God Possibly May Not Have Given Billions An Opportunity To Be Saved

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Is it your opinion that sin is not analogous to a disease or disorder like cancer? Or do you agree with this assessment but contend that this condition means God could not justly punish people?

I must also remind you that it is not my view that God punishes people for having the "disorder" of a sinful inclination, but for willfully committing acts of sin despite knowing that they are wrong.

Well being LDS, I believe the LDS position which differs considerably from yours- and again, I will be glad to teach you the LDS view. How one can be a "critic" of our position without knowing what it is, is a mystery to me, but I will be glad to explain.

The LDS position is not that sin is a "disorder"- it is in fact quite natural for us. Sin is pride- this was clarified by Ezra Taft Benson in his famous talk on pride. It is, essentially, putting our will ahead of God's will.

We know what we should do, but we fail to do it, and so sin because we want to assert our own will in opposition to the commandments.

Biblically it is found in discussions about overcoming the "natural man" who is repeatedly asserted to be an "enemy to the Lord". We are told in Revelation about the rewards for those who "overcome" the world- that overcoming of the world and the natural man is why we have come into existence.

That is why we place such an importance on repentance- we are saved by grace because we can never make up the vast gap which exists between the punishment we deserve for sin and what the savior has done- he has paid that debt and born the punishment for our sins which we deserve. But we must do our share insofar as we are able. We must repent and do our best to remain sin free. That is why we say we are "saved by grace AFTER all we can do

Using a monetary analogy, the savior paid off the millions we owe, but we still have to put in our two pennies worth of repentance to show that we acknowledge his sacrifice for us. It is literally the LEAST we can do!

So no, we have no "disorder"- sin is natural. We inherit no sin as being part of mankind- we are not punished for our sinful "nature" ( I hate that word) but for what we actually personally do that is wrong.

We are not punished for Adam's transgression but for our own.

An inclination which will inevitably result in our following the inclination makes sin inevitable. We cannot do otherwise. We should not be punished for events which could not have been otherwise.

In the LDS system, we will all - all mankind universally- will have an opportunity to hear the gospel, make the decision, and repent as they are able.

That is the difference in our theology.

Both beliefs say that sin is inevitable. But if sin is universal, the opportunity for salvation must be universal as well. In your system, it is not. In your system some will be punished for things totally beyond their control, for the mere fact of being human.

In our system, all have a choice between their degrees of glory.

In our system that is not the case. THAT is the difference.

Edited June 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Using a monetary analogy, the savior paid off the millions we owe, but we still have to put in our two pennies worth of repentance to show that we acknowledge his sacrifice for us. It is literally the LEAST we can do!

I don't particularly like monetary analogies in regard to the Atonement because I believe that by sinning we have made ourselves unable to repay in the same 'coin' that Christ being sinless can pay for us...at least in this life, can't say for the next. So rather than saying we pay the fullest we can even if it amounts to only two cents to show our commitment and acceptance of Christ's gift that amounts to millions, I prefer saying something along the lines that while we are able to pay nothing towards our debt but must rely fully on Christ's gift to cleanse us, we show our acceptance and commitment to the process by bowing to His Will and acting out that Will through other means including sharing the good news with others who are in debt due to sin like us. Perhaps one could use the analogy of not paying two cents towards the debt itself, but instead volunteering at the charities established by the one who has paid for our debt.

Edited June 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[David T]

Preemptive strike: Let's keep this from trying to define "The LDS View" and arguing against it, because it, by necessity, requires the use and context of additional sources that Rob does not accept as authoritative or take into consideration in his exegesis. It's a great topic for another thread, but I'd like to keep that out of here (because it would also inevitably turn to different LDS who share different interpretations than mfbukoski holds, and arguments about what is THE LDS view, instead of differing LDS views). Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I don't particularly like monetary analogies in regard to the Atonement because I believe that by sinning we have made ourselves unable to repay in the same 'coin' that Christ being sinless can pay for us...at least in this life. So rather than saying we pay the fullest we can even if it amounts to only two cents to show our commitment and acceptance of Christ's gift that amounts to millions, I prefer saying something along the lines that while we are able to pay nothing towards our debt but must rely fully on Christ's gift to cleanse us, we show our acceptance and commitment to the process by bowing to His Will and acting out that Will through other means including sharing the good news with others who are in debt due to sin like us. Perhaps one could use the analogy of not paying two cents towards the debt itself, but instead volunteering at the charities established by the one who has paid for our debt.

