There are two different ways that people respond to God’s law. One is from within and the other is from without. From within, men do God’s law out a voluntary response to what God prescribes. This kind of person does so out of love for God and his neighbor. The principle here is that he who loves someone gives what is due to him spontaneously and joyfully. In fact, this kind of person even goes beyond the law and adds to the requirements of the law with a certain generosity. The point is that a person who responds to God’s law internally does so out of love. St. Paul, of course, states in Romans 13:10 that “Love is the fulfillment of the law” and Jesus says that “on these two commands,” that is, on the love of God and of neighbor, “the whole law depends” (Matthew 22:40).
There are people, though, that are not disposed to internally respond to God’s law. These people do not spontaneously do what the law prescribes. They, therefore, must be forced externally to fulfill the just requirements of the law. In other words, they are forced to obey the law out of fear of punishment or by being punished. They do not fulfill the law voluntarily. They do not do what is just out of love and freedom, but out of servility.
Those people who are internally motivated by love actually do not need the law because they live above justice at the level of generosity. Consequently, the external law has the purpose of inclining those who would not otherwise be inclined by themselves to do what is right. In fact, Paul makes this exact point in 1Timothy 1:9 “…knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners.”
Unfortunately, some people have wrongly thought that believers are not obliged to obey God’s moral law. The truth is that believers are to be inclined by themselves to do what is just, even without the law. They are to be internally motivated by love to spontaneously, joyfully and generously do God’s will.
|
And what is God's law, God's moral law, in its completeness, so that without such a law anymore we can respond internally to its excess?
What can the right answer be where some conclude that none of the former law is applicable, others conclude that only parts are applicable, and still others conclude that all is still applicable to believers in Jesus.
Which Protestant / Catholic theologians and Mormon theologians are to believed and which are to be rejected....that is, which ones correctly discern the truth and which ones, for a fact, do not?
To answer the question correctly here, we must go to Aquinas himself (he having Tom's ear) who says the moral law predates Moses. Step aside again Moses, for later men tell us that natural law is imbedded in the hearts of all men. And WHAT law is that which is so engraved within our hearts? It is the ten commandments....so get back in line Moses.
But what of the many opposing theological views?
Which one of them is correct?
There is no answer in the present clash of orthodoxy except to say that this body of law, is the New Covenant written in our hearts...although apparently differently depending upon time and denomination and teacher.
Thanks for showing to us all that you and your religious institution belong to the group which needs the law as Paul spoke of to Timothy, which Thom quoted.
Here is another quote form Paul about the law.For more insight please read the book of Romans. It really does a good job of spelling out the issues and giving some very real and useful answers regarding the law and sin. Much better than the LDS church ever did, but we don't need to get into that again.
And what is God's law, God's moral law, in its completeness, so that without such a law anymore we can respond internally to its excess?... Which Protestant / Catholic theologians and Mormon theologians are to believed and which are to be rejected....that is, which ones correctly discern the truth and which ones, for a fact, do not?
●Well, the answer to your question can actually be found in the scriptural texts that I referenced. First, let’s look at Romans 13.
Romans 13: 8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
●Not only does this passage accord exactly with the thesis of my post, but, Paul’s listing of laws is drawn directly from the Ten Commandments, also known as the moral law of God or the divine law. He states that all the moral laws of God are fulfilled through love.
Now let’s look at Matthew 22:
Matthew 22: 36-40 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
●Please notice that Jesus says that “all the Law and the Prophets” “hang” on these two commandments. The two commandments, of course, are to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
You wrote as your answer: The new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel.(D. & C. 66:2.) It is composed of "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit of promise, or the Holy Ghost. There is nothing confusing or mystical about what they exactly are. They are pronounced on the believer, the latter day saint.
●This surely represents what the LDS teaches and what Mormons believe. I respect this; however, I would also like to point out a few differences between this and what the Scripture teaches.
“’All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations’ that are sealed upon members of the Church by the Holy Spirit…”
●When Paul begins Romans, he makes the case that even rank pagans who have never heard of the Mosaic Law given at Sinai have God’s law inscribed on their hearts. Therefore, the LDS teaching that all the “covenants, contracts, bonds, etc.” that make up God’s law are “sealed upon” its members by the Holy Spirit cannot be true. According to Paul, the inscription of God’s law on man’s heart must precede conversion and be part of the very nature of man.
Romans 2: 12-15 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
●Additionally, the inscription of God’s law cannot be “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” inherent in LDS theology. Paul goes right on in Romans 13 to define what he means by God’s law.
Romans 13:17-18 and 21-23 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, 18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law,… 21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
●Paul was obviously referring to the Mosaic Law entrusted to the Jewish people—the moral law of God. Again, according to Holy Scripture, the moral law of God is inscribed on the hearts of all men.
You wrote: To answer the question correctly here, we must go to Aquinas himself (he having Tom's ear) who says the moral law predates Moses. Step aside again Moses, for later men tell us that natural law is imbedded in the hearts of all men. And WHAT law is that which is so engraved within our hearts? It is the ten commandments....so get back in line Moses.
●Since you mentioned Aquinas, I will fine-tune your use of terms to match his. Aquinas, rightly, believed that the moral law of God predates Moses. He believed this because the Bible states it (quoted above from St. Paul). This inscribed moral law he (along with many others) termed the “natural law.” This terminology fits the case because Paul states that man knows to do God’s law “by nature” (Romans 2:14). The Mosaic Law, Aquinas termed the Divine Law. The purpose of the Divine Law is to assure that man cannot excuse himself (Galatians 3). The Divine Law was inscribed in stone (external from man) and promulgated openly to humanity through the Jews. The written Divine Law holds all men accountable to God for their sins—both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 13:17-23). It assures that no one can rationalize away their accountability to God—particularly “religious” people.
This is more relevant to our last discussion, but I was looking into some books to help with my new position as youth minister based on some recommendations from other youth leaders. I was reading the reviews of one of the books on Amazon.com when I came across this review. This is a review of Your First Two Years in Youth Ministry by Doug Fields. The book and this review can be found on Amazon here
I would bet this person considers himself to be open minded and for the "fundamentalist" Christians to be closed minded and thus a danger to society, but I find it interesting that he ends up representing the very evil he wants to oppose by making comments like this.
