Anakin7 Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 According to my new evangelical friend who I met while working { He was a customer who is a christian from my talking and asking him if he was, I got the impression observing him with his multiple children ] He asked me about 1John 5:18 and stated that one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. He also stated he does not rely on any "man" for interpretation but just reads what is in the text [ my understanding of his statement]. I believe he is not a calvinist from what I remember asking him. And he wanted to know my thoughts. So I thought I would also get your Thoughts/Voices on this topic. Non LDS are welcome as well to share. He before he left asked if I was aware of Brigham Young's behavior concerning others - blood atonement and other statements. Anyway must go to work, looking forward to your feelings and thoughts. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptionian Warrior
bluebell Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 What's his definition of transgression? Does he believe that transgressions are not sins?
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 13 minutes ago, Anakin7 said: He asked me about 1John 5:18 and stated that one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. I think he is stretching a bit. This verse clearly refers to the change of heart causing us not to want sin, but instead to focus on God and resist temptation. It's definitely an overreach to say that this means we CAN'T sin. Only that we are changed so we don't want to. Quote He also stated he does not rely on any "man" for interpretation but just reads what is in the text [ my understanding of his statement]. A practice with both positive and negative results. We can see from the example of Christ that over reliance on scriptural text and personal interpretation can lead down false paths. Christ frequently was correcting the traditional Jewish interpretation of the law because he understood it better. But at the same time Joseph Smith specifically said "What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads." Your friend seems to agree with him. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: ................................But at the same time Joseph Smith specifically said "What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads." .................. That is in itself a theory of interpretation. The mere act of reading a text requires cogitation and interpretation. Otherwise, the eyes would merely be moving over the words, sounding them out, but not registering in the brain at all -- which does happen to students assigned to read a text, but who are tired and non compos mentis. 2
JLHPROF Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is in itself a theory of interpretation. The mere act of reading a text requires cogitation and interpretation. Otherwise, the eyes would merely be moving over the words, sounding them out, but not registering in the brain at all -- which does happen to students assigned to read a text, but who are tired and non compos mentis. Semantics, but true. I believe Joseph's point was to take the text more literally and not wrest the scriptures.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Anakin7 said: ................ 1John 5:18 ............... one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. ......................... One ought first of all to read that text in light of 1 Jn 3:6, "No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him." And 3 Jn 11, "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God." NRSV We are offered only two paths here. Someone who sins (habitual and constant transgression) is not a person who abides in God. Their actions speak louder than words, and tell us that their claim to abide in Him is a lie. As usual, faith without works is as dead as a body without a spirit (James 2:26). Prooftexting out of context is very dangerous. One must always read for context and that means the whole Bible. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Semantics, but true. I believe Joseph's point was to take the text more literally and not wrest the scriptures. Certainly good advice, but more easily said than practiced. What does one do, for example, with an archaic English text such as the KJV? In many cases, it is as obscure as Shakespeare. In others, our understanding of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek has vastly improved over time. Joseph himself recognized that the KJV was only useful so far as translated correctly. Yet, he misjudged the grammatical nature of the Book of Mormon, actively attempting to improve the grammar in the 1837 and 1840 editions -- since he was completely unaware of the underlying Early Modern English text -- and that was also the effort of Elder Talmage and others in transmitting that text into modern times (which was the basis for the Tanners loudly crowing over those 3,000+ changes to the BofM text).