I agree- I thought twice about using that one, but I wanted to emphasize the vastness of the debt vs what we "can do". I think Evangelicals typically think that we think that we can "save ourselves" through our own effort because sometimes we hear people speaking of "working out our own salvation" when that is not at all what we mean by that phrase.

There is no way we can "work out our own salvation" and all that is meant by that phrase is constructing a life in harmony with the gospel, the cornerstone of which is repentance.

[mfbukowski]

Preemptive strike: Let's keep this from trying to define "The LDS View" and arguing against it, because it, by necessity, requires the use and context of additional sources that Rob does not accept as authoritative or take into consideration in his exegesis. It's a great topic for another thread, but I'd like to keep that out of here (because it would also inevitably turn to different LDS who share different interpretations than mfbukoski holds, and arguments about what is THE LDS view, instead of differing LDS views). Thanks.

OK- I will bow to your feelings but note that it was Rob who asked the question and I was answering it.

Should I have not answered it?

Mr. Bukowski,

Is it your opinion that sin is not analogous to a disease or disorder like cancer? Or do you agree with this assessment but contend that this condition means God could not justly punish people?

I must also remind you that it is not my view that God punishes people for having the "disorder" of a sinful inclination, but for willfully committing acts of sin despite knowing that they are wrong.

Edited June 13, 2011 by mfbukowski

[PacMan]

Rob,

Your complaints that I "ignored" your biblical citations, that I "failed to answer substantively," that the question I asked was all I gave you, etc., assumed falsely that I was not prepared to discuss the substantive issues that you raised. I was and am prepared to do so, but I first wanted to clear up the unfortunate statement about which I asked you. Now perhaps we can move forward.

Why do you continue to be so ridiculously presumpuous? Your limited comment did fail to address substance, but I never insinuated that you were incapable. At worst you were being dismissive, or at best…busy. In any event, I did find it odd that you’d nitpick something of nominal value rather than take a dive. Whatever.

You seem to be asking us to assume that it is not so that God chooses to be merciful to some and not others.

No. Rather, I’m suggesting we ditch the “if” and confront the premise for which it is, that being that God chooses to be merciful to some and not others. In other words, I was taking your statement out of the hypothetical.

Now, the problem with much of your explanation is that is talking past my argument. I agree that mercy is distributable discriminatorily in one sense. For example, the time that we come to earth or the status in which we have, or the conditions of our hearing the gospel…clearing, those are based on the judgment of God. I do not believe, nor do I believe the bible supports, the notion that God is discriminatory in his mercy in the offering and making available, salvation.

As to the context of Rom 9, I think the message is really very clear (and I don’t know that we disagree as much as it may seem). No doubt there is selectivity. No doubt there is election, etc. No doubt God’s will is beyond our understanding and that he can effectuate his purposes in a variety of ways (i.e. his treatment of Pharoah). Clearly, this “inconsistency” of sorts is based on an incomplete view of fairness. But this is separate and distinct from the availability of mercy unto salvation. That, I believe, is where the disagreement lies. And Romans 9 doesn’t make the distinction you think it does.

Thus,

All I'm seeking to establish from this passage is that God shows mercy on some but not on others. Some people will prove to be "vessels of mercy" while others "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction."

I agree. But that’s limited, and doesn’t extend to the ability to gain salvation. In context of the principles of justice, equity, mercy, to which God holds himself bound as a non-respecter of persons, this must be how the doctrine is understood.

I’ll respond to your other posts later. Gotta run.

PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

Well being LDS, I believe the LDS position which differs considerably from yours- and again, I will be glad to teach you the LDS view. How one can be a "critic" of our position without knowing what it is, is a mystery to me, but I will be glad to explain.

