Getting Eternal Life

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Humm.

Well JESUS taught that there was.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Oh well Paul didnt say it so it really doesnt mattter.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Humm,

But that is exactly what Jesus taught.

Matt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Oops. This is Jesus again not Paul.

[pogi]

Akboy,

I am confused at your explanation of the law and don't really know where you stand. What exactly is it's purpose today? It sounds like you are saying it is in force, but not enforced; that it is a both a bad thing and a good thing; that we are under it and not under it at the same time. I am not sure what you are saying. Even though Christ used the words "commandments", you think he really meant "suggestions"? Of course, if all you read is Paul, I can understand your confusion. In Romans 7 and 8, Paul clearly delights in the law calling it holy, just, spiritual, and good. He explains the law (actually sin as he explains) is only a curse for those who walk in the flesh. Through Christ we can walk in the spirit. As we walk in the spirit, the law becomes a blessing, not a curse. In fact in Rom 8:2 he speaks of how the law of Christ frees him from sin and death. In other words, without the new law of Christ, the old law would only bring sin and death.

Also, you have to understand that when Paul uses the word "law" much of the time he is speaking of specific laws within the law of Moses including the law of circumcision etc. or speaking of the mosaic law in general. He was not speaking of the new law, the new covenant and testament which Christ commanded. Christ fulfilled the old law and gave a new one, with new commandments and expectations of obedience. In some instances, he transcended the old law giving even more strict instructions like, not only don't murder, but don't hate; not only don't commit adultery, but don't lust; no more eye for an eye, but give to those who use you etc. Do you think Christ gave these new commandments as a stumbling block or a building block of faith? Does following His commandments bring us closer to Him or further away? I seem to recall Him saying something like, those who obey my commandments are my friends, and the love of God is in keeping the commandments, and if we do keep His commandments he will abide in us and we will abide in His love etc. Doesn't sound like a curse or a stumbling block to me! I consider the love of God abiding in us and the friendship of Christ building blocks. Keep in context Rom 7 and 8 which clarifies who the law is a curse to. Not the law so much, but sin becomes the curse of the law. Because without law there is no transgression according to Paul.

Which brings me to my next point. If we are not under any law as you claim, how could we sin and thus need repentance?

Edited April 11, 2013 by pogi

[Akboy]

In the Old Testament, the law was the way Israel atoned for their sins. They were supposed to offer sacrifices when they broke specific sins and they offered annual sacrifices for sinfullness in general. If they didn't those sacrifices, their sins were not covered.

Not being under the law means we no longer have to offer sacrifices because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice that covers all of our sins. But His sacrifice only applies to our sins if we rely completely on Him for eternal life, not on exercising our own faith.

I'm not saying the law doesn't have a role in the church age. Sin still has a destructive impact on our lives, but that doesn't mean we are under the same rule of 'Follow this law or you won't have eternal life.' The law became a curse because it focused people on external, visible obedience rather than an inner change of heart that naturally leads to obedience. Replacing the old law with a new law wouldn't have helped because we would have made the same mistake of focusing on following a list of rules rather than loving just for the sake of loving.

Yes, Paul said the law is good, but only after making it very clear we are not saved or justified by the law. We are saved by faith, which is apart from the law (Did I miss where you explained why Paul said faith is apart from the law if we're supposed to exercise our faith by works of the law?). This is why I quoted the speaker at our retreat, "We obey because it creates greater joy and happiness for us. Sin and disobedience brings death." The law is good when we approach it in those terms, but it becomes a curse when we have it as part of our Plan of Salvation or path to eternal life. It's a curse because it gives the illusion of righteousness. If we could follow it perfectly, then it would be a real source of righteousness, but since no one can do that they end up striving toward their own destruction.

Why does Rom. 8:1 say there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus? Paul was probably contrasting two laws in 8:2 just like he did in 3:27-28 when he mentioned the law of faith, faith apart from works. The law (established reality) of Christ means we no longer have to rely on our righteousness for eternal life because there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

Rom 3 talks a lot about sin and righteousness, so that "law" is not about about circumcision and other ceremonial laws. Yes, he mentions circumcision in Galatians, but that's because it was the specific issue he was responding to. Gal. 3 expands the discussion to include all works of the law and righteousness, so he's not just talking about circumcision.

