alexm8

Yes, but notice who the rich man calls out to... Abraham. Father Abraham has no power over death. Jesus, on the other hand, DOES have power over sin and death. Are you limiting His reach and power? Okay, makes sense about the two judgments, thank you. However, what of those that had no chance for accepting Jesus as the only payment for sin? Why does God judge them at death and send them to Hell for eternal torment when it was God's choice not to grant them the same opportunities you and I have in the first place? Make sense?

The principle reason for baptism is to wash away our sins so that we become clean. When we were baptized we promised to do basically four things: keep the 1) Law of Chastity, 2) Word of Wisdom, 3) Law of Tithing, 4) Sabbath Day Holy. These questions are asked by missionaries to new converts, and by Bishops during temple recommend interviews to see if we are keeping our Baptismal Covenant. Each week when we take the bread and water it is a renewal of our Baptismal Covenant. We recommit ourselves to obeying those four commandments, and in return our baptism is made effectual by washing away our sins again. Through faith and repentance, each week we have the opportunity to be as clean as when we stepped out of the waters of baptism. We are, in effect sinless at that moment (working through repentance). And we can feel the presence of Holy Ghost stronger as he dwells in a clean vessel, which is part of the sacrament blessing. However, this is why when we break these specifically these commandments we are asked to not take the sacrament. If we are not willing to keep our Baptismal Covenant, how can it be effectual by taking the sacrament?

As I've read through these posts I get the feeling that some people like to play Russian Roulette. Sure, you can click that gun a thousand times and not have the bullet go off, but, it only takes once. Sure, Tarot Cards, Ouija Boards, games, and other devices can seem innocuous, but it only takes ONE time for Satan to gain a foothold. Satan is very real and I personally have had experiences similar to Anne. He does have a real power and CAN influence cards, boards, charms, and even fortune cookies. I'm not saying that he DOES in all instances, but to say he cannot at all is rather naive. We are asked to simply avoid things like that can invite evil into our lives. It reminds me of the story of the wagon driver when asked how close he could drive to the edge of a cliff. As some bragged about how close they could, one maintained he tried to stay as far away from the edge as possible. Personally having driven too close to the edge too often, I'm now trying to stay as far away from it as I can...

Well, PC, I believe we agree that there are absolutes (I will refer to as truthes) that exist within the realm of God and religion. I think that we would agree that one MUST accept Christ as their savior for salvation. That is an absolute truth that we must accept. We do not become "ethical instructors" to God by rejecting this principle. We can identify other absolute truthes that exist by logic, reason, and revelation (personal as well as prophetic). One of those truthes that must exist is for God to be fair is to judge everyone based on the same grounds. It's just logical. If He were to arbitrarily judge people based on a lottery, how can you call that fair? Indeed, He already has judged us all, and all are found wanting. So, it only makes sense to grant all the same opportunity for redemption. If you agree that one MUST accept Christ for salvation, then by extension for God to be fair, ALL men MUST have the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. There can be no other way lest we make God a liar and a respecter of persons. In fact, the bible is replete with scripture to this effect. Romans 5:18, John 12:32, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 4:10, John 5:23, James 1:5, Acts 17:30, John 1:7, and I could go on... I don't use MUST lightly, but I see no other way to match what we know in scripture with logic and reason.

I can understand that coming from a Protestant because it's a failing of the rest Christianity's soteriology to account for all the necessary conditions. Like I said, that is one of the big reasons I am LDS as I have studied all forms of Christianity extensively and is one of the gaping holes that exist there. We believe that all the conditions already exist, it is only for us as His creation to gain an understanding of what those conditions and circumstances are.

Anne, God absolutely cares what ALL of His creation thinks and He sorrows at the nonbeliever's disbelief and rebellion. The LDS version of the atonement is the most complete and most just of any other religion and is one of the big reasons I am LDS. Jesus needed to suffer greater than any other creature so that ALL creation would allow compassion and mercy. Even Satan himself will ultimately call God Just, knowing that Jesus was completely innocent but suffered the punishment of the soul He saves. And the adversary hates knowing that. If God did not need to appease the nonbelievers as well, even those who were saved would question their own salvation. They would ask why God would choose to save them over someone who may have been more righteous and holy, but didn't have the same opportunities they had... That is why all mankind MUST have the same FIRST opportunity to either accept or reject Christ's atonement.

