Grace Alone Heresy

[Bernard Gui]

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?

perhaps

one assume

one assumes

you believe

one assumes you to believe

You obviously have no problem

Whole lotta asssssooooomin' goin' on.

And, you have to ask "Where is this written?"

Must have been a problem with the apparatus. The part in question is in italics.

It is not found in Isaiah as Paul transmitted it.

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.

What can't be denied is the priggish and accusatory disdain that accompanies most Calvinists' communication.

Perhaps this toxicity is the result of being drawn to Calvinism, or perhaps it's just that that

kind of person is drawn to Calvinism. In either event, it speaks poorly for the fruits of Calvinism.

That said, if Paul was quoting Isaiah (the part in italics) where in Isaiah did he find it?

Certainly not 28:16. Now let's see you show how strongly you believe in the LDS Article of Faith 8.

Bernard

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Exactly. If you say so.

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.

There is that other alternative that Joseph was inspired to make the change conform more to what the original intended. I prefer to go with this explanation.

After all, ancient textual evidence is still a work in progress. Why would one wish to stake salvation on the work of scholars?

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.

Unfortunately, that is not what JST 6:44 says. Perhaps you should read it more carefully this time:

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.

What is the will of the Father? I've bolded it for you as a courtesy.

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

.

Good company, in my opinion, well maybe not that Zak guy.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Whatever your excuse, you still have added your words to the words of Jesus. No less egregious

because of the continual quest to make the Bible "self-consistent."

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.

I see no compelling reason to rely on any Christian exegetes. They can't agree among themselves on virtually anything.

Jeremiah is clearly referring to the scattering and latter-day gathering of Israel. Christian exegetes can hijack

it forever, but that doesn't change the plain meaning of the text.

This is an LDS discussion board, and we adhere to this:

The Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight;

that those professors were all corrupt: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts

are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,

but denying the power thereof.

The Word of the Lord.

Appropriate kudos to you.

I am not worthy.

Bernard

[Zakuska]

Good company, in my opinion, well maybe not that Zak guy.

< ZING > < / ZING >

[cksalmon]

Hi Bernard:

You wrote:

It seems to me that "Whoever believes will not be in haste" is not the same as "and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Where is

that latter phrase written?

And:

That said, if Paul was quoting Isaiah (the part in italics) where in Isaiah did he find it? Certainly not 28:16.

And:

It is not found in Isaiah as Paul transmitted it.

But, of course, the relevant phraseology is found as Paul transmitted it in LXX Isaiah 28.16: ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????????.

Cf., the critical text of Rom 9.33: ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????????????.

Assuming you don't read Greek, you can at least see that the verbal stem is the same.

Paul, typically, quotes from the Greek translation of OT (LXX), the translation that would have been known and accepted by the vast majority of his readers.

If you wish to engage in textual criticism of Rom 9.33, you would do well to familiarize yourself with the relevant source document, for starters.

The more relevant question you raise, if obliquely, and accidentally(?), is whether or not LXX faithfully captures the Hebrew. But, the question you directly raise is quite easily answered, as noted above. Paul certainly did find and transmit the relevant phrase via LXX Isaiah 28.16.

Thus, you now have the information necessary to answering your question: "where in Isaiah did he find it?"

And, your conclusion, "It is not found in Isaiah as Paul transmitted it," is shown to be patently false.

Of course, KJV, assuming that LDS still actually hold KJV NT to be canonical (wait! is that an assumption I should question? Perhaps LDS such as yourself don't hold KJV NT to be canonical) follows, well, the relevant MSS known at the time, and thus, quotes Paul as saying, "and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." But, you apparently, wish to call Paul's citation of LXX into question, right?

So, is your goal to suggest a correction of KJV NT 9.33 in light of ESV OT Isaiah 28.16? Really?

Once you light upon any sort of consistent methodology, Bernard, let me know.