If you just camp on a few statements from Christ, then it would sound like He taught we get eternal life by following commandments, but that's a dangerous approach to the Bible. Don't you believe Paul's writings were inspired (driven, controlled) by God? Either reconcile their teachings or throw large chunks of Romans, Galatians and a few other passages out of the Bible. You still haven't explained what Paul was saying in Rom. 2-6 or Gal. 3. Are they inspired by God or not?

Christ made various commands, but they weren't 'do these things or you won't get eternal life' kind of commands.

[volgadon]

In the Old Testament, the law was the way Israel atoned for their sins.

You mean that the law contained provision for atonement to be made by sacrifice, otherwise you'd be claiming that not mixing threads was how Israel atoned for their sins, when none ever conceived of it that way.

[Akboy]

You mean that the law contained provision for atonement to be made by sacrifice, otherwise you'd be claiming that not mixing threads was how Israel atoned for their sins, when none ever conceived of it that way.

Why did you quote less than half of that paragraph? I go into more specific detail right after your quote. Edited April 11, 2013 by Akboy

[Vanguard]

So as long as I endure to the end like this why wouldn't I get eternal life, the best God has to offer in heaven?

I have no idea what you'll get in the afterlife. Your simple declarative that if you continue in the path you have been pursuing you should be able to get eternal life is nothing more than a declarative and wholly irrelevant in my eyes. I don't know if what you've been doing is sufficient. No one knows. We Mormons speak as though there are some "non-negotiables" that must be done during this temporality though IMO we are evolving away from this litmus commentary. It is not helpful. Each is an individual in God's eyes and each will be judged according to his capacity given him and whether he stretched often and enough toward that capacity. Nothing more nothing less. So when you say Mormons believe there must be works included I say absolutely. It's just that I don't know what those works "look like" nor does any other Mormon. When measured against how well a man streched toward this capacity, the ordinancces that must be performed are reduced to mere formalities to be taken care of in this or the next life. Formal recognition of the Savior's role is also reduced to this. The belief must be that if said man has indeed stretched toward his capacity sufficiently he will most surely praise the Savior's role when he is made aware of the larger picture thereby accepting Him and being justified by Him.

[volgadon]

Why did you quote less than half of that paragraph? I go into more specific detail right after your quote.

A rabbinic student begins writing a talmudic commentary, which he shares with his rabbi. After reading it, the rabbi says. "Better you should stop writing, it won't get you anywhere."

"And if I stopped writing, would it get me anywhere?"

So, if I were to quote the rest of your paragraph, would it somehow change what I quoted from an eroneous statement?

Edited April 11, 2013 by volgadon

[Akboy]

A rabbinic student begins writing a talmudic commentary, which he shares with his rabbi. After reading it, the rabbi says. "Better you should stop writing, it won't get you anywhere."

"And if I stopped writing, would it get me anywhere?"

So, if I were to quote the rest of your paragraph, would it somehow change what I quoted from an eroneous statement?

So you would rather nitpick about my wording in a minor part of my post rather than respond to any of my larger points? Why are you even taking the time to read this thread and respond at all?

[canard78]

This made think of a Stake Conference meeting, the adult session, where one of the presidency gave a talk specifically about confessing our sins to one another. The following Fast Sunday a really awesome member stood up and bore his testimony that he needed to confess that he had a problem viewing porn. He mentioned the talk about confessing our sins to each other and so really took it to task. I'll never forget it and kept thinking he has to be talking about someone else. But nope someone else heard the same thing. So the leaders or this leader is on track with the minister. This leader has written some books about the Saviour and they're sold at Deseret Book. I personally love his talks and lessons!

Akboy, I love what this guy on the youtube is saying too! He is fun to listen to with a great message.

Wow... That's a different take. I remember the old mission handbook saying to not share past transgressions when teaching.

Your stake leader seems to have a different take on it. Maybe it's a good idea. AA certainly seem support that approach of being open/honest with that approach.

[Vanguard]

So you would rather nitpick about my wording in a minor part of my post rather than respond to any of my larger points? Why are you even taking the time to read this thread and respond at all?