I respectfully request that you publicly abandon this baseless new criticism you're using (here and in at least one other thread) that if I politely ask what a Mormon thinks I am exposing myself as a hypocrite for expressing disagreement with any of the teachings or claims of the LDS Church. As this forum illustrates on a daily basis, not all Mormons believe exactly the same on any number of issues. If I ask for clarification on the Mormon position on a particular question, you may be assured that I am not criticizing that position before getting such clarification. If I ask you what you think about something, I am not criticizing you but simply asking what you believe. After you tell me, I may agree with you or I may disagree with you.

With regard to the present topic, I am well aware of the LDS teaching on sin. However, individual Mormons' understanding of that teaching is likely to vary, as it does on many other topics. So I asked.

You wrote:

The LDS position is not that sin is a "disorder"- it is in fact quite natural for us.

This statement is rather confusing. If sin is "quite natural for us" then how can we be blamed for doing it? Wasn't this precisely your criticism of my view of sin, that it supposedly implied that we cannot be held accountable for being sinners because we can't help it? Later in the same post you say:

So no, we have no "disorder"- sin is natural. We inherit no sin as being part of mankind- we are not punished for our sinful 'nature' (I hate that word)...."

But how can "sin be natural" -- how can sin be "quite natural for us" -- if we don't have a sinful "nature"? Is there a difference between saying that sin is natural for us and saying that our nature is sinful? My guess is that you meant to say something else when you wrote that sin is "natural" for us. Again, I invite you to clarify your view. Please don't misconstrue that invitation as implying that I am unfamiliar with LDS teaching on sin.

Speaking for myself, I maintain that sin is indeed a disorder, something unnatural to human nature as created by God. Human nature, as created by God, is good; sin is a corruption, a perversion of that good human nature.

My source for this belief is the teaching of Jesus Christ himself. He compared sinners to sick people who needed a doctor (Matt. 9:12-13).

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

Rob,

Why do you continue to be so ridiculously presumpuous?

This is inappropriate anywhere but especially in this thread. You are not showing respect for nackhadlow's wishes regarding the conduct of this discussion.

You wrote:

Your limited comment did fail to address substance, but I never insinuated that you were incapable. At worst you were being dismissive, or at best…busy.

I simply asked you what you meant by a particular, and rather offensive, statement. I was not dismissive of the rest of your post; I didn't say anything about the rest of your post, waiting on you to clarify your offensive remark--which, again, was not appropriate for this discussion. You retracted the statement, I accepted your retraction and proposed to move forward. It should have stopped there.

I would attempt to respond to your comments on Romans 9, but I found them difficult to follow and my impression was that they were hurried. Let me make a distinction between two simple questions and perhaps we can find out together where we agree and disagree:

• Do you believe that God gives an equal opportunity to receive mercy to every individual? I think your answer is yes, but I'm asking to make sure.
• Do you believe that every individual actually receives God's mercy? I'm unclear as to what your answer is to this question.

Here's hoping for a substantive discussion.

[PacMan]

Rob,

We need to take another step back if my answers will mean anything: What is mercy? One or two cites would be great.

PacMan

Edited June 14, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

In the Bible, God's "mercy" generally denotes his granting to sinful human beings exemption or reprieve or relenting of his righteous anger or wrath, not holding their sins against them; in practical terms, it is God refraining from destroying people who deserve it (Deut. 13:7; Ps. 51:1; Prov. 28:13; Isa. 19:22; 60:10; Jer. 36:7; Dan. 9:9; Hab. 3:2; Zech. 1:12; Rom. 9:18, 23; Eph. 2:3-4; James 2:13).

Rob,

We need to take another step back if my answers will mean anything: What is mercy? One or two cites would be great.

PacMan

[mfbukowski]

This is inappropriate anywhere but especially in this thread. You are not showing respect for nackhadlow's wishes regarding the conduct of this discussion.

It seems you are only concerned about this when it is in your favor.

Since I have already been reprimanded for discussing the LDS view on these points, I have responded to some of Rob's misunderstandings on the LDS position on another thread, in which we are discussing the redemption of the dead.

It's totally clear...

Edited June 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[PacMan]

Rob,

Sorry it has taken a bit.

The problem with your citations of the definition of “mercy,” is that they give examples – not definitions. Certainly God’s mercy “blot out . . . transgressions” as Psalms says, but the references at times also point toward foregoing destruction. But there is no definition. Worse yet, there is no Webster’s 15 A.D. edition.

