Five Solas Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 On 2/9/2017 at 0:50 PM, RevTestament said: There are other Christians besides LDS who believe in a pre-mortal existence ... Alrighty then, CFR it is! :0) --Erik _______________________________ In the morning you go gunnin' For the man who stole your water And you fire till he is done in But they catch you at the border And the mourners are all singin' As they drag you by your feet But the hangman isn't hangin' And they put you on the street --Steely Dan, "Do It Again"
Tacenda Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: Alrighty then, CFR it is! Edited February 11, 2017 by Tacenda 3
Bernard Gui Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 On February 1, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Kenngo1969 said: I still like my reply, so Hmph! I did address the LDS perspective difference between predestination and foreordination, or, as some of my Southern Utah ancestors and relatives might call it, farardination, though! So there! And I think the whole "Agency" thing is inextricably bound up in the notion that even though we might choose different circumstances, that doesn't change our ability to choose how to react to our current circumstances. P.S.: I live in Pleasant Grove, which is right near American Fark. Would you happen to know John or Robert Fugal?
Kenngo1969 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Would you happen to know John or Robert Fugal? Lo siento, hermano muy mio. No reconozco esos nombres. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) On 2/7/2017 at 8:46 AM, Five Solas said: ... I really don't get how LDS could embrace foreordination (short of inventing a new definition at sharp variance to the common one). It refutes their old idol, "free agency." Hmmm. There's a common, widely-accepted definition of foreordination, that word is in common use among all of Christianity, and Latter-day Saints' use of that word somehow is idiosyncratic? Huh. Who knew? Besides, with due respect, you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth on this one: On the one hand, you claim that, as understood by Latter-day Saints, foreordination forecloses agency, when, in fact, as LDS use the term, whatever is foreordained is contingent upon how one uses one's agency, yet, on the other hand, you also excoriate us for an idiosyncratic definition because, to the rest of Christianity (apparently ... if my understanding is correct), foreordination and predestination are the same thing. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Pick a horse and ride it. And if you intend to say, by calling agency an idol (it's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it), that Latter-day Saints worship it, that, too, is incorrect. We obey Exodus 20:3 to the best of our understanding and ability just the same as you do, Erik. Edited February 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969 3
Okrahomer Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Tacenda said: A bit of home this Saturday morning! This made me smile. Thanks, Tacenda! But let me just set you straight: Erik is a Calvinist, which of course means he gets to define who is a Christian and who is not. At the end of the day, I suspect he'll disqualify this example and chalk it up to Garth Brooks being an "Okie" rather than a Christian. Oh! The shame! 4
RevTestament Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: Been awhile since I heard Garth. This song displays a very tender side of him. The words are beautiful. TY for sharing. 1
RevTestament Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 12 hours ago, Five Solas said: Alrighty then, CFR it is! :0) --Erik The point was not to get into some debate about modern Christian sects but to show there are actually many scriptures addressing the subject of preexistence that modern Christianity glosses over and tries to explain away because the don't fit their paradigm of what the scriptures must have meant. I concede that i don't know of other major Christian sects which teach preexistence but I have run across other small groups that do. One had 2-3 members that used to post on TheologyOnLine.com. Since that time the site has undergone a software update and database refresh and many threads were deleted, so I don't know what is left, but it can also be found by digging through the time machine. They still seemed to believe that our spirits were created and not eternally pre-existing, but did acknowledge the scriptures which discuss or infer preexistence. They talked about being angels before being sent to earth. I never did them to open up too much, but they were interesting. Nevertheless my challenge remains - how do you address these scriptures besides Jeremiah 1:5. When you read the scriptures carefully through LDS eyes, they all make complete sense. The veil of the temple was just closed by the RCC - Christ opened the way to the holiest of all, and the RCC closed it back up within a few hundred years. Nevertheless, the scriptures can be taken literally that our spirits were not created but came from God - are "blown" into our created bodies - thus creating a soul. See Ecclesiastes: "the body returns to the dust from which it came, but our spirit will return to God who gave it." Nowhere does scripture say our spirits were created. Not even Genesis says God created Adam's spirit. Notice it says God created his body, and then blew his spirit into him - not that God created his spirit. This is why one third of the spirits were angels of the devil even before the resurrection. Else how could there have been spirits following him? See Revelation. Who were the spirits Christ sent into the pigs? So when the NT says that we were organized to come into this world according to the foreknowledge of our Lord, it means it quite literally. He had foreknowledge based upon our foreactions . Further, that is also why God says when He creates a new world, the former (this world) will not be remembered nor come into mind. Isaiah 65. I will add another: Matthew 12:32 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Now my guess is you interpret that not to mean what it literally says, but that Jesus is referring to some future time in this world - the usual Christian sidestep. My interpretation is that He meant what He said, and uses the term world like the rest of scripture. That these people will face eternal consequences for this sin even in a new world. Note He said a new world and not heaven or hell. Isaiah also distinguishes between a new earth and a new heaven/sky.