Anyways, I know this has to do with the previous line of discussion, but I just found it so I thought I'd hare it here.
This is a review of Your First Two Years in Youth Ministry by Doug Fields… “Frightening insight into the mind of a charismatic cult leader and a manual for the seduction of young adolescent minds into the horrors of christian fundamentalism. Read this to understand that the enemy of our civilisation moves among us and as an aid to develop strategies to counter this most pernicious evil.”
●Wow, Doug Fields as a “charismatic cult leader” seducing “young adolescent minds into the horrors of Christian fundamentalism!” Doug Fields is about the most middle-of-the-road evangelical youth pastor one can imagine. I guess this guy means that Rick Warren and Saddleback Church are the epicenter of a brainwashing cult.
What you want to bet this reviewer would more likely parole Charles Manson than admit Christianity is morally good.
Not much has changed.
You twisted so radically away from His Law and our required Obedience, running off to a love without law and without obedience that you justify a feel good (I'm OK), feel bad (I'm not OK) religion.
The more you abstract God's Law the farther you stroll from actualizing it. I would like to confirm to you BECAUSE OF THIS all do not have the entirety of the law inscribed. Those with the greatest truth inscribed are those who make an abstraction of none of it. One cannot be obedient to God to an abstraction. Such a one takes a "long and winding road" far from God yet intimately close to its counterfeit.
Thom, we all speak of love, every human being speaks of it and each loves their god as well. Your abstraction with all the bible scriptures is no prescription for life.
Of course, this is all according to Paul, whom you believe to have spoken for God through the scriptures which your religious leaders claim to believe.
It is time for legislatures to open across the country. I say that the existence of these bodies of men and women is the best argument for the depravity of the human race that exists: People who rule themselves don't need rules. Apparently many people can't rule themselves so we have to have governments make rules for them.
The scriptures from Romans and Matthew provided are accepted as true through all Christianity some to a greater degree than others. But this isn't what any Christian would contend with or really any denomination. But bringing these scriptures to practice are but a small subset of the law of God. Thom, the principle of "love" is something Wicca finds foundational to their truths.
What you describe is certainly not God's law, God's moral law, in its completeness, nor did Paul suggest so. Unless of course you think there are but two laws. (I say in jest). You have all these extra-biblical law which divides Christendom.
Or, are we permitted to interpret Paul's words of the two laws as we wish? Is that your point...given you feel each of us clearly know the truth intuitively....but so differently in practice.
Again, what can the right answer be where some conclude that none of the former law is applicable, others conclude that only parts are applicable, and still others conclude that all is still applicable to believers in Jesus?
The fact that these truths are found in many sources, including Wicca, Buddhism, and even secularist moral standards is not proof against what Thom said, not what Paul said before him. In fact, it is proof positive for what Thom has said. This is a standard that is written on the hearts of all man.
Still, what Paul is saying goes beyond knowing these things or even obeying them. We have all sinned, Paul says in Romans, and fallen short of the glory of God. We can have that relationship restored through Christ Jesus who died for our sins upon the Cross becoming curses and was raised again ever interceding on our behalf before the Father. For this reason we are free from sin but are slaves to righteousness.
This is the new law. Now a set of rules but a very real relationship with God the source of righteousness. For now we are dead to sin and alive in Christ.
All of this is found in the book of Romans and you must toss it all out to keep hold to your religious beliefs. This, of course, is the major flaw in the LDS theology where they claim, on the one hand, to believe in what the Bible says then, on the other hand, reject it in practice.
Once again the LDS religion grasps splinters and fragments of Christian scripture that appear to support LDS theology while rejecting the whole segments surrounding those fragments. Once again they build a house on sand from splinters instead of upon the firm foundation of Christ with lasting material.
●The point of God’s law is that it describes the way things actually are. Therefore, one is obligated to abide by it or live above it at all times.
You wrote: Reducing God's law to such abstractions of Love, as in love of God and love of man, brings us back to the 60's and the notion that Jesus is dispensible, just another teacher of love.
●Hmmm…you may not have noticed this; it was Jesus and St. Paul that summarized the moral law of God as loving God and loving one’s neighbor.
Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
●Biblically, love is defined by the moral law of God.
You wrote: You twisted so radically away from His Law and our required Obedience, running off to a love without law and without obedience that you justify a feel good (I'm OK), feel bad (I'm not OK) religion.
●Wow, you are back to your immediate default position of pharisaical judgmental-ism. That was light-speed. Oh, I forgot, the Pharisees at least knew something about Jesus’ life before they started their false accusations against Him. Apparently you don’t need any knowledge whatsoever about me in order to launch your moralistic thunderbolts from atop the statue of Moroni .
You wrote: The more you abstract God's Law the farther you stroll from actualizing it. I would like to confirm to you BECAUSE OF THIS all do not have the entirety of the law inscribed. Those with the greatest truth inscribed are those who make an abstraction of none of it. One cannot be obedient to God to an abstraction. Such a one takes a "long and winding road" far from God yet intimately close to its counterfeit.
●I presume you mean by this that good Mormons are the only ones who have “the greatest truth inscribed” because they “make an abstraction of none of it.” Biblically, of course, this is utter nonsense. Here are a few reasons why your concept is gibberish from a biblical perspective.
1. The inscriber must be God since no one can inscribe anything on his own nature. To think that such a thing is possible is to suggest that a person can determine his own gender at conception. Therefore, your idea is utterly impossible that some people, by not abstracting the law, can inscribe “the greatest truth” on themselves.
2. Paul clearly states that all men have the law of God written on their hearts. This truth establishes that all men are held accountable to God for their sin. Following your logic, the more a person turns God’s law into an abstraction, the less it is inscribed on their hearts. This, then, would make the “abstractors” less morally culpable. This, of course, is absurd.
3. Simply put, you are claiming for yourself greater knowledge and insight on these matters than either Paul or the Lord Jesus. Why? Because your ideas contradict their clear teachings. They also defy logic.
You wrote: Thom, we all speak of love, every human being speaks of it and each loves their god as well. Your abstraction with all the bible scriptures is no prescription for life.
●Hmmm…my “abstraction with all the bible scriptures is no prescription for life”…hmmm. I wonder what Jesus would say about your little insight here?