Sure there's a Hell; it's just not a fiery, burning pit portrayed by the rest of Christianity. Hell in LDS theology in an unquenchable regret and guilt of conscience. Hell is an emotional pain of "what could have been" or an anguish of guilt incited by our causing of suffering to others. This emotional agony and torment can be far more hellish than bodily torment in a burning pit. Anything below the Celestial Kingdom is a Heaven/Hell mix that ends with an ultimate Hell called Outer Darkness. Those that cannot abide, or refuse to accept, any portion of the Holy Light will go there. In LDS theology, God is Just. Man will know a full accountability of the choices he/she make based on the opportunity they were given and are judged accordingly. You just put the onus back on MAN, not God. If it is MAN who chooses not to repent after having been given the opportunity to do so, then God can judge their choices fairly which makes Him good. If God chooses to condemn first, taking away Man's opportunity to repent, that makes it God's choice. Since he has the power, but not the will to save them, allowing them to suffer for eternity for something beyond their control, God is then accounted evil. Neither scripture says we have to accept Jesus before we die. But you bring up the point that we are "judged" after we die. Fair enough. There is an initial judgement after death that LDS believes will place a departed spirit in either Spirit Prison or Paradise. NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT THE FINAL JUDGEMENT as recorded in Rev 20:12-14. In the final judgement, the grave will yield up her dead, so it cannot be the same judgement as when we die. (I've wondered why Protestants think we need to go through the same judgement twice anyway. Why be judged, go to hell, get resurrected, be judged, go to hell? What's up with that?). There are several failings with the parable of the beggar. First, and foremost, the parable was given before the bridge of Christ's salvation was placed over the "great gulf" as Jesus' atonement gave him power over hell and the grave. Second, the parable was to the Jews and therefore did not say believe in Christ, but the works of Moses. Third, if those alive weren't willing to follow the law they did have (the opportunity), giving them a second chance wouldn't change anything. There are no second chances in LDS theology, only that everyone gets a FIRST chance.

The most common are Ephriam (European descent), Manassah (Native/Latin American and Polynesia), Judah (Jewish). There have been Patriarchs throughout the world who have testified they have given blessings to Dan, Ashur, Benjamin, Levi (source Joseph of Egypt, Mark E. Petersen's (1981). I've heard since my youth in the 80's that all tribes have been found.

We are gathering the lost tribes, it is a big part of LDS theology. The mistaken part is that we need to gather them to Missouri, not sure where you are getting that from. They live among the peoples of all nations are are being gathered to the Church. They are identified when they receive their Patriarchal Blessing and all 10 tribes have been represented for quite a while. It is not something that is advertised as PBs are rather sacred and meant for the individual, not the world.

Well, I maintain that scripture is not neutral. I'll defend that it is a good tree that bears (inspires) good fruit. You can always have evil point to the tree to convince others that the fruit is bad, but that does not make a good tree bad because they say so.Isaiah 5:20 The grace vs. works confusion comes from a general ignorance of what Salvation is to the other. LDS members have that moment when they "come to Christ", too, it is called "conversion". Mormons do what they do because they are converted to Jesus Christ and His teachings. Protestants do what they do because they are saved by Jesus Christ and His teachings. To Protestants salvation is a destination which is instantly arrived at. To Mormons it is a journey which salvation begins (and assured) at the first step but can be lost if strayed from the path. It's not far a stretch to say that by grace we are saved, and by our works we stay saved. So, in that I am glad we can agree on OSAS, but in your view do you know where the line is specifically drawn where one falls from grace? LDS theology generally agrees that anyone worthy of temple recommend is assured. Those who do not keep their baptismal covenants, that is the 1) Law of Chastity, 2) Word of Wisdom, 3) Law of Tithing, and 4) Keeping the Sabbath Holy, are uncertain of salvation. We have other counsel from Prophets that help us keep these four commandments, but that's it. That is the line drawn for us to avoid falling. It's easy. Our "good works" beyond that are nothing more than laying up our treasures in heaven for the rewards that await us there. Like I said, we are in actuality a LOT closer in theology than at first look. Edit: Wanted to add that I that I agree if we break God's commandments God will chase after us. Guilt and regret is a powerful motivator and He uses those as effectively as he does peace and comfort. I should know, I've had my share of it :-)

