The faithful servant

[dberrie2020]

It isn't about what I believe, or "whoever you believe..." It is about what scripture actually states.

And this is what the scriptures actually testifies to:

Revelation 22:14---King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

How do you comport your theology to that testimony?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no problem doing just that, as they don't have a theology which the scripture above violates.

These conversations are fruitless when anyone repeatedly refuses to read scripture as written, repeatedly refuses to accept the correction of scripture

What are you claiming Revelation22:14 corrects in the LDS church?

It certainly defies the theology the critics postulate here.

You and I are not leaders over one another, but there is no reason we cannot pursue those same goals.

So..... I'm moving on.

Personally--I believe you would be smart to do that, as the scriptures aren't friendly to your claims, IMO. As I have maintained all along--the critics here have precious little in common with the Biblical NT text, and can't even post what they find in the Biblical NT, which isn't found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as far as salvational doctrines go.

But if you do remain in the conversation--I'm still interested in your explanation of how you fit your theology claim--into the posted scriptures, IE--

Matthew 19:16-19--King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 

[Aaron32]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no problem doing just that, as they don't have a theology which the scripture above violates.

I do wonder what what your trying to accomplish here. We can't lump all of our critics together. Some, like @Janice, will claim Mormonism is wrong because we emphasize the need for obedience. She goes so far past the mark that she makes it sound as if Christians believe in antinomianism.

I don't believe @Josheb has done that. He's recognized obedience as a result of being built upon Christ.

This exactly what the Book of Mormon teaches:
Moroni 10:
32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

To continually try an push this narrative that Christians don't believe in obedience simply makes us (Mormons) look bad. If we find agreement with the other side, that's us being obedient to Matt 5:25, no? What's the point of emphasizing obedience if we, at the end of the day, aren't obedient?

 

[Josheb]

I do wonder what what your trying to accomplish here. We can't lump all of our critics together. Some, like @Janice, will claim Mormonism is wrong because we emphasize the need for obedience. She goes so far past the mark that she makes it sound as if Christians believe in antinomianism.

I don't believe @Josheb has done that. He's recognized obedience as a result of being built upon Christ.

I do believe Mormonism is a cult, but that does not stop me from attempting a topically cogent conversation. In every op I assume one shared standard: the best case any of us can make is....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.

I'm not perfect and do not imagine myself particularly better at this than anyone else, although I try to excel. dberrie has a method whereby he constantly changes both the topic and the scriptures. I believe that is intentional, an effort to avoid confronting his own errors. The conversations with him started nearly a month ago in the op, "Abraham's belief," and he took excerpts from that conversation and created new threads, all of them in an endeavor to prove grace is earned and works save. If it is true the Church of Latter Day Saints believes and teaches grace is earned and works save then those are two things that make the CoLDS a cult. If it's not what is taught, then his fellow LDS should be providing correction but I'm not having the conversation to criticize Mormons. Been there, done that, rarely works, and you guys could say the same. I'm Reformed Protestant and there are teachings in that system to which I do not subscribe. Sincere and earnest believers in the resurrected Son of God can and should bow to correctly rendered scripture and correctly rendered begins with reading the text - the whole of God's word - as written. dberrie doesn't do that with much consistency, imo, but the breaks in these threads because simple things like correctly identifying an audience or applicable group and the fact scripture says more about faithfulness than just atonement and works are ignored or denied. It's not possible to discuss any of these ops when those are problems. I'm not particularly big on rancor, so I move one when that approaches, before it ensues.

 

[Aaron32]

I do believe Mormonism is a cult, but that does not stop me from attempting a topically cogent conversation. In every op I assume one shared standard: the best case any of us can make is....


a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent, topical case of well-rendered scripture.

I'm not perfect and do not imagine myself particularly better at this than anyone else, although I try to excel. dberrie has a method whereby he constantly changes both the topic and the scriptures. I believe that is intentional, an effort to avoid confronting his own errors. The conversations with him started nearly a month ago in the op, "Abraham's belief," and he took excerpts from that conversation and created new threads, all of them in an endeavor to prove grace is earned and works save. If it is true the Church of Latter Day Saints believes and teaches grace is earned and works save then those are two things that make the CoLDS a cult. If it's not what is taught, then his fellow LDS should be providing correction but I'm not having the conversation to criticize Mormons. Been there, done that, rarely works, and you guys could say the same. I'm Reformed Protestant and there are teachings in that system to which I do not subscribe. Sincere and earnest believers in the resurrected Son of God can and should bow to correctly rendered scripture and correctly rendered begins with reading the text - the whole of God's word - as written. dberrie doesn't do that with much consistency, imo, but the breaks in these threads because simple things like correctly identifying an audience or applicable group and the fact scripture says more about faithfulness than just atonement and works are ignored or denied. It's not possible to discuss any of these ops when those are problems. I'm not particularly big on rancor, so I move one when that approaches, before it ensues.

