Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Vance]

Yes, we should interpret Scripture in its historical context and according to its linguistic and grammatical content and context. But no to your implied question, which is whether we should accept the claim that what Volgadon derived from what Goldin or Lods said that ancient Jews meant by the term

[Vance]

For example, you say you don

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You crack me up. First you post someone else's argument that appeals to specifically rabbinical Jewish background to elucidate the meaning of grace. When I refute that argument, you claim I "have it incorrect" but offer no rebuttal whatsoever to what I wrote. Instead, you post yet another person's argument, this one that appeals to specifically the cultural context of Greco-Roman patronage to explain what grace means. You don't even seem to realize that you are using two completely different arguments and interpreting the word in two very different ways. Both arguments sounded good to you because they seemed to undermine the evangelical position, so you just threw them against the wall in the blind assumption they would stick. You have almost certainly not read anything by DeSilva or Neyrey (as I have) and don't know enough to be using this material with real understanding of the issues.

There's no point in going further with you on this. I'm sorry if this seems rude, but you just don't know what you're talking about, nor do I think you will give anything I say on these matters fair consideration. Perhaps some kind and well-read Mormon will offer to tutor you.

And, not surprisingly you have it incorrect.

From this post, http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208795889

The obstacle for our critics is moving beyond the tunnel vision of seeing employment as synonymous with works. When works are put within their proper context, there is no conflict. The cultural context of the New Testament (and therefore 'faith' and 'grace') is one of patronage [9]: "The world of the authors and readers of the New Testament...was one in which the personal patronage was the essential means of acquiring access to goods, protection or opportunities of employment and advancement

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

It seems rather odd to me that you would think this is an issue. Especially considering that EVs claim the thief on the cross was saved, even with the thief having ZERO knowledge of the resurrection.

I already addressed this point. Not that it matters....

[Vance]

Vance,

You crack me up. First you post someone else's argument that appeals to specifically rabbinical Jewish background to elucidate the meaning of grace. When I refute that argument, you claim I "have it incorrect" but offer no rebuttal whatsoever to what I wrote. Instead, you post yet another person's argument, this one that appeals to specifically the cultural context of Greco-Roman patronage to explain what grace means. You don't even seem to realize that you are using two completely different arguments and interpreting the word in two very different ways. Both arguments sounded good to you because they seemed to undermine the evangelical position, so you just threw them against the wall in the blind assumption they would stick. You have almost certainly not read anything by DeSilva or Neyrey (as I have) and don't know enough to be using this material with real understanding of the issues.

There's no point in going further with you on this. I'm sorry if this seems rude, but you just don't know what you're talking about, nor do I think you will give anything I say on these matters fair consideration. Perhaps some kind and well-read Mormon will offer to tutor you.

Wow, Rob,

I post two posts that are well researched and documented and all you can do in response is first, post your OPINION with ZERO supporting documentation, and second, resort to the old ad hominem "If you knew what I know, you would agree with me"/"if you were smarter, you would agree with me" drivel.

It is very obvious, from the ACTUAL teachings of Jesus, that "faith" means more than just a "belief" or profession of belief in something. Even in today's English "faith" implies more than just a profession "faith", as in a husband remaining "faithful" to his wife. To be "faithful" is much more than the simple verbal profession of fidelity, but requires the active avoidance of infidelity or unfaithfulness.

If find it interesting that you want to create a false dichotomy between the rabbinical Jewish 'word expressing the phenomenon of "loyalty", "devotion"' and the Greco-Roman "patronage" or "balanced reciprocity, expecting a return of praise and respect from their clients".

Which sheds light upon the phrase (John 1:16) And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

I guess if I just had your level of intelligence and education, I too, could create a false dichotomy.

Well, back to my Biblical studies. I am currently searching for those elusive teachings of Jesus about "grace" (as you understand it).

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

I had written:

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written: "I have seen Mormons on this forum argue that the repentant thief had already been baptized, although of course we have no evidence that he had." You replied:

As usual, you weren't paying attention. What happened is an EV made the claim that the thief had NOT been baptized. You have taken demands for evidence of that claim as an argument that the thief had already been baptized.

