Grace Alone Heresy

[coolrok7]

The final nail in the Grace Alone Heresy is in the following verse.

1 Jn. 3: 23

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

No matter how hard they try and wriggle out of it they cannot escape the fact that the very thing that engages Gods grace. (ie grace THROUGH faith - Eph 2:8-9) Is infact a commandment and thus their pet proof text should read.

Eph 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through [keeping the commandment of] faith;

The following is from the summation of the opening section on keeping the commandments by Luther in his small catechism:

What Does God Say of All These Commandments?

Answer.

He says thus (Exod. 20:5f): I the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

What does this mean?--Answer.

God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments.

The Ephesians passage which is about how one is saved is explained this way by Paul (not the way you modified it by inserting a term that does not belong there):

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

The battle cry of the Protestant Reformation was "Faith alone", "Grace alone", through "Scripture alone". The idea of the selling of indulgences which Luther was in opposition to as it was not in line with the Biblical understanding of how sins are dealt with. Luther had prepared the 95 theses to set forth the issue as he understood it.

For you to insert terminology (and identify it as "heresy" is along the same lines of the following quote of a Mormon General Authority and are as incorrect as he was) that doesn't belong there to make your unjustified point is not accurate to the text of Scripture at that point. We don't teach the following statement that was a part of Elder McConkies talk he gave at a BYU Devotional back in 1984 in which he inaccurately presents the following (you seem to be inline with his innacurate presntation of what protestant Christianity truly teaches concerning the idea of being "justified by faith alone":

This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins.

[cksalmon]

The problem is. Noah was neither Jew OR Greek. So there is no way in hell to put him under the umberella of "total depravity".

I submit. You're much cleverer than I, Zak. Paul left a monumentally large loophole in what might otherwise have been assumed to be a totalizing argument, but, shining lamp of erudition that you are, you managed to suss it out. Bravo!

Second for Paul to say they have "all GONE astray" means that at some period before this Israel was walking in God statutes or they wouldn't have a path that they have Gone ASTRAY from.

The reference is to "all," not merely, or even primarily, to "all [of Israel]," but to all. Even on your faulty logic, that must include all the Jews and all the folks of the broadly-classed Hellenistic nation-states of the time.

Third, Noah was declared righeous AFTER he obeyed God and built an ark.

Read Genesis 5 and 6 again, Zak. Then, if you want, report back if you're just really insistent on arguing that Genesis 6.13 chronologically precedes Genesis 6.9 in the narrative you've highlighted. Heck, maybe you would. If I've learned one thing, it's that all bets are off with you. Have at it!

[USU78]

We don't teach against the keeping of the commandments so it is a false understanding of what we actually believe/teach concerning this.

Define "we."

We here see all the time Evies coming here, telling us our works d@mn us, and saying that only the faithful declaration of belief in G-d and His Messiah are necessary for salvation . . . going so far as to say that baptism, being a work, is antithetical to solafid salvation.

Bottom line? I don't think it's useful for cr7 to claim anything for so virulently anti-vertical a crew as Protestants. He can only make claims for his particular flavor . . . and probably not even those.

Unless, of course, he can demonstrate differently.

USU "Delighted to be proven mistaken" 78

[Zakuska]

The reference is to "all," not merely, or even primarily, to "all [of Israel]," but to all. Even on your faulty logic, that must include all the Jews and all the folks of the broadly-classed Hellenistic nation-states of the time.

The reference is to "ALL" in the story of Noah as well but obviously the "ALL"didn't include Noah.

Read Genesis 5 and 6 again, Zak. Then, if you want, report back if you're just really insistent on arguing that Genesis 6.13 chronologically precedes Genesis 6.9 in the narrative you've highlighted. Heck, maybe you would. If I've learned one thing, it's that all bets are off with you. Have at it!