Well, I'm considered rather an outsider of Mormons on these forums. I think it's unfortunate that the core takeaway from my cohorts is "grace is earned and works save". I would also see mormonism as a cult if that were true.

Here's a talk on grace by one of our apostles showing a contrast:

The Gift of Grace

Dieter F. Uchtdorf teaches that God’s grace is available to all whose hearts are broken and whose spirits are contrite.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[Josheb]

Well, I'm considered rather an outsider of Mormons on these forums. I think it's unfortunate that the core takeaway from my cohorts is "grace is earned and works save". I would also see mormonism as a cult if that were true.

Glad to read that.

Here's a talk on grace by one of our apostles showing a contrast:

The Gift of Grace

Dieter F. Uchtdorf teaches that God’s grace is available to all whose hearts are broken and whose spirits are contrite.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Is God's grace available to those whose hearts are not broken and whose spirits are not contrite?

 

[Aaron32]

Glad to read that.

Is God's grace available to those whose hearts are not broken and whose spirits are not contrite?

To varying degrees. God blesses unconditionally in a multitude of ways (God sends rain upon the just and the unjust)
But for salvation from spiritual death a broken heart and a contrite spirit is required (2 Nephi 2:7)

Nephi clearly stressing the importance of "real intent":
2 Nephi 31: 13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

 

[Josheb]

To varying degrees. God blesses unconditionally in a multitude of ways (God sends rain upon the just and the unjust)
But for salvation from spiritual death a broken heart and a contrite spirit is required (2 Nephi 2:7)

Nephi clearly stressing the importance of "real intent":
2 Nephi 31: 13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Yes, rain is an example of what historically and traditionally has been called "general" provision or grace, in contrast to specific provision or grace. or as I have worded it here relevant to this op..... faith begets faithfulness and faith is a gift from God. The worldly or fleshly form of belief does not for us soteriologically. It acts like it's obedient, it does not act obediently, and therein lies part of the problem - the problem of ambiguity = same word with multiple meanings.


I know this is the Mormon board and Mormons use the Book of Mormon and most here in this particular board, but let me recommend you be mindful of conversations with non-Mormons because we don't place any authority or merit in the BoM. I've read the BoM so I understand who the angel Moroni and Nephi were but I think they were either fictions of Joseph Smith or liars from hell. Quoting them is meaningless to me, and quite possibly provocative to many Christians to whom you might quote those books as measures of no-Christian understanding. It's also perceived as a deliberate refusal to use the one book we hold in common as authoritative, the Bible. Why use the BoM instead of the Bible? Because that's what Mormons do, is understandable only to other Mormons. If the goal is to persuade me, or someone else with whom you may be engaged in discourse that "Mormons believe like you do," then using the Bible is the best means of accomplishing that. Jews have similar expectations for us (don't use the NT when Tanakh is agreeable and sufficient).




As far as this op goes, Jesus does judge "us" according to what we do, BUT we should take care not to insert and "only" in there such that we read that sentence and think, "Jesus judges us only by what we do," or to think we get judged and others don't, or others get judged and we don't or the metrics of judgment are singular and uniform because none of those additions is correct. All are judged, both Christian and non-Christian. While the Christian may be judged there is for him/her no condemnation, whereas there is an outcome from the judgment of those denying Christ and that is condemnation and destruction, and obedience/disobedience is not the sole measure by which Jesus judges. Salvation is not by works, but that does not make works irrelevant to salvation because works are the purpose of, not the cause of our salvation.

Salvation without purpose is not properly called "salvation."

Did we fulfill the purpose of our salvation?