To the contrary, in this very thread, Charles Dowis wrote (#69):

Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized, probably by John the Baptist, or by one of Christ's disciples.

So, who wasn't paying attention?

[bluebell]

Well then, we are apparently in agreement on this issue after all. We both agree that saving faith in Jesus Christ includes belief in his resurrection. Our only difference on this point, at the moment, seems to be that you think a person can acquire this saving belief in the afterlife, whereas I do not.

Exactly.

You say that the Bible is clear that a person must have faith that Jesus can save them in order to be saved. Let

[Vance]

Vance,

I had written: "I have seen Mormons on this forum argue that the repentant thief had already been baptized, although of course we have no evidence that he had." You replied:

To the contrary, in this very thread, Charles Dowis wrote (#79):

So, who wasn't paying attention?

Well, apparently it is you that wasn't paying attention.

From post #79 in this very thread,

You are assuming, asserting with a sure knowledge, that he was not baptized, and I am asking for a CFR.

That is a formal request, and you are required to respond according to the rules of this forum. The thief appears to be familiar with Christ and his basic teachings. Why do you find it "amazing"/impossible to think that he was a disciple of John? I await your CFR.

Excuse me while I go back to searching for "Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized, probably by John the Baptist, or by one of Christ's disciples" in post 79.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Congratulations! You caught a mistake in something I wrote!

I should have written #69, not #79. I have fixed this.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

We're making progress.

Okay, so your position is that if a person never had a witness of the Spirit confirming the truth of the resurrection, then his rejection of the resurrection is not indicative that he has not been saved. Next question: Can a person trust in Jesus Christ as his Savior without such a witness of the Spirit?

With regard to Jesus being the Son of God, my questions were not suggesting that you viewed Jesus as an angel or an earthly ruler. I was simply trying to establish that you agree with me that merely accepting the words "Son of God" with regard to Jesus is not enough. Apparently, you agree with me that you must believe that Jesus is what those words actually, truly signify.

So, I'll ask you again: What do those words mean as applied to Jesus? What do you mean when you affirm that Jesus is the Son of God?

[bluebell]

Can a person trust in Jesus Christ as his Savior without such a witness of the Spirit?

Yes, i believe a person can trust in Jesus as His Savior without a witness of the resurrection.

With regard to Jesus being the Son of God, my questions were not suggesting that you viewed Jesus as an angel or an earthly ruler. I was simply trying to establish that you agree with me that merely accepting the words "Son of God" with regard to Jesus is not enough.

My whole position is that words are NEVER enough. True faith in Christ is ALWAYS coupled with the action of striving to obey Him, or it's not faith. That is why i believe that God requires works as an aspect of salvation.

Apparently, you agree with me that you must believe that Jesus is what those words actually, truly signify.

Yes, but like i said, there is more than that. Even the devils believe that Jesus is the Son of God and they tremble before Him, but that belief has no power to save them.

[Thunderfire]

Now, my original question pertained to such people who have heard of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and profess to believe in him as their Savior, and yet deny his resurrection from the dead. My question was simply this: Can someone who has heard the message that Jesus is the Son of God, the one who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the grave so we might have eternal life, be saved if he rejects the resurrection of Jesus from the grave?

Salvation is such an interesting concept to explore. For me and in my opinion, we worry too much about what someone must "believe" instead of being more focused on what we must "do". I have seen people profess many scriptural truths, yet they live in a less than spiritual way. I like how it is worded in James (2:18), "But some will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do..."

This does not mean we are "saved by works" (unless you consider acts of repentance/baptism a form of works). But where I find fault with basic evangelical theology is that they are focusing on tomorrow instead of today. Much of the theology is focused on being saved from hell when we die, yet at the same time neglicting the type of salvation in Jesus which free's us from the clutches of the adversary in this life. Tomorrow will take care of itself if we are living an eternal existance today!