I read it again and I also read... Gen 7... Please tell me how the declaration of God that Noah was righteous can be made before he built the ark if they entered the ark AFTER building it, and being declared righteous BECAUSE they obeyed and built it.

1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Please notice here that ALL the earth has been declared unrighteous... just as Paul had also said...

Gen 6

5

[Vance]

Whether or not Paul ripped the quotation from context is no doubt an interesting discussion, but is largely beside the point of how he actually does employ portions of that Psalm: viz., to relegate all people to the status of unrighteous, non-seekers after God falling short of perfection.

Fixed it for you.

Carrying on, Paul acknowledges that the Law judges those who are under the Law, but extends the ramification by concluding that the purpose of the Law (of Moses) is "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Rom 3.19).

Why? Because "by the deeds of the law (of Moses) there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. . . ." (Rom 3.20).

His concludes to a radically alien conception of righteousness: "But now the righteousness of God without the law (of Moses) is manifested, being witnessed by the law of Moses and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith (Gospel) of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe. . ." (Rom 3.21).

And, again, Paul collapses any disjunction between Jews and Gentiles in this regard: "for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Why does one ASSUME that that means TOTAL depravity? It doesn't say "total depravity". There is a BIG difference between "all have sinned and fall short" of perfection and TOTAL depravity.

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. . . ." (Rom 3.22-24).

I'll pass over the intervening steps and simply state Paul's conclusion: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (the Gospel of Christ) without the deeds of the law (of Moses)" (Rom 3.28).

The logic is clear: when Paul quotes Psalm 14 he intends his reader to understand that, apart from the righteousness found in Christ, no human being is (perfectly) righteous, no one seeks for God (neither Jew nor Greek), no one does good, all have turned away, all are worthless, etc.

It can easily be shown that there were those that sought God and were declared righteous because of their efforts. That doesn't mean that they were perfect like Christ, but they OBVIOUSLY weren't totally depraved either. Now those that were in apostasy were doing no good because they had all turned away and all their works were worthless, we could even say that they were totally depraved. That still doesn't mean that all are totally depraved.

[cksalmon]

I read it again and I also read... Gen 7... Please tell me how the declaration of God that Noah was righteous can be made before he built the ark if they entered the ark AFTER building it, and being declared righteous BECAUSE they obeyed and built it.

(1) The text nowhere states or implies (in Gen 6 or Gen 7) that Noah was declared righteous "BECAUSE they obeyed and built it." You've read that assumption into the text and apparently aren't capable of discerning that what you wish to believe simply doesn't appear in the narrative. At all. There's no mystery here. You're just wrong.

I did call it, though. I assumed you'd simply ignore the structure of the narrative and repeat your assumption. That you did.

Gen 6 says that God saw the wickedness of man (v. 5), that he determined to destroy man (v. 7), and prior to carrying out his destruction "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (v. . This is all prior to God's commissioning Noah to build the ark.

Verse 9 tells us that Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations, and that he walked with God.

Then, the narrative relates God's commissioning of Noah to build the ark (v. 13).

I realize that you are unable or unwilling (or perhaps both) to deal with Gen 6 in its own context, but, again, there's no mystery here: God commissioned Noah because "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord" (v. and was a righteous man (v. 9).

Your "argument" (which is really just assumption without evidence) entails that first God chose to save Noah and his family through the ark because Noah was later obedient in building the ark. And, that Noah found grace in eyes of the Lord (which fact precedes the commission) precisely because he was later obedient to said commission.

Of course, that turns the narrative structure completely on its head, but I've never known you to work through texts in a consistent manner.

Your reading of Gen 7.1 can't stand against a straightforward reading of Gen 6, where God's grace and Noah's righteousness (and in that order) clearly precede God's commissioning Noah to build the ark.

Please notice here that ALL the earth has been declared unrighteous... just as Paul had also said...

Well, as a Calvinist, I certainly agree that instances of "all" should be interpreted within their own contexts. I'm consistent at that point.

