Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 You really must utilize the whole body of Scripture to interpret Scripture instead of just focusing one verse to determine one's doctrine.That is a strange comment coming from a group that ignores large portions of the teachings of Jesus and other scripture that contradict their doctrine..Is this very thread not a testimony that the Evangelical's that have particpated have ignored the plain meaning of the parable of the sheep and the goats.The Sheep were saved because they cared for those in need while the goats didn't. All anybody as said is "that it is by faith that you are saved". And the sheep had faith and were saved and as a result they did good works. While the goats were not saved because they cared to much about what other people thought. There is but one problem, the text never say anything about faith or the the reason the goats did or did not do something. I sense that some one has been adding thing to the text that which is not there.
Tanyan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 The word Faith [pistis] as used in Thought and Deed by the Anchient Israelites/Christians in the Bible for me this falls within the walls of The Heavenly Mansion on High with meanings of [With a present and Ongoing Tense in the language of the Holy Bible] - Acceptance of, Acknowledgement of, Belief In, Commitment to, Confidence in, Discipleship to, Faithfullness to, Fidelity to,Follower of, Hope in, Loyalty to, Obedience to, Perseverence for, Reliance in, Striving for,Trust in, Zeal for The Person and Work Of THE LORD OF LIFE, CHRIST JESUS. I know that all those definitions/meanings are not found within the bound Language book meanings here on Earth [ Some are Though] however I believe they are found within the Heavenly Realm. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
merganzerman Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 Do you have a refernce for your assertion?Yes, the Greek word translated as "be" is "esesthe". This comes from the root verb "eimi" which is used many times in the New Testament. ("The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary published by World Library Press') The word does not translate to "become".
merganzerman Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 Then why don't you?I don't think LDS scholars can go to any theological seminary (Christian) and state they use the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation. I would like to see a reference from several noted Christian scholars that say the LDS church is correct in interpreting Scriptures in utilizing the "Holy Spirit" approach. Or, that the LDS Church ought to be referred to the most correct in interpreting the Holy Bible -- whatever approach they may use.
merganzerman Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 This is why the LDS church remains uninvited to many serious Christian theological conferences. Your post strikes me as arrogant -- much like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus who thought they were right on with God. Please note before the parable of the sheep and the goats all the "woes" Jesus gave to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees who they they could be right before God by following the Law and commands. That would be Matthew 23. That is why I'm here, to share not necessarily what Christianity teaches to be true, but what saving faith is.
merganzerman Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 bump!What does bump mean? Is it like a tag team match where you slap the hand of another person?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 What does bump mean? Is it like a tag team match where you slap the hand of another person?This is funny. I mean that in a good nature way. Bump is something people do so other people can readily find this thread at the top of the list.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Yes, the Greek word translated as "be" is "esesthe". This comes from the root verb "eimi" which is used many times in the New Testament. ("The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary published by World Library Press') The word does not translate to "become".And what does that root word mean?
merganzerman Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 .Is this very thread not a testimony that the Evangelical's that have particpated have ignored the plain meaning of the parable of the sheep and the goats.The Sheep were saved because they cared for those in need while the goats didn't. All anybody as said is "that it is by faith that you are saved". And the sheep had faith and were saved and as a result they did good works. While the goats were not saved because they cared to much about what other people thought. There is but one problem, the text never say anything about faith or the the reason the goats did or did not do something. I sense that some one has been adding thing to the text that which is not there.Allow me to share with you how to apply the historical-grammatical-scriptural approach to interpreting the parable of the sheep and the goats. Notice in the Bible that the parable is all written in red. This means that in chapters 24 and 25, which is all in red, Jesus is offering a sermon, if you will, to his disciples as they were sitting on the Mount of Olives. He had left the temple after delivering the woes to the Pharises and the teachers of the Law who would readily agree that works are essential to salvation and not just faith alone. The disciples were concerned about the end of the age and asked for signs. Jesus warns them to be on guard, be aware of false teachings, nobody knows the day and the hour when Christ will return. Then, he tells three parable in chapter 25. The ten virgins who need to be ready -- that it's important to keep the faith and not lose it. The parable of the talents that we need to exercise our faith so we don't lose it. And, finally the sheep and the goats. For those who didn't exhibit a living and active faith will be separated. In reference to the woes of chapter 23, and the major problem Jesus had with the Pharisees from whom he just left, you really can't interpret this as a requirement to do more works! That would be totally against what Jesus was saying in chapter 23. So, when you apply the historical-grammatical-scriptural method -- you take a look at the whole Bible and not just isolate on one or two verses. For when you do, you can take that verse and interpret it any way you want it to fit your particular point of view.
