Has The Church'S View Of Grace/Works Changed?

[Vance]

It is only contradictory if you come to the Bible with the assumption that he cannot create a world where He has sovereign control over everything and yet also gives his creatures a measure of freedom in their choices.

The fact that you want to ignore the contradiction doesn't make it go away.

We are either what God made us (from nothing) and we are no more or less than He made us to be, OR we are, as the Bible teaches, agents unto ourselves.

The assumption that you are bringing to the table is the assumption of "creatio ex nihilo".

If you don't have such an assumption then my position naturally comes out of reading the entire Bible.

Only if you neglect all of the contradictory verses, as you are doing.

That article would have given you some examples of where it comes from.

I took a brief look at the article. Sorry, but I find Biblical evidence against every step of "TULIP".

Just saying.

I guess because of our differing views of God you may not see God as capable of doing this.

Sorry, but I don't find God capable of doing contradictory things. Either He is in total control or we have agency.

[djholmess]

Like;

1-God has total control and nothing happens without his approval

2-Man has agency and can make decisions

Like I said they are not assumptions, they come out of reading the text of the Bible

Edited July 23, 2012 by djholmess

[Calm]

It is only contradictory if you come to the Bible with the assumption that he cannot create a world where He has sovereign control over everything and yet also gives his creatures a measure of freedom in their choices.

If you don't have such an assumption then my position naturally comes out of reading the entire Bible. That article would have given you some examples of where it comes from.

I guess because of our differing views of God you may not see God as capable of doing this.

We don't tend to make that assumption because we see it as illogical and we see God as a logical being.

We assume that God could indeed make a world where he was sovereign over all, where only his Will matter and all else bowed to his Will and even that he could create such a world that had the illusion of free will for his creatures. However, we believe that he has chosen not to do this and instead has created a world where the source of man's will to choose is due to man's inherent eternal nature, not from something God has imposed upon him and that God has given man a way to either promote his own will or to align it to God's and in doing so become one with Him with all that implies.

[Vance]

If mans will is independent of God when did it come into existence?

It didn't come "into existence", it always existed.

Was it part of your eternal intelligence?

Most likely.

If not when and how did you come to a point where you had a will?

See above.

[Calm]

If mans will is independent of God when did it come into existence? Was it part of your eternal intelligence?

That is the source of man's will, yes, whether it is the unique qualities that shape our will when God gave us a way to express agency or whether the will itself has always existed has not been revealed, but man's eternal nature is what is being expressed through his exercise of will/agency.

Clarified it as the other posts made me see there might be confusion.

Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

If mans will is independent of God when did it come into existence? Was it part of your eternal intelligence? If not when and how did you come to a point where you had a will?

It is possible that, to some extent, our individual wills have always existed, or they may have come into existence at spirit birth and/or even to some extent at physical birth. We just don't know for certain, nor do we need to know. All we need to know is that, as natural men, our thoughts are not his thoughts and our ways our not his ways, and that the gospel of Christ is designed to bring us to at-one-ment with Christ, making us all of one heart, mind, and will--not ontologically, but in purpose and thought, even as the Son is one with the Father. We do so by subjecting the will of the flesh to will of the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 23, 2012 by wenglund

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While no one can work their way into Heaven doing nothing won't work either.

Grace and works are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is required for admission. Also in all scripture, no matter the book "works" is the only thing we are judged upon.

[djholmess]

Sorry, but I don't find God capable of doing contradictory things. Either He is in total control or we have agency.

So what do you make of Philippians 2:12-13?

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

This would be one of the example where I would say points to the concept I have been talking about. Paul commands his readers to work out their own salvation... but then the reason they are to do that is because God works in them to will and do his pleasure.

[ERayR]

Like I said they are not assumptions, they come out of reading the text of the Bible

You have no problem with the contradictions?

[Vance]

So what do you make of Philippians 2:12-13?

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Interesting, yet your interpretation of it is contradictory to the several verses I already posted (plus the ones I left un-posted).

YOUR interpretation causes an internal contradiction within these very verses.

Verse 12 CLEARLY indicates that men are agents unto themselves, that "work(ing) out (their) own salvation is within their own choice. Yet your interpretation of vs. 13 precludes this.

It is YOUR interpretation that causes the contradiction. I simply see vs 13 as God "enticing" them to will and to do good. Just as the devil is "enticing" them to do opposite. And THEY chose to obey these enticings.