Hey, then respond to my comments! What do you think of how I described the terrrain?

[pogi]

But His sacrifice only applies to our sins if we rely completely on Him for eternal life, not on exercising our own faith.

I agree with the first part, the second part I am confused, I thought faith is what saves us according to you? A few paragraphs down you say "we are saved by faith." Which is it?

Yes, Paul said the law is good, but only after making it very clear we are not saved or justified by the law. We are saved by faith, which is apart from the law (Did I miss where you explained why Paul said faith is apart from the law if we're supposed to exercise our faith by works of the law?).

He distinguishes the two to make it very clear that it is not us that saves our selves, but that it is a gift of God as we can do no good thing in and of ourselves, as the scriptures make very clear. He was probably trying to humble a lot of boasters and judgmental followers who were not acting in faith, but in pride. To them he needed to make it clear, it is not our works that matter so much as the heart that drives the works. It is not about what we do, but why we do. They did not understand the purpose of the law or faith. Christ also made this point with many of the Jews who obeyed the law but for the wrong reasons. He did not condemn them for obedience, he condemned them for their hearts. The law in that sense, is separate from faith. One can obey the letter without faith and for the wrong reasons.

Why does Rom. 8:1 say there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus? Paul was probably contrasting two laws in 8:2 just like he did in 3:27-28 when he mentioned the law of faith, faith apart from works. The law (established reality) of Christ means we no longer have to rely on our righteousness for eternal life because there is no condemnation for those in Christ.

There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, because those in Christ Jesus are obedient in faith as evidenced by John chapter 15. Though they be far from perfection, they are the Lord's. Notice the action word in Romans 8:1 which you left out. The scripture says, who "walk" after the spirit. Following the spirit (walking after the spirit) requires work, which requires desire, which leads to faith, which strengthens works and confidence in the Lord. And who is it exactly that abides in Christ Jesus? Christ explains that it is those who walk after the spirit and bring forth much fruit and obey Christ's commandments. These are they who abide in Christ and His love according to John 15, and these are they who are redeemed without condemnation as Paul explains.

If you just camp on a few statements from Christ, then it would sound like He taught we get eternal life by following commandments, but that's a dangerous approach to the Bible. Don't you believe Paul's writings were inspired (driven, controlled) by God? Either reconcile their teachings or throw large chunks of Romans, Galatians and a few other passages out of the Bible. You still haven't explained what Paul was saying in Rom. 2-6 or Gal. 3. Are they inspired by God or not?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. If you just camp on a few of Paul's statements... At least Christ's statements are consistent! Thinking of Rom 2:6-13 and others I have already pointed out. If you have to pick between two seemingly contradicting verses, pick the one that aligns with Christ's consistent teachings. I actually think Paul is consistent, just misunderstood. Virtually all of scripture is consistent from the old testament, to the new testament, to the book of mormon, etc. that faith without works is dead and vise versa, and that works and obedience are necessary to abide in the Lord, to be His friend, to experience His love, to be of His fold. Only those who FOLLOW the voice of the good shepherd are His sheep (John 10:4). It is not enough to just hear and know His voice, we must FOLLOW. How can we be apart of His flock if we do not follow Him and His words? There are just a couple hard to understand passages that you seem to enjoy above all scripture.

I think that Galatians 3 was speaking of the old law which was the "schoolmaster" unto Christ. Not beyond Christ. Notice that he does not reference the new law of Christ which Christ established and commanded and Paul acknowledged that he was under (1 corinth 9:21) and later in Gal 6:2. Clear distinction between the old law and the new law of love.

Rom 2:6? That scripture seems to support my stance not yours. Why do you want me to respond to that. I like vs 7, 10 and 13 too! Or do you want me to respond to the entire chapters 2-6? Can you be alittle more specific? A lot of material there, some of which supports my stance as I just pointed out.

Christ made various commands, but they weren't 'do these things or you won't get eternal life' kind of commands.

Commandments are commandments! How can you justify otherwise?