 

[Aaron32]

Yes, rain is an example of what historically and traditionally has been called "general" provision or grace, in contrast to specific provision or grace. or as I have worded it here relevant to this op..... faith begets faithfulness and faith is a gift from God. The worldly or fleshly form of belief does not for us soteriologically. It acts like it's obedient, it does not act obediently, and therein lies part of the problem - the problem of ambiguity = same word with multiple meanings.

I know this is the Mormon board and Mormons use the Book of Mormon and most here in this particular board, but let me recommend you be mindful of conversations with non-Mormons because we don't place any authority or merit in the BoM. I've read the BoM so I understand who the angel Moroni and Nephi were but I think they were either fictions of Joseph Smith or liars from hell. Quoting them is meaningless to me, and quite possibly provocative to many Christians to whom you might quote those books as measures of no-Christian understanding.

My only intent is to clarify and provide legitimacy to Mormon beliefs. I have no expectation for a non-Mormons to believe mormon religious texts.

It's also perceived as a deliberate refusal to use the one book we hold in common as authoritative, the Bible. Why use the BoM instead of the Bible? Because that's what Mormons do, is understandable only to other Mormons. If the goal is to persuade me, or someone else with whom you may be engaged in discourse that "Mormons believe like you do," then using the Bible is the best means of accomplishing that. Jews have similar expectations for us (don't use the NT when Tanakh is agreeable and sufficient).

Again, I cite the Book of Mormon to provide legitimacy to Mormon beliefs for the intent of apologetics, and I have no intent to proselyte or convert you. I could cite the Bible, but then our naysayers would say "You don't really believe that."

As far as this op goes, Jesus does judge "us" according to what we do, BUT we should take care not to insert and "only" in there such that we read that sentence and think, "Jesus judges us only by what we do," or to think we get judged and others don't, or others get judged and we don't or the metrics of judgment are singular and uniform because none of those additions is correct. All are judged, both Christian and non-Christian. While the Christian may be judged there is for him/her no condemnation, whereas there is an outcome from the judgment of those denying Christ and that is condemnation and destruction, and obedience/disobedience is not the sole measure by which Jesus judges. Salvation is not by works, but that does not make works irrelevant to salvation because works are the purpose of, not the cause of our salvation.

Salvation without purpose is not properly called "salvation."

Did we fulfill the purpose of our salvation?

I'm guessing that last question is rhetorical, but I like how you described it.

In mormonism, the only distinguishing line regarding "salvation" is the believing in Jesus Christ. Past that, everything is a degree of glory, the highest degree is eternal life.

Salvation is a personal issue between an individual and God. Hence, AoF 11 - "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

We are judged against our own light and knowledge.
D&C 93: 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

D&C 82:3 - He who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation

We become "spotless from the world" as we warn our neighbors and share the light we've received.

 

[dberrie2020]

Salvation is not by works, but that does not make works irrelevant to salvation because works are the purpose of, not the cause of our salvation.

So--what works do you feel is necessary in order to obtain eternal life?

 

[Josheb]

My only intent is to clarify and provide legitimacy to Mormon beliefs. I have no expectation for a non-Mormons to believe mormon religious texts.

I have no interest in Mormonism. Nor have I any interest in any sectarian position if it is different than what is clearly stated in scripture. Mormonism is as irrelevant as Episcopalianism, or Catholicism.

This op argues we're judged by what we do with our gifts and it makes that case under the auspices of everyone having been atoned for and thereby set free from sin when, imo, that is NOT what scripture teaches because atonement is only one small part of God's work, God's work often has little or no application in the lives of those who deny Him, in some circumstance His work is adverse and NOT benevolent, works are not causal, and works are a very small part of salvation, or what constitutes a "faithful servant."

In other words, as the conversation unfolded, it turned out there are several problems with the op, not just one or two.

Salvation is a personal issue between an individual and God.

That is partly true. It is also partly false because God saves the nations, and the nation of His people. The individual and the corporate are not mutually exclusive conditions so care should be taken not to create false dichotomies.

We are judged against our own light and knowledge.
D&C 93: 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

D&C 82:3 - He who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation

Oooo. that's a misuse of both texts. That "light" is NOT "our own." It is God's.

We become "spotless from the world" as we warn our neighbors and share the light we've received.

Jesus is light we have received, ot ourselves and not our works.

 

[Josheb]

So--what works do you feel is necessary in order to obtain eternal life?