That is all but Noah. (Finding favor in Gods eyes makes God an arbitrary chooser... however when we listen to Gen 7:1 we find the reason God gave WHY he chose Noah.

"Because he did all God commanded."

I don't see "because" in the text. What verse is that from? Gen 6.22 tells us that Noah did all that God commanded him, yes; it doesn't tell us that God first chose Noah because Noah was later obedient to God's commands. That doesn't even make sense on your view, logically benighted though it is.

Hear again is pretty much the same declaration that Paul had said...

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Obviously this "ALL" did not include Noah.

I would note in passing, without pressing the issue, that the narrative presents us with (1) God's judgment against the world, (2) Noah's finding of grace in God's sight, (3) the announcement of Noah's righteousness, and (4) God's commissioning of Noah to build the ark.

But, again, yes, I strive to be consistent in interpreting instances of "all" in their contexts. One should interpret Gen 6 in terms of Gen 6, first. One should interpret Rom 3 in terms of Rom 3, first.

I don't have any faith that you'd even attempt to be consistent in that regard. After all, you have made the patently ridiculous argument that when Paul's "all" is explicitly connected to "Jew and Greek," he doesn't mean the entirety of humanity, he just means, you know, ethnic Jews and, I guess, such folks as lived in Greek nations. And no one else in the entire world! Your blithely acontextual reading of scripture never ceases to amaze me, but I realize that you are bound and determined to maintain, at all costs, that God's salvific grace is predicated upon human worthiness. So, congrats: you're a Mormon.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to detail how Rom 3 causes problems for Calvinists. Your colorful suggestion that "there is no way in hell to put [Noah] under the umberella of 'total depravity'" ignores Paul's totalizing argument.

Your suggestion that Paul's "all" refers only to Israel is inconsistent with the text and even, predictably, with your own view.

Third, Noah was declared righeous AFTER he obeyed God and built an ark.

This is obviously false, as noted above.

With that, I'll leave you to your own devices, Zak.

[Zakuska]

Bravo CK... nice straw man and ad hominem fallacies.

e.g.

Your "argument" (which is really just assumption without evidence) entails that first God chose to save Noah and his family through the ark because Noah was later obedient in building the ark. And, that Noah found grace in eyes of the Lord (which fact precedes the commission) precisely because he was later obedient to said commission.

You missed my argument completely.

The very fact that Noah beleived in God in the first place he obeyed a commandment. ( 1 John 3:23 ) Faith in God is the first principle upon which everything is built afterall. He continued walking with God. And did ALL God commanded him to do. Then after all that commandment keeping God declared Noah rightieous. in Chapter 7.

Either way you look at it Gen 6:9 causes problems for "Total Depravity".

There is no way for a man to be "just" or "Perfect" in his generation since according to you "ALL have gones astray and come short of the Glory of God." And man is so depreaved there is no way for him to...

Gen 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him.

"Do all that the Lord commands."

I would note in passing, without pressing the issue, that the narrative presents us with (1) God's judgment against the world, (2) Noah's finding of grace in God's sight, (3) the announcement of Noah's righteousness, and (4) God's commissioning of Noah to build the ark.

I would agree with this with one caveat. on (3) The Narrator declares that Noah was just and righteous in the verse in chapter 6... But its not until Gen 7:1 until the Lord himself tells us that he finds Noah righteous and this only AFTER he was comissioned to build the ark and did it. And thus he was rewarded for his righteousness. Again a problem for Total Depravity because there is none rightious no not one.

But, again, yes, I strive to be consistent in interpreting instances of "all" in their contexts. One should interpret Gen 6 in terms of Gen 6, first. One should interpret Rom 3 in terms of Rom 3, first.