●Again, love is defined by the moral law of God. Try reading Matthew 22 and Romans 13. Those who truly love Jesus do his commandments (John 15).
You wrote: What you describe is certainly not God's law, God's moral law, in its completeness, nor did Paul suggest so. Unless of course you think there are but two laws. (I say in jest). You have all these extra-biblical law which divides Christendom.
●I didn’t “describe” God’s moral law. I simply quoted Jesus and Paul. Your beef is with them. By the way, in general terms, the LDS “beef” is with the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. Creating a comic cartoon version of Jesus doesn’t change His direct teaching.
Given all your lip service to loving God and neighbor (not to forget enemy), you in your orthodoxy cannot actualize His counsel. But God has heard all the talk. Where you might have a doctrine of just war, do you not also have a doctrine governing departure from loving thy neighbor and thy enemy? Where it is so, it is not of God.
Christ declared the world a sanctuary of life and peace. He taught believers to remain neutral politically. Never mind they ignored that counsel also. Steeped in politics as so many in orthodoxy have been, what has become of God's counsel of peace? In this beatitude, those who are blessed are not particularly those who love peace, but those who make peace. The blessed ones are those who are the "doers of the word," not just passive listeners. (See James 1:22.)
Is. 24:2-6
The earth mourneth and [withereth] away,
the world languisheth and [withereth] away,
the haughty people of the earth do languish. (24:4)
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof;
because they have transgressed the laws,
changed the ordinance,
broken the everlasting covenant. (24:5)
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth,
and they that dwell therein are [held guilty]:
therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned,
and few men left; (24:6)
The Ordinance (Hebrew choq) comes from the root word chaqaq, which means "to carve or engrave." God's ordinances were essentially carved in stone and were not meant to be changed; rather, they were to be engraved on the hearts of the children of God as they were on stone. When the ordinances are changed, their power to save is lost.
In speaking of the expression, "broken the everlasting covenant". The everlasting covenant is the gospel with its covenants and ordinances. Because the ordinances had been perverted or lost, God's punishment is affixed and restoration must occur.
Doubletalk. God's moral laws have always been within covenant relationships with His chosen. Holy Cow, it is the name identifying the building where you preach. Do you in fact have any covenant formally at all? I hope you see your problem now.
You are right, God enters into covenants with His people. If you read the book of Roman, like I suggested, then you would see that Pal is spelling out a covenant relationship with God that frees us from sin and the Law but makes us slaves to righteousness. Being free from the law does not mean that we can begin to do the things prohibited in the law (read 10 commandments) but rather it means that we do not need the law to guide us any longer as the Spirit guides us now.
Love the Lord your God with all you heart ...
Love your neighbor as yourself.
These two commandment sum up the entire Law. In doing these two things, we will not have other gods before God, or take his name in vain. We will not make graven images either. We will live in righteous relationship with the Father. This is what comes from following the greatest commandment as Christ said.
We would never consider harming anyone if we love our neighbor but would rather go out of our way to help. We wouldn't covet or bear false witness. These attitudes flow out of love for neighbors.
Sure, this means walking in a relationship with God, but this is what Christianity is about. You go ahead and keep your rules that separate you from God. I figure I'll do what Jesus says instead.
In psychology we talk about people who have an intrinsic locus of control and those who have an extrinsic locus of control.
Those who have an extrinsic locus of control often do the following;
1. blame others for their state in life
2. refuse to accept the fact that they may have contributed to their current state of life
3. talk about 'those people' or 'them' instead of 'me' and 'my'
4. talk like they are the victim of life's circumstances
Consequently, people who have an extrinsic locus of control are often:
1. depressed
2. discouraged
3. angry (don't know the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness)
4. feel powerless
5. feel like victims
People who have in intrinsic locus of control often do the following:
1. accept their contribution to a situation
2. accept responsibility for their part in the situation
3. feel that they can change their circumstances by their choices and attitudes
4. feel that they have power over their situation
Consequently, people who have an intrinsic locus of control are often:
1. happier
2. empowered
3. assertive without being aggressive
4. empower others
I think the biblical record says that we are to function from an intrinsic locus of control.
After all, its not what life does to me that is the issue; it is what I do with what life does to me that is the issue.
I persist, hoping....When do you think The Lord would have us move from lip service with His Law to actualizing it? Because the whole engraved in the heart thing doesn't explain the denominational differences in God's law. Since you have no answer to explain the great disparity, I explain your misunderstanding of "engrave" as Isaiah wrote it, but let me comment first.
●If you think it is frustrating for you to have to repeat your question, imagine what it is like for me. I keep answering the same question over and over and you keep not reading it. Let me paste in my last response and bold-face it so that it is harder for you to miss this time.
You previously wrote: When do you think The Lord would have us move from lip service with His Law to actualizing it?
I responded with this answer: The point of God’s law is that it describes the way things actually are. Therefore, one is obligated to abide by it or live above it at all times.
Let me explain the answer so you can understand it:
●When I say that “God’s law” “describes the way things actually are;” this means that God’s law is built into nature. Not only is it inscribed on man’s heart, the rest of nature works in accord with God’s law to validate it or punish the breaking of those laws. This is termed as “self-validating.”
●When I say, “Therefore;” this means that because of the fact that God’s law is built into nature, there are consequences that come from this.
●When I say, “one is obligated to abide by it or live above it at all times;” this means that all humans are obligated to live according to God’s law at all times. This also means—obviously—that “giving lip service” to the law is not living according to God’s law. “At all times”—obviously—means that there is no time when man is freed from the obligation of God’s law. This is because: A) it is commanded by God; B) God’s law is inscribed on man’s heart; C) God’s law is inscribed in nature; and D) God’s law describes how things actually function.
Now let me repeat my answer again for redundancy’s sake:
The point of God’s law is that it describes the way things actually are. Therefore, one is obligated to abide by it or live above it at all times.
Regarding denominational differences about the Divine Law:
●What denominational differences about the Divine Law? What “great disparity?”
You wrote: Given all your lip service to loving God and neighbor (not to forget enemy), you in your orthodoxy cannot actualize His counsel. But God has heard all the talk. Where you might have a doctrine of just war, do you not also have a doctrine governing departure from loving thy neighbor and thy enemy? Where it is so, it is not of God.