I am not pretending that I have touched on some great and marvelous secret, but I think the obvious can get lost in the discussion. Mercy is a term that touches the secular and spiritual, and everything in between. The term is used in a spectrum of contexts that can cover the crooked mob boss deciding to only shoot some innocent in the knee caps, to the saving grace of Jesus. But even in the gospel context, mercy isn’t limited to the saving grace. Although the most important, the term is also used in context of even temporal blessings – much as in the parable of the talents. Think of Christ and the palsied in Mark 2. Where was the mercy – in the forgiving or the healing? Obviously, in both.

I do not think you’d disagree with this (if you do, let me know). The important point is that all mercy is not equal. I do not doubt for an instant that there is discretion in the use of mercy, in distributing blessings, healings, etc. We would agree on that (meaning we’re half-way there). I think where we disagree is whether the same discretion is used in making the saving grace equally available.

Now, due to time, (except for Romans 10) I’ll get to the scriptures later that refer to “all” being offered mercy. But with that backdrop, I’ll address your two questions.

(1) [Does God give an equal opportunity to receive mercy to every individual?] Depends. As I just illustrated, it depends on the context. Could Jesus give an ear of corn to one and not the other? Sure. That’s mercy. Could he heal one and not the other? Sure. That’s also mercy. Those opportunities are not necessarily given equally. If we are speaking of his mercy as a saving grace, then the answer is yes.

(2) [Do I believe that every individual actually receives God’s mercy?] Yes, if not a little bit. I think one could argue that in life there are those experiences that make us a little bit more like God and open our understanding. Parents all over the world understand something about charity, and I think that having been given that opportunity is merciful because it makes them better people and brings them happiness.

Now, that is not to suggest that every person receives God’s saving mercy. Indeed, God has conditioned his mercy on obedience.

To this point, consider what Paul says in Romans 10. In verse 11 and 13: “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed…[and] whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” This is indiscriminate mercy. The door is open to all. But what’s interesting is the follow up question in verse 18. Essentially the question is, can they obey if they haven’t heard? And Paul says: “Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”

No doubt the message is pointed to Israel, but the message itself is much broader. Rather than saying that the word went to the ends of Israel, Paul says the word is extended to “all the world.” And in that it is extend to all, all [“whosoever”] are capable of being saved through God’s mercy. There is no mitigating language.

So although God doesn’t “owe” it to anyone in the traditional sense, he has made it available to all and will give all the opportunity to choose. But ultimately, we [as all the world] have to accept it. And many will choose not to. But they must have the choice, and Romans 10 makes that pretty clear that the choice will be given. Thus, while all are "given" God’s saving mercy, not all “receive” it. But that’s their fault, not God’s.

PacMan

Edited June 17, 2011 by PacMan

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

The problem with your citations of the definition of “mercy,” is that they give examples – not definitions. Certainly God’s mercy “blot out . . . transgressions” as Psalms says, but the references at times also point toward foregoing destruction. But there is no definition. Worse yet, there is no Webster’s 15 A.D. edition.

You asked for a definition and supporting citations. I gave you a definition and quite a few supporting citations. I think reading those biblical passages will substantiate my definition.

You then went on for a while about the fact that mercy could in some contexts mean something other than God's mercy in salvation. So? Every word has a variety of possible uses, but we were talking about mercy as it pertains to salvation from sin. No need to muddy the waters by bringing up uses extraneous to that context.

You wrote:

I think where we disagree is whether the same discretion is used in making the saving grace equally available.

Then you addressed my two questions. (1) Does God give an equal opportunity to receive mercy to every individual? You replied: "If we are speaking of his mercy as a saving grace, then the answer is yes." (2) Do you believe that every individual actually receives God’s mercy? You talked about non-saving mercy (again, that is irrelevant) and then commented, "Now, that is not to suggest that every person receives God’s saving mercy. Indeed, God has conditioned his mercy on obedience."

Okay then, in your view not everyone receives God's (saving) mercy. In that case, Romans 11:32 actually works against you if you interpret "all" there to mean every individual who has ever lived, because that text refers to God actually bestowing mercy, not simply making it available.