We are not awaiting the END of the world, but the CHANGE of the world. The world will change when Christ comes again, not end. The END of the world, as I understand it, will be after the Millenium, the last resurrection, Satan will be loosed for a season, battle of Gog and Magog, etc. etc... I don't think many of us will be around to worry about that much by then. As for change, everything changes. We just need to be ready and prepared for those changes. If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear. (D&C 38:30)

My contention, PC, and I stand by it is that true scripture does not INSPIRE evil. You can justify something evil with scripture, but it is not INSPIRED by it. I do not think that someone can read the Bible and say, "I'm going to start slavery because of what it says," or, "I'm going to be gay because it says here..." Yet, wicked men can use it to justify their already evil ways. I guess we will just have to disagree on this point. We (LDS and Protestant) are actually closer on salvation than many think. The Book of Mormon is full of assurance. "the Lord our God did visit us with assurances that he would deliver us; yea, insomuch that he did speak peace to our souls, and did grant unto us great faith, and did cause us that we should hope for our deliverance in him." (Alma 58:11) "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" (Moroni 10:32) Where we will disagree is that uncertainty comes from falling away through sin. St. Augustine quoted Paul specifically in 1 Cor. 3:17 and says "Take heed then what thou doest, take heed that thou offend not the Indweller of the temple, lest He forsake thee, and thou fall into ruins. (Sermon 32 on the NT) Protestants have created this Once Saved, Always Saved because they do know know or understand what can cause the Indweller to forsake someone, thus "destroying" their salvation. It is the "rules" (works) that LDS members keep that allows them to KEEP their salvation. And yet it is these works that we are ridiculed for.

Then you have a problem with the infallible Bible contradicting itself, because clearly Cornelius was not a believer in the "true God" having no knowledge of Jesus (John 17:3). He was not even a Jewish Proselyte, being a Roman centurion and not circumcised. He was not saved as he did not have the Holy Spirit yet (not until vs. 44). Yet he feared the God he knew and God accepted him, sending him an angel as evidence of His love. To explain my last paragraph further, for Traveler, too... If we cannot be good without God's guidance then it's God's choice whom He will save, not ours. If it is His choice, the HE alone is accountable for that choice. If God chooses to NOT save someone, when it is within His choice and power to do so, and consign them to eternal Hell, that is an evil God. How can a good God allow someone to suffer eternal torment when, a) it is within his power to save them, and b) when that individual didn't have the choice in the first place? I will agree with you on, "Our conscience doesn't save us if we don't come to the cross of the true God." Were we will disagree is the timeframe that one can come to accept God. No where in the Bible does it state that you must accept him only in this life. This is one of the big reasons I am LDS; it is the belief that everyone will have a FIRST chance to accept Jesus either in this or the next life.

There are many neutral tools, like money for example that can be used for good or evil. However, I cannot accept true scripture to be neutral. Evil can reject the tool (through ridicule, pride, etc) to inspire evil, but I don't believe that scripture itself can inspire evil works. (Lest words of Christ be made specious in Matt 7:17-18.) It is one of the things in my mind that separates The Book of Mormon and Bible from the Koran which can, and does, inspire evil. Same would go for true religion. Following true religion can only inspire greatness. Note that I believe true religion can be found in all religions, even Islam, by following the eternal principles that God writes in all of our hearts (called a conscience). Thus actualizing the scripture that "in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:35) We cannot accept Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace based on this fact. If we cannot be good without God's guidance, then it places the burden of salvation and guilt on His shoulders, not our own. If God so chooses us or not, it's His choice and thus His accountability. So, one has to ask if God chooses against good by allowing someone to be damned for something beyond their choice, how that a can be "good" God?

It sounds like you are mistaking humility for unquestioning devotion. You have, in my honest opinion, given me nothing to test and that is not the way the Holy Spirit works. I already believe the scriptures you posted through the Holy Spirit. Your unreasoned interpretations of them are what is lacking.