● “Lip service”…hmmm. Well, I guess we have to suffer through another round of Mormon judgmental-ism. What is so interesting about Mormon moralizing is that it doesn’t need to bother with any knowledge of reality before picking at the splinters in the eyes of others. Unfortunately, Mormon moralizing keeps its practitioners from noticing the pile of lumber in their own eyes. Its called “log-eye syndrome.”
●Beyond your insistent judgmental moralizing; please allow me to demonstrate the incoherence of your point. You claim that, “you in your orthodoxy cannot actualize His counsel” and, therefore, we cannot do God’s law. If this was true it would mean that only Mormons are capable of loving God and loving their neighbor. On the face of it, of course, this is patently absurd. Additionally, it would make a mockery of God’s “commandments” in that only some people are somehow able to do that which God commands. This would leave us with the specter of God inscribing His law on all of humanity but only Mormons would be capable of “actualizing” His commands. This, too, is absurd; but, it seems to describe LDS theology accurately.
You wrote: Christ declared the world a sanctuary of life and peace. He taught believers to remain neutral politically. Never mind they ignored that counsel also. Steeped in politics as so many in orthodoxy have been, what has become of God's counsel of peace?
●Earth to Gecko, Gov. Romney is running for the presidency as a Republican. Last time I checked, the Republican Party was a partisan political party. Helllloooo. My mom used to say something to the effect of, “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
You wrote: The Ordinance (Hebrew choq) comes from the root word chaqaq, which means "to carve or engrave." God's ordinances were essentially carved in stone and were not meant to be changed; rather, they were to be engraved on the hearts of the children of God as they were on stone. When the ordinances are changed, their power to save is lost…In speaking of the expression, "broken the everlasting covenant". The everlasting covenant is the gospel with its covenants and ordinances. Because the ordinances had been perverted or lost, God's punishment is affixed and restoration must occur.
●I cannot understand why you seem unable to grasp two simple concepts:
1. God has inscribed and promulgated His law through nature and Moses.
2. God has given man free will; therefore, man is capable of and often does disobey God’s law.
You wrote: (Quoting me) "●I didn’t “describe” God’s moral law. I simply quoted Jesus and Paul."
(Your response) Doubletalk. God's moral laws have always been within covenant relationships with His chosen. Holy Cow, it is the name identifying the building where you preach. Do you in fact have any covenant formally at all? I hope you see your problem now.
● “Doubletalk;” certainly you jest. I literally quoted the words of Jesus and the Apostle Paul as they described the moral law of God in summary form. Are you actually reading what I write? It sure doesn’t seem like it.
●Terrific insight, Ron. I love it when a person can take an important theological notion and accurately translate it into the language of another discipline which then provides a helpful insight.
God's law drived and extrapolated from natural law (nature) is "naturalistic spirituality" and a form of "scientific pantheonism".
After all, who are your experts concerning natural law? They are those who in unison declare there is no god, for these experts declare nature to be self sustaining. The experts of natural law, those who most completely comprehend nature, are not men of God but men of natural science.
It would seem your conundrum for the scientist to declare the totality of God's law? But not for you Thomistic fellow. You fancy yourself a scientist of a kind where reasoning is your spirituality.
Various conflicting views of the Old Testament Law in Christianity result from very different interpretations of what exactly THIS NEW COVENANT IS and how it influences the validity of the Mosaic Law. These differences mainly result from misinterpretation of scripture that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply to our lives today.
Of course, this flies in the face of God's laws being declared to be eternal in the Old Testament.
God's laws are declared by Him to man through prophets over time. They are not extracted from nature.
God's Law has not been clearly defined as if engraved in the heart with any conformity denominationally. Such a notion would spring from the casual believer. It is a form of Protestant PollyAnnaism. From you it is deception.
Further on the extrinsic/intrinsic focus on control issue.
I was at a presentation last week by a psychiatrist who noted that persons who are abusers often function from an extrinsic locus of control.
Interesting.
ron
●When you write of my “present convenient opinion” I can only guess what you mean. Let me see. Are you referring to the fact that Jesus and St. Paul summarized God’s law as loving God and loving one’s neighbor as one’s self? Are you saying it is simply my opinion that man is always and at all times obligated to obey God’s law? Well, you asked for my opinion on the issue—remember? Try to stay focused.
●Below I will deal with the supposed “dispute” within orthodox Christianity over the law.
You wrote: God's law drived and extrapolated from natural law (nature) is "naturalistic spirituality" and a form of "scientific pantheonism".
●This would be a correct statement if it applied to Christianity or to Thomist theology. However, it doesn’t. In Christian and Thomist theology, God’s law derives from God. God being the Creator of all of nature and due to the fact that He is a God of order; nature reflects His law. This is proclaimed throughout Holy Scripture.
You wrote: After all, who are your experts concerning natural law? They are those who in unison declare there is no god, for these experts declare nature to be self sustaining. The experts of natural law, those who most completely comprehend nature, are not men of God but men of natural science.
●This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument. It is a non sequitar because it does not follow that if a person believes in natural law that they are an atheist. St. Paul believed that God’s law was embedded in nature and inscribed on man’s heart. Does that make him an atheist? Such a concept is, of course, absurd; but, it seems to accurately reflect Mormon theology.
You wrote: It would seem your conundrum for the scientist to declare the totality of God's law? But not for you Thomistic fellow. You fancy yourself a scientist of a kind where reasoning is your spirituality.
●Okay, so now we get another ad hominem statement about me. The “kid message” seems to be that I have a silly notion of being a make-believe scientist that derives my Christian spirituality from human reason.
●You may not have noticed this; but, the topic is the moral law of God and not empirical science. Again, it is Holy Scripture that declares that both God’s law and God’s nature can be ascertained from the creation. The “creation”—in case you haven’t noticed—is what we call the natural order of things. Because Holy Scripture consistently and clearly declares that God’s law is embedded in nature, Christian theology has developed a long history of glorifying God through the study of His magnificence as expressed in the creation. This makes complete sense and is derived from Scripture. Mormons think this is somehow wrong which, of course, clearly shows the huge disparity between Scripture and Mormonism.