Five Solas Posted February 11, 2017 Posted February 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Okrahomer said: ... Erik is a Calvinist, which of course means he gets to define who is a Christian and who is not. At the end of the day, I suspect he'll disqualify this example and chalk it up to Garth Brooks being an "Okie" rather than a Christian. Oh! The shame! With all due respect to Garth Brooks as a singer/songwriter, it's highly doubtful he intended "Meet Your Mom" as an argument for a pre-mortal existence, LDS style. ;0) --Erik
Five Solas Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Hmmm. There's a common, widely-accepted definition of foreordination, that word is in common use among all of Christianity, and Latter-day Saints' use of that word somehow is idiosyncratic? Huh. Who knew? Besides, with due respect, you seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth on this one: On the one hand, you claim that, as understood by Latter-day Saints, foreordination forecloses agency, when, in fact, as LDS use the term, whatever is foreordained is contingent upon how one uses one's agency, yet, on the other hand, you also excoriate us for an idiosyncratic definition because, to the rest of Christianity (apparently ... if my understanding is correct), foreordination and predestination are the same thing. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Pick a horse and ride it. And if you intend to say, by calling agency an idol (it's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it), that Latter-day Saints worship it, that, too, is incorrect. We obey Exodus 20:3 to the best of our understanding and ability just the same as you do, Erik. And you, my friend, are being incoherent. "Foreordained" and "contingent" are mutually exclusive. If it's one - it aint the other. It would be like saying (in the game of Craps) if the Come Out roll is a 7, the Pass Line bets are foreordained to win. Foreordination contingent on a 7 (or an 11). By any common definition of those words, this is nonsense. Regarding my reference to "free agency" and your reply "it's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it"--I've never heard LDS suggest their Jesus died for agency. To tell you the truth, it was always a little vague what exactly he did die for--but I sure don't recall anyone answering the question with the word "agency"--as you just did. Do others see it this way? If so, probably merits its own thread. --Erik
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Five Solas said: With all due respect to Garth Brooks as a singer/songwriter, it's highly doubtful he intended "Meet Your Mom" as an argument for a pre-mortal existence, LDS style. ;0) --Erik Let the back pedaling begin.