For me, the life to come is merely a continuation of the life we have now. It is one eternal path. You cannot be godless in one life (although professing a belief) and be magically transformed in the life to come. We are constantly building for eternity in all we do with and in Jesus Christ. In my opinion, this is what Jesus was saying when he said, "Their lips are close to me, yet their hearts are far away."

So simply professing a specific belief system will not save you (that is the same as saying we are saved by works). Salvation in Christ Jesus is the greatest gift from God, yet we forget the "path of salvation" is eternal and not a linear event when we die. What sets the restoration movement apart from many other denominations (my opinion), is that we focus on the belief that Jesus is with us always. Meaning, we have the opportuinity of being saved in him NOW and experience him NOW as we expect in heaven.

[Vance]

Vance,

Congratulations! You caught a mistake in something I wrote!

Well, it's not the first time.

I should have written #69, not #79. I have fixed this.

Ok, NOW we can look at this more closely.

First, you clearly over looked the first and most important part of the response in the post.

CFR, please. I would like to see your reference where he was "definitely not" baptized.

Clearly, the prelude to the presentation of an "argument".

Second, you said, "I have seen Mormons on this forum argue that the repentant thief had already been baptized"

Now the word "argue" in this application means "to prove or try to prove by giving reasons" or "to persuade by giving reasons", correct?

So, then, you are calling this the "argument"?

Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized, probably by John the Baptist, or by one of Christ's disciples. As a disciple of John, he had fallen from grace.

WOW!!!! Really?

Gee, I don't know about you, but it looks so much like a real "argument" that I almost, just about, nearly was convinced that the thief was "indeed baptized".

Perhaps if he would have been less verbose and provided less documentation then maybe, just maybe, I could get away with not calling this an argument. But alas, with Rob on the case, such hopes must be dashed.

And let's not forget the next line of the post.

In any case, we agree that something is indeed required.

Yup!! There you have it. The clear proof that this was purely an "argument" meant to be totally and unequivocally convincing.

Well there you have it folks. PROOF positive that an argument was made that thief was baptized, and if you don't believe it, then you are less than intelligent. Just ask Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Now you want to quarrel with me because Charles Dowis's comment doesn't in your estimation rise to the level of an "argument." How tiresome. Here is what he wrote (bold emphasis yours):

Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized, probably by John the Baptist, or by one of Christ's disciples.

"Christ's declaration" was that the repentant thief would be with him that very day in Paradise (Luke 23:43). Charles inferred from this statement (hence the word "indicated") that the repentant thief "was indeed baptized." The presentation of an inference in support of a conclusion is...an argument!

I agree that it's not a very good argument, but it is an argument.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

You wrote:

Yes, i believe a person can trust in Jesus as His Savior without a witness of the resurrection.

I'm sorry, that's not what I asked. Can a person trust in Jesus as Savior without a witness of the Spirit to the truth that Jesus is the Savior?

There was a second question: What do the words "Son of God" mean as applied to Jesus? In other words, what do you mean when you affirm that Jesus is the Son of God?

[Vance]

Vance,

Now you want to quarrel with me because Charles Dowis's comment doesn't in your estimation rise to the level of an "argument." How tiresome.

Rob,

So you want to continue to quarrel with me because Charles Dowis's comment does, in your estimation, rise to the level of an "argument." How tiresome.

Now if you want to argue that "Christ's declaration indicated that he was indeed baptized" meets the standard of "to prove or try to prove by giving reasons" or "to persuade by giving reasons", then have at it. You may yet turn that mole hill into a mountain, at least in your own mind.

The problem Rob, is that by including the phrase "in any case" Charles is clearly expressing that no real argument for baptism is being put forth, and by "we agree that something is indeed required" he is clearly expressing his secondary issue.

And by all means continue to ignore the the primary issue, the "call for reference", and secondary issue "that something is indeed required", and focus on the tertiary.

Now excuse me please, I must continue my search for those elusive teachings of Jesus about "grace" (as you understand it).

