David T]

Are the words of Paul ALSO the words of Jesus? Where, exactly, do you stand on that?

The words of Paul are the words of Paul explaining and applying the words of Jesus, which he learned from Study, from the Apostles who were with Jesus, and by Personal Revelation from the Risen Lord, sometimes quoting the words of Jesus.

Don't think he ever claimed the letters he dictated were a redaction of Jesus' words.

[Zakuska]

What I want to know is how are we out from under the law?

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

When Paul says it pertains to us.

[Hoops22]

Oh really?

Well, let's look at Romans 9, shall we? (and, do you have any interest in Rom 9:11..?)

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

But here is the passage that is relevant to your point, i think.

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

But let's note that this is POST-atonement, POST resurrection. Surely, even LDS will grant that Jesus' death and resurrection was a game-changing event. So, because of this verse, it is not that we became Israel, it is more that Israel become subject to the church age/age of grace. The point of this verse is that Israel should have known who Jesus is, but did not (or chose not to). And that we (gentiles) have no reason to believe other than that God has chosen us to believe (see verses below this one). By God drawing us to Him via church age/age of grace we become children of the promise.

[Hoops22]

The words of Paul are the words of Paul explaining and applying the words of Jesus, which he learned from Study, from the Apostles who were with Jesus, and by Personal Revelation from the Risen Lord, sometimes quoting the words of Jesus.

Don't think he ever claimed the letters he dictated were a redaction of Jesus' words.

Where does he say this? Particularly in light of:

Gal 1:11 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

[David T]

Where does he say this? Particularly in light of:

Gal 1:11 11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

You just quoted it for me.

As I said before:

The words of Paul are the words of Paul explaining and applying the words of Jesus, which he learned from Study, from the Apostles who were with Jesus, and by Personal Revelation from the Risen Lord, sometimes quoting the words of Jesus.

Don't think he ever claimed the letters he dictated were a redaction of Jesus' words.

Paul's letters are not the Gospel. His letters explain and apply the Gospel.

[Vance]

But let's note that this is POST-atonement, POST resurrection. Surely, even LDS will grant that Jesus' death and resurrection was a game-changing event.

Umm, not really. The only thing that changed was that that which was looked forward to from the foundation of the world was from then on looked back to.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So again, the "age of grace" gibberish bites the dust.