Theologically Uninformed Evangelicals and LDS Beliefs

[Vance]

12 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Please explain how Christ's resurrection raise us? 

You quoted, "21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

This doesn't explain it. Rather, it points to Christ as the man by whom all are saved and as a result of salvation, ultimately participate in resurrection. Nothing in this verse states that Christ's resurrection is how we are raised. Nor does it explain what you've not explained, that is how exactly is the resurrection apart of the atonement, when it's described as a first fruit. 

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

  25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

 

I am getting the impression that you don't study the Bible very much.

 

And there is this,

Hel 14:15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

  16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

  17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

  18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Vance

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

So, I guess you are saying that Jesus lied when he said this,

John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

  18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

Thank you. Yes you are correct. Not only Jesus but the Holy Spirit also is mentioned as raising him up from the dead. A testimony of the trinity. 

[danielwoods]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

  25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

 

I am getting the impression that you don't study the Bible very much.

 

And there is this,

Hel 14:15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

  16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

  17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

  18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness.

Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life. This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection.

Your quote of Helaman makes the point that the claim, about the atonement as coming from both the Cross and the Resurrection, it doesn't come from the Bible. One has to be ignorant of the Biblical doctrine to claim it's from the Bible. And now we get back to the OP, ignorance of Biblical doctrine is similar to other faiths, such as the LDS. 

[waveslider]

 

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Please explain how Christ's resurrection raise us? 

You quoted, "21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

This doesn't explain it. Rather, it points to Christ as the man by whom all are saved and as a result of salvation, ultimately participate in resurrection. Nothing in this verse states that Christ's resurrection is how we are raised. Nor does it explain what you've not explained, that is how exactly is the resurrection apart of the atonement, when it's described as a first fruit. 

It seems like you have tunnel vision. First off the resurrection isn't, "apart," of the atonement, It is a part of the atonement. "Apart," means separate. The resurrection isn't what is described as the first fruit, but rather Christ himself is described as the first fruit. I suggest you go back and read verses 17, 18, and 19, then explain how, without Christ resurrecting, the atonement saves us from sin. Verse 20 shows how Christ leads the way in being the first (first fruits) to resurrect and we all follow after. Verses 21 and 22 clarify what is meant by Christ leading the way, and how it pertains directly to the resurrection.

22 hours ago, waveslider said:

"17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:17-22

Vance brings up some good scriptures here to help clarify even more although my impressions don't necessarily point to you not studying your Bible much, because it could be that you are, but you are studying with some kind of tunnel vision to make it conform to some sort of man made theology, instead of searching for what it is really saying.

2 hours ago, Vance said:

John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

  25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

 

I am getting the impression that you don't study the Bible very much.

 

And there is this,

Hel 14:15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth, to bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, that thereby men may be brought into the presence of the Lord.

  16 Yea, behold, this death bringeth to pass the resurrection, and redeemeth all mankind from the first death—that spiritual death; for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual.

  17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

  18 Yea, and it bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire; but whosoever repenteth not is hewn down and cast into the fire; and there cometh upon them again a spiritual death, yea, a second death, for they are cut off again as to things pertaining to righteousness.

 

44 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life. This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection.

Your quote of Helaman makes the point that the claim, about the atonement as coming from both the Cross and the Resurrection, it doesn't come from the Bible. One has to be ignorant of the Biblical doctrine to claim it's from the Bible. And now we get back to the OP, ignorance of Biblical doctrine is similar to other faiths, such as the LDS. 

So you say, "This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection.",   but where does it say that in the Bible, since you deny other scripture exists if it doesn't come from the Bible.                                       

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I agree with you. However, those in your camp have made specific claims about doctrine, using words. I'm simply pointing out the facts as they are, and yes I'm using words as well. Ultimately you are correct. The grand picture is far more important. Loving God with all our hearts. 

The problem is thinking there ARE "facts as they are" independent of words.  The trick is getting the words right instead of letting them get in the way. "Facts" cannot be expressed without words- that seems to me to be self-evident.  One has to understand their ambiguity in order to communicate at all.  Using words which are confused just becomes jibberish. 