You had your chance to discuss this with me cogently and proved either unwilling or unable to do so. I meant what I said. Be different the next time we trade posts or the same thing will happen again.

• Don't proof-text scripture.
• Practice basic precepts of sound exegesis.
• Answer questions asked when asked.
• Acknowledge areas of agreement.
• Acknowledge errors as they arise and adjust posts accordingly.

Not particularly difficult but might take a little time to achieve prowess. Make a choice and persevere. Method and content both matter. Ignoring the monergism of covenant and starting an understanding of Abraham's belief 10+ chapters into his account is bad form. Insinuating "only" where none is stated and ignoring the axiomatic dichotomy of believers and non-believers are just some of the mistakes committed in this thread.

They are going to come back up if not changed now.

 

[Aaron32]

I have no interest in Mormonism. Nor have I any interest in any sectarian position if it is different than what is clearly stated in scripture. Mormonism is as irrelevant as Episcopalianism, or Catholicism.

Just as the Bible is irrelevant to a Buddhist I suppose.

This op argues we're judged by what we do with our gifts and it makes that case under the auspices of everyone having been atoned for and thereby set free from sin when, imo, that is NOT what scripture teaches because atonement is only one small part of God's work, God's work often has little or no application in the lives of those who deny Him, in some circumstance His work is adverse and NOT benevolent, works are not causal, and works are a very small part of salvation, or what constitutes a "faithful servant."

In other words, as the conversation unfolded, it turned out there are several problems with the op, not just one or two.

It looks like the OP spun off from another thread. I'm not interested in getting to the bottom of it, so I'm withholding my judgment.

That is partly true. It is also partly false because God saves the nations, and the nation of His people. The individual and the corporate are not mutually exclusive conditions so care should be taken not to create false dichotomies.

Declaring the word is a responsibility of the individual. If they do so, and stand as witnesses, they shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their nation.

Oooo. that's a misuse of both texts. That "light" is NOT "our own." It is God's.

Jesus is light we have received, Not ourselves and not our works.

It's pretty hard to declare a misuse of text when you haven't read it.
D&C 93:2 already pointed out that fact when it said "...I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;"

I know you don't believe our texts, but please atleast inform yourself before casting judgment.

 

[dberrie2020]

You had your chance to discuss this with me cogently and proved either unwilling or unable to do so. I meant what I said. Be different the next time we trade posts or the same thing will happen again.

• Don't proof-text scripture.
• Practice basic precepts of sound exegesis.
• Answer questions asked when asked.
• Acknowledge areas of agreement.
• Acknowledge errors as they arise and adjust posts accordingly.

Not particularly difficult but might take a little time to achieve prowess. Make a choice and persevere. Method and content both matter. Ignoring the monergism of covenant and starting an understanding of Abraham's belief 10+ chapters into his account is bad form. Insinuating "only" where none is stated and ignoring the axiomatic dichotomy of believers and non-believers are just some of the mistakes committed in this thread.

They are going to come back up if not changed now.

Josheb--this seems to me to be sour grapes. Control of the conversation didn't go as you would like--so a cop out is necessary.

The question was a simple one which required but little effort, IE--

So--what works do you feel are necessary in order to obtain eternal life?

Care to engage that question?

 

[Josheb]

Just as the Bible is irrelevant to a Buddhist I suppose.

Should not stop us from discussing common concerns, though, should it?

It looks like the OP spun off from another thread. I'm not interested in getting to the bottom of it, so I'm withholding my judgment.

Yes, that is the modus operandi of its author. Watch for it because he will not have a conversation with you from beginning to end without many moves to different threads.

Declaring the word is a responsibility of the individual. If they do so, and stand as witnesses, they shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their nation.

You moved the goal posts. The specific point being discussed was God saving individuals versus nations, not evangelism. God's holy nation is those He has saved. One of Jesus' last commands was to baptize the nations, not merely individuals.

It's pretty hard to declare a misuse of text when you haven't read it.

This is where I start to take my leave because I have repeatedly stated I have read the BoM (and the Bible).

"I've read the Bible and the Book of Mormon (along with the Quran, the 'Gita, the sutras, Book of the Dead, and more)."
"It's pretty hard to declare a misuse of text when you haven't read it."

????

D&C 93:2 already pointed out that fact when it said "...I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;"

I know you don't believe our texts, but please atleast inform yourself before casting judgment.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Aaron32]

Should not stop us from discussing common concerns, though, should it?