Bobbieaware Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, Anakin7 said: According to my new evangelical friend who I met while working { He was a customer who is a christian from my talking and asking him if he was, I got the impression observing him with his multiple children ] He asked me about 1John 5:18 and stated that one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. He also stated he does not rely on any "man" for interpretation but just reads what is in the text [ my understanding of his statement]. I believe he is not a calvinist from what I remember asking him. And he wanted to know my thoughts. So I thought I would also get your Thoughts/Voices on this topic. Non LDS are welcome as well to share. He before he left asked if I was aware of Brigham Young's behavior concerning others - blood atonement and other statements. Anyway must go to work, looking forward to your feelings and thoughts. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptionian Warrior I would ask your Evagelical friend how he squares his understanding of 1 John 5:18 with the following verses from the first chapter of the same epistle of John? 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1)
clarkgoble Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Anakin7 said: According to my new evangelical friend who I met while working { He was a customer who is a christian from my talking and asking him if he was, I got the impression observing him with his multiple children ] He asked me about 1John 5:18 and stated that one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. He also stated he does not rely on any "man" for interpretation but just reads what is in the text [ my understanding of his statement]. I believe he is not a calvinist from what I remember asking him. And he wanted to know my thoughts. So I thought I would also get your Thoughts/Voices on this topic. Non LDS are welcome as well to share. He before he left asked if I was aware of Brigham Young's behavior concerning others - blood atonement and other statements. Anyway must go to work, looking forward to your feelings and thoughts. Sounds like he comes from the Protestant tradition of imputed righteousness that's common in Reformed Theology. This theology things God sees us through Christ so that even if we're sinning God sees only Jesus' perfection. This often ends up degenerating into a theology of cheap grace, although technically cheap grace is a heresy. There are of course other Protestant traditions. So this isn't all Protestants. Hal Lindsay who was a popular writer in the 70's and 80's was a big proponent of this theology. Typically those holding imputed righteousness think that one is truly sanctified only at the resurrection. Mormons in a certain sense hold something somewhat similar but we see both justification and sanctification as processes not fully culminated until we're resurrected. We reject imputed righteousness though and at best think God can promise us that our election is sure. Which is not the same thing as being just at that moment. Robert Boyland at his popular blog Scriptural Mormonism has written on this issue a lot. I'd check out some of his stuff on this. He argues fairly persuasively that Mormons hold to transformative justification and that Reformed Theology is just wrong on this point. Robert gets right down in the weeds on the issue so be prepared for a lot of close exegesis and discussion of greek. The real issue ultimately is whether being born again is a one time event or whether grace is something we accept, fall from, and accept again as we repent. Blood atonement is a separate issue and more wrapped up with justice and what one should do for certain crimes. For various reasons in the early Utah period they thought that certain crimes were capital crimes. Thus if you were attempting to repent you'd submit yourselves to the authorities and accept the sentence. We don't do that today but we still tend to think if you did a crime part of the repentance process is confessing to the civil authorities and accepting their punishment. At the time of blood atonement there wasn't real church/state separation so the civil and religious authorities were the same. Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble
FormerLDS Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I think he is stretching a bit. This verse clearly refers to the change of heart causing us not to want sin, but instead to focus on God and resist temptation.It's definitely an overreach to say that this means we CAN'T sin. Only that we are changed so we don't want to. What does the scripture say about those who are born of God? 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. It is difficult for LDS Christians to comprehend the sinless, perfect new man within. Having eternal life has nothing to do with Calvinism. Those who have eternal life have already met Heavenly Father's perfection requirement. (Matt 5:48, etc)
FormerLDS Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said: I would ask your Evagelical friend how he squares his understanding of 1 John 5:18 with the following verses from the first chapter of the same epistle of John? 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1) There is a natural, sinful man, and, for those who have received the gift of eternal life, there is a new, sinless man that cannot ever sin again. This is what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he said "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Romans 7:17
FormerLDS Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Sounds like he comes from the Protestant tradition of imputed righteousness that's common in Reformed Theology. This theology things God sees us through Christ so that even if we're sinning God sees only Jesus' perfection. This often ends up degenerating into a theology of cheap grace, although technically cheap grace is a heresy. There are of course other Protestant traditions. So this isn't all Protestants. Hal Lindsay who was a popular writer in the 70's and 80's was a big proponent of this theology. "Cheap grace"? Hardly. It was free, not cheap!