God doesn't force their will.

This would be one of the example where I would say points to the concept I have been talking about. Paul commands his readers to work out their own salvation...

Which they can NOT do without having agency.

but then the reason they are to do that is because God works in them to will and do his pleasure.

Yup, the Spirit works within them by enticing them to do and to will good. BUT he NEVER forces them.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Vance

[Calm]

If you don't have such an assumption then my position naturally comes out of reading the entire Bible.

I would debate this. You have your own set of assumptions that you bring to the text. To claim that any reading comes "naturally" to a text is wishful thinking.

I know that from a human perspective that seems contradictory however I am forced to hold this position due to the teaching of the Bible.

No, you are forced to hold this position because of your interpretation of the Bible that results from the assumptions you bring to your reading....just as we hold our positions due the assumptions we bring. Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

Interesting, yet your interpretation of it is contradictory to the several verses I already posted (plus the ones I left un-posted).

YOUR interpretation causes an internal contradiction within these very verses.

Verse 12 CLEARLY indicates that men are agents unto themselves, that "work(ing) out (their) own salvation is within their own choice. Yet your interpretation of vs. 13 precludes this.

It is YOUR interpretation that causes the contradiction. I simply see vs 13 as God "enticing" them to will and to do good. Just as the devil is "enticing" them to do opposite. And THEY chose to obey these enticings.

God doesn't force their will.

Which they can NOT do without having agency.

Yup, the Spirit works within them by enticing them to do and to will good. BUT he NEVER forces them.

Of course it is my intrepretation...the question is which intrepretation actually corresponds to the words and intentions of the original author...the verse says you must work so you conclude man has free agency...then the verse says God works ('bring about' is the meaning of the Greek) in you so you conclude God is only indicting you. Inconsistency.

[djholmess]

I would debate this. You have your own set of assumptions that you bring to the text. To claim that any reading comes "naturally" to a text is wishful thinking.

No, you are forced to hold this position because of your interpretation of the Bible that results from the assumptions you bring to your reading....just as we hold our positions due the assumptions we bring.

So you don't believe it is possible to understand the words of God? If everyone has preconceived assumptions that effect everything they read then how can anyone understand anything?

What exactly do you think my assumptions are anyway...I don't deny I have some but I try not to have any that aren't derived from the Bible.

[CASteinman]

Therein lies our fundamental difference. Not that I think it is my goal in life to debate intrepretations, but that in order to live out the gospel and seek to be conformed into the image of Christ you have to be doing it in the right way. Otherwise our efforts may prove to be in vain.

But if they are in vain, it is because it was predetermined and is the will of God that they are in vain. Ultimately, no matter how hard we try, they will continue to be in vain because we are fighting God, since that is his desire. On the other hand, if he does not want these things to prove to be in vain, it will not matter what we do, they will not be in vain.. even if we try to make them in vain.

[CASteinman]

It is possible that, to some extent, our individual wills have always existed, or they may have come into existence at spirit birth and/or even to some extent at physical birth. We just don't know for certain, nor do we need to know. All we need to know is that, as natural men, our thoughts are not his thoughts and our ways our not his ways, and that the gospel of Christ is designed to bring us to at-one-ment with Christ, making us all of one heart, mind, and will--not ontologically, but in purpose and thought, even as the Son is one with the Father. We do so by subjecting the will of the flesh to will of the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would like to point out that D&C 93 reveals that agency is somehow eternal in nature:

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

[Vance]

Of course it is my intrepretation...the question is which intrepretation actually corresponds to the words and intentions of the original author...

Ok, let us look at the Greek and see if it follows your interpretation. From Strong's,

http://www.bluelette...2&t=KJV#conc/12

vs 12 "work out" is from the Greek "κατεργάζομαι" katergazomai meaning,

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G2716&t=KJV

1) to perform, accomplish, achieve

2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results

a) of things: bring about, result in

3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing

And then,

http://www.bluelette...2&t=KJV#conc/13

vs 13 "worketh" is from the Greek "ἐνεργέω" energeō meaning,

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1754&t=KJV

1) to be operative, be at work, put forth power

a) to work for one, aid one

2) to effect

3) to display one's activity, show one's self operative

So, can you see the difference?

the verse says you must work so you conclude man has free agency...

YUP!!

then the verse says God works ('bring about' is the meaning of the Greek) in you so you conclude God is only indicting you.

I said "enticing" not "indicting".