merganzerman Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 And what does that root word mean?"to be, exist, live, stay, reside, occur; am."Thanks for telling me what bump means. Now I understand. I thought it was directed toward me.
Vance Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 This is why the LDS church remains uninvited to many serious Christian theological conferences. Really? As if we care what people who believe in the creeds of men more than the word of God do at their theological conferences.Your post strikes me as arrogant -- much like the Pharisees in the time of Jesus who thought they were right on with God. Kind of like what you do on your blog.Please note before the parable of the sheep and the goats all the "woes" Jesus gave to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees who they they could be right before God by following the Law and commands. Because they were spreading falsehoods, kind of like your blog.That would be Matthew 23. I have read it. That is why I'm here, to share not necessarily what Christianity teaches to be true, True! You can't share what you don't have.. . . but what saving faith is. You mean like misrepresenting our beliefs, using double standards, twisting scripture and such?I think you are just a little sore because the truth hurts you and your theology. You could always resort to name calling. It will make you feel more superior than you already do.Edited to add, I noticed that you haven't tried to refuted a single thing I or Volgadon posted. I will just assume that you couldn't.Edited again to add 3 Echos of respect.
Vance Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Allow me to share with you how to apply the historical-grammatical-scriptural approach to interpreting the parable of the sheep and the goats. Notice in the Bible that the parable is all written in red. This means that in chapters 24 and 25, which is all in red, Jesus is offering a sermon, if you will, to his disciples as they were sitting on the Mount of Olives. He had left the temple after delivering the woes to the Pharises and the teachers of the Law who would readily agree that works are essential to salvation and not just faith alone. The disciples were concerned about the end of the age and asked for signs. Jesus warns them to be on guard, be aware of false teachings, nobody knows the day and the hour when Christ will return. Then, he tells three parable in chapter 25. The ten virgins who need to be ready -- that it's important to keep the faith and not lose it. The parable of the talents that we need to exercise our faith so we don't lose it. And, finally the sheep and the goats. For those who didn't exhibit a living and active faith will be separated. In reference to the woes of chapter 23, and the major problem Jesus had with the Pharisees from whom he just left, you really can't interpret this as a requirement to do more works! That would be totally against what Jesus was saying in chapter 23. So, when you apply the historical-grammatical-scriptural method -- you take a look at the whole Bible and not just isolate on one or two verses. For when you do, you can take that verse and interpret it any way you want it to fit your particular point of view.I have learned over the years not to take the word or interpretation of an anti-Mormon when they try to tell me what the scriptures say.So let's just take a minute and actually look at Matt 23. 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses
Zakuska Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Hey all... Check this out... Here is a classic proof text Evangelicals are using to prove God gives us faith. The Proof text that was provided was John 6:29. So I looked the verse up in context and low and behold... what do I find?John 6 (NIV)26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."Did you catch that? Jesus says to WORK for the food he is going to provide?!Maybe the NIV isn't so bad afterall.