You wrote: Traditional Christianity affirms that the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is God's law. There are several conflicting explanations within Christianity that attempt to explain if and how the laws given by God through Moses apply to Christians. Nevertheless, these laws were always established as covenants "written in stone" and "engraved in the hearts of His people". The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his people. But many centuries and millenia the covenants were broken and memory of them faded to their present dimness as represented in the diversity of Protestantism…Various conflicting views of the Old Testament Law in Christianity result from very different interpretations of what exactly THIS NEW COVENANT IS and how it influences the validity of the Mosaic Law. These differences mainly result from misinterpretation of scripture that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply to our lives today.
●This seems to be your opinion on Protestant Christianity. Here is mine. I cannot think of one orthodox Protestant denomination that does not believe that Christians are to do exactly what Jesus and St. Paul said—fulfill the commandments by loving God and loving one’s neighbor as oneself. Every Protestant denomination I know of believes that the law of God (found in the 10 commandments) is to be obeyed in the life of the believer as empowered by God’s grace and summarized by Jesus and Paul. In fact, they usually teach that the believer is to live “above the law” by acting internally and spontaneously to go beyond the law and live a life of generosity and blessing. The only disparity in all of this is in regard to so-called Sabbath worship. The Adventists believe that Christians should worship on Saturday and keep some of the OT food laws. According to St. Paul (Rom 14), they are free to believe these things for conscience sake. However, they are not free to hold other Christians to these beliefs.
You wrote: God's laws are declared by Him to man through prophets over time. They are not extracted from nature.
But St. Paul wrote:
Romans 2:14-16 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
●I think the contrast between your statement and St. Paul’s speaks for itself and clearly defines the gap between biblical religion and Mormonism.
You wrote: God's Law has not been clearly defined as if engraved in the heart with any conformity denominationally. Such a notion would spring from the casual believer. It is a form of Protestant PollyAnnaism. From you it is deception.
●You still don’t seem to grasp the idea that something can be clearly promulgated and yet disobeyed. Let me help you. Please notice that traffic speed laws are clearly posted by local governments. Now notice that policemen often give citations to people for disobeying those same traffic speed laws. Simply put, being “clearly defined” and being in “conformity” are two separate things when dealing with free moral agents.
●Secondly, denominations don’t obey God’s law. People do.
●Thirdly, as I have already pointed out, orthodox Christian denominations do believe that Christians are to obey the moral law of God. The heresy of antinomianism has always been opposed by orthodox Christians.
●I, of course am not engaged in “deception.” This is just another one of your ad hominem statements about my person that you throw out because you can’t courteously or intelligently respond to my arguments. Mormons apparently feel free to engage in ad hominem attacks while presenting themselves as morally superior. This, I believe, beautifully defines the moral validity of Mormonism.
You avoid with: “This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument.”
.
There is nothing insulting or irrelevant in my assertion. You have spoken of a consolidated crystal clear view of God’s law denying profound denominational disagreement concerning its definition and application. The significance of God’s law is revealed through His Spirit alone and surprisingly through Him directly. It is not found through Nature - in the often flawed 'laws' of nature.
Certainly, the denominations of orthodoxy quarrel over the now fractured law as it appears in the Old Testament and as it applies today (an example: ten commandments). It pains you to admit it. To see God in nature is no gift of vision that has anything to do with God’s law as spoken in the scriptures. You make too much of the moments nature is extolled in the scriptures.
Being a man of science, natural and philosophy etc., the source of your formulation of natural law is not how Moses received it or where he received it, You have shown a deep disdain for a passion necessary….by passion I mean conversion. For instance, Job learned many principles of God’s law through the trials he embraced personally. His experience and strength of character did not come from reason and science. It came from faith and revelation, new revelation gained through the test. Unlike Isaiah and much later John the Revelator you work in the shallow pool.
As a consequence, you have come to see God in a single dimension. It seems to me that You carefully measure God’s mind by evaluating His footprint in the sand. IN doing it, you reason you know Him better for it.
Now, anticipating more uppity Latin from you, all that is written speaks of the danger in the path you have followed. Look at the conclusions Paul reached about Christ when using his reason and applied law PRIOR to his event on the road to Demascus. Most of us need not be humbled; most of us are able and willing to humble ourselves.
How do you square "And he does not harbour wrath until such time as correction is no longer possible, for he does not seek vengeance for himself." to the real scripture "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord." and please tell me where over the course of eternity the instances of correction are no longer possible.... Given those parameters, how is it that we hear so much of His wrath in the scriptures?
My comment: (a summary statement of the whole) The experts of natural law, those who most completely comprehend nature, are not men of God but men of natural science. This is the fount where you derive God s law.
You avoid with: “This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument.”
●Of course, your comment is a non sequitar. It does not follow that if a person believes in the validity of natural law that they are an atheist. That is simply an absurd notion.
●The fount of God’s law—again—is God. Geeesh…what does it take to get the simplest concept across to you. The fact that it is called “God’s Law” should be a hint. For instance, if a sign says, “Joe’s Burger Stand,” that is a hint that a guy named “Joe” owns the burger stand.
You wrote: There is nothing insulting or irrelevant in my assertion. You have spoken of a consolidated crystal clear view of God’s law denying profound denominational disagreement concerning its definition and application…Certainly, the denominations of orthodoxy quarrel over the now fractured law as it appears in the Old Testament and as it applies today (an example: ten commandments).
●You still haven’t established that there is the so-called “denominational disagreement” about God’s law and its application. You are just making a highly opinionated statement that is unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever. Name one orthodox Protestant denomination that does not believe that God’s moral law (the Ten Commandments) should not be obeyed. I dare you.
You wrote: Being a man of science, natural and philosophy etc., the source of your formulation of natural law is not how Moses received it or where he received it, You have shown a deep disdain for a passion necessary--by passion I mean conversion.
●Again, more personal attacks while attempting to take the high moral ground. Typical.
●Let me straighten out your misrepresentation of my position. A) The bible declares that God’s law is written on man’s heart (this is termed the natural law). B) God gave an explicit rendering of His moral law at Mt. Sinai through Moses (this is termed the Divine Law).
You wrote: It came from faith and revelation, new revelation gained through the test. Unlike Isaiah and much later John the Revelator you work in the shallow pool.
●Since basically all I have done is quote Jesus and Paul to you, therefore, I take it that you mean that they represent working “in the shallow pool.” Meanwhile, of course, adhering to the writings of Joseph Smith would be “the deep pool.” I would think that this fairly represents what Mormons believe.