You're pitting ESV Isa 28.16 against KJV Rom 9.33 and triumphantly concluding that they don't read the same, as if that fact were somehow supportive of your rejection of traditional Christianity.

What a mess.

[Bernard Gui]

What a mess.

Indeed. Perhaps you can clean it up. Which pairing of Rom 9:33 with Isa 28:16 do you prefer?

Perhaps you prefer your own to all these? I'm particularly interested in Paul's addition of the

words "in him" or their variant and the bolded parts.

Bernard

[16] Assuredly, thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will found in Zion, stone by stone, a tower of precious cornerstones, exceedingly firm; he who trusts need not fear. (Isa 28:16 JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh)

[33] As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Rom 9:33 KJV)

[16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Isa 28:16 KJV)

[33] As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." (Rom 9:33 NKJV)

[16] Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily. (Isa 28:16 NKJV)

[33] They tripped over the stone mentioned in scripture: 'Here I lay in Zion a stone to trip over, a rock to stumble against; but he who has faith in it will not be put to shame.' (Rom 9:33 NEV)

[16] Therefore these are the words of the Lord God: I am laying a stone in Zion, a block of granite, a precious corner-stone well founded; he who has faith will not waver.

[33] As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." (Rom 9:33 NIV)

[16] So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. (Isa 28:16 NIV)

[33] 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." (Rom 9:33 ESV)

[16] therefore thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation:'Whoever believes will not be in haste.' (Isa 28:16 ESV)

[33] just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." (Rom 9:33 NASB)

[16] Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed. (Isa 28:16 NASB)

[33] even as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Tziyon a stumbling stone and a rock of offense; And no one who believes in him will be disappointed." (Rom 9:33 HNV)

[16] therefore thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Tziyon for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner -[stone] of sure foundation: he who believes shall not be in haste. (Isa 28:16 HNV)

[33] according as it hath been written, `Lo, I place in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and every one who is believing thereon shall not be ashamed.' (Isa 28:16 YNG)

[16] Therefore, thus said the Lord Jehovah: `Lo, I am laying a foundation in Zion, A stone -- a tried stone, a corner stone precious, a settled foundation, He who is believing doth not make haste. (Isa 28:16 YNG)

[33] God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said,

[kantgomo]

Peter seemed to have quoted it as well...

1 Peter ch. 2:

6 For it stands in Scripture:

[USU78]

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

That "predestination" stuff?

CFR

[Bernard Gui]

Peter seemed to have quoted it as well...

[kantgomo]

Where is this written?

Bernard

You tell me.

[Bernard Gui]

You tell me.

I don't know. It's not in the Isaiah we have now. Is it possible that Paul

didn't remember it correctly or that he was fudging a bit to make a

point? Or is there another Isaiah source they were using?

Bernard

[kantgomo]

I would think Paul would know better than me having been a Jew, being taught under Gamaleil, being the chosen of God to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Perhaps God speaks to us through the Apostle Paul, but his teachings are difficult to accept due to our suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

My CFR would be God.

[USU78]

My CFR would be God.

So, in your view, G-d makes us unfree?

[cksalmon]

Indeed. Perhaps you can clean it up. Which pairing of Rom 9:33 with Isa 28:16 do you prefer?

One that pairs Rom 9.33 with its actual source document, as I've already noted above.

Perhaps you prefer your own to all these?

It's not mine, of course. No one disputes that Paul was quoting from LXX.

I'm particularly interested in Paul's addition of the words "in him" or their variant and the bolded parts.

I'm interested in why you think Paul added the words "in him" to his source document. I have to assume that it's because you don't know what Paul's quoting.

To recap: LXX: ??? ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????????? (Isa 28:16); that is, "And the one believing upon him shall not be put to shame."

Now, the portion you're interested in from the critical text of NT: "??? ? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????????????" (Rom 9:33); that is, "And the one believing upon him will not be put to shame."