[Heartleap]

For me, the life to come is merely a continuation of the life we have now. It is one eternal path. You cannot be godless in one life (although professing a belief) and be magically transformed in the life to come. We are constantly building for eternity in all we do with and in Jesus Christ. In my opinion, this is what Jesus was saying when he said, "Their lips are close to me, yet their hearts are far away."

So simply professing a specific belief system will not save you (that is the same as saying we are saved by works). Salvation in Christ Jesus is the greatest gift from God, yet we forget the "path of salvation" is eternal and not a linear event when we die. What sets the restoration movement apart from many other denominations (my opinion), is that we focus on the belief that Jesus is with us always. Meaning, we have the opportuinity of being saved in him NOW and experience him NOW as we expect in heaven.

This is how I experience Christ. I have Christ NOW and I experience him NOW he lets me know that I am his and his ways are amazing and his love is deep. Christians know that Jesus lives in them and they experience him NOW. He gives us new birth and his Spirit comforts us and guides us and empowers us NOW in this life. I do not think that the LDS restoration has anything to do with the belief that Christ is with us always. Christians seek and experience him in this life and do not believe a restoration was necessary.

Heartleap...

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

So you want to continue to quarrel with me because Charles Dowis's comment does, in your estimation, rise to the level of an "argument." How tiresome.

Your mimicry isn't clever, nor does it make a valid point. The tiresomeness of this exchange began with your finding fault with my observation about Mormons arguing that the repentant thief had been baptized. Your original criticism was that I was wrong because I had supposedly "taken demands for evidence of that claim [that he was not baptized] as an argument that the thief had already been baptized." So I pointed out that Charles Dowis had gone beyond asking for evidence that the thief was not baptized; he argued that the thief was baptized. Then you took issue with me on the grounds that Mr. Dowis supposedly failed to present an argument for his view.

I am dropping this particular discussion now. If you continue down this road, I'll just ignore it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Now excuse me please, I must continue my search for those elusive teachings of Jesus about "grace" (as you understand it).

Since you keep saying this, even in threads where it is irrelevant, you apparently think you've got some unanswerable point here. But there's no point in my responding to you unless we first define the issue. So I am now asking you to explain what you think my understanding of "grace" is that you claim you cannot find in the teachings of Jesus.

[bluebell]

I'm sorry, that's not what I asked.

the question was unclear.

"Okay, so your position is that if a person never had a witness of the Spirit confirming the truth of the resurrection, then his rejection of the resurrection is not indicative that he has not been saved. Next question: Can a person trust in Jesus Christ as his Savior without such a witness of the Spirit?"

I'm sure you can understand why i misread it, given the way the question was worded and the previous statement.

Can a person trust in Jesus as Savior without a witness of the Spirit to the truth that Jesus is the Savior?

No.

In other words, what do you mean when you affirm that Jesus is the Son of God?

These questions are getting tedious and appear to have no point behind them. Especially since you ignored many of my questions to you.

The answer though is that i mean that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh-the literally Son of God and is the Christ.

[bluebell]

This is how I experience Christ. I have Christ NOW and I experience him NOW he lets me know that I am his and his ways are amazing and his love is deep. Christians know that Jesus lives in them and they experience him NOW. He gives us new birth and his Spirit comforts us and guides us and empowers us NOW in this life. I do not think that the LDS restoration has anything to do with the belief that Christ is with us always. Christians seek and experience him in this life and do not believe a restoration was necessary.

Heartleap...

I didn't think Thunderfire was LDS, but maybe i'm way confused.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

Hi again. You wrote:

These questions are getting tedious and appear to have no point behind them.

I'm sorry, I seem to be vexing you. I don't mean to frustrate you. My questions do have a point, as I hope you will understand from this post.