No, he worded it more like, do these things and you will abide in me and I in you, and if you aren't obedient and claim to know me you are a lier, etc., and if you love me... But he was very specific to the young man about what is required for salvation which you have not given a rebuttal to my rebuttal. It was very clear that obedience and works were necessary for salvation to that young man. Think about it, he said keep the commandments. After the man said, "I already do", what did Christ say? Did he say, OK then believe in me and have faith? No, he said "SELL all that thou hast and come FOLLOW me." Sounds like action verbs to me. It is not enough to say I believe, we MUST follow when he says come follow me! But if we resist His voice and depend on our own beliefs, the scriptures are clear that we do not really know Him and we are not His sheep, but belong to another fold and listen to another shepherd.

Edited April 12, 2013 by pogi

[Tacenda]

Wow... That's a different take. I remember the old mission handbook saying to not share past transgressions when teaching.

Your stake leader seems to have a different take on it. Maybe it's a good idea. AA certainly seem support that approach of being open/honest with that approach.

His name is James L. Farrell and "Falling to Heaven" and "The Peacegiver" are a couple of his books. He is awesome, but the day he spoke about confessing our sins, I think he might have been talking about the lighter ones. Maybe to often people think they have to appear perfect all the time, LDS are guilty of this IMO, so possibly that was the lesson he was trying to teach.

[Ahab]

His name is James L. Farrell and "Falling to Heaven" and "The Peacegiver" are a couple of his books. He is awesome, but the day he spoke about confessing our sins, I think he might have been talking about the lighter ones. Maybe to often people think they have to appear perfect all the time, LDS are guilty of this IMO, so possibly that was the lesson he was trying to teach.

The point is that we are to focus on becoming perfect, with that as our ultimate goal. Our Lord won't ever advocate a lesser goal for us, as if we shouldn't strive for perfection, which equates to us following and living by every word of God in our lives. He always has the big picture in mind for us, and in the big picture we should always be striving to do what God does as we strive to become more like him.

Repentance is just a simple matter of us stopping from doing bad things, and he wants us to repent because if we don't we won't be stopping and will instead continue to do those bad things. He wants us to continue advancing, not ever being satisfied with doing less, although he still advises that we not run faster than we are able.

We can grow only a little at a time, even if we stop doing the bad things we are aware of that we are doing. We can't just hyperjump to being as perfect as our Father in heaven is now. We don't even know how to do that, because there is much more to being like him than we can even imagine. But we do know that he doesn't do bad things, so we shouldn't do bad things either.

And on and on to perfection we'll go, taking just a little step at a time as we are able.

[Vance]

If you just camp on a few statements from Christ, then it would sound like He taught we get eternal life by following commandments, but that's a dangerous approach to the Bible.

More dangerous than sitting on a few statements of Paul?

Don't you believe Paul's writings were inspired (driven, controlled) by God?

Yes. Don't you believe Jesus' statements are inspired?

Either reconcile their teachings or throw large chunks of Romans, Galatians and a few other passages out of the Bible.

Which is more dangerous? Throwing out some of the words of Paul or throwing out some of the words of Jesus? Edited April 12, 2013 by Vance

[Akboy]

I agree with the first part, the second part I am confused, I thought faith is what saves us according to you? A few paragraphs down you say "we are saved by faith." Which is it?

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. Yes, we believe faith saves us, but we think of faith as analogous to trusting in Christ's righteousness to get eternal life. We don't believe we have to exercise our faith by following specific commands. Works will be the fruit of living, saving faith, not the substance of the faith.

He distinguishes the two to make it very clear that it is not us that saves our selves, but that it is a gift of God as we can do no good thing in and of ourselves, as the scriptures make very clear. He was probably trying to humble a lot of boasters and judgmental followers who were not acting in faith, but in pride. To them he needed to make it clear, it is not our works that matter so much as the heart that drives the works. It is not about what we do, but why we do. They did not understand the purpose of the law or faith. Christ also made this point with many of the Jews who obeyed the law but for the wrong reasons. He did not condemn them for obedience, he condemned them for their hearts. The law in that sense, is separate from faith. One can obey the letter without faith and for the wrong reasons.