I don't have any faith that you'd even attempt to be consistent in that regard. After all, you have made the patently ridiculous argument that when Paul's "all" is explicitly connected to "Jew and Greek," he doesn't mean the entirety of humanity, he just means, you know, ethnic Jews and, I guess, such folks as lived in Greek nations. And no one else in the entire world! Your blithely acontextual reading of scripture never ceases to amaze me, but I realize that you are bound and determined to maintain, at all costs, that God's salvific grace is predicated upon human worthiness. So, congrats: you're a Mormon.

Now, I'm still waiting for you to detail how Rom 3 causes problems for Calvinists. Your colorful suggestion that "there is no way in hell to put [Noah] under the umberella of 'total depravity'" ignores Paul's totalizing argument.

Yet another strawman...

Your suggestion that Paul's "all" refers only to Israel is inconsistent with the text and even, predictably, with your own view.

Paul is quoting from the 14th Psalm. which does differentiate between Israel (Gods People) such as Noah and the other prophets and Man as in the Human Race.

Psalms 14

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Here we have summarized what is going to be said... we are talking about FOOLS who say there is no God. and I agree... there is No fool who does good no not one. This is almost like a hebrew chapter heading to the Pslam.

Then we begin.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Notice that we ar speaking of "children of men" (ie fools who don't believe in God). None of them do Good.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

Notice here we jump into another subject... Contrasting the fools from above who "do no good no not one"and Gods people.

5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

Another mention contrasting the fools and the righteous children of God.

6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the Lord is his refuge

7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

The Pslam in no way supports thet fact that ALL of humanity has gone astray, becuase it differentiates between "children of men" (ie the fools who say there is no God) and "Gods People", who do "call upon the name of the Lord" as contrasted by the fools who eat them up as bread.

[cksalmon]

Bravo CK... nice straw man

Such as?

and ad hominem fallacies.

Of course, an ad hominem argument is not necessarily fallacious if the motive of one's interlocutor is a decisive factor in his conclusions. My surmise, as indicated above, is that your decisive motive is to enshrine human worthiness as a necessary precondition of God's grace. But, more to your point, and just to be very clear: I do find you to be a poor thinker and a wretched exegete.

You missed my argument completely.

Actually, you've just tripped yourself up in the inanity of your original argument. Let me refresh your memory:

I read it again and I also read... Gen 7... Please tell me how the declaration of God that Noah was righteous can be made before he built the ark if they entered the ark AFTER building it, and being declared righteous BECAUSE they obeyed and built it.

Here you plainly and obviously argue that Noah was not declared righteous before he built the ark (you stated, "Please tell me how the declaration that Noah was righteous can be made before he built the ark...." Your point is obviously that he simply could not have been declared righteous before he built the ark.) You support this claim by further stating that Noah was declared righteous precisely "BECAUSE they [sic] obeyed and built it."

So, your original argument, if words have any publicly-accessible meaning, was that (1) Noah was not declared righteous before he built the ark, and (2) he was declared righteous because he built the ark.

Seeing that such an argument is simply insupportable from the text in question, you've now changed your argument.

Now, you've backtracked and argued:

The very fact that Noah beleived in God in the first place he obeyed a commandment. ( 1 John 3:23 ) Faith in God is the first principle upon which everything is built afterall. He continued walking with God. And did ALL God commanded him to do. Then after all that commandment keeping God declared Noah rightieous. in Chapter 7.

So, here we see not, as you originally argued, that Noah was declared righteous "BECAUSE they [sic] obeyed and built it," but, rather that he was declared righteous because he had a longitudinal track record of obedience.

God's declaration of righteousness only happened "after all that commandment keeping," and, one presumes, because of it.

So, again, you believe that God declared Noah righteous precisely because of and in light of the fact that he had a known track record of obedience to God's commands.

Yep. This is precisely what EV critics of Mormonism, for example, claim that Mormons actually believe about the nature of God's grace: i.e., that it is dependent upon demonstrated human worthiness of same.

Either way you look at it Gen 6:9 causes problems for "Total Depravity".

Haven't seen it yet.

