Hi whosoever,

I'm just going to jump right in because I have some things going on

I don't believe that you have arrived at an accurate assessment of what Evangelical Christians hold to in that statement. Yes, they believe they are saved. Some believe that once they are saved, that they are eternally and irrevocably secured in Jesus Christ. Some believe that they are secure eternally "in Christ", because they are bound by love. Where I differ on your statement is that Evangelical Christians desire to be obedient to Christ and work for Him because He has given them a new heart with new desires. He has made their souls alive, and changed them into a new person. It is out of genuine gratitude for His goodness and grace that they respond in these ways. It is one thing to say that "faith requires action---it requires work to follow", but Jesus said that His yoke is easy, and His burden is light, and they are because we are directed to cast our cares upon Him. The works that we do---He actually does through us. When someday we are before Him in heaven and he gives us crowns for this or that---we will cast them right back, before the foot of His throne, because it is He who will have done the work, and the rewards truly belong only to Him--to His glory.

Faith is a gift from God whosoever. It isn't something we have a hand in manufacturing. What we do with the faith we are given is up to us. By faith Peter stepped out of the boat and walked across the surface of the water. It wasn't after all he could do. He was given faith....but he wavered--not embracing it. Any step that Peter placed on top of the water was granted him by God. I realize that I may be splitting hairs here, but I don't think we are very far apart on this.

I have some additional thoughts again on the canon of Scripture.

I believe that the books were indeed picked by men, and that they used wisdom. However, I believe that theirs was a "godly" wisdom. These men were saved by God. I believe that God was at work in these decisions. I believe these men were guided by the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit. The Bible makes it clear that:
14 "....... the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

Let's say for the sake of argument that they just made a really good set of educated guesses, and if you are a believer in the books they have "picked", allow me to share some verses from them.

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. (Psalm 12) In this, God has made a promise to preserve His Word.

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30) In this, God shows us that He cares about every single one of His words.

Sitting on the Mount of Olives, Jesus told Andrew, James, John and Peter that; "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31. ---If He promised to preserve His Word eternally, and if He grants His followers the Spiritual discernment to hear His Words: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" (John 10:27) it should not be hard to understand that his followers should be able recognize His written Word, and see the deeply interwoven harmony between the different books of the Bible. These days especially, the canon of Scripture is constantly under attack, and one of the ways this is done is by casting doubt upon the motives of the men who asserted the canon over time. Just as all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, where God used men like pens, it is my belief that He gave men the understanding to see which books He truly wanted men to have.

This is the thing, and again I realize I am splitting hairs...but I don't think there should be a "Mormon" or "Evangelical" angle on it. What there should be is a thorough examination of the Bible without presuppositions. When the Bible is read without trying to shove something into it, then the roadblocks are removed from what it plainly says, and its truth is more readily seen whether it is believed by the reader or not.

To this question my answer is a decided "no". Martin Luther most definitely held to a belief that we are saved by grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ--alone. He did not believe that our works contributed in any way to our salvation. What I was attempting to get across is mildly complicated. He and those who agreed with him were breaking away from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was selling "indulgences". Clearly unbiblical. It taught about purgatory and the concept that one's loved ones could be purchased out of an interim place between here and heaven..another unbiblical concept. It had a very works oriented bent, and this was largely due to corruption within the hierarchy of the church at that time. I was trying to make the point that it is possible that Martin Luther was so repulsed by these things that he rejected the Book of James because it stated anything to do with works. I say that he didn't understand it simply because it is a beautifully convicting book full of passion and wisdom and direction, expressing the reality of what should be happening in the heart that is growing in Christ Jesus. He called it an "epistle of straw", so I am left to no other conclusion.

Quote:

5) I think I mostly see your view point concerning the Bible. Though I still disagree, I believe I understand your perspective (mostly, there is much I could still learn of it, but I think it is sufficient for the time)

That is one good thing about open dialogues. I am quite certain that I don't completely understand how you arrived at the way you view the Bible or your questions about how it should be interpreted and who has the right to do so.