If you can't say it clearly, there is no need to say it at all.  The problem is not words- it is quibbling about them that is the problem, while missing the substance.  Trying to parse the parts of the atonement and arguing about if resurrection is "part" of the atonement or is a cause of the atonement or vice versa is absurd.  Language cannot slice and dice the works of God.

It's like arguing about the Trinity.  Which explanation IN WORDS communicates better?  

Three persons in one Substance is unintelligible.  I have no clue what "substance" means here.  Protestants had to adopt it I guess because they like Neoplatonic philosophy.  But the fact is 99.9% of protestants do not even know what Neoplatonic philosophy is, yet they are saddled by that belief due to the Nicene Creed, which for unknown reasons they have decided to accept without "reformation", from Catholicism.

On the other hand, we have the intelligible words of Mormonism that says the Godhead is unified by "purpose" and love.  THAT is understandable.  "God is love" is saying that there are three persons unified in love- and purpose, and function.  Like a family raising the children, they are unified and work together with "One Mind" taking on their specific functions, The Father who presides in love, the Son who is The Word- the Messenger, the definer of doctrine and one who interacts directly with the children, and the Holy Ghost who is the conduit to the spirits of the children and the Comforter to whom we go for solace.   

No "substance" no "Being"- just three persons unified in love and purpose and functions.   We experience that kind of unity every day of our lives from families to football teams, to "one Congress" with hundreds of members.  "God" is a family, a functional unity

THOSE words communicate, Being and Substance do not communicate- they are vague abstractions incapable of human interaction.

Since words are all we have to communicate these paradigms, we better keep them clear and understandable or end up with a mass of confusion, which in my opinion perfectly describes a religion which is supposedly "true" and from "facts" but in which everyone is a leader and everyone defines their own doctrine, where every physical building housing a congregation has different doctrinal "facts" than the congregation down the street, and which no one can explain because the explanations use words like "Being" and "Substance" and "Consubstantiability"

[Five Solas]

On 11/6/2016 at 6:22 PM, Vance said:

What I dislike about your responses is that they don't address the issues.  You just repeat the same bald assertions.

Looking at that verse in the context of the rest of the chapter is what you have NOT done.

17 ¶ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

Here, the subjects of the following are set.

 

  18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, (A lie, for Jesus had not broken the sabbath by healing)  but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (Another lie by "the Jews", claiming divine parentage is not the same as claiming equality with God)

  ...

As for your first two sentences, I'll surrender that for our readers to decide. 

But that last bit of blue font text is worth further comment.  The Gospel of John leaves no ambiguity--Jesus is God.  Full stop.  We see it in the opening sentence, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  And by verse 14, it reaches a crescendo,  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  Jesus, God, entering human history as a man.  

Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, call this, The Incarnation.  And it sets the stage for everything that follows in the book, culminating with Thomas's exclamation to Jesus near its end, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28).  Jesus is God.  Explicit.  Unambiguous.  The Gospel of John.

With that, let's return to chapter 5, verse 18 and the Jewish reaction to what Jesus is doing and saying.  Is Jesus really being made the victim of, as you called it, "Another lie by 'the Jews'"?  I submit they understood his meaning very well and that their anger over his blasphemy (from their perspective) was authentic.  To argue otherwise means you'd need a different motive for their anger.  And the book, quiet simply, doesn't give you one.  The Jews were angry and offended because they understood Jesus's words and their implication, as recorded in chapter 5.  They understood Jesus, but they didn't believe Jesus. 

If you have another motive for the Jews' reaction, some reason they would make up "lies"--let's hear it.

:0)

--Erik

[danielwoods]

12 hours ago, waveslider said:

 

It seems like you have tunnel vision. First off the resurrection isn't, "apart," of the atonement, It is a part of the atonement. "Apart," means separate. The resurrection isn't what is described as the first fruit, but rather Christ himself is described as the first fruit. I suggest you go back and read verses 17, 18, and 19, then explain how, without Christ resurrecting, the atonement saves us from sin. Verse 20 shows how Christ leads the way in being the first (first fruits) to resurrect and we all follow after. Verses 21 and 22 clarify what is meant by Christ leading the way, and how it pertains directly to the resurrection.                          

