Belief in doing nothing (or that it is not required) is sacrosanct

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been debating with many different types over four years now

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

I have been debating with many different types over four years now

[Zakuska]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

No, you're not seeing this clearly.

1. Evangelical theology agrees that obedience to God's word is "necessary" in the sense that God commands it. We do believe that there are commandments. Why do you think conservative evangelicals in America are in the forefront of calling for an acknowledgment of the Ten Commandments in our schools and judiciaries? The fact is that we believe God gives us commandments in the Bible and that these are obligations, not optional extras. However, obedience is not "necessary" in the sense of being prerequisite to salvation, because the whole idea of salvation is deliverance from the punishment due us because of our disobedience.

I have to disagree with that. The very act that secures salvation is infact obedience to a commandment.

1 John 3:23

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.

Hebrews 1:6

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Romans 10:16

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Evangelicals try to get out of this by pointing to the Theif on the cross. Last time I checked even he "obeyed" in believing in Jesus.

We will be judged for disobeying that command...

2 Thessalonians 1:8

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 4:17

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

2. Evangelical countercult ministries are critical of various religious groups' behaviors, not just their theology. They are critical, for example, of -- ahem -- the polygamous LDS sects precisely because of their polygamy. Countercult ministries routinely criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal to allow their children to receive blood transfusions, Christian Scientists for their refusal (in many cases) to allow their children to receive medical care, etc. Evangelicals consider pro-homosexual teachings every bit as heretical as the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ. Your characterization of the countercult movement as ignoring the way people live is a caricature.

I can agree with this. It was the same thing Jews were doing... e.g. "a sabbaths days journey"... "eat some corn, but the priests profane the sabbath in the temple". Etc. etc.

3. What most of us evangelicals criticize as "legalism" is not scrupulous efforts to live morally clean lives (e.g., to avoid adultery, lying, theft, profanity, etc.) but the imposition of man-made rules that are not in the Bible. For example, evangelical countercult groups criticize a long list of Jehovah's Witness taboos that have no sound biblical basis (no birthdays, no Christmas, no Easter, no political involvement, no using the cross as a religious symbol, etc., etc.). They don't criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for loving their spouses and children. Likewise, I don't think you'll find evangelical countercult groups criticizing Mormons for being pro-life, for being opposed to same-sex marriage, or for teaching moral responsibility, but you will find them criticizing the LDS Church for teaching that temple ordinances, observing the word of wisdom, and other such obligations are required for entrance into the presence of God the Father.

But the problem here Rob is, Counter cult ministires go much further than that... Do a quick google and see how many of the critics criticize the 3rd and 4th articles of Faith.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Whats funny is they miss the fact that even the most Anti-Legalistic preacher that has ever lived added certian "Legalisms" to the Gospel he preached. Notice here that according to Paul himself "Baptism" is what has established the believers IN Christ.

Romans 6:3

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Perfect run down of the 4th Article of Faith:

Hebrews 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

[nicolasconnault]

1. Evangelical theology agrees that obedience to God's word is "necessary" in the sense that God commands it. We do believe that there are commandments. Why do you think conservative evangelicals in America are in the forefront of calling for an acknowledgment of the Ten Commandments in our schools and judiciaries? The fact is that we believe God gives us commandments in the Bible and that these are obligations, not optional extras. However, obedience is not "necessary" in the sense of being prerequisite to salvation, because the whole idea of salvation is deliverance from the punishment due us because of our disobedience.

So, please correct me if I misunderstand, but you view salvation as a cause of obedience, not as as an effect thereof? As a Mormon full of Mormon ideology, I really struggle to get my head around the underlined bit of your statement. If you could please expand on it, I would be extremely grateful

2. Evangelical countercult ministries are critical of various religious groups' behaviors, not just their theology. They are critical, for example, of -- ahem -- the polygamous LDS sects precisely because of their polygamy. Countercult ministries routinely criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for their refusal to allow their children to receive blood transfusions, Christian Scientists for their refusal (in many cases) to allow their children to receive medical care, etc. Evangelicals consider pro-homosexual teachings every bit as heretical as the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ. Your characterization of the countercult movement as ignoring the way people live is a caricature.

It's interesting that all the examples of behaviour you give are actually examples of obedience on the part of the members of these religious groups. These behaviours are not simply "allowed" or "encouraged", they are actually required within these religions.