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) On 2/10/2017 at 10:02 PM, Five Solas said: Alrighty then, CFR it is! :0) --Erik __ First some questions for you. 1) Did Christ have a pre-mortal existence? 2) In becoming mortal, whose pattern did He follow? 3) Was He foreordained to be the Lamb of God, if so, did He loose His agency in the process? “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. ” ― William Wordsworth Edited February 12, 2017 by Vance 1
RevTestament Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: And you, my friend, are being incoherent. "Foreordained" and "contingent" are mutually exclusive. If it's one - it aint the other. It would be like saying (in the game of Craps) if the Come Out roll is a 7, the Pass Line bets are foreordained to win. Foreordination contingent on a 7 (or an 11). By any common definition of those words, this is nonsense. Not in the LDS perspective. I believe it safe to say that in the LDS perspective offices are foreordained but events are not necessarily. "Ordained" refers to being ordained or authorized to an office. We do not believe all events are predestined. We/(at least I) do believe the future is planned by God, and thus certain events are predestined to take place by God - ie certain wars, etc. - but we do not believe every single event is predestined. Even a foreordained person may rebel against God, and turn away. For example Joseph Smith was foreordained as a prophet as was Jeremiah, but like Jonah, didn't want to follow God's direction, so kept praying for God to allow him to give a transcript to his scribe Harris, when the Lord had said no. His rebellion was not a predestined event. But the restoration of the gospel was a predestined event, so the Lord eventually had to turn Joseph Smith back into an obedient servant after he experienced some consequences and had to return the urim and thummim. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: And you, my friend, are being incoherent. "Foreordained" and "contingent" are mutually exclusive. If it's one - it aint the other. It would be like saying (in the game of Craps) if the Come Out roll is a 7, the Pass Line bets are foreordained to win. Foreordination contingent on a 7 (or an 11). By any common definition of those words, this is nonsense. This was the card that had to be removed for the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to collapse as though it were a house of cards! Who knew? Oooh-kay. If you say so. Shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?
Vance Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 11 hours ago, Five Solas said: Regarding my reference to "free agency" and your reply "it's not "free": the Best Blood That Ever Lived was spilled for it"--I've never heard LDS suggest their Jesus died for agency. It is strongly implied in the scriptures. Abraham 3:22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. 24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; 26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. 27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first. 28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him. Moses 4:1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. 3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; Satan's plan was to destroy the agency of man. God's plan was to preserve it. God's plan to preserve it required an infinite sacrifice. Simple, really. 11 hours ago, Five Solas said: To tell you the truth, it was always a little vague what exactly he did die for--but I sure don't recall anyone answering the question with the word "agency"--as you just did. Do others see it this way? If so, probably merits its own thread. --Erik It is rather obvious that you weren't paying attention, and certainly didn't put any mental effort into learning.
Five Solas Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 20 hours ago, RevTestament said: Not in the LDS perspective. I believe it safe to say that in the LDS perspective offices are foreordained but events are not necessarily. "Ordained" refers to being ordained or authorized to an office. We do not believe all events are predestined. We/(at least I) do believe the future is planned by God, and thus certain events are predestined to take place by God - ie certain wars, etc. - but we do not believe every single event is predestined. Even a foreordained person may rebel against God, and turn away. For example Joseph Smith was foreordained as a prophet as was Jeremiah, but like Jonah, didn't want to follow God's direction, so kept praying for God to allow him to give a transcript to his scribe Harris, when the Lord had said no. His rebellion was not a predestined event. But the restoration of the gospel was a predestined event, so the Lord eventually had to turn Joseph Smith back into an obedient servant after he experienced some consequences and had to return the urim and thummim. Let's pick an example to illuminate the logic. Joseph Smith--you say he was foreordained/predestined to be the Prophet of the Restoration (A). Now to have Joseph Smith foreordained to be ordained to this "office"--well, that required some preceding events didn't it? At a minimum, it required a great or general apostasy (B) prior to his arrival (else there's nothing lost to restore). So if A. is foreordained, and B. is necessary for A... Suffice it to say from an LDS point of view, those early Christians who fumbled the ball--they must not have had much choice in the matter. Joseph Smith was coming and Joseph Smith's office required a turnover. A whole series of events leading up to Joseph Smith must have been foreordained/predestined, events big and small. Tell me you can see the problem with your "LDS perspective." And to argue that some people/events are predestined while others are left to forces of chance--well, how do you know which it is for you? --Erik