You wrote: As a consequence, you have come to see God in a single dimension. It seems to me that You carefully measure God’s mind by evaluating His footprint in the sand. IN doing it, you reason you know Him better for it.
●Who said anything about measuring God’s mind? The Bible specifically says that such a thing is impossible. I have simply quoted the words of Jesus and Paul to you from Holy Scripture. It is you who have obstinately refused to believe them.
You wrote: Now, anticipating more uppity Latin from you, all that is written speaks of the danger in the path you have followed. Look at the conclusions Paul reached about Christ when using his reason and applied law PRIOR to his event on the road to Demascus. Most of us need not be humbled; most of us are able and willing to humble ourselves.
● “Uppity Latin from you,” “all that is written speaks of the danger in the path you have followed,” being like Paul before his conversion, the need to “be humbled”, etc. Okay, so now not only do I get ad hominem attacks, you now insinuate that I am headed to damnation. Wow! Well, at this point is when I usually declare victory since you are scraping the bottom of your “icky barrel.”
●Again, your argument is with Jesus and Paul, not me.
Several hours of cutting later. Well brick wall, it was nice to see that we could work together and get this doorway cut in. Have a good day.
It turns out that some conversations are like talking to a brick wall and other conversations are worse. In my dealings with a brick wall today I actually accomplished something.
Gecko,
You can spend all day long disagreeing with Thom for the sheer sake of disagreeing with Thom, but when it comes down to it, Jesus said exactly what Thom said. Thom actually quotes him on this. So have I. All you are doing is proving that LDS beliefs are not Christian because you are flat out rejecting the words of Christ.
Anyways, that brick wall needs some more work, so I won't worry too much when you still don't get it. The Bible refers to this as blindness. I can see why.
PS I really did cut a doorway into a brick/cement wall today.
“This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument.”
The fact that I am principled and that I do not roll over at the error of others makes the best kind of wall. For you to make any impression you need to be a regular contributor and offer up your own quality research.
There are always open questions I pose which regularly are ignored. Perhaps you can be a doer of the word also.
All you are doing is proving that LDS beliefs are not Christian because you are flat out rejecting the words of Christ.
●Agreed: on such a pivotal issue--the summary of the whole law and the prophets—it seems inescapable that if the LDS radically opposes Christ’s unequivocal teaching and Paul’s reinforcement of that teaching, it cannot be possible for the LDS to be Christian in any sense of the word.
Reason #1 as to why Mormons oppose the biblical teaching that God’s law is inscribed on man’s nature…
The LDS teaches that their deity revealed new revelation of God’s law through Joseph Smith just as he had through Moses and Jesus!
The Savior fulfilled the law of Moses, 13 and similar divine instructions were revealed in our day through the Prophet Joseph Smith, as contained in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Lord commanded…
Reason #2 as to why Mormons oppose the biblical teaching that God’s law is inscribed on man’s nature…
The LDS teaches that their deity continues to give his divine commandments to men through the “living prophets.” Divine blessings and punishments are attached to these newly revealed “commandments.”
Repeatedly the scriptures declare that the Lord gives His commandments to the children of men through living prophets. No committee, assembly, or any other authority has the right to dictate to Him doctrine that is contrary to His law. God’s eternal blessings are contingent upon our obedience and adherence to the word of the Lord that is revealed to us through His holy prophets. (L. Tom Perry, “We Believe All That God Has Revealed,” Liahona, Nov 2003, 85–88)
Reason #3 as to why Mormons oppose the biblical teaching that God’s law is inscribed on man’s nature…
The “law of tithing” is promulgated by the LDS more than any other “commandment."
The prophets of all dispensations have clearly taught the law of tithing for the blessing and protection of the Lord’s people. On this subject, we may read the word of the Lord in our dispensation:
“Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require [that] … those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. …
“And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.
“And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.” (D&C 119:1, 4, 6–7.)
The Lord herein makes clear that tithing is his law and is required of all his followers. It is our honor and privilege, our safety and promise, our great blessing to live this law of God. To fail to meet this obligation in full is to deny ourselves the promises and is to omit a weighty matter. It is a transgression, not an inconsequential oversight. (Spencer W. Kimball, “‘He Did It with All His Heart, and Prospered’,” Ensign, Mar 1981, 3)
●Obviously, if God is revealing new revelation of His law through Joseph Smith and his followers, it cannot be indelibly inscribed on man’s nature. Therefore, regarding this matter, one is left with the choice of either believing the unequivocal teaching of Holy Scripture or Joseph Smith and his followers. Mormons choose to believe Joseph Smith and his followers.
The question is from the first comment here nearly forty-eight hours ago and remains unanswered. The question was mine.
Thom says they are found in nature. Well, I got to tell you, in every case where there are laws in our world there is little confusion about which ones need to be obeyed. Now, that is for man. Can you have a little more respect for God?
Unanswered indicates no conforming law of God among Christians, no conforming plan for the immortality, nor eternal life of man. This conditions verifies the path of obedience has not been preserved..
Nevertheless I could be wrong; I wait ever so patiently.
"In his 1997 book, Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Bandura set forth the tenets of his theory of self-efficacy and its applications to fields as diverse as life-course development, education, health, psychopathology, athletics, business, and international affairs. Bandura has lectured and written on topics such as escaping homelessness, deceleration of population growth, transgressive behavior, mass communication, substance abuse, and terrorism. He has explored the manner in which people morally disengage when they perpetrate inhumanities, and he has traced the psychosocial tactics by which individuals and societies selectively disengage moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct. He has called for a civilized life with humane standards buttressed "by safeguards built into social systems that uphold compassionate behavior and renounce cruelty"." Wikipedia
My take is that a healthy self-efficacy require a locus of control on self every time. but isn't it curious that for some of us our social connections allow us to disengage moral self sanctions.
Rather like some political animals slandering Obama...that he is secretly Moslem and doesn't recognize the flag during the pledge. Then there are those who quietly believe it. Social learning theory, interesting stuff.
“This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument.”
But I understand, you're upset. It's probably something I did right?
"For you to make any impression you need to be a regular contributor and offer up your own quality research."