I've tried to incorporate some clarifying translational difference in the final verb between the subjunctive aorist passive of LXX (???????????) and the indicative future passive of Rom 9.33 (????????????????) -- thus, my "shall" vs. "will" -- but, really, there's no significant difference between the two in English translation.

"In him" is a perfectly legitimate translation of Gr. ??? ????, by the way.

You responded to kantgomo:

I don't know. It's not in the Isaiah we have now. Is it possible that Paul didn't remember it correctly or that he was fudging a bit to make a point? Or is there another Isaiah source they were using?

It's, of course, manifestly in the LXX Isaiah we have now, without any question. I suppose it's possible that Paul didn't remember it correctly, but that seems unlikely since Paul quotes directly from LXX with the exception of the final verb form (but the part you've evinced concern about is the phrase ??? ????, which is quite obviously in the source document). I would chalk up the final verb form difference to stylistic preference, as Paul's substitution bears no significant import on meaning. The Isaiah source from which Paul was quoting is quite well-known and presently extant. It's not, in any relevant sense, "another Isaiah source" that's somehow now lost to antiquity or about which we have to conjecture in any way relevant to your query.

[kantgomo]

So, in your view, G-d makes us unfree?

It is hard to even remember the path of our conversation/posts, but the text says they stumble because they disobey the word.

[USU78]

ktm: They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

'78: That "predestination" stuff?

CFR

ktm: My CFR would be God.

'78: So, in your view, G-d makes us unfree?

ktm: It is hard to even remember the path of our conversation/posts, but the text says they stumble because they disobey the word.

Does this help? I recreated the entire conversation, which took me 5 minutes, and added a bold for the offending language.

[cksalmon]

Does this help? I recreated the entire conversation, which took me 5 minutes, and added a bold for the offending language.

Help me out, here, USU78. Does the "offending language" you've highlighted inhere in the LDS canonical KJV 1 Pet 2.8: "whereunto also they were appointed?"

Or, is the "offending language" inherent only to ESV 1 Pet 2.8 (and not also to LDS canonical KJV 1 Pet 2.: "as they were destined to do?"

Or, is the "offending language" inherent only to the Greek: "??? ? ??? ????????," but not to KJV or ESV, which both faithfully translate the Greek at this point?

Or, is the "offending language" inherent to both the Greek and the ESV, but not the to LDS canonical KJV of 1 Pet 2.8? Some other combination?

Seems to me that KJV, ESV, and the Greek are saying essentially the same thing. Are you implying that KJV 1 Pet 2.8 "whereunto also they were appointed" is saying something fundamentally different than ESV 1 Pet 2.8 "as they were destined to do?" Or, that neither captures the Greek? Or, are you making a more arcane point?

What is it exactly that offends you here? ??? ? ??? ?????????

[LeSellers]

If grace is to be defined as an undeserved gift of God how does that become compatible with works being rewarded by grace?

As Volgodon asked, why should we define it so? In fact, I completely reject this definition.

It is a gift of God, and no one denies this. But to claim it is undeserved rejects the majority of scripture, wherein we read, again and again, that we are judged on our works, that certain ordinances are mandatory, that acts and charity are requisite for salvation.

"Grace" is far from "an undeserved gift", it is bestowed on those who submit to God and do His will. Those who do not repent (a work) do not receive it. Those who reject baptism do not get it. Those who mimic faith, but do not produce the acts that faith requires do not get it.

Lehi

[USU78]

Help me out, here, USU78. Does the "offending language" you've highlighted inhere in the LDS canonical KJV 1 Pet 2.8: "whereunto also they were appointed?"

Or, is the "offending language" inherent only to ESV 1 Pet 2.8 (and not also to LDS canonical KJV 1 Pet 2.: "as they were destined to do?"

Or, is the "offending language" inherent only to the Greek: "??? ? ??? ????????," but not to KJV or ESV, which both faithfully translate the Greek at this point?

Or, is the "offending language" inherent to both the Greek and the ESV, but not the to LDS canonical KJV of 1 Pet 2.8? Some other combination?

