Zakuska Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 In other words, it is not falsifiable.And if it didn't succeed then it wasn't "irresistible grace".So, it is only "irresistible grace" when it succeeds. When it fails, it is NOT "irresistible grace". :crazy:The only way Grace could fail is if it where "irresitable" in some cases.Even Paul knows that...Galatians 5:44 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Mudcat Posted November 1, 2011 Posted November 1, 2011 As I have likely expressed a time or two, I don't find the concept that God designed a universe in which all the choices of humanity as being completely consistent with His sovereign will as something I consider the most reasonable one available.The idea that God limits the grace He affords them to those He deigns to, is something that is beyond my grasp. If grace is limited then it would seem God would be limited.That being said and despite my own disagreement, I don't discount the notion of irresistible grace. I believe I have accepted the witness that the Holy Spirit has seen fit to give me. But considering the fact that I did accept such a witness from the Holy Spirit, I am truthfully uncertain as to if I could have chosen otherwise. In fact, I don't know that I could have. I certainly like to think I could.. I mean it would make my own views on freedom of the will work out and that sort of thing..., but I don't know.To me the discussion on the irresistible/resistible nature of grace has to do with how we view the "size" of God. It makes a great deal of sense to me that "God" didn't let us choose anything apart from his wishes and accomplished His divine will would be a smaller sort of "God" than one that achieved His divine will while taking into account our own choice in matters.I don't discount views that propose the irresistability of grace, I just disagree with them in general. God says we should be perfect... but I am not. Trying to be like Christ is a very hard road. I stumble a lot. In a sense, it would be nice to coin my failure off to some plan that God meant to happen.To me, if we do have the choice to accept Christ, then what Christ did makes perfect sense. However if we don't have such choice, then it doesn't make sense that he would put himself through that.Maybe we are just clay in the potters hands. I like to think we have the power to put ourselves into His hands. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 2 Nephi 25:29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.D&C 29:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;2 Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer.Not that I care who anybody prays to, but you have to keep in mind that these scriptures were written when Mormonism was essentially a modalist faith. Smith did not often take very good care to distinguish between the Father and the Son. That said, why should a Mormon not be allowed to pray to Jesus? Or even to the Heavenly Mother? Even, for that matter, their departed ancestors. A prayer is just talking. It is not a magic incantation that requires exactitude or else it won't work.
zerinus Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Not that I care who anybody prays to, but you have to keep in mind that these scriptures were written when Mormonism was essentially a modalist faith. Smith did not often take very good care to distinguish between the Father and the Son. That said, why should a Mormon not be allowed to pray to Jesus? Or even to the Heavenly Mother? Even, for that matter, their departed ancestors. A prayer is just talking. It is not a magic incantation that requires exactitude or else it won't work.Your agenda driven posts are getting boring.
Storm Rider Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Your agenda driven posts are getting boring. Amen. My eyes keep rolling back in my head when I see the poster. They weren't modalist; read the Book of Mormon as a whole; focus on 3 Nephi (hint) and you will then understand that modalism does not work! Not even for all those who try to foist that claptrap on the world.
altersteve Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Not that I care who anybody prays to, but you have to keep in mind that these scriptures were written when Mormonism was essentially a modalist faith. Smith did not often take very good care to distinguish between the Father and the Son. That said, why should a Mormon not be allowed to pray to Jesus? Or even to the Heavenly Mother? Even, for that matter, their departed ancestors. A prayer is just talking. It is not a magic incantation that requires exactitude or else it won't work.Um... no it's not.
thesometimesaint Posted November 2, 2011 Posted November 2, 2011 Cobalt-70:webster()Mo´dal`ist n. 1. (Theol.) One who regards Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of being, and not as persons, thus denying personal distinction in the Trinity.