Of these things I can only say that it is partly a matter of authority. One of my LDS co-workers inquired some things of me once. He told me that his chapel held authority over him and the other congregants there. When I gave him my interpretation of a passage, he wanted to know where I get my authority. I told him that I got it from Jesus Christ. He was a bit incredulous that I would claim such a thing, but it is the truth nonetheless. He is my ruling authority, my King and my redeeming Lord. As Paul said, I am to be a living sacrifice, a "dulous" or servant/slave. My body is to be a living sacrifice to Him, and this is only reasonable. I don't look for prophets. I do listen to my church leaders, and one thing they always encourage is for us to keep them accountable by comparing what they teach to the Scriptures, just at the Bereans did. (Acts 17:10-12) That's what I will continue to do, praying and meditating upon it and asking God for answers to questions, because the Bible is trustworthy, and it was given to us as a loving gift. It points to Jesus, and to our need for Him. It declares that mankind is desperately lost, dead in his sins--and that the only way to have them forgiven is to repent of them, turn from them and to Jesus Christ to be saved from God's wrath against our sin. It is that and so very much more. What a gift.

I look forward to any further questions you may have whosoever.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

I have studied the Jehovah witnesses along with Scientology and Mormonism. I was well apt to debate and discuss the points of error in their doctrines effectively. My approach has always been pre-suppositional apologetics. However, I have found that these cults have a common denominator that many Christians are unaware of and up to some point myself included. All of their founders happen to be 33 degree Free Masons. Charles Russel, the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses, was buried on a Masonic owned cemetary whereby his tombstone includes a pyramid while another has a tribute for his work by the Masons. As my studies continued into Free Masonry I discovered that Masonry was more than just another cult. It is the mother of all cults. It is their creator so to speak. Masonry in short is Luciferianism. As the name entails it is a worship of Lucifer. This explains the many distortions and slander against the identity of our Lord Jesus Christ as possessing the attributes of ALmighty God and Creator. I invite my brothers and sisters to delve into this subject further and discover that these cults have not only a demonic root but that there are human minds present in the formation of the world religions. These group of individuals are very dedicated in destroying the message of the gospel in the public arena. Of course the gospel will prevail to the end but this is their task nevertheless. This should motivate us all the more to understand our enemy for the sake of the souls they hold captive.

Will

__________________
Thank you for supporting our sponsors!

SeekHm1st,

I appreciate your time in answering my questions. I do believe, at this time, I am satisfied with your replies. I was interested, however, in what you thought of LDS disbelieving Song of Solomon was not inspired. I found something else on it in the LDS Bible dictionary:

"...Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in non-religious literature.... Both Jew and Christians have at times been reluctant to accept it into the canon of scripture becaue of its romantic content, but have permitted it on the basis of its being an allegory of God's love for Israel and/or the Church."

What are you thoughts on Songs of Solomon?

And do you know it it is quoted or mentioned in the Bible (That was one of the requirements to canonize it--I think I found a verse that mentioned it, but I don't remember where it was).

Hi whosoever,

It's my pleasure to answer your questions to the best of my ability and I will be happy to do so whenever you have one to ask. As far as the LDS position on Song of Solomon---as I mentioned before, I had no idea why it was not accepted by the LDS as canonical. Had you not posted the quote from the LDS Bible Dictionary I would have been left more or less to mere speculation without any information to back it up. Having read the quote (which I find interesting) I think I would have to bring my comments to bear mostly on the credibility of Solomon as the author.

For the sake of mention, Solomon's name appears no less than seven times in the book in verses 1:1, 5; 3:7, 9, 11 and 8:11-12. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean much, but we know that he was a prolific writer who was musically gifted (1 Kings 4:32), and in verse 1:1 the sense is an authorial one rather than dedicatory. Another thing that lends to the validity of choosing Solomon for the author is the fact that it had to have been penned during Solomon's reign because a full reading of the book makes it clear that the nation of Israel had not yet split into divided kingdoms.

The writing in Song of Solomon is quite explicit but one has to remember that this was an agrarian society, and the type of references made by the author were not comments unbecoming of a king. They were just a part of real life. On a reality show recently, Donny Osmond was asked if he could understand the kind of passion that was necessary to dance the 'tango' properly. He deadpanned, "I have five children. What do you think?" It got a big laugh, but the guy was simply answering matter-of-factly with common sense. It wasn't "dirty" in any sense, and neither were the somewhat graphic romantic references in Song of Solomon, and the king wrote skillfully about that which is a precious gift from God intended for married men and women. On a personal level, with so many jerks out there mistreating and neglecting their wives, why would God leave a book like this out? Just a thought.

I'm no expert on this, but it is no secret that the book is referred to by the Jews as one of the "Megilloth", the "five scrolls" of the Old Testament and are considered (along with Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations) sacred writings. The Jews refer to Song of Solomon as the "Holy of Holies" and many read it in its entirety at Passover. While it isn't a theological book per se, it is most definitely seen as the allegorical representative which the quote you presented suggests. I think it serves a dual-relational purpose for both Jews and Christians.