That would make sense if Rom 3 was describing a system where faith and the law work together, which would fit with a lot of LDS teaching, but Paul didn't say that. Right, you can obey the law for the wrong reason. If you're obeying the law to exercise your faith so you can have eternal life, you're obeying for the wrong reason.

There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, because those in Christ Jesus are obedient in faith as evidenced by John chapter 15. Though they be far from perfection, they are the Lord's. Notice the action word in Romans 8:1 which you left out. The scripture says, who "walk" after the spirit. Following the spirit (walking after the spirit) requires work, which requires desire, which leads to faith, which strengthens works and confidence in the Lord. And who is it exactly that abides in Christ Jesus? Christ explains that it is those who walk after the spirit and bring forth much fruit and obey Christ's commandments. These are they who abide in Christ and His love according to John 15, and these are they who are redeemed without condemnation as Paul explains.

John 15 contrasts people who are fruitful for Christ and those who aren't. It doesn't say "follow these commandments or you won't get eternal life." Someone with a living faith may go through periods where they're not producing fruit, but that won't last very long. If someone claims to have faith, but there's little or no fruit in their lives, then their faith is dead.

Those "action words" in Rom 8:1 are only found in newer manuscripts. Older manuscripts, those closer to the originals, don't have the action words. I didn't leave them out of the verse, God did. So the verse is just 'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,' that's it. So if you are in Christ, if you have living faith, how could you lose your salvation? By sinning? But since we're in Christ, we are not condemned for our sins. Those sins will still have negative impacts on our lives, but we won't be condemned for them. We won't lose eternal life.

I think that Galatians 3 was speaking of the old law which was the "schoolmaster" unto Christ. Not beyond Christ. Notice that he does not reference the new law of Christ which Christ established and commanded and Paul acknowledged that he was under (1 corinth 9:21) and later in Gal 6:2. Clear distinction between the old law and the new law of love.

Rom 2:6? That scripture seems to support my stance not yours. Why do you want me to respond to that. I like vs 7, 10 and 13 too! Or do you want me to respond to the entire chapters 2-6? Can you be alittle more specific? A lot of material there, some of which supports my stance as I just pointed out.

1 Cor. 9? Paul isn't talking about justification, salvation or eternal life in that passage. Paul makes a vague reference to the law of Christ, but since he doesn't explain what that law is or how it relates to eternal life, the reference isn't very useful in this discussion.

Yes, respond Rom. 2-6 and Gal. 3. Look at posts #39 and #61 in this thread. I went into detail explaining Paul's train of thought and you responded by focusing on a few things I said while ignoring major points in the passages. Go back to those posts and show me where I'm wrong in interpreting those passages.

You like Rom. 2, but chapter 2 wasn't why he wrote the book. Many of his books follow a pattern. He introduces point A and moves forward to B, which leads to C, etc. Saying "I like A" misses the point when Paul's message was A-C. So when you look at one of his chapter's, you also have to ask why he wrote the chapter before it and why he wrote the next chapter. Paul wrote like a lawyer, not a rambling philosopher who talked about random ideas. It's not enough to think about what chapter 2 means. We have to figure out how it fits into the rest of the logical thought process in Romans.

Commandments are commandments! How can you justify otherwise?

I didn't justify otherwise. I'm just saying if someone is in Christ/has a living faith, they don't lose eternal life if they disobey a commandment.

But he was very specific to the young man about what is required for salvation which you have not given a rebuttal to. It was very clear that obedience and works were necessary for salvation to that young man. Think about it, he said keep the commandments. After the man said, "I already do", what did Christ say? Did he say, OK then believe in me and have faith? No, he said "SELL all that thou hast and come FOLLOW me." Sounds like action verbs to me. It is not enough to say I believe, we MUST follow when he says come follow me! But if we resist His voice and depend on our own beliefs, the scriptures are clear that we do not really know Him and we are not His sheep, but belong to another fold and listen to another shepherd.

Oh, I thought I had responded to it. Some of my posts have been fairly late at night, so I probably forgot. Do Mormons sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor? If not, then you don't really take the passage completely literally. So we can agree there's more going on in that exchange than it first seems.

Mark 10

¹⁷ And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸ And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

The man's greeting may sound good to us, but Jesus saw through it and could tell he wasn't sincere. The man was kneeling and flattering to make himself look good.

¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” ²⁰ And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” ²¹ And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” ²² Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

We also agree that no one can keep the law perfectly, yet the man claimed to do that. It's one thing to claim you've matured enough to know how to deal with those temptations, but he goes beyond that and expects Jesus to believe he kept all those laws since his youth. This guy went out of his way to appear devout, but he was really serving himself, and Jesus knew how to expose that. Jesus' final command was designed to show where's the man's heart was really focused.

If Jesus' message was that we need to follow the commandments to get eternal life, then he would have challenged the man's claim that he kept the commandments since his youth. Jesus' focus here is where our faith really lies. This guy may have thought he was following God, but his faith was actually focused on his own ability to follow commandments and his riches. So what are you relying on to get eternal life?

More dangerous than sitting on a few statements of Paul?

As I point our earlier in this post, I'm not just picking a few of Paul's verses. I'm looking at his train of thought as a whole in Romans and Galatians. And since Paul's writings were inspired (driven, controlled) by God, they are just as authoritative as Jesus' statments. Yes, that's actually what 'inspired' meant.

Yes. Don't you believe Jesus' statements are inspired?

Yes.

Which is more dangerous? Throwing out some of the words of Paul or throwing out some of the words of Jesus?

Why are you even saying that? Do you consider Paul's writing less authoritative than the Gospel's because he's not quoting Jesus directly? Edited April 12, 2013 by Akboy

[Vance]

As I point our earlier in this post, I'm not just picking a few of Paul's verses.

Ah, but you are. You are letting a few words of Paul (which are misunderstood) take preeminence over the words of ALL the other contributors to the New Testament.

I'm looking at his train of thought as a whole in Romans and Galatians.

You are looking at an INTERPRETATION of Paul's words to project a train of thought on to them that matches a preconceived notion. I suggest that you let Jesus' words be the foundation rather than the modern American Protestant Evangelical interpretation of Paul's words.

And since Paul's writings were inspired (driven, controlled) by God, they are just as authoritative as Jesus' statments.

Not according to the "inspired" words of Paul. 18 Col 1:18 And he (that is Jesus CHRIST, not Paul) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. So, do the words of Jesus have preeminence or not?

Yes, that's actually what 'inspired' meant.

Those that deny revelation can't really know how it works. God doesn't turn his servants into drones before they dictate "inspired" scripture.

Yes.

Good, but do you believe Paul when he clearly indicates that Jesus' word MUST BE preeminent?

Why are you even saying that? Do you consider Paul's writing less authoritative than the Gospel's because he's not quoting Jesus directly?

Why not, Paul did.

[Vance]

Even Jesus indicated the preeminence of his word. John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, (notice that he doesn't mention Paul) then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 5: 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, (notice that he doesn't mention Paul) and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Rev 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, (notice that he doesn't mention Paul) and hast not denied my name.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Vance

[Akboy]

Ah, but you are. You are letting a few words of Paul (which are misunderstood) take preeminence over the words of ALL the other contributors to the New Testament. You are looking at an INTERPRETATION of Paul's words to project a train of thought on to them that matches a preconceived notion. I suggest that you let Jesus' words be the foundation rather than the modern American Protestant Evangelical interpretation of Paul's words.

We're both looking at interpretations of his words. So go back to posts #39 and #61 and show me where I'm wrong in my interpretation.

Not according to the "inspired" words of Paul. 18 Col 1:18 And he (that is Jesus CHRIST, not Paul) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. So, do the words of Jesus have preeminence or not?

Since Christ has preeminence in all things, wouldn't He have preeminence in Paul's writing?

2 Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The modern idea of inspiration is similar to a suggestion. But that's not what the word here 'moved' means. God didn't give them the general idea or framework for what they wrote. He had preeminence in their writing. The greek word for 'moved' was also used in Acts 27:15-17 when the ship Paul was on got caught in a storm. Experienced sailors could not navigate the ship because the wind was so strong. The ship was being driven, directed, and carried about by the wind.

Those that deny revelation can't really know how it works. God doesn't turn his servants into drones before they dictate "inspired" scripture.