Seems to me that KJV, ESV, and the Greek are saying essentially the same thing. Are you implying that KJV 1 Pet 2.8 "whereunto also they were appointed" is saying something fundamentally different than ESV 1 Pet 2.8 "as they were destined to do?" Or, that neither captures the Greek? Or, are you making a more arcane point?

What is it exactly that offends you here? ??? ? ??? ?????????

It was the paraphrase: "as they were destined to do."

G-d created no nornir and does not Himself pull the strings of puppets. He created children with agency. He sets up the test the author of Peter refers to, and to that extent He "appoints." He does not require that some pass and some fail. Ever and always we have our choice to do good or evil. We can believe in the Master as Messiah or not. There's nothing in 1 Peter 2:8 that requires predestination.

It is a protestant interpolation and a wresting of scripture from context.

[cksalmon]

It was the paraphrase: "as they were destined to do."

Actually, that's a pretty faithful translation of Gr. ??? ? ??? ????????, and certainly not a mere "paraphrase."

As is KJV's "whereunto also they were appointed."

Perhaps you could suggest a better translation of the Greek phrase? One that doesn't, as you apparently insist ESV does, "paraphrase" the Greek in apparent subjection to protestant interpolation?

What translation, then, would you suggest we follow to English from Gr. ??? ? ??? ????????? Since, as you insist, ESV merely "paraphrases" the Greek.

There's nothing in 1 Peter 2:8 that requires predestination.

What 1 Peter 2.8 in English requires is a faithful translation of the Greek.

Let's come clean with how the translation should read, and we can go from there. ESV obviously gets it wrong. And KJV and ESV are at loggerheads, I guess, based on your personal knowledge that KJV's "were appointed" is not synonymous with ESV's "were destined."

Since you eschew protestant interpolation and wresting from context, I assume you can provide a faithful translation of the Greek here that doesn't have any need to punt to LDS interpolation or wresting from context, right? LDS understand this verse rightly, and that without any reference to anything beyond this particular verse.

We'll work from your translation, if you please.

[USU78]

When in doubt about the Greek, go with Luther, who, along with Melanchthon, was one of the greatest Greek scholars of his or any other time: "wozu sie auch bestimmt sind."

"estimmt dazu" has a different flavor from the English "destined to" or "appointed." It is best rendered in English as "meant for" "intended for" or "ordained for," with "destined to" being a possible, but not the best rendering.

The KJV plainly doesn't require the harsh deterministic Calvinist TULIP reading . . . and neither does the German of Luther . . . or the Greek, for which I'll take Luther's word every time . . . no offense intended.

[cksalmon]

When in doubt about the Greek, go with Luther,

But, of course, no one's actually in doubt about the Greek, except perhaps you, I suppose. This is obfuscation. The Greek, of course, is well-known and presently extant.

So, I'll repeat:

Actually, that's a pretty faithful translation of Gr. ??? ? ??? ????????, and certainly not a mere "paraphrase."

As is KJV's "whereunto also they were appointed."

Perhaps you could suggest a better translation of the Greek phrase? One that doesn't, as you apparently insist ESV does, "paraphrase" the Greek in apparent subjection to protestant interpolation?

What translation, then, would you suggest we follow to English from Gr. ??? ? ??? ????????? Since, as you insist, ESV merely "paraphrases" the Greek.

[USU78]

Gen. 2:15-17 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He commands. We either obey or we don't. We have choice. Whether He knows how we'll choose is quite irrelevant as far as our moral choices go.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He commands. We either obey or we don't. We have choice. Whether He knows how we'll choose is quite irrelevant as far as our moral choices go.

So, can a person have agency to choose if they are destined to do something?

[USU78]

So, can a person have agency to choose if they are destined to do something?

That, of course, is why He provides a Savior for man . . . since he knows dang well we'll foul up.

Which, of course, brings us back to the OP: The necessity of His Grace arises out of His foreknowledge of our constitutional predilection for fouling up.