I have to say, in passing, that making mercy conditional on obedience is incoherent. It's in effect saying "God will mercifully refrain from punishing you for disobeying him if you obey him." What's merciful about that? Obedient people don't need mercy; disobedient people do.

I'll comment on Romans 10 later as time permits.

[PacMan]

--double post deleted--

Edited June 19, 2011 by PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

Irrelevant? I find it odd you say that. Indeed, context is critical to understanding the meaning of words and all contexts are not the same. Mercy is used in different contexts, meaning our understanding of the term must inculcate the various contexts.

Okay then, in your view not everyone receives God's (saving) mercy. In that case, Romans 11:32 actually works against you if you interpret "all" there to mean every individual who has ever lived, because that text refers to God actually bestowing mercy, not simply making it available.

Actually, you need to reread the passage. In every translation that I’ve looked at, the term is “may” or “might.” It is not definitive. But there is no doubt that it is extended to all and that the limiting factor is not God.

I have to say, in passing, that making mercy conditional on obedience is incoherent. It's in effect saying "God will mercifully refrain from punishing you for disobeying him if you obey him." What's merciful about that? Obedient people don't need mercy; disobedient people do.

That is a shocking statement, but I will humor you with one word: repentance. The disobedient and imperfect can receive grace through Christ, but they’ve got to repent and accept Him as Savior (a.k.a. obedience). But let us not make the mistake to think that grace isn’t made to “whomsoever” will accept the invitation - although not all will.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

Going back to previous posts to catch-up:

I’m going to respond to your other analysis as written. If you have difficulty following, refer back to your thread.

First, Romans 9 is in context of why Israel was blessed. As stated, I have no disagreement that God can elect to bless some and not others. Selectivity is not the problem - indeed, Israel was blessed. But nothing in this contexts suggests that saving mercy is not extended to all.

Second, Romans 11 is clear to me. I agree that there is a build up to this chapter, and it is clear that the build-up is that mercy wasn’t limited anymore to Israel – but the gentiles (every non-Jew). Your emphasis that Paul will make the Jews jealous and “thus save some of them” is illusory. Indeed, the fact that the catalyst of Jewish conversion is jealousy makes it clear that it is up to the them, the Jews, to make the change and return and not to the damning agenda of God.

Here’s the point: (1) Nothing to suggest that the promise to them previously had been contracted, meaning salvation was open to Israel. (2) Moreover importantly for our discussion is that verse 15 states that “ [the Jews’] rejection means the reconciliation of the world…” In other words, the gentiles are everyone else [the world], and that is to whom salvation was made available. (1) Jews + (2) gentiles = everyone.

Furthermore, the grafting of branches even further makes my point. First, branches were broken up – not because God wants to damn them but “because of their [Jewish] unbelief.” God’s offer was never retracted. Second, your notion that “some people will make it into the ‘tree’ and some will not’ is hogwash. The wild branches are the gentiles – the world. Everyone else has been grafted in, and God’s kindness [mercy] will be given “provided [they] continue in his kindness.” Again, it is conditional, but conditional to all because at this point everyone has been part of the tree.

Finally, we get to Rom 11:32 in which we see that through everyone’s disobedience “[God] may have mercy on all.” In other words, he’s open to saving everyone as people do not – as the Jews did – fall into unbelief.

Paul has been speaking throughout Romans 9-11 about the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. He has been arguing, against the presumption that God is obligated by his promises to Israel to save all Jews, that God has the right to show mercy to some and to harden others, specifically to save some Gentiles and not to save some Jews (Romans 9).

Absolutely untrue. The reason not all Jews receive his mercy is because they fell into unbelief. Period. That’s not God’s doing.

God's plan, then, is eventually to save both Jews and Gentiles, though the salvation of Israel as a whole will come only after the mass of Gentiles whom God chooses to save has come in.

Untrue. Nothing supports the “whom God chooses” notion. Indeed, if the blessing to the gentiles is limited to some, why is it called the “fullness?”