Do you accept every religion as authoritative when they claim they have unique revelation from God/Allah/any deity?

Of course, God didn't take the away Paul's or Peter's free will. Their personality still comes through their writings. If anything, God's preeminence and control of their writing fulfilled their free will. Surely the writers of the scriptures didn't want to make any mistakes or contradict any other scripture. So if they had a choice between relying on their own understanding for writing or letting God carry them along in their writing, why would they choose the former?

Here's a few other examples.

Acts 4:24-25 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,

and the peoples plot in vain?

So those words weren't David's. The Holy Spirit was using David's mouth to speak.

Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says,

“Today, if you hear his voice,

That passage quotes a Psalm, yet the author said it was the Holy Spirit saying those words. So did David lose his free will when the Holy Spirit was speaking through him?

Good, but do you believe Paul when he clearly indicates that Jesus' word MUST BE preeminent?

Yes, of course, God's words are preeminent over any words based on human understanding. And since God carried, controlled and directed the writers of scripture, then ALL scripture is God's word. Edited April 12, 2013 by Akboy

[pogi]

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. Yes, we believe faith saves us, but we think of faith as analogous to trusting in Christ's righteousness to get eternal life. We don't believe we have to exercise our faith by following specific commands. Works will be the fruit of living, saving faith, not the substance of the faith.

I never said works are the substance of faith, I always said fruits, or results of faith. But works, even by faith, do not happen unless we strive to make an effort. Abraham strove to obey by faith, it was not easy for Him, he did not disobey trusting that his faith would remain alive. All of Hebrews 11 explains this fact. "He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

So, you trust in Christ's righteousness to get eternal life? In other words, you are motivated by salvation. You do believe that your own efforts play a role in your salvation, if not by works than by trust. There must be a motivation for trust, if salvation was not the reward, then how could you trust? Why would you place your trust in Christ if you were going to be damned for it? Faith will always evolve (if we FOLLOW the spirit) into something more pure, something even greater than faith and even trust, it will evolve into love or charity. This is the law of Christ - Love. Yes, he does expect us to love one another, and so he commanded! I don't believe that we are as different in our approaches and understanding as you think.

Unless you believe in the false doctrine of predestination, your efforts do play a role in your own salvation. By use of our own agency to accept Christ, (not just to believe in or on Him, but to believe Him) we accept His life altering grace into our hearts. You make it sound as if all we care about is our own salvation in doing good works. You fundamentally misunderstand the Later Day Saints, their doctrines and motivations. We are no different from you in our reasons and motivations, and you must admit that you would not trust or love a being that randomly condemned people to eternal suffering despite their trust and love in Him. You too are motivated by hope of salvation and fear of damnation in part.

About Pauls writing that you want me to respond to (chapters 2-6) I simply interpret it differently than you do. I believe that Paul was responding to the old law and the works of that law. The Jews had morphed the law of Moses into a big mess of meaningless works and rigorous practices. Christ clearly disagreed with their interpretation and application of the law given by Moses. He fulfilled the old law based on works, and created a new covenant and law of love. Keeping and expanding old parts of the law which were centered in love (don't steal, kill, covet, commit adultery, etc.) and doing away with the meaningless works which Paul was talking about. Here is a good explanation as to who he was speaking to and why, from La Vista Church of Christ, they seem to agree with LDS theology exactly http://lavistachurch...ans4James2.html

We also agree that no one can keep the law perfectly, yet the man claimed to do that. It's one thing to claim you've matured enough to know how to deal with those temptations, but he goes beyond that and expects Jesus to believe he kept all those laws since his youth. This guy went out of his way to appear devout, but he was really serving himself, and Jesus knew how to expose that. Jesus' final command was designed to show where's the man's heart was really focused.

In other words, Christ lied to Him in order to expose Him? He simply would not do that! It sounds to me like Christ saw the young man's true heart and loved him for his honest intentions, but knew he was lacking one thing for perfection. Mark 10: "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said one thing thou lackest..." He did not say that he needed to sell all that he has and follow Him for salvation, but for perfection. Then he invited this young man to be his disciple and follow him the same way he invited his other disciples. Peter even caught onto this invitation and said, "Behold, we have followed thee, what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said...ye shall sit in the thrones of his glory..."