To be forthcoming, I really never thought about whether or not any other OT books quoted this one. At first glance, I don't know why they would, given the subject matter and I am not aware of any shared or even intertestamental writing quotes. Solomon had many attributes that were admirable in his beginning as king, but he didn't end very well. He strongly disobeyed God and pursued multiple marriages for political considerations and took concubines--many. He allowed the influence of false gods to creep in through those many marriages and pervade not only Israel but his own life. For this he is afforded only a back-handed mention by the Savior in the NT. There is no prophecy contained in it that I am aware of, and so it is therefore not profitable for validating prophecy. However, because of its example of how marital and physical love is expressed between the betrothed it does fit the profile put forth by God through Paul in his second epistle to Timothy. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Humans are likened to sheep by Jesus and there is a reason for that. They need guidance in all areas.

Put it this way...it was once suggested to me that I teach through this short book for the CCNET Bible Study. I said, "No. I don't have to and I'm not going to." lol It's a problematic book for some people, but I don't think I could recommend a better tool for fathers to use with their believing sons, and mothers to use with their believing daughters to explain they way things work in this area. Just my humble-mumble opinions.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

P. S. I do have a question for you when you get around to it. How do Mormons believe that sin entered into the world?

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

Latter-day Saints believe[which I should put a disclaimer that this an other posts are only my opinion, though based on the doctrines as I know and understand them] sin entered the world with the fall of Adam, by the taking of the Forbidden Fruit. Some Jewish and Christian sects take this story as a parable, or allegory, but we believe it to be historical.

There is a question posted in this forum someone asked how the people in Noah's time could have sinned, and how could God justly condemn them if there were no law. I just read today in Roman 4: 15 "Because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression." Adam, we believe, was a prophet, and kept records and scriptures for his posterity. The book of Genesis that we have, was revealed to Moses and he had the vision recorded. Because the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, removed Adam and Eve provided them "knowledge" which is part of agency. Without agency, there could be know good nor evil, nor righteousness nor wickedness, neither reward nor punishment.

Let me know if that explained it adequately,

Whosoever

So sin was a good thing disobeying God was a good thing? And ordained by God?

Do you even know how blasphemous that all sounds?

__________________
http://www.icr.org/article/4352/
Stripped of personification, natural selection can be adapted to explain anything--and therefore explains nothing.
nova on #topix
the only thing darwinism lacks as a religion is prayer to a god!


"It’s time for a new Reformation in the Church—to call the Church back to the authority of the Word of God, beginning in Genesis."-Ken ham
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...4/already-gone

I hesitate to reply, where you have not expounded on your thoughts.... especially were you jumped to an extreme conclusion on an issue way oversimplified.

I never said sin was a bad thing. You are the one who highlighted "righteousness" and "good" and ignored the words "wickedness" and "bad." If you have a question, or what to express a thought, I would be more willing to try to explain. But if you simply quote me and say "Do you see how blasphemes that sounds," I can only answer "No."

i will not be surprised if this post gets taken out or i recieve another ban while i stand in support of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Matt.16: 15 - 19
I would only like to point out that Eve and Adam transgressed the law and did not sin.
Wish you strenghth and God´s blesssings in your endeavour to open the eyes and hearts of the blinded.
"The popularity of the principal does not determine it´s truth.!"

Hello thematrix,

You have taken a somewhat novel position if I understand your statement. You said:

Adam and Eve are a true testament to the nature of man when left to his own devices. Men are sinners. This is a bit of an over-simplification, but Adam and Eve only had one law to obey and they blew it. The Bible tells us everything changed when they disobeyed God, and that sin entered the world through one man--Adam--and that death reigned.

The perfect world that God created for man began to degrade under the weight of fallen-ness. It was now an imperfect world, and as a consequence Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden. I agree with whosoever that these events are historical. Absolutely. So it is my position that they broke God's law, and in so doing--switched their allegiance from God to Satan and they began to die, not only physically over time, but suffered a spiritual death immediately. It is my position that through his deception, Satan murdered the human race, as Jesus called him a "murderer from the beginning" for that very reason.

Could you please expand on your position? I would very much like to hear what you have to say.

Blessings,
seekHm1st

__________________
seekHm1st
#######
His Word is... sharper than any two-edged sword.

Thank you for your reply but you did not recognose the difference between sin and transgression. Could we please expand on this single issue first.

God Bless.