Calm Posted November 3, 2011 Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Amen. My eyes keep rolling back in my head when I see the poster. They weren't modalist; read the Book of Mormon as a whole; focus on 3 Nephi (hint) and you will then understand that modalism does not work! Not even for all those who try to foist that claptrap on the world.Some other scriptures: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/SabellianismAlso http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=13&num=2&id=392&q=Modalism&search_result Edited November 3, 2011 by calmoriah
Bernard Gui Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 (edited) Calvin's bad handling of the Servetus affair was understandable (though still wrong) given the nature of church-state relations in Europe for the thousand years preceding his day. Calvin made no attempt to hide what he was doing; he acted as almost any man in his position might have acted in that situation. Despite that one dark blemish, in general Calvin's teaching and practice moved Christianity forward in a better direction even in that area of the relations of church and state. In large measure, paradoxically, we have Calvin to thank for the fact that Christianity eventually abandoned the church-state relation that led to Servetus's execution. By contrast, Joseph Smith's doctrine and practice of plural marriage (for example) was a huge step backwards morally from where Christianity was in the early nineteenth century. Joseph covered up his actions, lied to his own people about it (even lying about it in LDS scripture), and made the practice the basis of a doctrine of marriage that remains a key element of LDS doctrine today. Making this sort of comparison turns out very badly for the LDS prophets.You have an interesting perspective on confessed murder...badly handled, but understandable and good for christianity. Calvin gets a pass on murder, and his theology is unaffected by his one dark blemishIt can also be said that Joseph handled the polygamy affair badly. That could also be understandablegiven the circumstances. Joseph does not get a pass on polygamy, and his theology is therefore corrupt.Fascinating, passing on murder, but condemning on polygamy. Oh, wait! Didn't Calvin give one ofhis friends a pass on polygamy?You did not answer whether Joseph's supposed indiscretions affected his theology.Apparently, murder did not affect Calvin's theology, but was beneficial for "Christianity."Also, there are unanswered questions at Post 72.BernardBernard Edited November 5, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Rob Bowman Posted November 5, 2011 Posted November 5, 2011 Bernard,My answers to your questions are No, Yes (if he is not one of the elect), and No (in the case of the elect).1. Do the individuals do anything to deserve being brought to light? My understanding of CVNSM: no.2. Can an individual decline the invitation to be brought to life? My understanding of CVNSM: no3. Does God ever fail to make the change succeed? My understanding of CVNSM: noBernardPS: I get headaches when Calvinism is discussed. From my experience, Calvinists do not agreeamong themselves exactly what Calvinism is. And when you ask, they tell you to read some books.
Zakuska Posted November 7, 2011 Author Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Bernard,My answers to your questions are No, Yes (if he is not one of the elect), and No (in the case of the elect).Re: 2Very good Rob... there are quite a few who do indeed reject the invitation.Romans 10:2121 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.So what exactly does this verse tell us about who the "elect" are? Edited November 7, 2011 by Zakuska
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 If grace is irresitable as Calvins Tulip implies. Why are there so many people who are able to resist it and be condemned to the lake of fire?I think Calvin is leading many to another Christ.
Rob Bowman Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Zakuska,You wrote:Re: 2Very good Rob... there are quite a few who do indeed reject the invitation.Romans 10:2121 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.So what exactly does this verse tell us about who the "elect" are?That not everyone in Israel is among the elect, although God does have an elect remnant from Israel that he will save, as Paul goes on to explain in chapter 11.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 7, 2011 Posted November 7, 2011 Zakuska,You wrote:That not everyone in Israel is among the elect, although God does have an elect remnant from Israel that he will save, as Paul goes on to explain in chapter 11.Because he promised to do so...they were his chosen because they listened and obeyed.
Zakuska Posted November 7, 2011 Author Posted November 7, 2011 Because he promised to do so...they were his chosen because they listened and obeyed.Right you are.
Zakuska Posted November 7, 2011 Author Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Zakuska,You wrote:That not everyone in Israel is among the elect, although God does have an elect remnant from Israel that he will save, as Paul goes on to explain in chapter 11.Intresting you should bring up chapter 11 and its Universal salvation formula.Romans 1125 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Edited November 7, 2011 by Zakuska
Recommended Posts