I asked, "how exactly is the resurrection a part of the atonement?" Your claim is that "Christ is leading the way..." to the resurrection. Ok. Let's take this at face value. Christ leading the way isn't a part of the atonement, but rather the result of the atonement. The atonement is specifically the work on the cross. To "atone" for ones sins is to pay for them. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus died that death in our place. At that moment our sins were atoned for, or payed for. The resurrection doesn't pay for anything. I agree with you, Christ has lead the way to resurrection. 

Quote

Vance brings up some good scriptures here to help clarify even more although my impressions don't necessarily point to you not studying your Bible much, because it could be that you are, but you are studying with some kind of tunnel vision to make it conform to some sort of man made theology, instead of searching for what it is really saying.

 

So you say, "This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection.",   but where does it say that in the Bible, since you deny other scripture exists if it doesn't come from the Bible.             

The scripture is replete with examples of the sacrifice of Christ taking or bearing our sins. Not one biblical scripture states what the LDS claim. That the resurrection atones for sin in anyway, in the sense of paying for sins. Not one. So, the burden is on you, where does it state that the resurrection atones for sin? 

[waveslider]

 

5 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I asked, "how exactly is the resurrection a part of the atonement?" Your claim is that "Christ is leading the way..." to the resurrection. Ok. Let's take this at face value. Christ leading the way isn't a part of the atonement, but rather the result of the atonement. The atonement is specifically the work on the cross. To "atone" for ones sins is to pay for them. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus died that death in our place. At that moment our sins were atoned for, or payed for. The resurrection doesn't pay for anything. I agree with you, Christ has lead the way to resurrection. 

The scripture is replete with examples of the sacrifice of Christ taking or bearing our sins. Not one biblical scripture states what the LDS claim. That the resurrection atones for sin in anyway, in the sense of paying for sins. Not one. So, the burden is on you, where does it state that the resurrection atones for sin? 

In your dissection of what I am saying, trying to show that I am wrong you are limiting the word, "Atonement," to just one part of the whole story, and missing the whole point of the gospel itself. Let's get rid of the semantics and go with what you stated in an earlier post and use words like, "God's ultimate plan," so you can get past this needless argument and get to the meat of what it is I am talking about:

On 11/2/2016 at 11:03 AM, danielwoods said:

Purpose for resurrection is to fulfill God's ultimate plan. Share his life/love/existence with us. 

God's ultimate plan includes resurrection as much as suffering for sins, even baptism itself is part of that plan. Not to down play Christ's suffering for all of our sins, by any means, but it is obvious that without the resurrection that suffering won't do us any good:

18 hours ago, waveslider said:

17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

"12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
(Romans 5:12,14,15)

( FYI, that, "free gift," is what I was referring to as the, "atonement," obviously you only equated suffering for sins only, as referring to the, "atonement.")

"16  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"
(Romans 5:16-17)

"19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Romans 5:19-21)

"1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
(Romans 6:1-6)

I think that if we could define what we were talking about in the first place, to the point where we both fully understood where the EV view is compared to where the LDS view is, we would find much more commonality in our beliefs than if we just quibble over words and miss the big picture of the gospel plan.

[Vance]

21 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Thank you. Yes you are correct. Not only Jesus but the Holy Spirit also is mentioned as raising him up from the dead. A testimony of the trinity. 

You can't have it both ways.  You claim here that it is a testimony of the trinity.  Nope, the trinity isn't mentioned any where in the Bible.  So, the standard that you claimed in your following post is violated in this one.

Double standards are you.

[Vance]

20 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life. This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection.

Your quote of Helaman makes the point that the claim, about the atonement as coming from both the Cross and the Resurrection, it doesn't come from the Bible. One has to be ignorant of the Biblical doctrine to claim it's from the Bible. And now we get back to the OP, ignorance of Biblical doctrine is similar to other faiths, such as the LDS. 

Unlike you (at least sometimes), I don't require that something be mentioned in the Bible to be correct doctrine.

In this post you again apply your double standard.