The word "all" here in context means all people generally irrespective of whether they are Jew or Gentile, not every person individually irrespective of whether they are believing. That is, "all" does not mean "all individuals" but "all groups," both Jews and Gentiles.

That is a complete adulteration of the text. Why did he then refer to the “world?” This makes no sense.

I should make something explicit here: there is simply no exegetically defensible way to interpret Paul as saying that while not everyone will receive mercy, everyone will be offered mercy. The "all" in verse 32 is inclusive of the "you" and "they" in verse 31 who in turn are disobedient and then "received mercy." The "all" in verse 32b are the all on whom God will "have mercy," not merely offer mercy.

Again, wrong. You forget the “may.” The text expresses God’s will that all may be saved, but that the offering of salvation is conditional on “continuing in kindness” and not falling into “disbelief.” Thus, only through your proof text can you conclude:

This leaves the redemptive-historical interpretation as the only exegetically viable position, the only one that fits the passage as a whole.

The conclusion does not fit the text.

PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

Almost forgot - 1 Cor 15:22 and 1 Tim 2:3-4

Your reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 assumes that the verse can be paraphrased as follows: "Because of Adam, everyone dies; now because of Christ, everyone will be made alive." However, that is not the best reading of the verse. It would be better paraphrased as follows: "Just as everyone who is united to Adam dies, so everyone who is united to Christ will be made alive." In the very next verse, Paul says that it is "those who belong to Christ" who will be made alive with him (v. 23). Paul often uses the expression "in Christ" in this way, to refer to the category of human beings who are united to Christ and will be redeemed through him.

That is what one could call “wresting” the scriptures. If this is unclear, then I have nothing else to argue. Paul said “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. “ The antecedent and consequent are reflective, meaning the references of “all” are parallel and synonomous. And v.23 simply regards timing in the resurrection, in that those “in Christ” will follow Christ as the firstfruit.

Lastly, you never explained 1 Timothy 2:3-4

“…God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”

This isn’t limiting. No Israel. No Jews. No gentiles. Just “all men.” Period.

PacMan

Edited June 19, 2011 by PacMan

[cdowis]

Bottom line==

How can a just God condemn millions of his children who are in ignorance. That is not justice, no matter how you parse the greek phrases in the Bible.

The modern prophets and scriptures give us an understanding of the relationship between justice and mercy, ignorance and knowledge. Give me one person who has heard and spoken to God, for thousands of those who are able to divide the Greek words and phrases of the apostle Paul.

If he really had said what you pretend that he did, he was mistaken. He was allowing his Pharasiac teachings to take over. He was reverting back to Saul.

Edited June 19, 2011 by cdowis

[David T]

Bottom line==

How can a just God condemn millions of his children who are in ignorance. That is not justice, no matter how you parse the greek phrases in the Bible.

The modern prophets and scriptures give us an understanding of the relationship between justice and mercy, ignorance and knowledge. Give me one person who has heard and spoken to God, for thousands of those who are able to divide the Greek words and phrases of the apostle Paul.

If he really had said what you pretend that he did, he was mistaken. He was allowing his Pharasiac teachings to take over. He was reverting back to Saul.

While it's certainly an understandable sentiment from an LDS perspective, This isn't useful for the purposes of this discussion. It basically says, "The sources Mormons accept that you don't give us our definition of the phrases you use, therefore, either you are wrong, or the source you are using was wrong to begin with" - it does not approach the subject from trying to understand Rob's perspective, which comes from acceptance of concepts of Primacy of Biblical Authority and Inerrancy. As I thought I'd make clear, I'd like the discussion to accept that claim as a 'given' in order to understand Rob's POV from that premise. Even though you strongly disagree with that premise. It involves trying to see from another's POV, and working within the rules of that system. The discussion or debate of legitimacy or lack thereof for premise of Inerrancy/Bible Only Authority is not the topic of this thread, and will distract from it.

I believe it is important to understand one's views within the context of their worldview/premise. Separating one's views from the whole of their worldview, and judging them isolated in the context of a different worldview is not very useful. For example, we have doctrines that are absurd to those who don't accept the premise of an independent uncreated pre-mortal existence of man's essential Being. If those (seemingly unrelated) doctrines are being judged in the context of a Creator/Creation dichotomony, of course it's going to seem absurd. Understanding comes from seeing a belief in the context of its full belief system.