I understand why my question about the witness of the Spirit seemed unclear. Thanks for replying. I had asked: "Can a person trust in Jesus as Savior without a witness of the Spirit to the truth that Jesus is the Savior?" You replied No, as I expected. Now here is my confusion. Let's say Jim hears the message (1) that Jesus is the Son of God, (2) that he died on the cross for his sins, (3) that he rose from the grave so we might also be raised from the dead to eternal life, and (4) that through faith in Jesus and what he did for us one can be saved . Now having heard this message, Jim gets a witness of the Spirit. Apparently this witness of the Spirit confirms to him (1) that Jesus is the Son of God, (2) that he died on the cross for his sins, and (4) that through faith in Jesus and what he did for us one can be saved, but not (3) that he rose from the grave so we might also be raised from the dead to eternal life. So Jim believes (1), (2), and (4), but he rejects (3). I don't see how this could happen. If Jim prayed to know if the message he heard was true, and if he got a witness of the Spirit that (1), (2), and (4) were true, surely that same witness of the Spirit would confirm to him that (3) was true. That's why I cannot understand how, from a Mormon perspective, a person could savingly believe that Jesus was the Savior who atoned for his sins while rejecting his resurrection from the grave.

I also asked you what you understand the term "Son of God" to mean as applied to Jesus. You answered:

The answer though is that i mean that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father in the flesh-the literally Son of God and is the Christ.

Thanks for answering this question. You gave the answer that I expected. Now here is my concern. Most Christians do not agree that Jesus is literally the Father's "only begotten in the flesh." That is, they (we) do not believe that the Father is a being with a literal physical body of flesh and bones and that Jesus is his literal physical offspring. In fact, most Christians who hear this idea reject it as a false doctrine (as I do). From your point of view, then, it seems that most Christians (including me) do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" in the sense that you understand it. Isn't that correct/ Doesn't your position entail the conclusion that most Christians do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

You wrote:

Especially since you ignored many of my questions to you.

I haven't ignored any of your questions. If I have accidentally missed any of them, I'd be happy to answer them. Just let me know.

[yesucan2]

Vance,

You're still not getting it, and your anti-evangelical blinders will probably keep you from getting it.

I am not saved by my obedience to the gospel. My obedience to the gospel is simply what happens (and must happen) from my side in order for the atonement of Christ to apply to me. But it is not a work I do in order to save myself. It is the response that the grace of God produces from me that brings me from darkness to light, from estrangement from God to reconciliation with God. It is fundamentally different from doing "works" in that it counts all my own efforts as rubbish and trusts exclusively in what God has done for me in Christ to save me (cf. Phil. 3:7-9). I don't even trust in my faith, but simply depend on God's mercy and grace in Christ. Mormon theology maintains that we are saved only if in addition to believing in Christ and his atonement we prove ourselves worthy by good works aplenty, including the performance of multiple religious rituals. I'm sorry you can't or won't see the difference, but there is a big one.

As long as you are stuck in the mode of believing in one heaven and one hell, you are going to continue to equate being saved with ones salvation which is not necessarily the case. You wouldn't say that I saved her to the prom or I saved them to vacation. One would say, "I saved him from drowning". Part of the reason you think this is because God's intention for us is the Celestial Kingdom so that is the emphasis and not something lesser, and that does not rule out their existence. Also, being judged by our works and receiving a salvation relative to our faithfulness does not obviate the fact that we cannot save ourselves. As long as you are stuck in the mode of thinking of one heaven and one hell, then you are going to be unable to ameliorate the concepts. The closest thing that I can come up with to align the two differing points of view is if we take the stance that The Celestial Kingdom is heaven and everything else is hell, but then again, saving doesn't necessarily automatically put someone in Heaven except if you readjust your concept of heaven in a sense that some may view the Telestial Kingdom as heaven. If you want to continue to believe as you do about it, that is your business, but I think, if you really honestly consider it, you will see that your approach to the concept is much weaker as far as explaining and understanding God's purposes for this entire mortal experience in the first place even though you will probably deny it.

Regarding the thief on the cross:

I find there is not enough information in the Bible to make any kind of a firm inference from that event. For instance, we don't know for sure that he was actually a thief or if he was just accused and convicted of being one. Christ, I would think, would certainly know more about it than we would. It's controversial at best.