I think anyone that has been around for any length of time would recognize that I am a regular contributor and offer up my own quality research. As opposed to regularly lobbing grenades, refusing to acknowledge what has been said, and give all manner of opinion with absolutely no research even going so far as to claim a great amount of research or scholastic opinion on the side of my opinion but not being about to produce one small bit of proof when pressed.
Now if you believe that giving opinions without proofs, ignoring the facts, and lying about supposed proofs is "quality" research then I think you need to retire as an administrator and run for President. Then you could waste an entire country’s time by arguing about the definition of “is” and other such garbage just to avoid saying you were wrong.
Are you suggesting that without the Ten Commandments or other "revealed" divine law, that man would have no innate sense of right and wrong? That there would be no sense of how God created us to behave that we might glean from what is seen to operate in nature, the rules of which were created by God, or be our reason also created by God? It seems to me that as children we all have a sense fighting and hurting other isn't good, that stealing isn't right etc., but that we quickly begin to ignore the inner voice in favor our own desires. The more we ignore it, the less we hear it, the more accustomed we become to violating it. Man made law comes about precisely because so many forget and society therefore has to make it visible and enforce it.
Since you refuse to hear what the Bible says, let me try and explain some purpose behind what Paul says in the book of Romans.
This letter, more than any other, is a defense of the purpose for the gospel. That is, Paul is carefully building an argument for why Jesus needed to sacrifice himself and what was accomplished by that.
This is why Paul spends a good deal of time explaining original sin and how this single act ushered in death and sin for all. You can deny original sin all you want, but Paul spells this out for us in this letter to the Romans.
Paul also spends a good deal of time proving that we have no excuse for our sin. See, if divine law were all we had, then most people couldn't be held accountable to this law. Think of it like this. Let’s say a major highway goes through a small town. Now in this small town everyone knows the speed limit is reduced from 65 at the edge of town to 45, but the speed limit isn't posted since the townsfolk have been notified through other means. Now let’s say in this imaginary town that the sheriff keeps pulling people over for speeding because they are from out of town and do not know the speed limit because it is not posted.
The law generally states that "ignorance" is no excuse, but people cannot be held accountable if it is unreasonable for them to know the law. This is a general truth that applies to any just legal system.
If there is no way for me to know that certain things are wrong apart from divine law, then I cannot be held accountable at judgment if the divine law was never revealed to me. Let’s say there is a man in the deep jungles of south America. Now let’s say this man covets his neighbors wife and kills his neighbor to get her. These are two pretty major violations of divine law, but the man has no knowledge of this revelation. Is this man still responsible for his sin?
Paul is arguing that he is.Once again, I highly recommend you just read the book of Romans with an open mind. Paul builds a very solid case against all of mankind and then read an issue of pardon from the Most High.
This is the very heart and nature of Christianity. Now, you would certainly ignore what I have said, instead dropping back to your claim that Christians are divided in their beliefs. Certainly there is a great multitude of beliefs because there is a great multitude of believers. However, I would remind you that there is also a great number of beliefs in those that follow Joseph Smith. Early in the LDS history there have been schisms. Even within the LDS church you belong to there are differing beliefs on salvation matters. I have pointed out several times that many LDS believers believe that LDS practitioners must avoid caffeine to be saved. Even your current prophet believes this. You, on the other hand, are much more liberal than those LDS believers and enjoy copious amounts of MT. Dew.
Now, I ask you, can we safely discard LDS teaching based on this difference in beliefs? You have already soundly answered no in the past. Then how can you suggest that different beliefs among Christians, who wouldn't claim a single authority to set all doctrines and beliefs like the LDS church, is reason to throw out Christian beliefs?
In short, your argument is based on prejudice against Christians which has been demonstrated time and time again. What it boils down to is you are so anti-Christian that you are willing to ignore the words for Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle as they are plainly written, instead you try to make attacks against the Christian church, which is the body of Christ, and so attack Christ himself. This is made abundantly clear in your obstinate refusal to hear the plain words of Christ on this matter.
This is the heart of sin. Your own pride is your own failure.
Lets do this: With all the hearty and agreeable voices concerning keeping God's law as found in the ten commandments whether through obligation or not,........ What can that law be where some Christian denominations conclude that none of the former law is applicable, other Christian denominations conclude that only parts are applicable, and still other Christian denominations conclude that all are still applicable to believers in Jesus?
●Okay, one more time; here is the challenge you are ignoring and refusing to respond to (from Monday January 21, 2008 @ 5:21 PM):
You still haven’t established that there is the so-called “denominational disagreement” about God’s law and its application. You are just making a highly opinionated statement that is unsubstantiated by any facts whatsoever. Name one orthodox Protestant denomination that does not believe that God’s moral law (the Ten Commandments) should not be obeyed. I dare you.
You wrote: Thom says they are found in nature. Well, I got to tell you, in every case where there are laws in our world there is little confusion about which ones need to be obeyed. Now, that is for man. Can you have a little more respect for God?...Unanswered indicates no conforming law of God among Christians, no conforming plan for the immortality, nor eternal life of man. This conditions verifies the path of obedience has not been preserved..
●Okay, for the umpteenth time; I have made the case biblically that God’s law is inscribed on man’s heart. Here is Paul from Romans, again:
Romans 2:14-15 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness,
●Secondly, for the umpteenth time; the lack of consensus or conformity to God’s inscribed or promulgated law is no proof that God has failed to inscribe or promulgate His law. All that the lack of consensus or conformity proves is: A) man has free will; B) man is a sinner.
●Thirdly, for the umpteenth time; orthodox Christians do have a consensus regarding the Ten Commandments that they: A) are God’s moral law; B) that Jesus and Paul summarized them as loving God and loving one’s neighbor as oneself; and C) that Christians are to do God’s moral law and even live above it by the “royal law according to Scripture” which is to love (James 2:8).
●What I have also substantiated through references from lds.org is that Mormons oppose the teaching of Holy Scripture that God has inscribed His law upon the hearts of all men and that Jesus and Paul have already summarized all of the law and prophets for the following reasons:
1. Mormons oppose Holy Scripture because they assert that Joseph Smith promulgated new “commandments” from God just as Moses and Jesus had.
2. Mormons oppose Holy Scripture because they assert that their “prophets” continue to promulgate new “commandments” from God as Joseph Smith did and as Moses and Jesus did.
