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

[CASteinman]

How would you say that God meant their actions for good and yet at the same time the brothers also meant their actions for evil?

The brothers had free will -- under no control of God -- to intend evil. God, however, provided a path for Joseph -- through meeting appropriately receptive people and by being receptive himself -- to become helpful to his family. Not through mind control or making things happen but by influencing people and helping people, such as the dreams and the power of interpretation.

[CASteinman]

My beliefs aren’t based on my understanding how things work but on the teachings of the Bible.

The idolatry of the Bible is the source of many errors.

1) God is sovereign over all things

2) Man is held accountable for the desires he has and the choices he makes

Yes. This God you believe in, controls everything.. even desires and choices and yet holds others accountable for those desires and choices over which He has ultimate and total control.

And it is a "mystery".

[djholmess]

The brothers had free will -- under no control of God -- to intend evil. God, however, provided a path for Joseph -- through meeting appropriately receptive people and by being receptive himself -- to become helpful to his family. Not through mind control or making things happen but by influencing people and helping people, such as the dreams and the power of interpretation.

Your explaination has nothing to do with the actual words of Genesis 50:20. Speaking to his brothers Joseph said, " ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good"

How can God mean/intend the actions of the brothers when they meant the same actions for evil. We're not talking about Joseph or anything that happened after he was sold into slavery, Joseph is specifically addressing the actions of his brothers. God meant those actions and they also meant those actions, how can this be so?

Or how do you explain Acts 4:27-28

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

I presume you believe crucifying Jesus was a sin which the people both chose to do and are morally accountable for doing? So if it was their 'free will' decision to do it how had God determined before hand what Herod or Pilate would do?

[djholmess]

Paul was not saying what you think he was saying. May I suggest that you carefully read what Peter said.

1Pe 3:

"Our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

He also gave additional cousel in the same epistle:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

The historical Christian church has replaced the prophets with theologians and scholars, such as yourself. You are not authoried to speak for the Lord, to give your private interpretation, wresting the scriptures, but the Lord gave us apostles and prophets in our day as the foundation of the church.

They have received authority to receive revelation and to interpret the scriptures.

Are you authorised to interpret 1 Peter 3: as to talking about what Paul said in the verses of his I quoted? If so can you tell me specifically what the 'some things' are that are hard and what things aren't? What iiSight is you who are wresting the scriptures to your own destruction by ingnoing Paul because you have decided which parts of his teachings should be ignored?

Edited July 22, 2012 by djholmess

[Calm]

LDS escape the morally responsible issue by having men as eternal beings with desires and intents that are the result at least in part of their eternal nature, not having been "programmed into" them by God. Whether or not God has complete foreknowledge or knows all that is possible to be known and therefore man's behaviour is determined (though by his own will, not God's because God allows him to exercise his own will and accept or reject God's influence as man desires, not God) is another issue and is up for debate.

how had God determined before hand what Herod or Pilate would do

It is possible that God has complete foreknowledge and therefore knew that they would choose to do what they did even though he did not make their nature to do so. It is also possible that he knew that due to human nature someone would eventually cause Christ to be crucified, but did not know exactly who it would be until the person made the choice.

LDS doctrine is, I believe, unsettled between the two types of free will that Calvinism does not accept.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

LDS escape the morally responsible issue by having men as eternal beings with desires and intents that are the result at least in part of their eternal nature, not having been "programmed into" them by God. Whether or not God has complete foreknowledge or knows all that is possible to be known and therefore man's behaviour is determined (though by his own will, not God's because God allows him to exercise his own will and accept or reject God's influence as man desires, not God) is another issue and is up for debate.

Ok, but how then would you interpret Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27. I'm interested because I am yet to encounter a consistent interpretation that leads to anything other than that 1) God controlled and meant the actions talked about 2) the men controlled and meant their evil actions.

[CASteinman]

Your explaination has nothing to do with the actual words of Genesis 50:20.

That is incorrect. Your focus is on the word "intend".. as in what God intended of the outcome.

The word used is "chashab". It is the same word used for the brothers "Thought".

So that the sentence is this:

As for you, ye chashab against me evil -- God chashab it for good, in order to do as (was done) this day, to keep alive a numerous people.

The word chashab means: "to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count"

Which is definitely contemplated in my explanation.