Edited June 20, 2011 by nackhadlow

[TAO]

Hmmm... I am looking at 1 John 2:12

I ^awrite unto you, little ^bchildren, because your sins are forgiven you ^cfor his ^dname’s sake.

If he's talking about real children, I think that solves this problem.

Also, 1 John 3:9-10

Whosoever is ^aborn of God ^bdoth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

In this the children of God are ^amanifest, and the ^bchildren of the devil: whosoever doeth not ^crighteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Again, is it referring to young children or not? If so, it kinda ends this problem.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[cdowis]

While it's certainly an understandable sentiment from an LDS perspective, This isn't useful for the purposes of this discussion. It basically says, "The sources Mormons accept that you don't give us our definition of the phrases you use, therefore, either you are wrong, or the source you are using was wrong to begin with"

- it does not approach the subject from trying to understand Rob's perspective, which comes from acceptance of concepts of Primacy of Biblical Authority and Inerrancy. As I thought I'd make clear, I'd like the discussion to accept that claim as a 'given' in order to understand Rob's POV from that premise. Even though you strongly disagree with that premise.

OK, the rules of this game clearly do not interest me.

Just as long everyone agrees that Mormon doctrine cannot be injected into the discussion. You cannot have a "Bible only" discussion without agreement that parsing the Greek is the only way to get to "true" doctrines.

But don't pretend you are actually talking about the Gospel, but engaging in a theological debate that has been going on for a thousand years, and still has not been resolved. Catholics vs Luther and Calvin.

It's only a game, so have fun.

[David T]

OK, the rules of this game clearly do not interest me.

Just as long everyone agrees that Mormon doctrine cannot be injected into the discussion. You cannot have a "Bible only" discussion without agreement that parsing the Greek is the only way to get to "true" doctrines.

I would rephrase that to say you cannot have a "Bible only" discussion without agreement that parsing the Greek is the only way to understand the text on its own terms.

But don't pretend you are actually talking about the Gospel, but engaging in a theological debate that has been going on for a thousand years, and still has not been resolved. Catholics vs Luther and Calvin.

It's only a game, so have fun.

I haven't pretended anything. CFR if you're going to assert that.

It's been my experience that most lifelong Mormons aren't even aware of the theological debate, let alone understand or be able to articulate anyone elses' position. Do you think your regular random Church member could articulate the difference between Luther and Calvin? Not that it matters when it comes to living one's own belief.

But if you're going to be engaging those from other faiths - especially in a debate context - it is essential that you have a good grasp on the other opinion, or any discussion will unavoidably be a mishmash of misunderstandings and strawmen being hacked to shreds.

Just as much as our positions on Salvation and Exaltation are nearly always relegated to a misunderstood Strawman by our opponents, many Mormons tend to do the same with other positions they don't agree with. It unfortunately even happens in General Conference from time to time.

I wanted to use this thread to let a view that many Mormons (including myself) may not understand, nor can comprehend, be explained and defended by someone who does believe it, and does have it fit as part of his worldview.

This thread isn't the MTC referral center. It's not Nephi's tower. It's not a testimony meeting. Each of those things are important and have their place. But here, in this thread, I want dialogue and discussion that leads to greater understanding. Not calls to repentance.

Sorry if you don't like it.

Edited June 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[PacMan]

If someone could kindly remind Rob that this thread exists, in that he's still active in other threads. This is not to say that I want to be accused of insinuating Rob of anything (well, other than neglect). There are simply a number of passages that we are still tossing around, and others he has not yet treated at all - both which I would like a reply to. Again, I'm not suggesting he can't answer, but just wish he would.

Thanks.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

I don't have time or inclination to debate every point of this discussion endlessly. We were discussing mercy. You seemed fine to do so. Then you asked me, "What is mercy?" Your question was posed in the context of discussing God's mercy in relation to salvation. I answered in that context. In response, you brought up usages or meanings of the word mercy in non-salvation contexts. Such usages are, I pointed out, irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is God's mercy in salvation. You responded:

Irrelevant? I find it odd you say that. Indeed, context is critical to understanding the meaning of words and all contexts are not the same. Mercy is used in different contexts, meaning our understanding of the term must inculcate the various contexts.