First you claim "This resurrection and life are transferred to us through Christ's work on the cross through the atonement, not his resurrection", this is not found in the Bible, therefore, you claiming it to be doctrine is hypocritical. Plus we get back to the OP, you claiming something is Biblical when it isn't.  No where does the Bible make the claim that the resurrection is transferred to us through Christ's suffering on the cross.

The quote from Helaman simply restores one of those plain and precious things lost during the Apostasy.

 

[danielwoods]

On November 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM, mfbukowski said:

The problem is thinking there ARE "facts as they are" independent of words.  The trick is getting the words right instead of letting them get in the way. "Facts" cannot be expressed without words- that seems to me to be self-evident.  One has to understand their ambiguity in order to communicate at all.  Using words which are confused just becomes jibberish. 

If you can't say it clearly, there is no need to say it at all.  The problem is not words- it is quibbling about them that is the problem, while missing the substance.  Trying to parse the parts of the atonement and arguing about if resurrection is "part" of the atonement or is a cause of the atonement or vice versa is absurd.  Language cannot slice and dice the works of God.

It's like arguing about the Trinity.  Which explanation IN WORDS communicates better?  

Three persons in one Substance is unintelligible.  I have no clue what "substance" means here.  Protestants had to adopt it I guess because they like Neoplatonic philosophy.  But the fact is 99.9% of protestants do not even know what Neoplatonic philosophy is, yet they are saddled by that belief due to the Nicene Creed, which for unknown reasons they have decided to accept without "reformation", from Catholicism.

On the other hand, we have the intelligible words of Mormonism that says the Godhead is unified by "purpose" and love.  THAT is understandable.  "God is love" is saying that there are three persons unified in love- and purpose, and function.  Like a family raising the children, they are unified and work together with "One Mind" taking on their specific functions, The Father who presides in love, the Son who is The Word- the Messenger, the definer of doctrine and one who interacts directly with the children, and the Holy Ghost who is the conduit to the spirits of the children and the Comforter to whom we go for solace.   

No "substance" no "Being"- just three persons unified in love and purpose and functions.   We experience that kind of unity every day of our lives from families to football teams, to "one Congress" with hundreds of members.  "God" is a family, a functional unity

THOSE words communicate, Being and Substance do not communicate- they are vague abstractions incapable of human interaction.

Since words are all we have to communicate these paradigms, we better keep them clear and understandable or end up with a mass of confusion, which in my opinion perfectly describes a religion which is supposedly "true" and from "facts" but in which everyone is a leader and everyone defines their own doctrine, where every physical building housing a congregation has different doctrinal "facts" than the congregation down the street, and which no one can explain because the explanations use words like "Being" and "Substance" and "Consubstantiability"

You use words like "No one can explain..." and "They are vague abstractions incapable of human interaction." Your words don't match my view. Your view of the trinity isn't described by the words you use. I have a different experience and a different view. 

If you think that "Language cannot slice and dice the works of God", then why take a position at all? Why even respond? I don't understand your point. Your goal appears to be to shut down discussion and interaction. A true agnostic would simply throw up their hands and say he didn't know. A pragmatist would simply say it doesn't matter either way. The end results are too similar. The question about the atonement is a theological question, and so there are differences here between the two views. Does that mean that language perfectly describes what is happening? Of course not. No one is claiming that. At best language tries to come close, but that's all we got since grunts and hand gestures are far less descriptive. 

[danielwoods]

20 hours ago, waveslider said:

 

In your dissection of what I am saying, trying to show that I am wrong you are limiting the word, "Atonement," to just one part of the whole story, and missing the whole point of the gospel itself. Let's get rid of the semantics and go with what you stated in an earlier post and use words like, "God's ultimate plan," so you can get past this needless argument and get to the meat of what it is I am talking about:

God's ultimate plan includes resurrection as much as suffering for sins, even baptism itself is part of that plan. Not to down play Christ's suffering for all of our sins, by any means, but it is obvious that without the resurrection that suffering won't do us any good:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

"12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
(Romans 5:12,14,15)

( FYI, that, "free gift," is what I was referring to as the, "atonement," obviously you only equated suffering for sins only, as referring to the, "atonement.")