Hebrew 12:12 - "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

Notice that looking unto Jesus for faith is more than a passive desire, but an active desire being compared to a race which is ran in patience.

He later says - "Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright."

Again, why is he concerned about men performing good works, if faith is all that is required? Because faith is not faith unless we heed His voice and follow Him in good works. Even with faith, we must strive to obey or our light will die the moment we cease to look, listen, and strive to obey, and instead trust in our dead faith to save us. (See Col. 1:29)

Edited April 12, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

The short answer is that we receive eternal life by living as God commands us to live, however long it may take us to achieve perfection.

If he says something, we do it, or at least we give it our best shot and if we fall it's only to help us learn to get back up. We don't make excuses for our shortcomings, or act as if we don't need to do something he has commanded us to do. If he says we need to be baptized, then we get baptized, and if he says we need to receive our endowments in a temple dedicated to him, then we do that. The fact that new members of the Church need to wait a year before they can take out their endowments doesn't mean they should act as if it's not something they need to do. They realize they need to do it and then work toward that goal. Not everything happens in an instant, suddenly, but we should still work toward the goals our Father sets before us.

[Akboy]

What is the point of continuing this discussion if all you're going to do is pick apart my choice of words? This isn't about what I said, it's about what God said, including what God said through Paul. I took the time to go through a big chunk of Romans, not just one chapter, to look at his thought process and larger point. Why can't you do the same thing? Again, posts #39 and #61 in this thread.

[pogi]

1 Cor. 9? Paul isn't talking about justification, salvation or eternal life in that passage. Paul makes a vague reference to the law of Christ, but since he doesn't explain what that law is or how it relates to eternal life, the reference isn't very useful in this discussion.

What do you mean this is not useful in this discussion? You claim that we are not under a law. Paul clearly explains here that we are under a law - Christ's law which can only be fulfilled in faith and love, not the old law of outward tasks. I am using this to point out that when Paul says we are not under the law, he is speaking of the old law which was fulfilled in Christ. He is not saying that we are under no law.

What do you mean we don't know what Christ's law is, Christ made his law and commandments clear. But this would require you to read something other than Paul to discover this fact. He also made it clear how they relate to salvation, saying that the only way to be in and of Him and apart of His flock, is through faithful obedience to His law.

[pogi]

What is the point of continuing this discussion if all you're going to do is pick apart my choice of words? This isn't about what I said, it's about what God said, including what God said through Paul. I took the time to go through a big chunk of Romans, not just one chapter, to look at his thought process and larger point. Why can't you do the same thing? Again, posts #39 and #61 in this thread.

I'm simply trying to understand where you are coming from, Paul can't speak for you, nor can he speak for himself. We are left to our own interpretations and understandings of his limited writings, so yes, your words DO matter. I have read all of Paul's words and have reconciled them in my mind with the rest of scripture. I am more concerned about your words than Paul's.

I thought I did address what you asked me to address. I said:

About Pauls writing that you want me to respond to (chapters 2-6) I simply interpret it differently than you do. I believe that Paul was responding to the old law and the works of that law. The Jews had morphed the law of Moses into a big mess of meaningless works and rigorous practices. Christ clearly disagreed with their interpretation and application of the law given by Moses. He fulfilled the old law based on works, and created a new covenant and law of love. Keeping and expanding old parts of the law which were centered in love (don't steal, kill, covet, commit adultery, etc.) and doing away with the meaningless works which Paul was talking about. Here is a good explanation as to who he was speaking to and why, from La Vista Church of Christ, they seem to agree with LDS theology exactly http://lavistachurch...ans4James2.html

When Paul used the word "law" in those passages you quote, he was not speaking about the law of Christ as he did in those passages which you think are insignificant to our discussion.

Did you read the link?

Edited April 12, 2013 by pogi

[volgadon]

So you would rather nitpick about my wording in a minor part of my post rather than respond to any of my larger points? Why are you even taking the time to read this thread and respond at all?

I focused on that portion because it is indicative of the sloppy approach you've taken in this thread, and any attempts at honest dialogue are the worse off for it.