Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Mormons against the Bible! Message-ID: Date: 11 Dec 90 07:04:58 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 190 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >>In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > Much of the text has been delated to reduce the size of the transmission. > >Predestination is explicity taught in the Bible. If you say you don't >believe in predestination, then you don't beleive the explicit words of >Scripture. We might discuss what sort of predestination there is, >but if you reject any kind of predestination, you reject the word of God. >I admit that predestination is difficult to understand, and that to some >people it sounds harsh. But you seem to prefer to ignore the problem by >ignoring the Scriptures. > The word predestination is used in the Bible three places. However, if we examine the original Greek, then we find out that the word has other meanings too. It was the decision of the translaters to *choose* the word "predestination". I don't believe that it ever ment to be understood that it means that we have no free will. Also, please don't confuse foreordination and foreknowledge with predestination. A person who is foreordined has a will, and can decide to do something or not. A person who is predestined has no such choise at all. Can you imagine that the Creator, before we are ever borne, predestine us to either damnation or salvation? Again, I repeat, it would be his doing that he created me for damnation if we have no free will. It would be his fault. However, if we take free will into consideration, then everything changes. He creats us with abilities to make decisions, and to choose either salvation or damnation. I can be foreordined, however, I am still the one who desides. The consequences of my decisions are mine. If this ios not true, then I am no more or less then a lifeless doll. If we really believe that we are predestined, then we need to ask the question, how does this reflect on the charactor of God? Is he still a God, or is he more like the devil? >So I believe that Pharaoh was responsible for the hardening of his own >heart. God foreknew that he would not believe, but Pharaoh hardened his >own heart agaist God, and then God confirmed the hardening. > This is what I call rationalization. There is nothing at all which tells us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I take a more honest approach and say that this is a corruption of the Biblical text. The proof lies in the Bible itself, what it teaches about God. >Kindly show me one word of scripture in support of 'free agency'. You got to be kidding! Read the Bible, starting with the decision which Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden. >>The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: >> >> 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. >> 2. Second, repentance. >> 3. Third, baptism with water. >> 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. >> >>The order is important. We can't speak of repentance with out faith in the >>Lord Jesus christ before faith, we cant speak of baptism before faith and >>repentance, etc. > >Can you document the order of this from Scripture? And where did Christ >command the laying on of hands? NB, it is somewhat difficult to baptize >someone without laying hands on them. I suppose we could pour a pitcher >of water over them, but that would be unusual. > I sure can. Acts 2:37-38 ============ "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost was administered after baptism. Read Acts 8:12-17 and 19:3-6. Now, let me ask two questions: 1. Does it make since to be baptized without faith and repentance? 2. I am not sure what you mean that Jesus didn't taught the laying on of the hands. Do you mean that if it is not recorded it means that he didn't teach it? Tell me, what did he teach for 40 days to his desciples? Show me where is it recorded? >Does Paul, Christ, or anyone else *command* baptism for the dead? The Bible is not a manual of descipline. Besides, you are missing the point I am trying to make. That is that Paul don't find it that it is a problem. Let me give you another passage: Hebrews 11:39-40 ================ "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:" "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Some additional food for taught. >Christ did not give the keys only to Peter. He gave them to the disciples, >e.g., the church, 'wherever two of you on earth agree about anything you >ask for'. Matthew 18:18,19. > Correction, he gave them to the other elevel Apostles, not to all of his disciples. >Frank, I don't see what point you are trying to make here. If the >revelation we have in the Bible is one which is made complete in the BOM, etc., >and this is what Peter was looking forward to, then I have to conclude that >Christ has returned, Judgement Day has come, I am in heaven, and I suppose >you are in 'paradise' :-). For in modern English Acts 3:21 says: > >"He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore >everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." > That is your interpretation. However, the passage doesn't rule out that the restoration is a process and that Jesus would come when all things will be restored. Now let me ask the question, are you yet looking foreward to the time of apostasy when *all* things will be lost? >You seem to think Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young is the prophet like Moses, >spoken of in Acts 3:22, and Deut 18:15. But Peter is talking about Christ, >and urging the Jews to follow Christ, lest they 'be cut off from his people.' >Joseph Smith was a far cry from either Moses or Christ. > Who is comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus? As far as being compared to Moses, it is your opinion. So, what, even if Moses was a greater prophet then Joseph Smith. What is your point? >It is interesting that you suggest that God's revelation in the Bible is >incomplete. It is the doctrine of the LDS church that the Bible does in fact contain the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that all revelation ever given and will be given is in the Bible. >I suppose this is why Joseph Smith added verses to the Bible,... Deleted the rest. >Now maybe you don't accept the IV 'corrections' as inspired, and that would >be good. But their seems to be plenty of evidence that Joseph Smith did >make those 'corrections', and that various Mormons did and do accept them. > >So is Joseph Smith a prophet, or simply a revisionist? > Joseph Smith is the prophet of the restoration. I don't know what you mean by him being a revisionist. How do you revise the Bible without being a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ? >David H. Wagner With brotherly love, Frank [Those who advocate predestination didn't mean to deny that people make real choices. Whether this it is consistent with "free will" or not turns out to depend critically upon what you mean by "free". But Augustine's original concept was that apart from God, people are hopelessly corrupt. They are unable to choose God. When God chooses someone he regenerates them so that they are able to choose the good. Far from eliminating free will, in many ways God's choice creates it. Actually even those who are not chosen make choices that probably qualify as free in the common-language meaning of free. God is not coercing them to choose evil. It is simply their own sinful nature. Normally we refer to a choice as free if it does not have external compulsion, i.e. if it reflects the nature and values of the person that makes the decision. The fact that we can predict that an evil person will choose evil actions doesn't deny the reality of the choice. --clh]