"16  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)"
(Romans 5:16-17)

"19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."
(Romans 5:19-21)

"1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
(Romans 6:1-6)

I think that if we could define what we were talking about in the first place, to the point where we both fully understood where the EV view is compared to where the LDS view is, we would find much more commonality in our beliefs than if we just quibble over words and miss the big picture of the gospel plan.

"Atonement in Judaism is the process of causing a transgression to be forgiven or pardoned." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Judaism

Jesus said, "28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28)

You may want to expand the definition to suit your needs but, I'm not interested nor persuaded that is wise. My goal is accuracy. 

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

"Atonement in Judaism is the process of causing a transgression to be forgiven or pardoned." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Judaism

Jesus said, "28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28)

You may want to expand the definition to suit your needs but, I'm not interested nor persuaded that is wise. My goal is accuracy. 

While your goal is accuracy, my goal is to get on board with God's plan, of which the atonement is a large part of it. Quibbling over words, and there definitions is doing nothing more than taking away from the main goal, of God's plan, in this case. The Bible isn't accurately stating that the whole of the atonement happened upon the cross.

With statements like this, it leaves it open to interpretation as to whether the resurrection is a part of the atonement:

22 hours ago, waveslider said:

17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If Christ wasn't raised...we are yet in our sins. How does that happen if the atonement is solely upon the cross, a full three days before Christ was raised?

That said, I will digress and allow your so called, "Accurate interpretation," of what the word, "atonement," is defined as. My goal is to move on beyond your opinion of what I am meaning when I said, "atonement," for the sake of not arguing a moot point. I won't use my opinion of what that word means, and instead move the conversation along to agree to use a term that you have used yourself, "God's plan," to describe what I am meaning since you can't figure out that I have a different interpretation of the word, "Atonement." If you can point out a scripture that distinctly states that the resurrection is not a part of the atonement, perhaps then I will recognize my mistake in thinking it is a part of the atonement process. Until you do this, I will just stop talking about it because you view your opinion as the only interpretation of scriptures that can so easily be interpreted differently. Minds are like parachutes.... They have to be open to work properly.

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, waveslider said:

While your goal is accuracy, my goal is to get on board with God's plan, of which the atonement is a large part of it. Quibbling over words, and there definitions is doing nothing more than taking away from the main goal, of God's plan, in this case. The Bible isn't accurately stating that the whole of the atonement happened upon the cross.

With statements like this, it leaves it open to interpretation as to whether the resurrection is a part of the atonement:

If Christ wasn't raised...we are yet in our sins. How does that happen if the atonement is solely upon the cross, a full three days before Christ was raised?

That said, I will digress and allow your so called, "Accurate interpretation," of what the word, "atonement," is defined as. My goal is to move on beyond your opinion of what I am meaning when I said, "atonement," for the sake of not arguing a moot point. I won't use my opinion of what that word means, and instead move the conversation along to agree to use a term that you have used yourself, "God's plan," to describe what I am meaning since you can't figure out that I have a different interpretation of the word, "Atonement." If you can point out a scripture that distinctly states that the resurrection is not a part of the atonement, perhaps then I will recognize my mistake in thinking it is a part of the atonement process. Until you do this, I will just stop talking about it because you view your opinion as the only interpretation of scriptures that can so easily be interpreted differently. Minds are like parachutes.... They have to be open to work properly.

First. It's not my definition. It's simply the definition of atonement that's been used since the beginning. That is why I posted the Jewish definition of the word. 

Second. The statement, "If Christ wasn't raised... we are yet in our sins." Is like saying, "If the car doesn't start, you must be out of gas." The car starting is a direct result of having gas in the tank. Christ's resurrection is a result of his work on the cross, which paid for our sins. One can't tell from just looking at another person if their sins have been forgiven (that I know of), and one can't tell just by looking on the outside of the car if there is gas in the tank. The physical proof is the resurrection or the car actually starting. 

The problem with saying that the resurrection is a part of the atonement is the question of payment. Didn't Jesus pay it all on the cross? He stated that it was finished, and then died. And didn't he offer his sacrifice for sins once and that's it? IF that's true, then what payment was paid for at the time of the resurrection? And if there was a payment how much was it, and for what exactly? And why was there some portion left for the resurrection to cover, was his work on the cross not enough? It really doesn't make sense when one understands the historical definition of atonement. And there is no evidence of any sort of payment done at the resurrection. This is why the burden is on those who wish to say there was, and change the definition in the process. 