If you think the word is not referring to mercy in salvation in a particular text under discussion, feel free to argue for that interpretation. Otherwise, your legitimate point about words having different meanings in different contexts has no bearing on the meaning of the word in the contexts we are discussing.

On Romans 11:32, you wrote:

Actually, you need to reread the passage. In every translation that I’ve looked at, the term is “may” or “might.” It is not definitive.

Here is where knowing Greek (and knowing English as well!) is helpful. The Greek wording uses the word hina followed by the verb for having mercy in the subjunctive mood. This construction, hina + subjunctive, expresses purpose, not permission or possibility. The construction means that God's purpose was to show mercy to all. In English, "so that he might" can also express the same idea of purpose.

You wrote:

But there is no doubt that it is extended to all and that the limiting factor is not God.

Your language here, "extended to all," is ambiguous. Do you mean that God actually is merciful to every individual, or that God offers mercy to every individual, or that God provides everyone with an explicit opportunity to receive this mercy, or what?

I had written: "I have to say, in passing, that making mercy conditional on obedience is incoherent. It's in effect saying "God will mercifully refrain from punishing you for disobeying him if you obey him." What's merciful about that? Obedient people don't need mercy; disobedient people do." You replied:

That is a shocking statement, but I will humor you with one word: repentance. The disobedient and imperfect can receive grace through Christ, but they’ve got to repent and accept Him as Savior (a.k.a. obedience).

More ambiguity. Does "repent and accept Him as Savior" mean "obedience" in the sense of obeying the gospel message to acknowledge one's sinfulness and throw oneself on the mercy of God in Christ as one's only hope for salvation? I agree with that idea. Or, does it mean "obedience" in the sense that if you're really repentant and really accept Christ as Savior you will join the LDS Church, get baptized, receive the LDS priesthoods, sustain the living prophet, faithfully give your tithes, become worthy to enter the temple, perform proxy baptisms and other rites for the dead, etc., etc., etc.? If that's what you mean, I respectfully disagree.

You wrote:

But let us not make the mistake to think that grace isn’t made to “whomsoever” will accept the invitation - although not all will.

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether God is obligated to provide every individual with an explicit invitation to accept Jesus Christ as Savior.

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

Regarding my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:22, you wrote:

That is what one could call “wresting” the scriptures. If this is unclear, then I have nothing else to argue. Paul said “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. “ The antecedent and consequent are reflective, meaning the references of “all” are parallel and synonomous. And v.23 simply regards timing in the resurrection, in that those “in Christ” will follow Christ as the firstfruit.

I guess you have nothing else to argue, because your view is far from being clearly correct. Your claim that the two occurrences of "all" are "parallel and synonymous" is what needs proving. When Peter said, "Let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel" (Acts 4:10), in context the first "all" is a subset of the second. The text does not simply say "all...all" but "all of you...all the people of Israel." Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul does not say simply "all...all" but "in Adam all...in Christ all...." Context shows in this case that the second "all" is a subset of the first: all in Christ is a subset of all in Adam. In Romans 10:12, Paul says that "the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. (Rom 10:12 KJV); here the second "all" is again a subset of the first "all": Jesus is Lord over all people, but he is rich to save all those who call on him. Context must determine whether the two occurrences of "all" refer to precisely the same group. In the context of 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection to immortality that Paul is discussing is a resurrection for the redeemed only, not for everyone. The expression "in Christ" in this very chapter refers to those who have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:18, 19, 22, 31), as it does throughout Paul's epistles (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:2, 4, 30; 3:1; 4:10, 15, 17). Paul begins the chapter by saying that the Corinthians will be saved by the gospel if they continue to hold on to it in faith (vv. 1-2). Those who will be resurrected "in Christ" are those who "belong to Christ" (vv. 22-23).

1 Corinthians 15:22 simply cannot prove the doctrine that God gives everyone the same opportunity to be saved but not everyone takes it. If it's talking about salvation, and if the second "all" means all people without exception, then it teaches that everyone without exception will be saved. But you aren't making that claim.