3. What most of us evangelicals criticize as "legalism" is not scrupulous efforts to live morally clean lives (e.g., to avoid adultery, lying, theft, profanity, etc.) but the imposition of man-made rules that are not in the Bible. For example, evangelical countercult groups criticize a long list of Jehovah's Witness taboos that have no sound biblical basis (no birthdays, no Christmas, no Easter, no political involvement, no using the cross as a religious symbol, etc., etc.). They don't criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for loving their spouses and children. Likewise, I don't think you'll find evangelical countercult groups criticizing Mormons for being pro-life, for being opposed to same-sex marriage, or for teaching moral responsibility, but you will find them criticizing the LDS Church for teaching that temple ordinances, observing the word of wisdom, and other such obligations are required for entrance into the presence of God the Father.

And this is where "they", and I suppose some LDS too, get it wrong. It is not these behaviours per se that are required, but the attitude of obedience itself and the benefits that come from obedience. You might very well obtain salvation despite being a smoker all your life, but it's going to be awfully difficult because this habit hinders the spiritual growth required for making increasingly better use of your free agency.

I guess the fundamental difference is in the LDS definition of the purpose of life. Whereas you seem to believe that we are here merely to be saved from our wretched condition through reaching a sort of spiritual threshold, the LDS view is that we are here to learn to use our free agency and our body, to obtain critical experiences and improve towards Godliness and Godlihood. We don't view God's commandments as checklist-type requirements for salvation, we view them as safeguards, self-protective rules, directions pointing the way to eternal happiness on the perilous journey that is mortality. This is why we don't view them as restricting, but as freeing. They help us make better use of our free agency, thus fulfilling our purpose for coming here in the first place.

The grace of God granted through the atonement of Christ is central to this process, being the only power that transforms us (being continually born again through repentance) as we try and try again to live better lives.

[coolrok7]

Zak (Pa Pa too), obedience comes under what it means to believe. Two things are operative here but are part of the package deal (in sequence).

First, Justification (a one time for all event in which we play no part at all,) which is what Jesus accomplished, empowered by the Holy Spirit, being an obedient only begotten (only one of His kind) Son of God (Deity in the flesh as in John 1:1-3, 14).

This was accomplished in the atonement by the grace of God (unmerited favor without any act on our part, even in our Sanctification), accomplished at around 33 A.D. when He cried out,

[Rob Bowman]

Nicolas,

You wrote:

So, please correct me if I misunderstand, but you view salvation as a cause of obedience, not as as an effect thereof? As a Mormon full of Mormon ideology, I really struggle to get my head around the underlined bit of your statement. If you could please expand on it, I would be extremely grateful.

Describing salvation as a cause of obedience rather than an effect of obedience would be about right. But obedience is not "automatic." A person whom God has saved by his grace does not automatically obey; it is something he learns to do -- something he is obliged to learn to do.

You wrote:

It's interesting that all the examples of behaviour you give are actually examples of obedience on the part of the members of these religious groups. These behaviours are not simply "allowed" or "encouraged", they are actually required within these religions.

Well, I'm not going to criticize, say, Jehovah's Witnesses because some of their members smoke pot. That would be a fault of those members, not a fault of the religion itself.

You wrote:

And this is where "they", and I suppose some LDS too, get it wrong. It is not these behaviours per se that are required, but the attitude of obedience itself and the benefits that come from obedience. You might very well obtain salvation despite being a smoker all your life, but it's going to be awfully difficult because this habit hinders the spiritual growth required for making increasingly better use of your free agency.

I guess the fundamental difference is in the LDS definition of the purpose of life. Whereas you seem to believe that we are here merely to be saved from our wretched condition through reaching a sort of spiritual threshold, the LDS view is that we are here to learn to use our free agency and our body, to obtain critical experiences and improve towards Godliness and Godlihood. We don't view God's commandments as checklist-type requirements for salvation, we view them as safeguards, self-protective rules, directions pointing the way to eternal happiness on the perilous journey that is mortality. This is why we don't view them as restricting, but as freeing. They help us make better use of our free agency, thus fulfilling our purpose for coming here in the first place.

The grace of God granted through the atonement of Christ is central to this process, being the only power that transforms us (being continually born again through repentance) as we try and try again to live better lives.