Agreed.

Yes, that is the modus operandi of its author. Watch for it because he will not have a conversation with you from beginning to end without many moves to different threads.

I've dealt with him before, and organgrinder gave me a warning while I was doing so. In my experience, he basically does to Christians to what many critics of Mormons do to Mormons - misrepresents their position and then expects them to defend the flawed position. The goal isn't understanding, it's winning a cheap
argument. So I try to avoid engagement unless his error is blatantly obvious.

You moved the goal posts. The specific point being discussed was God saving individuals versus nations, not evangelism. God's holy nation is those He has saved. One of Jesus' last commands was to baptize the nations, not merely individuals.

True, but people have their free agency. We can't make them get baptized. I think we'd agree that part of our duty is to stand as witnesses, minister, etc. with the end goal of bringing others to Christ, and if we willfully failed at our duty, then we'd feel it in our conscience, right?

In the words of Paul:
"Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Eph 6:13)

I suppose as we become more sanctified, the great awareness we have our duty. The our conscience provokes us to action, as well as our love for God.

I apologize if I'm not completely missing what you're trying to convey.

This is where I start to take my leave because I have repeatedly stated I have read the BoM (and the Bible).

"I've read the Bible and the Book of Mormon (along with the Quran, the 'Gita, the sutras, Book of the Dead, and more)."
"It's pretty hard to declare a misuse of text when you haven't read it."

????

Thank you for your time.

I believe you that you probably read it, but unless you have a photographic memory reading does not equate to perfect a recall. The reality is you missed a key point and fallacious rushed to judgement.

 

[Josheb]

I believe you that you probably read it, but unless you have a photographic memory reading does not equate to perfect a recall. The reality is you missed a key point and fallacious rushed to judgement.

Let me suggest, or recommend, something.

Spend less time imagining what others do or don't do and limit commentary to what you know. Do not assume others "missed a key point," when they may well have understood it, but simply disagreed and/or replied in a manner you missed.

Especially when the poster being judged has spent the last month chasing the one who "does to Christians to what many critics of Mormons do to Mormons" around the threads. If those multiple threads haven't all been read through then it's likely you are the one missing what has and hasn't been discussed, along with their "key points". It is always better to ask, than judge. The exact same amount of time could have been spent, and would have been better spent asking, "What about 'X'?" Especially, since I'm the one endeavoring to keep this about the Bible and not sectarian differences AND the one who has covered many aspects of this op that deserved attention.

The reality is you missed a key point and fallacious rushed to judgement.

Keep the posts...

...about the posts...

...and NOT the posters.


I am happy to correct any errors I may have made when shown an error was made and that does not require the mention of my person at all. I'll handle the op-relevant content in a separate post.

 

[Josheb]

True, but people have their free agency. We can't make them get baptized. I think we'd agree that part of our duty is to stand as witnesses, minister, etc. with the end goal of bringing others to Christ, and if we willfully failed at our duty, then we'd feel it in our conscience, right?

In the words of Paul:
"Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." (Eph 6:13)

I suppose as we become more sanctified, the great awareness we have our duty. The our conscience provokes us to action, as well as our love for God.

Welll...

We might want to clarify what exactly "free agency" means because humans do have volitional agency, but it is not autonomous. It is in fact limited by many things, including God's will, God's design for creation, and sin. No, we can't make them get baptized but that's not op-relevant. We cannot make them get circumcised, either. More importantly, though, is your use of "we." If, by the use of the word, "we," that is intended to mean "those in Christ," or "those in a God-initiated covenant through His resurrected Son," then something very fundamental, very foundational, something presuppositional deserves to be brought to the forefront of this discussion....

Non-believers are not believers!

That does not have anything to do with sectarian doctrine. It is axiomatic. Believers, not non-believers act. Believers, not non-believers act in faith. They act in obedience. They act in obedience to God in whom they believe. Non-believers do not, and on any occasions when a non-believer might act in obedience to some command they do so only with their flesh (never through the Spirit gifted to those who believe) and always in sin. Anything not done in faith is sin. The obedient act is sin, because it was done absent faith.

All of this and much, much more was covered over the past month in four or five (maybe six) different threads.

The reality is you missed a key point and fallacious rushed to judgement.