There is no way for a man to be "just" or "Perfect" in his generation since according to you "ALL have gones astray and come short of the Glory of God." And man is so depreaved there is no way for him to...

But, of course there is a way for man to be just in his generation, even in light of the fact that all have gone astray. It's the very same way that any person who is declared righteous by God in any generation is declared righteous by God: Jesus Christ. OT saints looked forward to God's messiah; NT saints look back to him. But, there is no qualitative difference in terms of God's declaration of justification.

Yes, to be sure, I do get that you are unable to consistently exegete Rom 3 in its context.

Did I mention that I find you to be a wretched exegete? I don't want to belabor the point, but there it is.

You are zealous, to be sure, but lacking any sort of relevantly-applicable knowledge.

[Zakuska]

But, of course there is a way for man to be just in his generation, even in light of the fact that all have gone astray. It's the very same way that any person who is declared righteous by God in any generation is declared righteous by God: Jesus Christ. OT saints looked forward to God's messiah; NT saints look back to him. But, there is no qualitative difference in terms of God's declaration of justification.

And yet Abel was declared righteous by God because of his own works not because of Jesus..

1 John 3

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother [Abels] were righteous.

Heb 11

4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Gen 4

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Notice here that God's first revelation to being acceptable and justified in his eyes is a reference to works.

Please also notice how Peter uses Gen 4:7 in his initial contact with the gentiles.

Acts10

31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

32 Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.

33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.

34

[cksalmon]

And yet Abel was declared righteous by God because of his own works not because of Jesus..

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Zak! I couldn't have put the issue into any starker relief than you have, here.

God's declaration of Abel's righteousness is "not because of Jesus" but "because of his own works."

This really is exactly what Mormons in good standing actually believe about God's "salvific" act of "justification," isn't it?

Kudos to you, Zak, for manifesting the courage of your patently anti-Christian, anti-biblical convictions!

And, good luck, buddy. I truly hope your own righteous works are sufficient to get you past the judgment seat. You're banking on an awful lot, but, as long as you're at least as good as Abel, maybe you have a shot, "not because of Jesus," of course, but because of your own works. That's the Mormon "Gospel," right?

Again, good luck.

[Zakuska]

And, good luck, buddy. I truly hope your own righteous works are sufficient to get you past the judgment seat. You're banking on an awful lot, but, as long as you're at least as good as Abel, maybe you have a shot, "not because of Jesus," of course, but because of your own works. That's the Mormon "Gospel," right?

It is?

No... Peter continues Preaching the "Mormon Gospel" that God commanded him to preach to Cornelius in the next verse..

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44

[kantgomo]

Heb. 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

I'm afraid I'm going to get the threads mixed up. I expect the next thread will be something along the line of Is Faith a Work?

[Zakuska]

Heb. 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

I'm afraid I'm going to get the threads mixed up. I expect the next thread will be something along the line of Is Faith a Work?

According to total depravity... no one can seek him.

[kantgomo]

According to total depravity... no one can seek him.

Yes, I would agree. John 6:44 states, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

Do you think the Father could be drawing you? I think God's sovereignty is something we all struggle with.

[Zakuska]

Yes, I would agree. John 6:44 states, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

Funny... theres no mention of God dragging Abel to the alter and forcing him to kill a lamb.

[kantgomo]

Just a final thought before going to bed for the night...

Romans 9:30-33 "What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness [4] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

[kantgomo]

Funny... theres no mention of God dragging able to the alter and forcing him to kill a lamb.

Well, a second final thought. God draws people and elects to give persons the free gift of faith(or trust)in Christ for the propitiation for sin.

[Bernard Gui]

23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

CKS: And who hears the word and understands it, such that fruit is borne?

Those whose hearts God has chosen to open.

But Jesus did not say that. You added it to his parable.

ZAK: According to "total depravity" all ground is full of rocks and thorns and no ground is good what so ever.