"to be operative", YES as an enticer and helper

"be at work" YES as an enticer and helper

"put forth power" YES as an enticer and helper

" to work for one, YES as an enticer and helper

"aid one" YES as an enticer and helper

Need I go on?

Inconsistency.

The inconsistency is in your interpretation.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Vance

[CASteinman]

What exactly do you think my assumptions are anyway...I don't deny I have some but I try not to have any that aren't derived from the Bible.

Here is one that you have that was not derived from the Bible: The Bible is always and in every way, the Word of God.

Here is another one that you have that was not derived from the Bible: The Bible is reliable in extremely fine particulars even if not perfect.

Here is another one that you have that was not derived from the Bible: djholmess interpretation of Bible passages is correct.

None of these things is derived from the Bible. (And yes, I know the passages that talk about the "Word of God" but none of them claim the Bible = "the Word of God".)

Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Vance]

What exactly do you think my assumptions are anyway...I don't deny I have some but I try not to have any that aren't derived from the Bible.

1)The Bible is inerrant,

2) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of the Bible is inerrant,

3) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY reasonable one,

4) Your (Calvin's) interpretation is the default one, All others must be do to nefarious motives.

5) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of a few verses written by Paul take preeminence OVER ALL others (including those quoting Jesus).

[wenglund]

I would like to point out that D&C 93 reveals that agency is somehow eternal in nature:

Agreed.

However, our mortal flesh is not eternal, and thus the "will" of our flesh is somehow temporal.

Also, our "will" changes reciprocally, in part, due to how we exercise our agency (when we choose good, are wills become the servant of good, and vice-versa). In this sense, our will may be born anew from time to time.

As such, when it comes to identify the eternal nature or beginnings of our "wills", there is some degree of fuzziness that warrants a measure of uncertainty and lack of the emphatic, particularly when informally answering questions asked by people not of our faith and who may not accept our broader canon of scripture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

However, our mortal flesh is not eternal, and thus the "will" of our flesh is somehow temporal.

Also agreed. Perhaps this is where the phrase "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it" comes to play. And this might also be the reason that God says in Moses that He "gave" man his Agency in the Garden.

[cdowis]

duplicate

Edited July 23, 2012 by cdowis

[Calm]

So you don't believe it is possible to understand the words of God? If everyone has preconceived assumptions that effect everything they read then how can anyone understand anything?

With the Spirit.

[djholmess]

So, can you see the difference?

YUP!!

I said "enticing" not "indicting".

"to be operative", YES as an enticer and helper

"be at work" YES as an enticer and helper

"put forth power" YES as an enticer and helper

" to work for one, YES as an enticer and helper

"aid one" YES as an enticer and helper

Need I go on?

The inconsistency is in your interpretation.

Hold on a minute, your conclusions do not follow at all, let's put the words in

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

For it is God which 'is operative' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good plaesure.

For is is God which 'works' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure.

For it is God which 'puts forth power' in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure.

The object of Gods operations/work/power is your will and your doing. How can you possibly comes to a conclusion that this is only limited to enticing when all the descriptors talk about God actively using his power to cause your Willing and Doing.

Further look at the form of each Greek word, your 'work' is in the middle or passive sense yet Gods 'working' is in the active sense. This is directly opposite to your intrepretation where man gets the free agency and God is regulated to only enticing. If Paul wanted to say what you think he says he would have switched which word was active and which was passive.

[djholmess]

1)The Bible is inerrant,

2) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of the Bible is inerrant,

3) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY reasonable one,

4) Your (Calvin's) interpretation is the default one, All others must be do to nefarious motives.

5) Your (Calvin's) interpretation of a few verses written by Paul take preeminence OVER ALL others (including those quoting Jesus).

Regarding 1 I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

2-4; I am not presuming my (haven't read Calvin on any of the verses we have talked about) interpretation is correct, I am trying to establish the correct interpretation of what Paul actually meant to communicate within the context, grammar and words of his writings.

5; I am not presuming they take precedence I am assuming that because the Bible is the inspired word of God it will present consistent teaching.

[djholmess]

With the Spirit.

Two clarifying questions;

Do you believe the Spirit inspired the words of the Apostles and Prophets. In other words when, for example, Paul wrote his original (lets not argue about what we have today) copy of Romans did the Spirit inspire his words and grammar in order to communicate a specific idea?

In your view can the Spirit give people different intreprations of the same verse?