Yeah, maybe the last month's worth of threads where db's concerns have been addressed in this board before making that assessment because it is incorrect.

 

[Aaron32]

Let me suggest, or recommend, something.

Spend less time imagining what others do or don't do and limit commentary to what you know. Do not assume others "missed a key point," when they may well have understood it, but simply disagreed and/or replied in a manner you missed.

Especially when the poster being judged has spent the last month chasing the one who "does to Christians to what many critics of Mormons do to Mormons" around the threads. If those multiple threads haven't all been read through then it's likely you are the one missing what has and hasn't been discussed, along with their "key points". It is always better to ask, than judge. The exact same amount of time could have been spent, and would have been better spent asking, "What about 'X'?" Especially, since I'm the one endeavoring to keep this about the Bible and not sectarian differences AND the one who has covered many aspects of this op that deserved attention.

Keep the posts...

...about the posts...

...and NOT the posters.


I am happy to correct any errors I may have made when shown an error was made and that does not require the mention of my person at all. I'll handle the op-relevant content in a separate post.

There is a lot of irony in the content of this post given counsel. I agree, let's keep on topic.

 

[Aaron32]

Welll...

We might want to clarify what exactly "free agency" means because humans do have volitional agency, but it is not autonomous. It is in fact limited by many things, including God's will, God's design for creation, and sin.

There's a lot of big words here. Can you define a "volitional agency" vs "autonomous agency"? More importantly, can you make the distinguishment using the Bible?

No, we can't make them get baptized but that's not op-relevant. We cannot make them get circumcised, either. More importantly, though, is your use of "we." If, by the use of the word, "we," that is intended to mean "those in Christ," or "those in a God-initiated covenant through His resurrected Son," then something very fundamental, very foundational, something presuppositional deserves to be brought to the forefront of this discussion....

Non-believers are not believers!

That does not have anything to do with sectarian doctrine. It is axiomatic. Believers, not non-believers act. Believers, not non-believers act in faith. They act in obedience. They act in obedience to God in whom they believe. Non-believers do not, and on any occasions when a non-believer might act in obedience to some command they do so only with their flesh (never through the Spirit gifted to those who believe) and always in sin. Anything not done in faith is sin. The obedient act is sin, because it was done absent faith.

All of this and much, much more was covered over the past month in four or five (maybe six) different threads.

Yeah, maybe the last month's worth of threads where db's concerns have been addressed in this board before making that assessment because it is incorrect.

I'm not really feeling an flow here. I'm getting a little lost on what you're trying to convey.

This portion of the discussion spawned from me saying: "Salvation is a personal issue between an individual and God."
You said: "That is partly true. It is also partly false because God saves the nations, and the nation of His people. The individual and the corporate are not mutually exclusive conditions so care should be taken not to create false dichotomies."

Can you illustrate the relevance of your statement of "Non-believers are not believers" in the context of your other statement "God saves the nations"? If you've already posted this, just cite the posts and I'll check them out.

 

[Josheb]

There's a lot of big words here. Can you define a "volitional agency" vs "autonomous agency"? More importantly, can you make the distinguishment using the Bible?

Sure.

"Volition" is will, or the ability to make choices.
"Autonomous" means absent any and all external control; unfettered.
"Free" means absent any and all external control; unfettered.
"Agency" means the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power or influence.
"Volitional agency" is the capacity to choose.
"Autonomous (volitional) agency" would be an unfettered ability or capacity to choose.


Humans are not free to choose anything and everything. There are many limitations or constraints on human will, especially once compromised by sin. The Bible uses the term "free will," but it always does so within the context of God having created creation, God having created the human and the human will.

I'm not really feeling an flow here. I'm getting a little lost on what you're trying to convey.

Have the thread all been read, in their entirety?

db has argued for the efficacy of works in salvation and done so in the context of his belief everyone has been washed clean from their sin by Christ's atonement. Everyone got a "do-over," so to speak. What matters not is how you obey God once made clean. All the verses he cites were written to believers about believers, and most of them were written about Christians or people who'd heard the gospel and had applied to them a lot more than atonement. Implisit within his argument is the possibility of a non-believing, unregenerate atheist being saved because s/he's obeyed God's commands,

That is wrong.

Understanding the error begins with understanding the simple axiom: non-believers are not believers.



Gotta go. I'll check back later.