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

First. It's not my definition. It's simply the definition of atonement that's been used since the beginning. That is why I posted the Jewish definition of the word. 

Second. The statement, "If Christ wasn't raised... we are yet in our sins." Is like saying, "If the car doesn't start, you must be out of gas." The car starting is a direct result of having gas in the tank. Christ's resurrection is a result of his work on the cross, which paid for our sins. One can't tell from just looking at another person if their sins have been forgiven (that I know of), and one can't tell just by looking on the outside of the car if there is gas in the tank. The physical proof is the resurrection or the car actually starting. 

The problem with saying that the resurrection is a part of the atonement is the question of payment. Didn't Jesus pay it all on the cross? He stated that it was finished, and then died. And didn't he offer his sacrifice for sins once and that's it? IF that's true, then what payment was paid for at the time of the resurrection? And if there was a payment how much was it, and for what exactly? And why was there some portion left for the resurrection to cover, was his work on the cross not enough? It really doesn't make sense when one understands the historical definition of atonement. And there is no evidence of any sort of payment done at the resurrection. This is why the burden is on those who wish to say there was, and change the definition in the process. 

Your Wikipedia definition of atonement under Jewish law still doesn't say that resurrection isn't a part of Christ's atonement. (Not that Wikipedia is a valid source anyway since anyone, including myself, could go in at any time and edit whatever they/I want into it) You still have never given a scripture reference that states emphatically that resurrection isn't a part of the atonement process. All you have done is assert your opinion on how you interpret scripture and state it as a concrete fact. I will respectfully leave this thread since you refuse to give proof that the resurrection is not a part of the atonement, and refuse to move past this moot point that doesn't even matter since the belief that Christ has made it possible for us to be at one with God anyway, no matter what each step of the process of becoming at one with God is called by us, individually. Aloha.

[danielwoods]

23 hours ago, waveslider said:

Your Wikipedia definition of atonement under Jewish law still doesn't say that resurrection isn't a part of Christ's atonement. (Not that Wikipedia is a valid source anyway since anyone, including myself, could go in at any time and edit whatever they/I want into it) You still have never given a scripture reference that states emphatically that resurrection isn't a part of the atonement process. All you have done is assert your opinion on how you interpret scripture and state it as a concrete fact. I will respectfully leave this thread since you refuse to give proof that the resurrection is not a part of the atonement, and refuse to move past this moot point that doesn't even matter since the belief that Christ has made it possible for us to be at one with God anyway, no matter what each step of the process of becoming at one with God is called by us, individually. Aloha.

You're right, but it defines what atonement means. Don't like that definition? Cool. Make a new definition without any scriptural support to do so, and then demand evidence that changing the definition is prohibited somewhere. One can make up what ever definition you wish, but I'll stick with the historical definition. 

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, danielwoods said:

You're right, but it defines what atonement means. Don't like that definition? Cool. Make a new definition without any scriptural support to do so, and then demand evidence that changing the definition is prohibited somewhere. One can make up what ever definition you wish, but I'll stick with the historical definition. 

That definition you are referring to still doesn't say emphatically that resurrection is not a part of Christ's atonement, so it makes what you are saying a definition that you are making up as much as mine is made up. Your definition is nothing more than an opinion unless you can find a scripture that states otherwise.

[danielwoods]

9 hours ago, waveslider said:

That definition you are referring to still doesn't say emphatically that resurrection is not a part of Christ's atonement, so it makes what you are saying a definition that you are making up as much as mine is made up. Your definition is nothing more than an opinion unless you can find a scripture that states otherwise.

Neither does it say that feeding the 5,000 is not part of the atonement either. Neither does it say that construction of the temple was not a part of Christ's atonement. We could add anything we wish to this definition using your logic. 

Redefining words without reason leads to error.  

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, danielwoods said:

Neither does it say that feeding the 5,000 is not part of the atonement either. Neither does it say that construction of the temple was not a part of Christ's atonement. We could add anything we wish to this definition using your logic. 