Paul provided logical and well reasoned points based on the languages he understood. Unless you care to expound further on why you are interchanging incongruous concepts and semantics for your interpretations, the "meat" you are providing is illogical and unsound based on language limitations alone, and not easy to understand what you are saying...

peteolcott, I wanted to throw my two cents in, as I believe the debate is over the wrong issue here. First, this scripture is TRUE as it stands. However, your interpretation of it is incorrect on two fronts. First, I exist outside of God. I am not nothing. Satan exists separate and apart from God, he is definitely real. So your interpretation that nothing exists besides God is incorrect. Second, Lord does not equal God, yet you use them interchangeably. It is true there is no other Lord (or Savior), it is reserved for Jehovah/Jesus alone. He is the only way and there is "NONE ELSE". God, on the other hand, is a plural word. In vs 5. 'elohiym is the plural form of ''elowahh' used elsewhere. It's like using the singular with family (a plural word) in saying ONE family (even though family implies multiple people). So, again, the scripture is correct and the Holy Ghost will testify of it. It is your additional interpretation of it that is wrong. Again, ONE is the singular form of a plural concept. In the first part Jesus is praying that "they" (all believers) will be ONE. How can you interpret that as a numerical singularity? That's just nuts (the interpretation, not you). I have read this entire post and still do not understand your point here. You cannot be your own neighbor, due to the concept of what a neighbor is. I am A neighbor as I can be someone else's neighbor, but I cannot be my own. Absolutely, the "job" of the HS is to confirm truth of the Bible and of the quoted scripture, but he cannot confirm your interpretations of them due to the fact that they do not conform to logic or reason. Things become clearer with the Holy Ghost, not more obscure and confusing as when you trying to make plural concepts become singular.

This post caught my interest and wanted to throw in my two cents. First, the questions being ask are a lot of the deeper ones that don't really have an "Official Mormon Doctrine". There is a lot of commentary, and we can speculate, but the honest answer is we just don't know for sure. I know it sounds like a copout, but there really have been no specific revelations for these issues. It's just not the way God works. Certain principles have been taught by Church leaders, and even prophets, but they are entitled to their own opinions (some of which have gotten the Church into trouble). While believing in the opinions of Church leaders does not condemn us in God's eyes, it can cause confusion (including yours). But realizing they are opinions helps us to not lose our testimonies of the things that have been revealed. I will attempt to answer a couple of your questions with things I've learned (qualifier that this is not "official doctrine"). 1. Black skin: there was curse placed on certain people like Cain or the Lamanites. The curse was a loss of salvation, the priesthood, and that God would no longer be their god. That was the curse. There was a mark used to identify those who had that curse and the mark was black, or darkened, skin. This doesn't mean that when the curse was removed that the mark automagically disappears. Some today have that curse, but do not carry the "mark" (ie white people)... 2. Families in Heaven: we were unlike our Father and Mother in the Pre-Mortal world. They had bodies and could bear children, we could not. We needed to gain a body and learn to master it's appetites, along with our relationships to our spouses. Those who succeeded would be able to, as husband and wife, be able to bear their own posterity in the eternities. Those who failed, or didn't want to, would remain "single", even while retaining close ties to friends and family. The "sealing" binds those family members to each other and to God so that we become part of His family in the Celestial Kingdom. Those who are not sealed (or do not accept their proxy sealing after death) can have friendly relationships, but will not live with Heavenly Father. The comment about being a stay-at-home mother doesn't mean it's the only way to raise a family, but it is the best way. These are some good questions to make one think. Hope these help.