The differences between our theologies is a lot more complicated. Your explanation presupposes, for example, that we existed as spirits in heaven before we began our physical lives. We don't believe that. And we don't believe that we are here "merely to be saved from our wretched condition through reaching a sort of spiritual threshold." I'm not sure where you got that idea. God created us to be physical beings that represent his character, honor, and purposes in his world (that's a quick definition of "the image of God"). We have a noble and honorable purpose in creation. Our sin threatens to destroy that purpose, which is why we need salvation. God's purpose in salvation is to restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29). Like Christ, we are to be holy, perfect, immortal beings of love and goodness. That is the work that God starts in us by his grace and that he will bring to completion (see Phil. 1:6).

[Libs]

In Mormonism the first law of heaven is obedience, we believe that a man or woman should strive to do their best and make use of the

[Vance]

A biblical definition of legalism is adding works to salvation, which is of Jesus Christ alone. It is one who still depends on "the law" for salvation, instead of Jesus Christ.

I did a search and I don't find the word "legal" or any of its forms in the New Testament. Could you provide references to support this assertion?

In other words, CFR (Biblical, please).

[BCSpace]

Am I seeing this clearly?

Yes you are. EV's chalk the numerous cases of disobedience to not having been truly saved.

[nicolasconnault]

The differences between our theologies is a lot more complicated. Your explanation presupposes, for example, that we existed as spirits in heaven before we began our physical lives. We don't believe that. And we don't believe that we are here "merely to be saved from our wretched condition through reaching a sort of spiritual threshold." I'm not sure where you got that idea. God created us to be physical beings that represent his character, honor, and purposes in his world (that's a quick definition of "the image of God"). We have a noble and honorable purpose in creation. Our sin threatens to destroy that purpose, which is why we need salvation. God's purpose in salvation is to restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29). Like Christ, we are to be holy, perfect, immortal beings of love and goodness. That is the work that God starts in us by his grace and that he will bring to completion (see Phil. 1:6).

Thanks for your reply, Rob. There's something I don't understand here. If God's purpose is merely to "restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ ", why didn't He create us all like Christ in the first place? Wouldn't that have made his purpose more easily achieved? Why did He let Satan tempt us? Why does He allow evil? It seems, without wanting to be disrespectful, that according to your explanation God is playing a sort of game, assuming that He has ultimate control over the conditions of mortality, and could have altered them if doing so could have helped his purposes. Could you expand on this a bit more?

Thanks!

[Libs]

I did a search and I don't find the word "legal" or any of its forms in the New Testament. Could you provide references to support this assertion?

In other words, CFR (Biblical, please).

"21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matt 7: 21-27).

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR214.htm

Legalism

"The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system."

http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/legalism.html

[todd520]

Yes you are. EV's chalk the numerous cases of disobedience to not having been truly saved.

I think that is the key, EV's tend to be black and white between those with a regenerate heart and everyone else.

In their view, a saved person has no problem or challenge following God's commandments, as they are consumed by the Spirit. Works won't make you saved and when you are, they come by default.

I feel Mormon's and the likes of Catholics seem more aware that we are on a journey to being consumed by the Spirit, and it's not a binary yes/no status.

It seems we focus on works to keep us on the path while our faith and spirit continue to grow, we live in the Grey Area.

In my humble opinion, EVs ignore the grey area that we humans exist within.

I may have met 1-2 people in my whole life who appeared to be fully regenerate in their spirit.

Even these exemplary people, If asked, would confess they were imperfect and challenged.

[Vance]

"21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matt 7: 21-27).

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR214.htm

Help me out here. How do you get,

A biblical definition of legalism is adding works to salvation, which is of Jesus Christ alone. It is one who still depends on "the law" for salvation, instead of Jesus Christ.

From,

"21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

. . .

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,

. . .

26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, . . ."

Legalism

"The term legalism is used by many authors to describe any belief system that implies that a Christian receives salvation and right standing with God by carefully following a list of expected behaviors which has been constructed by the creators of the system."

http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/definition-of-christian-terms/legalism.html

Ok, so it isn't a Biblical definition at all, but an extra Biblical one.

