Born Again Again

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:09 PM

Faith effects the atonement.  Not believing.    As the Word says,  we are saved by faith, and not works.

Saying the words of the "sinner's prayer" doesn't save you... it's the submissive heart  that becomes an obedient heart that saves you.  God looks at the heart.

~serapha~

Semantics Serapha, semantics.

Believing, albeit sincerely, is having faith.

You know... a lot of people believe... but they don't take that step of faith... and if they never take that step of faith, then believing doesn't save them... Look at pentacost... there were people there who participated in the experience, but never received the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

<span style='color:red'>A lot of people believe, but say, "I want to wait before I commit to Christianity so I can have more fun in life!" They believe, they know the way, but they don't exercise that step of faith... it isn't sematics.

Although for me, faith is not faith unless it is the kind of belief that leads to obedience to God.

As you said,

"That's one opinion"

http://www.freegift.org/

Saying the words of the "sinner's prayer" doesn't save you...

Agreed but their are plenty who think that it is just that simple. Check it out: http://www.freegift.org/

To their way of thinking, you are just a few clicks away from heaven. You can even print out a certificate to prove it.

How cute. I looked at the site. They will print a new birth certificate for new believers!

Doesn't your denomination issue Baptismal certificates? What's the difference? Does God read or need that baptismal certificate?

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:30 PM

snow,

You can "know"... I don't have a monopoly on knowing God's plan of salvation, I can't help if it God gave me a promise and I can't help it if God cannot lie.

You can know that you know.

~serapha~

I know you don't like personal comments Serapha, but that's a cheap debater's trick. The point is not whether or not God lies. The point is that you "believe" he has given you a promise. You may call it knowledge but we both know it is a "belief" even if it is one that you hold very strongly. If you want to have the whole epistomology debate, we can do that too. By the way, I have argued vociferously from your position so I am well aquainted with it's weaknesses.

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:38 PM

Well,

I believe God predestines everyone to be saved...  And, yes, biblical doctrine does matter...   particularly this doctrine...

Please try and keep your positions straight. A moment ago you were saying that God does not does not decided who is saved and now you say that God pre-determines who will be saved. Which is it?

The Bible states that it is God's desire that none should be lost, that we are all predestined to be children of God and not children of wrath. Do you need scriptures on that? The Bible also states that God is not a respector of persons. All three apply and do not contradict each other. God doesn't decide tht some should be lost.

And, earlier you said that salvation was by faith, not you seem to be saying that doctrine plays a roll. Which is it? Salvation by faith, or salvation by faith and correct doctrine?

If your faith is in the wrong doctrinal statements, then I have to say that misplaced faith doesn't save you.

I believe God predestines everyone to be saved... And, yes, biblical doctrine does matter... particularly this doctrine...

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:46 PM

How cute.  I looked at the site.  They will print a new birth certificate for  new believers!

Doesn't your denomination issue Baptismal certificates?  What's the difference? 

~serapha~

Is that a serious question or a clever little dig?

How's this: we don't pretend that it has salvific properties.

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:30 PM

snow,

You can "know"... I don't have a monopoly on knowing God's plan of salvation,  I can't help if it God gave me a promise and I can't help it if God cannot lie.

You can know that you know. 

~serapha~

I know you don't like personal comments Serapha, but that's a cheap debater's trick. The point is not whether or not God lies. The point is that you "believe" he has given you a promise. You may call it knowledge but we both know it is a "belief" even if it is one that you hold very strongly. If you want to have the whole epistomology debate, we can do that too. By the way, I have argued vociferously from your position so I am well aquainted with it's weaknesses.

So... only a member of the CoJCoLDS's can get a personal revelation from God????

You can "know"... I don't have a monopoly on knowing God's plan of salvation,  I can't help if it God gave me a promise and I can't help it if God cannot lie.

~serapha~

[serapha]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 19 2004, 11:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 19 2004, 11:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

<!--QuoteBegin--serapha

@Apr 19 2004, 10:46 PM

How cute.  I looked at the site.  They will print a new birth certificate for  new believers!

Doesn't your denomination issue Baptismal certificates?  What's the difference? 