CKS: Right. Until God removes the "stony heart" and gives a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11.19-20), there is no good ground whatsoever.

Ezekiel was talking about the gathering of dispersed Israel..."I will gather them from among the nations ...I will give them the soil

of Israel...I will give them a different heart...they will keep my laws...they will become my people, and I will become their God."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, I would agree. John 6:44 states, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION

JOHN 6: 44

44 No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Romans 9:30-33 "What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness [4] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

[kantgomo]

Where is this written?

Bernard

I believe it comes from Isaiah 8:14,15

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.

and

Isaiah 28:16

therefore thus says the Lord God,

[cksalmon]

Where is this written?

Isaiah 28:16; Isaiah 8:14.

But, you knew that much, I assume. I assume you can track down the references as easily as I. Perhaps you're wondering why Paul doesn't footnote the passages?

Keep in mind that Paul's letter would have looked a lot more like this...

than this: "as it is written, 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.'

Or, perhaps, at least one hopes, you're merely criticizing Paul for conflating the Isaiah passages.

He's crafting his own inspired argument to Christ from what he deems to be inspired scripture (roughly, and not exactly, via LXX, one assumes; I'll concede typical verbal formation idiosyncrasies, and won't focus there unless you make it an issue).

So, Paul quotes from what one assumes you believe to be canonical OT scripture and recasts said scripture in an argument to Christ deriving from what one assumes you to believe to be canonical NT scripture.

And, you have to ask "Where is this written?" Do you deny that it was written? Do you deny that Paul is quoting Isaiah? Were you just unaware that Paul was quoting Isaiah? What's your point?

You obviously have no problem with someone you deem to be inspired altering scripture to a particular theological end. (See below.)

Of course, Paul wasn't altering scripture; he was quoting it. Quite unlike Joseph Smith, in his "translation" of John 6:44.

[cksalmon]

JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION

JOHN 6: 44

44 No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, I will raise up in the resurrection of the just.

Bernard

Bernard:

John's gospel is one of the best attested documents in all of antiquity. It is contained within the best-attested corpus of ancient writings. We know exactly how John's gospel read quite early on.

Apparently, you want us to understand John 6:44 in light of what even LDS do not consider to be a canonical document: JST.

There is absolutely no ancient textual evidence, at all, for JST, at this point. None. To put a fine point on it, JST John 6:44 is utterly and completely unattested. The obvious conclusion is that JST John 6:44 is a product of Joseph Smith's imagination.

I would note his point, however: rather than deal with what John 6:44 actually states, Smith chose to imaginatively enshrine in John's Gospel (sans any texual evidence) his own belief that coming to Christ (rather than being a result of God's effectual drawing) is actually dependent upon one's obedience.

Smith and Zak, and I guess you, are on the same page here.

Unfortunately, Smith's "translation" is shown via the historical record to be a complete fabrication.

[cksalmon]

But Jesus did not say that. You added it to his parable.

Right. I'm obviously harmonizing the scriptural witness to man's depravity. See my earlier post on the scriptural witness to man's natural inability to seek God. That's just what those of us who actually believe God's word to be self-consistent and who eschew attempts to cut it up into pieces so as to render it self-contradictory do.

Ezekiel was talking about the gathering of dispersed Israel..."I will gather them from among the nations ...I will give them the soil

of Israel...I will give them a different heart...they will keep my laws...they will become my people, and I will become their God."

Christendom has universally understood this passage to refer to the New Covenant in Christ. But, goodness, perhaps you should inform every Christian exegete of the past two thousand years that Ezekiel here has reference only to the gathering of dispersed Israel, and has nothing whatever to say about Christianity. It's a keen insight, to be sure. Everyone got it wrong until you showed up on the scene, Bernard.

Appropriate kudos to you.

[Bernard Gui]

I believe it comes from Isaiah 8:14,15

And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.

and

Isaiah 28:16

therefore thus says the Lord God,