I know there have been a lot written on both sides about the Trinity, but I wanted to go a different way with this. I want to assure Trinitarians that I understand the definition that Jesus is the second person in hypostatic union with a homoousios, triune God and will try to do it justice. There are a lot of misconceptions, especially among the LDS community, about the Trinity and it's definition. And for good reason, it doesn't fit with what we understand as humans. However, it's not an issue of comprehending God, but simply a lesser issue of semantics, etymology, and word derivation. The entire debate is really about singular and plural word forms and ideas. As humans viewing our world, the way we identify single entities and their multiple forms is by understanding singular and plural words and ideas. For example, we can think of a single bird (singular), or it can be one bird in a single flock (plural form). We understand that a flock has multiple birds because it is a plural word. In the same way, a singular "bird" can become plural by adding a "s" to the end as "birds". Other words, like moose or human, describe both singular and plural forms. However, as we examine those words more closely their plural form usually has more meaning when used like moose herd or human race. We understand plural forms much better by changing the word itself to a plural word (moose --> herd). In addition, a single "bird" can also be viewed as a plural form when thinking about it as being the sum of it's parts. A bird has wings, feathers, a beak, a heart, a brain, etc. In our mind, we break these down as singular items within a plural form of "bird". In reality, there is no plural word form of the singular "bird". But, to understand it better we automatically change the idea to "parts of a bird" in our mind. So the real challenge has been for Trinitarians to try and define the Trinity using the singular form of the word "God". They claim that God is three separate, distinct persons (singular form) in one being (singular form). However, the human mind cannot wrap itself around the concept; simply because it is a logical impossibility. One can only interpret and understand the individual singular parts by changing the idea, or concept, to a plural form. Especially when in this case the term "God" is used as both a singular AND a plural word form (like "moose" or "human" is). In fact, the Old Testament uses the plural form of "God" (Hebrew: Elohim) over 2500 times. There is a singular word form of "god" (Hebrew: Eloah) that is used just over 70 times in the Old Testament, but the vast majority is singular use plural form. It is like saying one flock, or one family. One God (plural form) is the way I believe LDS leaders understand and teach the doctrine, although indirectly. While LDS members may believe in "many gods", any "god" outside of that "One God" (plural form) is not a "god". Or a more simple way of putting it, anybody outside of God's sealed family is not, never was, and never will be a "god". And even then, those withing God's family cannot ever use that outside of God's will. To an LDS member, there is only ONE God, but God is used in it's plural form. Yet Trinitarians continue to resist the idea of plural form for fear of being called polytheists. Interestingly enough, that charge is currently being headed by Islam. The single form Eloah is very similar to Allah, and Islam teaches a belief in a single being called "God" (single form). Even believing in the Trinity causes Muslims to claim they are polytheists and believe in more than one God. So, Trinitarians will go to great lengths to hold on to this belief and try to explain and expound on an idea that three separate singular persons are found in one singular form God, even though it is a logical impossibility. Alex PS - I am writing a book in hopes of helping people understand each other better. I am looking for feedback on this topic. Is it clear enough? Anything to add? Any criticisms, holes, or comments? Thank you.

I have a daughter that is somewhat in a similar situation, although she hasn't come right out and said she doesn't believe. She is a rebellious type of spirit that seems to be just looking for a reason not to believe. What I find that helps her is to talk with her, but to really just let her talk. I don't say anything, just listen. I ask questions about the things that she struggles with, what her friends think about it, and what she thinks God thinks about it (you can use "what if" there was a God, what would He think about it). I also try to remind her about times she has felt God's love, and how He has answered her prayers in the past. Sometimes she doesn't want to talk. In situations like that I follow her around, which sometimes really annoys her, but I tell her that I love her and won't leave without talking. I promise to her that I won't preach to her, which helps. Sometimes we've just sat there on the bed for a while without saying anything, which can seem like forever (but probably only about 15 mins). After that, she will open up and tell me her concerns. But, I realize that only works for a while. They still have to do their part by actively seeking (reading scriptures, praying, etc). But at least I can encourage her that God is the only one that really knows her heart and can help her if she asks.

I immediately thought of how Satan will tell ten truths to tell one lie. When I was a teenager I had some homosexual experiences with some friends; however, I turned out very straight and never looked back. When I bring this up to the LGBT community, they tell me that I was just young and too immature and didn't understand the decisions I was making. Except, if that's the argument, then how can they expect ANY teenager to be mature enough to understand the decisions they make? It is so prevalent in our society that ANY homosexual thoughts and desires automatically make them gay, and that they cannot change. So, instead of associating it with youth and immaturity of which can be repented of, Satan has them bound that it's just they way they are, and they are stuck like that. Christ's forgiving power is able to overcome that. I've used it. Homosexual desires can be overwritten with natural ones. I've done it. Do I still have thoughts, yes, but they are immediately turned to "eww". It is all how you associate it in your mind. If someone allows the temptation to turn them on, it becomes associated with powerful emotions and feelings and reinforces those thoughts. If they can change the association to something benign, or even that "eww" factor, it can be overcome.