[bluebell]

I understand why my question about the witness of the Spirit seemed unclear. Thanks for replying. I had asked: "Can a person trust in Jesus as Savior without a witness of the Spirit to the truth that Jesus is the Savior?" You replied No, as I expected. Now here is my confusion. Let's say Jim hears the message (1) that Jesus is the Son of God, (2) that he died on the cross for his sins, (3) that he rose from the grave so we might also be raised from the dead to eternal life, and (4) that through faith in Jesus and what he did for us one can be saved . Now having heard this message, Jim gets a witness of the Spirit. Apparently this witness of the Spirit confirms to him (1) that Jesus is the Son of God, (2) that he died on the cross for his sins, and (4) that through faith in Jesus and what he did for us one can be saved, but not (3) that he rose from the grave so we might also be raised from the dead to eternal life. So Jim believes (1), (2), and (4), but he rejects (3). I don't see how this could happen. If Jim prayed to know if the message he heard was true, and if he got a witness of the Spirit that (1), (2), and (4) were true, surely that same witness of the Spirit would confirm to him that (3) was true. That's why I cannot understand how, from a Mormon perspective, a person could savingly believe that Jesus was the Savior who atoned for his sins while rejecting his resurrection from the grave.

Your confusion comes from being to narrow in your assumptions about how someone would come to know that Jesus was the Son of God.

What if Jim grew up in a family and belonging to a church that taught that Jesus died for their sins but was not resurrected? What if his whole young life he was surrounded by the teachings of the Atonement (and thus the spirit could testify of their truth) while only ever being taught that the resurrection was a heresy that never occurred? What if Jim then died when he was 7? What if he died when he was 12 and belonged to a family and church that never even told him about the resurrection?

Do you believe Jim would be saved? Can you speak with certainty on the issue?

I hope i've illustrated why i believe there are too many variables possible, in the history of the world, to make a flat, sweeping pronouncement on how God will judge someone who believes X but does not believe Y.

Most Christians do not agree that Jesus is literally the Father's "only begotten in the flesh." That is, they (we) do not believe that the Father is a being with a literal physical body of flesh and bones and that Jesus is his literal physical offspring.

All i said was that Jesus is begotten of the Father (which the bible also teaches), that He was made of flesh (which the bible also teaches), and that He's the only one (which the bible also teaches).

Are you really trying to argue that you don't believe those things?

In fact, most Christians who hear this idea reject it as a false doctrine (as I do).

You guys should read the bible more.

From your point of view, then, it seems that most Christians (including me) do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" in the sense that you understand it.

Unless you deny John 1:14, you and i do believe that Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense. We may disagree about His exact attributes, but we agree on who He is.

Isn't that correct/ Doesn't your position entail the conclusion that most Christians do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

No, it's completely incorrect. I completely believe that most Christians do believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

I haven't ignored any of your questions. If I have accidentally missed any of them, I'd be happy to answer them. Just let me know.

If i may ask you, on what basis are you confident that a person cannot be saved if they do not believe that Christ rose from the dead after three days?

What percentage of the knowledge to they have to have exactly, to be saved then? You said 100% is not necessary but 50% is not enough. What amount of knowledge is enough to be saved?

So, you believe that no one will be held responsible for knowlege they were never taught? Does that mean that you believe that those who die without a knowledge of Christ will be saved anyway, without ever having had faith in Him? If you don't believe someone can be saved without having faith in Christ, what will happen to those people.

What does the bible mean by faith? How did the thief fulfill the bible's requirements for faith that LDS people aren't fulfilling (i started a different thread on this question if you would like to answer this question over there to keep the posts from becoming too crazy).

Perhaps you should stop trying so hard to turn LDS beliefs into words that are easy for you to dismiss and instead try to understand what they are actually saying.

In short, to remain in my covenant relationship with Christ i must desire and strive to follow Him.

What, exactly, do you disagree with, or find offensive, in that statement?

If you need context, these questions were from post number 175.

Thanks.