Five Solas Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) So as not to derail, I started a new thread to discuss what Jesus died for. I made Kenngo1969's "agency" the second choice in an accompanying poll. If you're interested in that aspect of the discussion--let's continue it over here. --Erik Edited February 13, 2017 by Five Solas added link for ease of finding
boblloyd91 Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: Let's pick an example to illuminate the logic. Joseph Smith--you say he was foreordained/predestined to be the Prophet of the Restoration (A). Now to have Joseph Smith foreordained to be ordained to this "office"--well, that required some preceding events didn't it? At a minimum, it required a great or general apostasy (B) prior to his arrival (else there's nothing lost to restore). So if A. is foreordained, and B. is necessary for A... Suffice it to say from an LDS point of view, those early Christians who fumbled the ball--they must not have had much choice in the matter. Joseph Smith was coming and Joseph Smith's office required a turnover. A whole series of events leading up to Joseph Smith must have been foreordained/predestined, events big and small. Tell me you can see the problem with your "LDS perspective." And to argue that some people/events are predestined while others are left to forces of chance--well, how do you know which it is for you? --Erik But Erik wouldn't this same intellectual conundrum apply to your faith tradition? You excoriate us and Joseph Smith's idea of an apostasy, yet did Calvin think the church was fine and dandy? I know the arguments of a Reformation vs a Restoration, however it's fairly obvious that those of the Reformed faith also believe the early Christians got it wrong somewhere as well and needed redirecting. And to take your example of the absurdity of an Apostasy happening to make Joseph a prophet, how is that any less foolish than God predestining an Apostasy so John Calvin can write his divine institutes and save His church? I don't think any of us will ever fully understand why God intervenes and doesn't intervene. In my study of the scriptures, church teachings, history etc. It seems there is a mixture of foreordination and agency. Anyways the thing I can't figure out for the life of me is why you are making the arguments you are against us when they would actually be amplified and look more absurd if we took it from a Calvinist perspective. At least the LDS perspective involves allowing free choice. However taking a Calvinist perspective to your example, God predestined an apostasy, then predestined a reformation. And since the Reformed faith sees those in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as following a false gospel, God chose and determined the majority of them are going to hell (unless they somehow held to sola fide in some mystical way). And if we keep going with this, we could say God predestined Joseph to be deceived, along with faithful LDS due to his choice and will. I could go on, but I just wanted to point out that if you want to call our position silly and nonsensical it would actually put yours in a much worse place, as it would only make the inconsistency bigger. Edited February 13, 2017 by boblloyd91 4
RevTestament Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Five Solas said: Let's pick an example to illuminate the logic. Joseph Smith--you say he was foreordained/predestined to be the Prophet of the Restoration (A). Now to have Joseph Smith foreordained to be ordained to this "office"--well, that required some preceding events didn't it? At a minimum, it required a great or general apostasy (B) prior to his arrival (else there's nothing lost to restore). So if A. is foreordained, and B. is necessary for A... Suffice it to say from an LDS point of view, those early Christians who fumbled the ball--they must not have had much choice in the matter. Joseph Smith was coming and Joseph Smith's office required a turnover. A whole series of events leading up to Joseph Smith must have been foreordained/predestined, events big and small. Tell me you can see the problem with your "LDS perspective." And to argue that some people/events are predestined while others are left to forces of chance--well, how do you know which it is for you? --Erik Perhaps you should review what the Reformed Church had to say about the Catholic Church before claiming there was no apostasy. That applies to most of the other Protestant Churches as well. It seems claims there was no apostasy have a short memory in this regard. As for whether or not there was a planned apostasy: John 9:4 4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 2 Thess 2: 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. This says to me that at some point before the day of the Lord, the people turn from the truth and believe