FormerLDS Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Typically those holding imputed righteousness think that one is truly sanctified only at the resurrection. Mormons in a certain sense hold something somewhat similar but we see both justification and sanctification as processes not fully culminated until we're resurrected. We reject imputed righteousness though and at best think God can promise us that our election is sure. Which is not the same thing as being just at that moment. This is one of the most accurate renderings of LDS theology I've read on this board at least in a long while! Sadly, the LDS "Jesus Christ" can only offer the "promise" of eternal life and is not capable of actually doing what the Jesus Christ of the Bible - the true Savior - said He can do. "He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life"! John 6:47 Those who have the Son HAVE eternal life and those who do not have the Son simply DO NOT HAVE eternal life and the wrath of God abides on them. Because I have eternal life and I AM sanctified, justified, sinless and perfect today. No Mormon can ever make this claim!
clarkgoble Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: "Cheap grace"? Hardly. It was free, not cheap! Cheap grace is basically the idea that you give intellectual acceptance to Christ and that thereafter your sins are taken away but you don't have to really try to stop sinning. The term was popularized by the famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book The Cost of Discipleship. As I said it's technically a heresy but at least in my experience was widely believed among southern Evangelicals when I lived in the south. Part of his writings about cheap grace were aimed at the Nazi movement. Unsurprisingly he was executed by the SS. It's been in the news a lot recently due to Evangelical justifications of some of Donald Trump's sins and not exactly showing a lot of remorse. In particular I've heard it relative to some of Jerry Falwell Jr.'s "giving Trump a mulligan." So you see some Evangelicals attacking others in a way reminiscent of how Bonhoeffer critiqued Christians in Nazi Germany. In particular Eric Metaxas who had actually compared voting to Trump as a courageous act of resistance like Bonhoeffer's has come under quite a bit of critique. You also saw this during the debate over the election campaign of Roy Moore in Alabama. Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble
clarkgoble Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Because I have eternal life and I AM sanctified, justified, sinless and perfect today. No Mormon can ever make this claim! So you accept Imputed Justification I assume. I think Mormons would say that when we are living in the spirit and accepting God's grace that we are at that moment sinless. The difference is that we think we can fall from grace and regularly do because of our choices. This is largely the divide between Reformed Theology and Arminian Theology. While obviously not full Arminian Mormons share a lot of elements with that tradition. It seems reasonable to say it was a huge influence on early Mormonism. As to whether you are both justified and sanctified right now, I disagree. I think you know when you do something wrong. If you were sanctified you wouldn't do that but would be like Christ. So I think you're conflating justification and sanctification. I think to the degree we are acting like God, we're acting from eternal lives. However I think anyone saying they are like that always is lying. As someone posted from 1 John earlier "ff we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." That's present tense not past tense. "If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true." So you just need to look at your recent actions and ask if all of them were godly. 1
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 3 hours ago, FormerLDS said: "Cheap grace"? Hardly. It was free, not cheap! I am pretty sure someone paid quite a bit for it. Some woodworker way back in the day or something..... 1
RevTestament Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 22 hours ago, Anakin7 said: According to my new evangelical friend who I met while working { He was a customer who is a christian from my talking and asking him if he was, I got the impression observing him with his multiple children ] He asked me about 1John 5:18 and stated that one can transgress but not openly "sin" if one is born of God. He also stated he does not rely on any "man" for interpretation but just reads what is in the text [ my understanding of his statement]. I believe he is not a calvinist from what I remember asking him. And he wanted to know my thoughts. So I thought I would also get your Thoughts/Voices on this topic. Non LDS are welcome as well to share. He before he left asked if I was aware of Brigham Young's behavior concerning others - blood atonement and other statements. Anyway must go to work, looking forward to your feelings and thoughts. I will echo somewhat what Robert has said. I have seen certain Christians use this interpretation to justify their rude and foul behavior online to others, including other Christians they chased off forums - claiming they had Christ, and could not sin while they called others pigs and so forth. That is the type of behavior such ideology can engender, and it is contrary to scripture. In writing to the Church Paul says, Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Gentiles often don't really know their scriptures so get sucked into bad interpretations like your friend. They tend to read the scriptures very literally, and linearly. Their meaning must be interpreted as a whole. If an interpretation seems to conflict with other scripture, maybe it is not the right interpretation which is the case with your friend. That scripture of 1 John does not mean those living under grace cannot sin as is shown by Paul in Romans, but that while they live in Christ they will treat others with a reborn mindset so that they will not sin. But Christians can fall to temptation and not act under the grace of Christ - they can sin - they are just no longer acting in Christ. The OSAS interpretation of scripture comes from this rather mechanical and narrow misinterpretation of scripture, and it is simply not true. Hopefully, pointing out scriptures like Roman 6 will help your friend realize this. Does he really believe if he decides he wants a lady's diamond ring and kills her for it, he has not sinned, and is under grace? Or does the scripture mean that the thought of such sin is horrifying to the reborn Christian, and will cause him to recoil at the thought so that he does not sin? 1
theplains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 On 26/01/2018 at 2:14 PM, JLHPROF said: We can see from the example of Christ that over reliance on scriptural text and personal interpretation can lead down false paths. What led Joseph Smith down the path to teach Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God? Jim
JLHPROF Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 42 minutes ago, theplains said: What led Joseph Smith down the path to teach Heavenly Father was once a man who became a God? Jim Revelation.