Redefining words without reason leads to error.  

Without reason?  What does that mean? And error as measured by what?  What is a good reason and what is a bad one?   Words themselves are symbols pointing to whatever we associate them with!

In a sense all those things WERE part of the atonement if we see the atonement as "The Savior's Mission".  Was not feeding the 5,000 a symbol of spiritual feeding?  Was not the manna from God a symbol of the savior's mission to feed his sheep?  Wasn't animal sacrifice pointing to the savior's sacrifice?

How can we slice and dice these overlying symbols?  Why have animal sacrifice if it was not a "schoolmaster" pointing to Jesus?  What of the "Day of Atonement" in the old testament?  Was that not part of the atonement?

Latin became Italian and Spanish and French, Portuguese and even Romanian as a natural process partially by changing definitions.  We are not made of stone, change is part of life and growth as we learn more and more and figure out better ways of doing things and seeing the world.  We cannot freeze the world in time.

With this logic "psychology" would be phrenology and "science" would be about earth, air, fire, and water and medicine would be about "the vapors"

"Adding things to a definition" is "increasing knowledge".

 I would still like a definition of "substance" as used in "conSUBSTANTial" or "Being".  Those are frozen in time and irrelevant now to anyone's life precisely because they are now useless.  The world has moved forward, but the definitions have not because they were locked up for centuries in dogmas which no longer apply.

[waveslider]

4 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Neither does it say that feeding the 5,000 is not part of the atonement either. Neither does it say that construction of the temple was not a part of Christ's atonement. We could add anything we wish to this definition using your logic. 

Redefining words without reason leads to error.  

I don't know why I keep getting sucked in here to reply to you, but I am just amazed at how absolutely close minded you seem to be. Besides what mfbukowski said, of which I agree with, you still don't see how hypocritical your statements are. You have not given scripture that emphatically backs up your claim that the word atonement only means Christ's suffering on the cross, so it is nothing more than your opinion, even if it is shared by others or not. I have given plenty of scriptures that point to a different definition, in my opinion, which I know is still an opinion but it is no less valid than your opinion, except in your own mind. I have even decided to go off of the subject of what we each define the word, "Atonement," as being, and move on for the sake of discussing what is more important than the definition of that one word is. The most important thing is that Christ did pave the way for us to be able to be, "At one," with God, in following, "God's plan," for us, not in how we each think that plan should be dissected privately interpreting labels. It seems you prefer argumentation more than becoming at one.

Just for your understanding that I am not taking random things out of thin air and applying them to fall under the atonement, even though it wouldn't matter if I did as mfbukowski has pointed out, I will again point out that there are scriptures, such as this one, which can easily be interpreted as stating that the resurrection is indeed a part of the atonement:

On 11/6/2016 at 6:30 PM, waveslider said:

"17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:17-22

If resurrection isn't part of the atonement then how does the sin of Adam and Eve get atoned for, so that we don't have to pay the consequences of death?

Like I said though I can agree to disagree on our differing definitions of the word, "Atonement," and state that the resurrection, which fixes the result of Adam and eve's original sin so that we can still have eternal life both physically (resurrection) as well as spiritually (Christ's suffering and sacrifice), is what is most important. I don't see why you need to keep arguing unless you don't want to work the righteousness of God:

"19  Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
20  For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."
James 1:19-20

Please take some prayerful time to ponder what it is I have been trying to say, so we can move on, instead of just blindly bringing up another rebuttal as to how your opinion is the only one that we can have, when there is no emphatic scriptural reference to clear it up completely. "It is done," doesn't say, "The Atonement is done." that leaves it open to interpretation. I can respect that you think it refers to the atonement, but to me it can also refer to the suffering he was enduring as well. The only place within the New Testament that even says the word, "Atonement," doesn't define it to just being the suffering that was endured upon the cross:

"11  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Romans 5:11,12,17

The mechanics of how that free gift were given is still open to interpretation and it doesn't matter as long as we understand that it is a real free gift, so let's please stop the nonsensical argument and move on. I don't need a quick reply to anything, ever. I think well thought out, and prayed about, responses are much more enlightening than a quick response where the time wasn't even spent on understanding what was really said before hand.