Tanyan Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Yes, the Greek word translated as "be" is "esesthe". This comes from the root verb "eimi" which is used many times in the New Testament. ("The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary published by World Library Press') The word does not translate to "become". Really ?. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Vance Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Hey all... Check this out... Here is a classic proof text Evangelicals are using to prove God gives us faith. The Proof text that was provided was John 6:29. So I looked the verse up in context and low and behold... what do I find?John 6 (NIV)26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."Did you catch that? Jesus says to WORK for the food he is going to provide?!Maybe the NIV isn't so bad afterall.It is truly amazing to me how someone can read the teachings of Jesus and miss the importance of good works. Doing good works permeates the scriptures. Why would one take a few words of Paul (misunderstood) and with them negate ALL of the teachings of Jesus, the other Apostles, and even Paul himself.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Hey all... Check this out... Here is a classic proof text Evangelicals are using to prove God gives us faith. The Proof text that was provided was John 6:29. So I looked the verse up in context and low and behold... what do I find?John 6 (NIV)26 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."Did you catch that? Jesus says to WORK for the food he is going to provide?!Maybe the NIV isn't so bad afterall.It is even better than that. Jesus equates the works that they must do is the work of belief.Works= belief accourding to Jesus. More evidnece that you cannot have faith unless you have works to go with them It is impossible to be saved by fatih alone and claim that works are a product of salvation.
Tanyan Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=343 The above referenced link is to one of the F.A.R.M.S reviews that responds to a anti LDS volume produced by our Christian Friends. The topic of LDS "Perfection" is addressed within the response. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
WalkerW Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 This is why the LDS church remains uninvited to many serious Christian theological conferences. Well, they obviously wouldn't be invited to the conferences of the Evangelical Theological Society because they are (obviously) not evangelicals. But I know three LDS scholars who were in attendance at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in New Orleans at the end of 2009. In fact, I believe Daniel McClellan presented. I, however, question what you consider "serious Christian theological conferences." I'd be more concerned with serious scholarship conferences.
WalkerW Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 I don't think LDS scholars can go to any theological seminary (Christian) and state they use the historical-grammatical approach to interpretation. Allow me to post the sources I used in my post on the cultural usage of 'faith' and 'grace' (which you still have not refuted to): Ira J. Jolivet, Jr., "Faith (Pistis) in Hebrews in Light of the Stoic Concept of the Acquisition of Scientific Knowledge (Episteme)," Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Nov. 2008.Michael S. Heiser, "Where Did the NT Writers Get the Idea of Jesus as Co-Creator?" Presentation given at Grace Church Bellingham, Dec. 6, 2009. Daniel Boyarin, "The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John," Harvard Theological Review 94:3, 2001Blake T. Ostler,
Tanyan Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Yes, the Greek word translated as "be" is "esesthe". This comes from the root verb "eimi" which is used many times in the New Testament. ("The New Testament Greek-English Dictionary published by World Library Press') The word does not translate to "become". Any thoughts from my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brothers/Sisters In CHRIST JESUS ?. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
WalkerW Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 And John 6:29 is an objective genitive in Greek, meaning "the work toward God" or "the work for God." Or (as the NET translates it) "the work God requires."
BCSpace Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 The question remains, can a person enter into heaven based on the amount of works they do? If this is true, then one has reconcile that position with several other passages that teach something quite different. There are numerous passages in the Bible that clear state that salvation is not by works in any way. By following the law and commandments, we cannot be justified before God. (See Romans 3:24, 11:6, 3:20, 3:27-28; 4:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 2:8-10 et al
Vance Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=343 The above referenced link is to one of the F.A.R.M.S reviews that responds to a anti LDS volume produced by our Christian Friends. The topic of LDS "Perfection" is addressed within the response. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT. Excellent article. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Vance Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 This is the typical evangelical mistake. Works is not the operation that saves. Grace is that operation. Works determine if (salvation or not) and how much (degrees of salvation) grace is applied. Hence there are many requirements for salvation (such as the aforementioned Matthew 25). If being obedient to God is one of them (and it is), then the Bible in no way contains a list of all of them.Sometimes I think these people are willfully ignorant about what we really believe. It seems that no matter how many times or ways we explain it to them they continue to ascribe their false dichotomy to our theology.Good Works (righteousness) are NECESSARY but NOT SUFFICIENT. Works alone CAN NOT save.I can't understand why they don't want to understand the truth.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.