Moreover, you are focused on the notion that the brothers intended an "act" and therefore God intended the "act" as well. But that is not the gist of the sentence. It is not about the act but about the outcome.

They intended an evil outcome for their brother. God intended a good one. The intentions of either party however could have been thwarted. God could have been thwarted, particularly by a faithless Joseph and the brothers, by God.

I know you brought up other passages of scripture but I prefer to stick to one at a time, rather than jump around.

[CASteinman]

Ok, but how then would you interpret Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27. I'm interested because I am yet to encounter a consistent interpretation that leads to anything other than that 1) God controlled and meant the actions talked about 2) the men controlled and meant their evil actions.

I have given you an interpretation that is consistent and leads away from your notion. You may not want to accept that interpretation, but that is not the same thing as not being given one.

[djholmess]

LDS escape the morally responsible issue by having men as eternal beings with desires and intents that are the result at least in part of their eternal nature, not having been "programmed into" them by God. Whether or not God has complete foreknowledge or knows all that is possible to be known and therefore man's behaviour is determined (though by his own will, not God's because God allows him to exercise his own will and accept or reject God's influence as man desires, not God) is another issue and is up for debate.

It is possible that God has complete foreknowledge and therefore knew that they would choose to do what they did even though he did not make their nature to do so. It is also possible that he knew that due to human nature someone would eventually cause Christ to be crucified, but did not know exactly who it would be until the person made the choice.

LDS doctrine is, I believe, unsettled between the two types of free will that Calvinism does not accept.

I' sorry but how do the actual words of Acts 4 allow this?

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God was the one who anointed Herod and Pilate (specific people) to do what he In his council had determined (not foreseen) to take place.

[djholmess]

The word used is "chashab". It is the same word used for the brothers "Thought".

So that the sentence is this:

As for you, ye chashab against me evil -- God chashab it for good, in order to do as (was done) this day, to keep alive a numerous people.

The word chashab means: "to think, plan, esteem, calculate, invent, make a judgment, imagine, count"

So what does the word 'it' refer to in 'God chashab it for good.'. Isn't it referring back to the thing that the brothers chashab?

In 50:15 the it that is being referred to is clearly defined

15 And when Joseph's brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us, and will certainly requite us all the evil which we did unto him.

The brothers came to Joseph fearing he would punish them for their evil actions. Joseph says he won't because whilst they meant (though/planned...) their actions for evil God meant their (the it) actions for good.

Yes God had more than just the evil actions of the brothers in his grand plan to make Joseph second in command of Egypt but specifically Joseph is talking to his brothers about their actions.

[Calm]

I' sorry but how do the actual words of Acts 4 allow this?

27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,

28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

God was the one who anointed Herod and Pilate (specific people) to do what he In his council had determined (not foreseen) to take place.

The anointed one in verse 27 was Christ though I agree with you 28 says the end and likely behaviour that led to the end result was determined.

[CASteinman]

So what does the word 'it' refer to in 'God chashab it for good.'. Isn't it referring back to the thing that the brothers chashab?

It is "outcome"

[CASteinman]

In 50:15 the it that is being referred to is clearly defined

No. Otherwise the word chashab would have been used there too. But the word used there is not something intended but something meted out.

[Calm]

See D&C 121 and 122 for LDS doctrine on how God turns evil to good, especially:

5 If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;

7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

[djholmess]

No. Otherwise the word chashab would have been used there too. But the word used there is not something intended but something meted out.

But the object is the same, in verse 15 it is the evil of the brothers which was meted out and in verse 20 the intention being talked about is their evil. Is it your interpretation that verse 15 and 20 are referring to two different evils?

[CASteinman]

But the object is the same, in verse 15 it is the evil of the brothers which was meted out and in verse 20 the intention being talked about is their evil. Is it your interpretation that verse 15 and 20 are referring to two different evils?

No, it is a different "object". Otherwise the verb would be the same. It is not.

[djholmess]

It is "outcome"

20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, TO BRING TO PASS, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

It can't be the outcome because Joseph explains the relationship between the it and the outcome. The 'it' which God meant was to bring to pass the outcome of saving many people. Your interpretation makes no sense 'God meant the outcome to bring to pass the outcome'

[djholmess]

No, it is a different "object". Otherwise the verb would be the same. It is not.

So what evil is talked about in verse 15? What different evil is talked about in verse 20?