I think the main thing that should be discussed is the fact that there is:

"5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,"
Ephesians 4:5

Not all different ones and that Christ did call people to callings, all with different functions:

"11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;"
Ephesians 4:11

The reason Christ called these different people to their different callings is:

"12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:"
Ephesians 4:12

"the body of Christ," meaning all of us who elect to follow Him whether EV (informed or not), LDS (informed or not as well) or anyone else.

For how long will Christ have these different callings placed on Earth, even if they have been killed off by evil men, and have to be restored once again to this Earth?:

"13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"
Ephesians 4:13

Obviously we are not all in a unity of the faith, especially when we allow contention to enter in, which distracts us from the main Plan that is all geared toward becoming, "at one," with God and Christ as illustrated in what Christ was praying for here:

"20  Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21  That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:20-21

When we look for the differences in our beliefs we aren't coming into the unity, but willingly looking for divisions no matter who is right or wrong. The reason we need to try to look for, and build upon, the truth and good that we each posses is so:

"14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
Ephesians 4:14

So can we please move on past our definition of what constitutes the mechanics of how the Atonement was given, and instead focus on the fact that it was given as a free gift to all who want to follow Christ on this path to becoming at one with God, in God's own plan to bring this about? I really hope we can my brother.

Edited November 11, 2016 by waveslider
Had to change some wording to make more sense

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, waveslider said:

Just for your understanding that I am not taking random things out of thin air and applying them to fall under the atonement, even though it wouldn't matter if I did as mfbukowski has pointed out, I will again point out that there are scriptures, such as this one, which can easily be interpreted as stating that the resurrection is indeed a part of the atonement:

 

Just curious why you do not quote from one of most complete and instructive book regarding the nature of the atonement, but insist on  limiting yourself to the Bible.  If you were speaking of the life and mission of Christ, would you limit yourself to the Hebrew scriptures?

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Just curious why you do not quote from one of most complete and instructive book regarding the nature of the atonement, but insist on  limiting yourself to the Bible.  If you were speaking of the life and mission of Christ, would you limit yourself to the Hebrew scriptures?

I do this because I have been chided for doing so, in the recent past, by some of the board members here who don't believe in the other sources of scripture, so instead of casting those pearls out there to those who will just tread over it and continue to attack Christ's views, I put those scriptures that they actually believe in hopes that they will actually listen and then we can have a better discussion. I am well aware of the the better and more complete sources of information.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

, I put those scriptures that they actually believe in hopes that they will actually listen and then we can have a better discussion. I am well aware of the the better and more complete sources of information.

I would then suggest that you find another subject to discuss, unless you are willing to keep it very simple ==
Christ died to pay the sin debt for those who are saved.  Thru His death and resurrection, He made it possible for us to live again.  Period.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

unless you are willing to keep it very simple

That is the whole point. Starting at the basics first helps to get on common ground, which most often are the simple things. With a simple understanding being understood, from both sides of the view, by both parties, it creates a good foundation to expand upon if the conversation needs to get a little deeper. The milk before the meat type of thing.

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Christ died to pay the sin debt for those who are saved.  Thru His death and resurrection, He made it possible for us to live again.  Period.

Are you trying to say that this is all the the Bible tells us? Because it also tells us that Christ has asked us to do certain things as well, which are also simple to understand; first and foremost Love the Lord, secondly love our fellow beings. Simply put works and grace go hand in hand, from Biblical sources as well as from the other standard works. Christ loves us enough to give the gift of atonement, in spite of our having failed to love the Lord and our fellow mankind perfectly, yet He still asks us to be, "perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

I would then suggest that you find another subject to discuss

Although my goal is to make it simple, I don't quite understand why you think I would need to find a different subject to discuss if it gets a little more detailed. Even though I don't think it would get too intricate after we find common ground in the definitions of a few key words that create the arguments in the first place, since we all know it is a free gift and that we have been asked to follow Him, yet these different personal definitions of words are so different that it creates an argument out of a non issue IMO.

What exactly is your point in your reply here?

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by waveslider
edited out an unnecessary word