So, I guess an introduction is in order about me. Alex Mathom is my pen name and I am writing a book about Fundamental Christianity and the differences to LDS doctrines. I consider myself an academic with a special interest in early Christianity and the Reformation. I've studied a lot of post-Apostolic theologians, along with Martin Luther and John Calvin (yes I've read much of his Institutes - <yawn>). It's interesting to me the controversy between Protestant and Catholic doctrines and how LDS theology has gotten caught in the middle. I know about all the issues regarding Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and problems with Church History. To be honest, I struggle with their "fringe" teachings and the disparaging accusations against them, and don't have easy answers for them. I do know that Joseph Smith could not have so perfectly reconstructed the early teachings of the Early Church Fathers without divine assistance. More importantly, I have received personal revelation and understanding from God that Joseph Smith was His instrument in bringing forth His Gospel more fully. Anything more than that, I cannot say. My goal is to teach LDS missionaries to defend their beliefs against Evangelical criticisms and to strengthen their testimonies. I am a deep thinker and I really try to understand they whys of things, and what it really means for us. I'll be posting some new things on the Trinity, the false dichotomy of Evangelical Salvation, what is actually required of LDS members to maintain their salvation, our spiritual progression, and other topics. I'd like to make sure that I can write it in an easy format that even those learning the ideas for the first time can understand them. For that, I'll need your help. I also hope I can be a valuable contributor to these forums in return. Thanks.

Well, I'm sorry, but since you are less than 10 years older than me, don't expect me to take your word for it. I don't believe a teenager can have the proper experience and maturity to make a judgement call for the entire church. I will admit that I went through similar experiences as you, especially after reading Miracle of Forgiveness. (if anyone wants to go on a guilt trip, read that book). And I do have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for Christ's grace today. However, and this is big, I see my own children and the youth of the church going through the same struggles that I did about "works"! Sure they don't have the same criticisms about blacks and other things we did, but they have much more criticism about gays than we ever could. They still have to defend their moral positions ("works") to their friends, much more than I do to my peers now. "Works" are much more on their minds, it's just a stage that we go through. I agree that Mormon Doctrine did have a lot of Brigham Young like speculations and teachings, and David O McKay had to call him out on it when it was first published in 1959. However, go back to 1915 Talmage's Jesus the Christ. Where do you find anything BUT grace in that book. (I'm pretty sure they were reading that book in the 70's) I have read historical works and do not get the impression that there is an internal church struggle with Faith vs Works. And I do not get that impression when speaking with my parents or grandparents (who did live through the 70's). As I stated before, I believe your perceptions, mine, and all those who go through the experience change as we gain wisdom and understanding. As we come to rely on Christ and understand His Grace more fully, we have the opportunity to use it and feel the effects of it more completely. So does our views on how we read church teachings of it... Just my humble opinion.

Well said, rameumptom. I want to add to Woody and others that we are given laws and commandments so we DON'T have to find out everything for ourselves. We CAN learn from others mistakes, problems, pains, guilts, and other messes without having to go through it personally. What I think we need to each learn individually is WHY we should want to or need to follow. There are consequences for every choice we make, either good or bad. Some decisions are simple, like what clothes to wear or what to eat. There are consequences to that like, "She looks like a slut in that", "He looks pretty handsome in that", or "I'm gonna get fat from eating that". These consequences don't really affect our lives much in the long run or our eternal salvation, but there are some decisions that do. Examples are the decision to have sex outside of marriage and the emotional problems it can cause, the decision to drink and become an alcoholic, the decision to steal rather than get an education and provide a living, or the decision to have children and raise them with good moral standards. Major decisions can cause heartache, or they can create joy. Jesus says, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light", and it leads to joy and happiness. The other yoke is heavy, indeed. There is not one thing that the LDS Church teaches that increases one's burden. Yes, they may ask difficult things from us, but from my experience the alternative consequences are much heavier. Once someone learns that, they no longer have to question LDS authority. This single concept is what your parents and other family members may have learned. And as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

I am glad you did not leave the LDS Church on bad terms, and would hope that you have an equally good experience here. However, I too, would have to agree with Ryan here and question your motives. One does not have "deductive bible study" and come up with phrases like "unmerited favor" through interpretation. If you are here to only preach your opinion while not expecting to learn anything in return, I'm afraid you will find us a poor audience.