So, are the behaviors Jesus expected of His disciples included in this definition?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The word legal simply means having to do with law. Paul taught that a person is not justified by works of the law (Gal. 2:16, etc.).

I did a search and I don't find the word "legal" or any of its forms in the New Testament. Could you provide references to support this assertion?

In other words, CFR (Biblical, please).

[jadams_4242]

I have been debating with many different types over four years now

[Rob Bowman]

Nicolas,

To some extent your questions call for speculation. The Bible tells us little about why God didn't do things in a way other than the way he actually chose.

A reasonable answer to your first question is that finite creatures cannot simply be created to be instantly like Christ. A finite creature, to be a creature of perfect, permanent holiness and love, must become such through a process of some kind. Either that creature must be tested and pass through the test successfully, becoming confirmed in goodness, or that creature must be tested, fail, and then be restored and transformed. God did not create Adam with perfect holiness, but with an elemental innocence and the capacity to choose to trust him or not to trust him. When that trust was put to the test, Adam failed. Theologians have speculated for centuries about whether God might have or should have created an Adam that didn't fail, but again, that would be a question of speculation. Suppose God had made an Adam that didn't fail, and here we are millennia later talking about it. Did God rig things so that the Adam he created couldn't fail? If so, was Adam truly free to obey or not to obey? Are we all perhaps not truly free after all? In a sense, one might say that no matter what God did, he wouldn't "win" with those ready to question his decision to make the particular universe in which we find ourselves.

So here's what we know from the Bible: God made human beings with a capacity to make choices and an original innocence. God put Adam and Eve in an ideal environment in which all of their needs and legitimate wants were met. He then set up a fair test for them that would show whether they fully trusted him or not. Satan's temptation became an integral part of that test, since the question became whether they would listen to God or to another voice. This doesn't mean that God made Satan evil; Satan was evidently an angel who also abused his capacity for choice by rebelling against God. So Satan tempted Eve to stop trusting God and trust her own judgment in opposition to God. Eve and Adam both chose evil and became fallen creatures in need of redemption, which God himself provides in the incarnate Son's death and resurrection. Through this redemption, a "new creation" of human beings will be finally produced who freely and fully trust God and eternally love and obey him. This end result will be truly wonderful and glorious; your use of the term "merely" misses just how wondrous and gracious God's plan for us is. The result is not "merely" a return to our original "factory condition," but a transformation into creatures that perfectly reflect God's glory. This is all about God causing all things to work together for good (Romans 8:28), using even the worst things that happen to bring about the greater good in his ultimate purpose for his creation.

Now, I don't see this as God "playing a sort of game." God's intention is very serious: to create a race of physical beings with the capacity for choice but who eternally and perfectly choose to love and obey God and to exhibit God's character and glory in his world. How he brings this about is his business, and frankly, not being God myself, I am not in a position to second-guess his methods. But from what we are told in the Bible and from what I can perceive by reflecting on what we are told, the way God is going about it is perfectly good and in fact astonishingly sacrificial on his part. After all, God the Son humbled himself to become one of us and to die a horrific death in order to make it happen. If I, being the pea-brain and far from selfless human that I am, were coming up with a plan, I don't think I would have God experiencing the shame and pain of the cross. Surely there must have been an easier way! But evidently not, or at least not one that pleased God so much.

Thanks for your reply, Rob. There's something I don't understand here. If God's purpose is merely to "restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ ", why didn't He create us all like Christ in the first place? Wouldn't that have made his purpose more easily achieved? Why did He let Satan tempt us? Why does He allow evil? It seems, without wanting to be disrespectful, that according to your explanation God is playing a sort of game, assuming that He has ultimate control over the conditions of mortality, and could have altered them if doing so could have helped his purposes. Could you expand on this a bit more?

Thanks!

[Vance]

Vance,

The word legal simply means having to do with law. Paul taught that a person is not justified by works of the law (Gal. 2:16, etc.).

And I agree that we are not justified by works of the law of Moses. As James taught that Abraham was justified by works.

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

[Vance]

A reasonable answer to your first question is that finite creatures cannot simply be created to be instantly like Christ.

Indicating that God is not omnipotent.

. . . If so, was Adam truly free to obey or not to obey?

It seem rather obvious that, if created from nothing, Adam would have obeyed his God created programing perfectly.

Are we all perhaps not truly free after all?