~serapha~

Is that a serious question or a clever little dig?

How's this: we don't pretend that it has salvific properties.

So..

Where did that site say that the certificate has salvific purpose? or, as you said, "properties"????

I must have missed that comment.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:53 PM

The Bible states that it is God's desire that none should be lost, that we are all predestined to be children of God and not children of wrath. Do you need scriptures on that? The Bible also states that God is not a respector of persons. All three apply and do not contradict each other. God doesn't decide tht some should be lost.

If your faith is in the wrong doctrinal statements, then I have to say that misplaced faith doesn't save you.

Pre-destine means determine in advance. Determine means to decide authoritatively. If all men aren't saved, then God can't have predetermined, by definition, that all are saved, as you admit they are not.

If your faith is in the wrong doctrinal statements, then I have to say that misplaced faith doesn't save you.

Interesting thought, but since it is not up to you, we will just have to accept the Bible's word on the matter and it is says that salvation comes by faith if you believe Paul or by faith and works in you believe James or by works if you believe the synoptic gospels, but nowhere does it mention that salvation comes from correct doctrine.

[serapha]

In the LDS view, faith is far more than mental assent. It is a belief that propels towards action, the action what the evangelicals call works or filthy rags.

and, I'm still looking at the "filthy rags" statement.

(which I have never used so I must not be an evangelical)

~serapha~

[serapha]

but nowhere does it mention that salvation comes from correct doctrine.

Certainly, you don't believe that salvation can be given with a false doctrine?

I can have faith and believe that my dog will save me, but that is misplaced faith, and a false doctrine.

I just quoted today from the official site where it stated that only those who are born again by the laying on of hands by one in the priesthood of the CoJCoLDS will see the kingdom of God. The Bible tells me that I can have the Spirit by asking for it.

So, who is right?

The CoJCoLDS's official site or The Holy Bible?

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:59 PM

So..

Where did that site say that the certificate has salvific purpose? or, as you said, "properties"????

I must have missed that comment.

~serapha~

What's the point of that type of response? I know that I meant our baptism as represented by a certificate (and their certificate representing the recitation of the little prayer) and I know that you know what I meant.

If you think that you can out clever me, you're likely mistaken and if you think I will be frustrated, you are definately mistaken. As it is, I am now just bored. Kick it up a notch and we can pick it up later.

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 10:53 PM

The Bible states that it is God's desire that none should be lost, that we are all predestined to be children of God and not children of wrath.  Do you need scriptures on that?    The Bible also states that God is not a respector of persons.  All three apply and do not contradict each other.    God doesn't decide tht some should be lost. 

If your faith is in the wrong doctrinal statements, then I have to say that misplaced faith doesn't save you. 

Pre-destine means determine in advance. Determine means to decide authoritatively. If all men aren't saved, then God can't have predetermined, by definition, that all are saved, as you admit they are not.

<span style='color:red'>Don't you believe the Bible when it says (in Ephesians 2) that we are predestined to be children of God and not children of wrath? Just becasue we are "predestined" to a position in Christ doesn't mean that the position is accepted by the person.

God can do mighty works, but he cannot change the will of man.

[serapha]

What's the point of that type of response? I know that I meant our baptism as represented by a certificate (and their certificate representing the recitation of the little prayer) and I know that you know what I meant.

If you think that you can out clever me, you're likely mistaken and if you think I will be frustrated, you are definately mistaken. As it is, I am now just bored. Kick it up a notch and we can pick it up later.

Sorry I bored you.

good night.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:05 PM

In the LDS view, faith is far more than mental assent. It is a belief that propels towards action, the action what the evangelicals call works or filthy rags.

and, I'm still looking at the "filthy rags" statement.

(which I have never used so I must not be an evangelical)

~serapha~

Think syllogism Serapha,

All those who use the term filty rags may be evangelical but it does not follow that all evangelicals use the term filty rags.

For example: Fairs is an LDS apologetic organization. Some scumbag bigots have purchased a domain name similar to Fairs to trap careless websufers and divert them to their own site; much like pornographers by domain names similar to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's website to trap and corrupt careless websurfers.

www.fair-lds.com

Click the link at the redirected site...