delusion, which God planned. Now, I would advise you to look again at what the Reformed Church said about the Catholic Church, and whether they believed the Catholics had become deluded. So yes, the apostasy was known to the Lord, and was planned and predestined. The scriptures say that God actually took part in it, because the people did not believe the truth(what the scriptures say). I pose in part this is represented in your apparent difficulty in addressing those scriptures I have brought up about pre-existence. There are actually many other scriptures which traditional Christianity glosses over. The list goes on and on. When read accurately, the long history of Christian misinterpretation is revealed. Now individuals did have a choice in the matter, but it became difficult for them to exercise that choice because the state church adopted a creed which told them what they had to believe, and if they did not, the creed told them they were anathema - they would be excommunicated if they did not believe that the Son was begotten before all ages/worlds. Now find that in scripture. Scripture says the Son was begotten when "He said to him, thou art my Son THIS DAY I have begotten thee." It is in Acts, Hebrews and the OT. So there I can show the beginning of a separation from the truth. The truth is "orthodox" Christianity simply doesn't follow the scriptures on many fronts. Nor will they believe the truth when it is pointed out to them. They are too stuck in their paradigm. I will be happy to provide more examples. There are just pages of them.... Do you have agency as to whether to continue to believe those old inaccurate creeds or to pray about the truth revealed in scripture? I pose that you do. Now you may be foreordained to believe something new. If so, I pose to you that the truth will at some point begin to burn in you. If you are not foreordained, you may continue on your present path for the rest of your life or you may decide to pray about what is true anyway... The exact time etc, i don't believe is predestined for you. That is how I use those terms. So I strongly disagree with the Calvinist Reformed Church view, and find it repugnant to the gospel. It leads to an extremely skewed view of the gospel imho. 2
Okrahomer Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 (edited) On 2/11/2017 at 4:57 PM, Five Solas said: Edited February 14, 2017 by Okrahomer Downright snotty...apologies
Five Solas Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 On 2/12/2017 at 6:38 PM, boblloyd91 said: But Erik wouldn't this same intellectual conundrum apply to your faith tradition? You excoriate us and Joseph Smith's idea of an apostasy, yet did Calvin think the church was fine and dandy? I know the arguments of a Reformation vs a Restoration, however it's fairly obvious that those of the Reformed faith also believe the early Christians got it wrong somewhere as well and needed redirecting. And to take your example of the absurdity of an Apostasy happening to make Joseph a prophet, how is that any less foolish than God predestining an Apostasy so John Calvin can write his divine institutes and save His church? I don't think any of us will ever fully understand why God intervenes and doesn't intervene. In my study of the scriptures, church teachings, history etc. It seems there is a mixture of foreordination and agency. Anyways the thing I can't figure out for the life of me is why you are making the arguments you are against us when they would actually be amplified and look more absurd if we took it from a Calvinist perspective. At least the LDS perspective involves allowing free choice. However taking a Calvinist perspective to your example, God predestined an apostasy, then predestined a reformation. And since the Reformed faith sees those in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as following a false gospel, God chose and determined the majority of them are going to hell (unless they somehow held to sola fide in some mystical way). And if we keep going with this, we could say God predestined Joseph to be deceived, along with faithful LDS due to his choice and will. I could go on, but I just wanted to point out that if you want to call our position silly and nonsensical it would actually put yours in a much worse place, as it would only make the inconsistency bigger. Interesting approach being taken by you and RevTestament (above). Rather than directly address the inconsistency/incoherence in the LDS view of foreordination, you point your fingers at the Reformed or Calvinist tradition and tell us things are even worse over there. Well, they say the best defense is a good offense... ;0) And no doubt some are persuaded an intermittent God who intermittently predestines is preferable to one who is sovereign at all times. I get that. Time and energy permitting, I'll revisit this. I do appreciate the post and the engagement, Bob. --Erik
Vance Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 On 2/11/2017 at 8:15 PM, Vance said: First some questions for you. 1) Did Christ have a pre-mortal existence? 2) In becoming mortal, whose pattern did He follow? 3) Was He foreordained to be the Lamb of God, if so, did He loose His agency in the process? “Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. ” ― William Wordsworth I noticed that my questions went unanswered.
Recommended Posts