We are not free to choose the consequences of our choices that is for sure.

In a sense, one might say that no matter what God did, he wouldn't "win" with those ready to question his decision to make the particular universe in which we find ourselves.

It does call in to question His omnipotence if He can't create a perfect person from scratch.

So here's what we know from the Bible: God made human beings with a capacity to make choices and an original innocence.

I agree, but that is inconsistent with an omnipotent God creating people from nothing.

God put Adam and Eve in an ideal environment in which all of their needs and legitimate wants were met.

Apparently not, else the serpent have had nothing to tempted them with?

He then set up a fair test for them that would show whether they fully trusted him or not.

And did they not follow their preprograming? How could they be responsible if they were just being the people God created/programmed them to be?

This doesn't mean that God made Satan evil; Satan was evidently an angel who also abused his capacity for choice by rebelling against God.

But if God made him from nothing, how could he be or do anything but what God wanted him to be and do?

That question just doesn't go away in the ex nihilo paradigm.

[Libs]

Help me out here. How do you get,

From,

"21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

. . .

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,

. . .

26: And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, . . ."

Ok, so it isn't a Biblical definition at all, but an extra Biblical one.

So, are the behaviors Jesus expected of His disciples included in this definition?

No, it's not extra-biblical. Christ fulfilled the law. Salvation is based on what he did, both in fulfilling the law, perfectly, and dying a terrible death to pay for our sins.

That's not to say that people who are followers of Christ should do nothing. They will show the fruit of salvation, in love and gratitude for his sacrifice...it will show in their obedience to God.

[Vance]

No, it's not extra-biblical. Christ fulfilled the law. Salvation is based on what he did, both in fulfilling the law, perfectly, and dying a terrible death to pay for our sins.

That's not to say that people who are followers of Christ should do nothing. They will show the fruit of salvation, in love and gratitude for his sacrifice...it will show in their obedience to God.

Christ fulfilled the law.

And so must we.

Rom. 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom. 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

[Libs]

The law of Christ is still in force. True followers of Christ obey His law. If you want to call obeying Christ's law being "legalistic", then go ahead.

I didn't say that. I said, true believers will be obedient. But, that is not what saves them (according to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity). Obedience is a "result" of being saved. It's one of the fruits of salvation.

Rom. 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Yes, if we are walking in the Spirit (of Christ) the law is, indeed, fulfilled. It was fulfilled by him.

But, you are entitled to your beliefs. I'm not trying to change your mind.

I'm not going to "argue" this much further, as it's not even really what I believe.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

A biblical definition of legalism is adding works to salvation, which is of Jesus Christ alone. It is one who still depends on "the law" for salvation, instead of Jesus Christ.

Speaking of General Salvation this is true. The Grace of God in this case in unconditional.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thanks for your reply, Rob. There's something I don't understand here. If God's purpose is merely to "restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ ", why didn't He create us all like Christ in the first place?

Thanks!

Excellent comment; would have saved a lot of trouble and suffering.

[seriously honestly]

Thanks for your reply, Rob. There's something I don't understand here. If God's purpose is merely to "restore us to that created intention and make his redeemed people into humans who are conformed to the "image" of his Son, Jesus Christ ", why didn't He create us all like Christ in the first place? Wouldn't that have made his purpose more easily achieved? Why did He let Satan tempt us? Why does He allow evil? It seems, without wanting to be disrespectful, that according to your explanation God is playing a sort of game, assuming that He has ultimate control over the conditions of mortality, and could have altered them if doing so could have helped his purposes. Could you expand on this a bit more?

Thanks!

That would be like me asking the an LDS person "why didn't God just choose Lucifer's plan in the pre-existence"

[Vance]

Obedience is a "result" of being saved. It's one of the fruits of salvation.

No, it isn't. Salvation doesn't come until AFTER you die, obedience, if it is done, is done in this life.

Now you could say that obedience is a "result" of conversion.

Yes, if we are walking in the Spirit (of Christ) the law is, indeed, fulfilled. It was fulfilled by him.

And by us.

The Holy Ghost is given to the obedient.

Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

So to walk in the Spirit is to walk in obedience.

But, you are entitled to your beliefs. I'm not trying to change your mind.

As you are to yours.

I'm not going to "argue" this much further, as it's not even really what I believe.

????