[CASteinman]

It can't be the outcome because Joseph explains the relationship between the it and the outcome. The 'it' which God meant was to bring to pass the outcome of saving many people.

What twisting. Amazing. It says right there that the whole point of what God was interested in was the outcome and you twist the words right into grotesque and perverse submission.

This is not unlike calling a red dog a green tree.

Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

So what evil is talked about in verse 15? What different evil is talked about in verse 20?

The evil talked about in verse 15 is the all of the things that they had done to Joseph in the past.

The evil talked about in verse 20 was the outcome they desired from their final bad act.

[CASteinman]

Your interpretation makes no sense 'God meant the outcome to bring to pass the outcome'

More like this:

As for you, you planned evil for me -- but God planned good for me, in order to do what has happened this day, keeping alive a numerous people.

[ERayR]

They are 'real' choices because God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their own will.

Below is a link to an article that I think would very clearly explain what believe with regard to choices

http://www.noble-min.../calvinism.html

What is the meaning of is?

[cdowis]

Are you authorised to interpret 1 Peter 3: as to talking about what Paul said in the verses of his I quoted? If so can you tell me specifically what the 'some things' are that are hard and what things aren't? What iiSight is you who are wresting the scriptures to your own destruction by ingnoing Paul because you have decided which parts of his teachings should be ignored?

Let me suggest a simple experiment.

Take a "red letter" edition of the New Testament . Focus on the words of Christ, on every word that he spoke, and only on the teachings as taught by Christ himself.

Look on what he says about salvation, on entering the kingdom of God. No interpretation from anyone but the Holy Ghost guiding you while you read the words of our Lord and Saviour alone.

You just might find a surprise awaiting you. It really is worth the effort.

Edited July 23, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Similarity kind of, equivalency no.

Hebrews 5:9

⁸Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

⁹ And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

So all this verse is really saying is Jesus became the author of eternal salvation and that this eternal salvation is given to all that obey him.

Notice two things 1) I doesn’t say what obedience this is referring to...is it everything Jesus every commanded? Or maybe something more specific like Jesus command to repent and believe?

2) It doesn’t specifically say that this eternal salvation is gained by obeying Jesus, just that the people who receive it are people who obey him.

Article 3

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

Article 3 does give the specific relationship between how all making may be saved. All mankind are saved through the atonement by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

Agreed. Both include obedience as a factor in salvation, and Article 3 goes further and provides the specifics--one of the advantages of continued revelation.

I think we have made some good progress here. We've gone from saved by grace only, to saved by grace and faith, to saved grace and faith and repentance--or rather saved by grace and obedience to the principles or commandments of faith and repentance. We are half way through the 4th Article of Faith--i.e. the first principles of the gospel.

Let's see if we can now work our way through the second half--i.e. the first ordinances of the gospel, and thereby reconciling further the specifics of 3rd and 4th Articles of Faith with the vague and general statement in Heb. 5:9:

We LDS believe this New Testament passage:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1Pet. 3:21)

In other words, we believe that obedience to the ordinance of baptism is a factor in our salvation. This makes sense to us because even though Christ, through his grace, has provided us with the purifying water/blood with which we may be cleansed of our past sins, we may avail ourselves of that purifying water/blood by obediently following Christ into the waters of baptism and immersing ourselves therein, by the hand of those having authority, and in the name of he Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As with Christ, we have a baptism to be baptized with, and how else are we "straightened" until that baptism is accomplished? (see Luke 12:50)

To us, obedience to the ordinance of baptism not only entails the salvific factor of having our sins buried in Christ's blood, but it also entails being raised up out of the water a new man, having been born of him of the water--without which we could not enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Through baptism we take upon us Christ's name, making him our father and the person whom we obey. It is also the gate to enter onto the way of Christ which leaded to him, culminating in the resurrection, of which baptism is a symbol thereof. (I can provide NT passages in support of each of these points as well if you wish).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 23, 2012 by wenglund

[djholmess]

More like this:

As for you, you planned evil for me -- but God planned good for me, in order to do what has happened this day, keeping alive a numerous people.

Again you are the one twisting the words:

20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

So it reads like this;

As for you, you planned evil for me. --but God planned It UNTO good, in order to do what has happened this day...

The thing that God planned was planned unto good, the 'it' is not the good, the it is the thing that would cause the good, that would be unto good. What caused the good?-it was the selling of Joseph into slavery which began the journey that took him to where he was in a position to save the people.