[serapha]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 20 2004, 05:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 20 2004, 05:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:05 PM

In the LDS view, faith is far more than mental assent. It is a belief that propels towards action, the action what the evangelicals call works or filthy rags.

and, I'm still looking at the "filthy rags" statement.

(which I have never used so I must not be an evangelical)

~serapha~

Think syllogism Serapha,

All those who use the term filty rags may be evangelical but it does not follow that all evangelicals use the term filty rags.

For example: Fairs is an LDS apologetic organization. Some scumbag bigots have purchased a domain name similar to Fairs to trap careless websufers and divert them to their own site; much like pornographers by domain names similar to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's website to trap and corrupt careless websurfers.

www.fair-lds.com

Click the link at the redirected site...

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:05 PM

In the LDS view, faith is far more than mental assent. It is a belief that propels towards action, the action what the evangelicals call works or filthy rags.

and, I'm still looking at the "filthy rags" statement.

(which I have never used so I must not be an evangelical)

~serapha~

Think syllogism Serapha,

All those who use the term filty rags may be evangelical but it does not follow that all evangelicals use the term filty rags.

For example: Fairs is an LDS apologetic organization. Some scumbag bigots have purchased a domain name similar to Fairs to trap careless websufers and divert them to their own site; much like pornographers by domain names similar to Dr. Laura Schlessinger's website to trap and corrupt careless websurfers.

www.fair-lds.com

Click the link at the redirected site...

Well, I've never been to the site you referenced. But, they do identify right up front that they are not LDS...

BTW... I have only contacted FAIRs on one occasions.... I was seeking permission to use something from one of their discussions with copyright citation... and they knew who I was... I just took a step back... it intimidated me.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:09 PM

Certainly, you don't believe that salvation can be given with a false doctrine?

Me personally?

I don't have a problem believing that salvation entails more than accepting Christ or having plain faith but the idea is completely at odds with the evangelical doctrine of faith only - meaning ONLY faith, not faith and someting else (like correct understanding of doctrine).

A few examples. Kid in Patagonia living in some ranchito. A traveling shoe brush salesman passes though, teaches kid about Christ. Kid doesn't have time to learn all the details. Completely confused about the trilogy thing, maybe believes it differently than Bob and Nancy Nicene, same with other doctrines but is sincere in his faith in Christ. Has a change of heart... dies, saved or not?

Christians at and shortly after the time of Christ had no clear idea of doctrine, which was not to become standardized for several hundred years or more. Saved or not.

Bottom line, if a person has a fundamental change of heart and is born again, according to your doctrine, he is saved -- regardless of his doctrinal position.

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:09 PM

Certainly, you don't believe that salvation can be given with a false doctrine?

Me personally?

I don't have a problem believing that salvation entails more than accepting Christ or having plain faith but the idea is completely at odds with the evangelical doctrine of faith only - meaning ONLY faith, not faith and someting else (like correct understanding of doctrine).

A few examples. Kid in Patagonia living in some ranchito. A traveling shoe brush salesman passes though, teaches kid about Christ. Kid doesn't have time to learn all the details. Completely confused about the trilogy thing, maybe believes it differently than Bob and Nancy Nicene, same with other doctrines but is sincere in his faith in Christ. Has a change of heart... dies, saved or not?

Christians at and shortly after the time of Christ had no clear idea of doctrine, which was not to become standardized for several hundred years or more. Saved or not.

Bottom line, if a person has a fundamental change of heart and is born again, according to your doctrine, he is saved -- regardless of his doctrinal position.

and thank you, snow

for advising me on what I believe. I would never have known.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:15 PM

Don't you believe the Bible when it says (in Ephesians 2) that we are predestined to be children of God and not children of wrath? Just becasue we are "predestined" to a position in Christ doesn't mean that the position is accepted by the person.

You mean Ephesians 1:5?

Predestined then is probably the wrong word. The greek is proorivzw and in this case is better understood as :to foreordain, appoint beforehand. Understanding it thusly adds the component of free will while softening the deterministic properties.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 19 2004, 11:09 PM

but nowhere does it mention that salvation comes from correct doctrine.