boblloyd91 Posted January 28, 2018 Posted January 28, 2018 On 1/26/2018 at 4:27 PM, clarkgoble said: Cheap grace is basically the idea that you give intellectual acceptance to Christ and that thereafter your sins are taken away but you don't have to really try to stop sinning. The term was popularized by the famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book The Cost of Discipleship. As I said it's technically a heresy but at least in my experience was widely believed among southern Evangelicals when I lived in the south. Part of his writings about cheap grace were aimed at the Nazi movement. Unsurprisingly he was executed by the SS. It's been in the news a lot recently due to Evangelical justifications of some of Donald Trump's sins and not exactly showing a lot of remorse. In particular I've heard it relative to some of Jerry Falwell Jr.'s "giving Trump a mulligan." So you see some Evangelicals attacking others in a way reminiscent of how Bonhoeffer critiqued Christians in Nazi Germany. In particular Eric Metaxas who had actually compared voting to Trump as a courageous act of resistance like Bonhoeffer's has come under quite a bit of critique. You also saw this during the debate over the election campaign of Roy Moore in Alabama. It was actually Tony Perkins who said Trump had a Mulligan. A mulligan for paying for sex with a porn star after one’s wife just had a baby is quite the mulligan if I say so myself...... 2
RevTestament Posted January 28, 2018 Posted January 28, 2018 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Revelation. Scripture - and the fact that he had seen Heavenly Father in vision.
Anakin7 Posted January 29, 2018 Author Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) Okay finally some time to read and ponder the posts. So when The Savior forgave the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11, in verse 11 Jesus tells her to sin no more [ NIV -Go now and leave your life of sin ], she is forgiven, now did she still sin at times in her life or stop all sin altogether ?. Thoughts ?. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7, LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian Warrior Edited January 29, 2018 by Anakin7
Jane_Doe Posted January 29, 2018 Posted January 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Anakin7 said: Okay finally some time to read and ponder the posts. So when The Savior forgave the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11, in verse 11 Jesus tells her to sin no more [ NIV -Go now and leave your life of sin ], she is forgiven, now did she still sin at times in her life or stop all sin altogether ?. Thoughts ?. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7, LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian Warrior LDS perspective: He commanded her to sin no more. How successful she was after then is not known. We can guess that she didn't commit adultery anymore, but obviously sinned some in other ways. Saved-people-are-incapable-of-sin perspective: in that moment she was now saved and all of her past and future sins washed clean.
Anakin7 Posted January 29, 2018 Author Posted January 29, 2018 48 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: LDS perspective: He commanded her to sin no more. How successful she was after then is not known. We can guess that she didn't commit adultery anymore, but obviously sinned some in other ways. Saved-people-are-incapable-of-sin perspective: in that moment she was now saved and all of her past and future sins washed clean. Yes he commanded her to sin no more, True we know not if she was successful in sin free living is not known, but did sin in other ways I believe as we all do in our fallen nature. I do agree that her past sins were forgiven but not future sins. The Atonement It Is the Central Doctrine Washing My Garment In His Blood In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 , LDS Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptopnian
The Nehor Posted January 29, 2018 Posted January 29, 2018 On 1/27/2018 at 7:05 PM, boblloyd91 said: It was actually Tony Perkins who said Trump had a Mulligan. A mulligan for paying for sex with a porn star after one’s wife just had a baby is quite the mulligan if I say so myself...... Someone should congratulate them on returning to pre-reformation Catholicism. Go on a crusade against the evil Democrats and to get forgiveness for all your sins before and even during the crusade.
Recommended Posts