Certainly, you don't believe that salvation can be given with a false doctrine?

I can have faith and believe that my dog will save me, but that is misplaced faith, and a false doctrine.

I just quoted today from the official site where it stated that only those who are born again by the laying on of hands by one in the priesthood of the CoJCoLDS will see the kingdom of God. The Bible tells me that I can have the Spirit by asking for it.

So, who is right?

The CoJCoLDS's official site or The Holy Bible?

~serapha~

You can have it by asking for it.....but then you have to follow through with receiving it...through the CoJCoLDS where there is authority to perform the ordinance.

For ever spiritual gift, there is a physical manifestation or work that must be done. We are made up of two parts....spirit and body. We receive things through both...they must be unified and fulfilled to be whole, and one.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 20 2004, 09:23 PM

and thank you, snow

for advising me on what I believe.   I would never have known.

~serapha~

I dinna see these posts before. Whaddaya - on moderated status? That doesn't seem right.

...no need to get jasped. I am just stating the standard born-again/fundamental/baptist position of faith only. If you dinna believe in faith only, more power to you. You go serapha.

Parking this here for future reference:

See, this is the deal.

Some people hate the purity of gospel truth. They are not defined by what they believe. They are defined by what they hate. The truth burns them and they resent it, so instead of proclaiming a positive message of promotion of they lash out and try to destroy.

It is not new. It was that way at the meridian of time and it was that way when Joseph's supplicant pleas moved God to reopen the heavens and rain down his light upon a lost and struggling world. To be sure, not all those who do not accept the restored light are bad. Indeed, the very path for a restoration was paved by good and honest men who might have disagreed with the totality of the gospsel; men like Martin Luther or John Calvin whose contributions were laudable. Today many of their spiritual progeny carry on their commendable tranditions and this board is fortunate to number them among our ranks.

Unfortunately not all are so well-intentioned. There are those whoses paths are crooked and doctrines corrupt. They are those who belittle God's servants, the prophets. They are those who cling to darkness and mock the Saints. They post pictures of the sacred temple garment and, in their ignorance, defile what God has ordained. They are those who's tactics are full of deceit like their master whose bidding they effect.

Tolerate them; coddle them if you will. I will not.

I cannot.

#####

In another thread I called anti-Mormons fundamentally immoral and degenerate. Lindy thought that was out of line. I beg to differ. They are, as a group, fundamentally degenerate people.

First, I need to make clear that being non-LDS does not mean you are anti. Being ex-LDS does not make you anti. Being a jokester and provacateur by itself won't do it. Disagreeing does not make you an anti and finally, being a critic, even a serious critic does not make you an anti. No, anti's are those that attack Mormonism because it is Mormonism. The are unfair in their attacks, dishonest in their approach and hate-filled in their hearts. Usually I exclude those that are atheist, their complaints are typically more even-handed towards all religion, so by anti I mean most often those who pretend to be religious.

Second, by immoral I don't mean sexually depraved; though it is not surprizing to note that a very great many of them are in fact just that. Take the serial adulter Ed Decker or one of our own anti's here who has repeatedly proclaimed his personal proclivities towards sexual self abuse. However, by immoral I mean violative of right and wrong, reprobates, given to wickness, deviating from correct conduct.

Anti's are, by their very nature, fundamentally dishonest people. I have never met one who is not. Lying and misstatment are their stock in trade. Not surprizingly they are usually, though not exclusively, dull and of below average intelligence. That is one reason they rely so heavily on dishonestly. The truth generally doesn't support them and being naturally lazy people, they take the easy way out. It is helpful to consider their plight in two ways:

1. If the Church is true. they are plain wicked, evil men doing Satan's biding.

2. If the Church is not literally true in all its claims, they are merely ugly bigots and disgusting human beings.

Certainly one may ask - should ask - how can I be so bold, so antagonistic in my description, even though it is accurate? Simple, they, the real anti-Mormons are few and far between. When the world has the misfortune to run across one of their sorry, albeit scarce number, it has every right to point them out in scorn and call them for what they really are: ugly anti-Mormons and vile human beings.