3. Mormons oppose Holy Scripture because they promulgate the “law of tithing” more than any other moral law of God, including the Ten Commandments.
You wrote: Thom,…“This is both a non sequitar and a weak attempt at an ad hominem argument.”
But I understand, you're upset. It's probably something I did right?
●I’m not upset, I was simply pointing out that A) your idea that people who believe in natural law are atheists is a non sequitar; and B) that you have a pattern of using ad hominem attacks when you cannot argue your point persuasively.
This is off-topic for this thread, but I want to offer this up so we all have it the next time the issue comes up.
This is a map showing the counties of the United States as color coded for the religious denominations with the most members in the county. Little crosses are used to show if the leading denomination has an absolute majority in the county.
You can see that in Utah - the state that leads the nation in bankruptcies - all but two counties have an absolute majority in the LDS church.
Utah is a Mormon state.
But we knew that all along.
If there is no way for me to know that certain things are wrong apart from divine law, then I cannot be held accountable at judgment if the divine law was never revealed to me. Let’s say there is a man in the deep jungles of south America. Now let’s say this man covets his neighbors wife and kills his neighbor to get her. These are two pretty major violations of divine law, but the man has no knowledge of this revelation. Is this man still responsible for his sin?
●Absolutely stellar description of Paul’s reasoning in Romans! Terrific! I loved your illustration of the small town traffic laws. Not only does this all make complete sense, it must be so, otherwise God would be unjust and capricious—which He is not. In other words, whether Mormons realize it or not, in order to substantiate their assertion that God continues to promulgate new law through LDS prophets, they undercut the very justice of God. They make Him (unwittingly) into a moral monster.
It also explains why the LDS cannot swim. We are landlocked.
And apparently why hundreds of other Christian groups don't really exist.
Thom remarks: "In order to substantiate their assertion that God continues to promulgate new law through LDS prophets, they undercut the very justice of God."
If you are offended at God continuing to be actively involved, then I wonder how you have come to believe God is suddenly a changing god, where He should not be.
It is nothing new for a large segment of "believers" not to listen to God's newer instruction. It cannot be avoided. A culture so intolerant could find reason to murder prophets that come to them and crucify their own God, again.
Gecko: you wrote,
If you are offended at God continuing to be actively involved, then I wonder how you have come to believe God is suddenly a changing god, where He should not be…It is nothing new for a large segment of "believers" not to listen to God's newer instruction. It cannot be avoided. A culture so intolerant could find reason to murder prophets that come to them and crucify their own God, again.
●First of all let me say that I actually think this as been a very fruitful discussion.
●I, of course, am not offended by “God continuing to be actively involved” in creation, in His church, in human history and in the individual lives of all people. I am not offended at this because God’s immanence in and through all things is not the true issue. The question at hand is God’s moral law which is unchanging and which He has inscribed on the hearts of men. For instance, notice this statement by St. Jude:
Jude 1: 3Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
●Jude states that the “faith” (the Christian faith) was “once for all delivered to the saints.” This, though, does not mean that our understanding of the delivered faith cannot unfold over time with new comprehension and application (for instance; discerning how God’s moral law applies to the use of new biotechnologies). Again, I come back to the example of the Constitution of the United States. Our understanding and application of the Constitution changes with the circumstances of the time; however, the Constitution was once “delivered” by our Founding Fathers as the defining document of our government. What the LDS is asking us to do is allow Joseph Smith and his authorized followers to amend and add to the Constitution (the moral law of God Himself). This is doubly unacceptable from a Christian perspective because—as Colossians states—all the “fullness” is found in Christ and no human agency can surpass Him. Hebrews states it this way:
Hebrews 1: 1-3 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,
You wrote: A culture so intolerant could find reason to murder prophets that come to them and crucify their own God, again.
●Again, you imply that there is something untoward about my resistance to the Mormon practice of allowing Joseph Smith to add to God’s law. Well, just as I don’t want some president to start adding to the Constitution, I don’t want a 20 something from upstate NY to start adding to the Ten Commandments. In fact, it makes a whole lot more sense to allow the President of the United States to add to the Constitution (which is wrong) then to allow Joseph Smith to add to God’s divine law or the gospel that was “once delivered to the saints” by Christ Himself. In my view, anyone who cannot see the horrifying danger of this is spiritually numb to God’s Word.
Do you imagine that the people of God did not move from one dispensation (age) to the next, that there were no other constitutions to guide His people? Ludicrous.
You obviously misunderstand what he writes upon saying that the gospel was once delivered. Every prophet before the appearance of Christ provided the wisdom of God as God, in His wisdom, wanted them to deliver.
After all Thom, what does OLD TESTAMENT mean? And New Testament? They are collections of old and newer covenants. God being god, still makes covenants the same way He always has, through His chosen Prophets and through new scripture. Just cuz you are out of the loop doesn't mean it isn't happening ! If He didn't anymore, He wouldn't be God.
-------------------------------
As useful as you feel this "discussion" has been, perhaps that has a great deal to do with the pieces of the discussion where you feel fortunate in opting out.
Gecko wrote: You obviously misunderstand what he writes upon saying that the gospel was once delivered.
●Actually, if you will take the time to read Jude you will see that he is writing about exactly what I have been saying. Jude is noting that false teachers were attempting to distort and change the truth of the gospel that was “once delivered”—meaning delivered once and for all time through Jesus and the apostles. Any change to this “once delivered” gospel is by its very nature inherently wrong. There can be nothing greater than what was delivered by Christ Himself.
●Yes, I know that the LDS cannot agree to the biblical teaching that God’s moral law is unchanging because it has a very strong vested interest in adding new commandments to God’s Word. However, for Christians, this is immediately recognized as wrong.
You wrote: Every prophet before the appearance of Christ provided the wisdom of God as God, in His wisdom, wanted them to deliver.
●So, what is the point? The prophets did not change the moral law of God; they gave commentary, insight and understanding in regard to the Torah of God. Nor did they add to the moral law of God. By the way, Jesus strictly rebuked the Jewish religious leaders of His day for adding their traditions to the Torah.
You wrote: After all Thom, what does OLD TESTAMENT mean? And New Testament? They are collections of old and newer covenants. God being god, still makes covenants the same way He always has, through His chosen Prophets and through new scripture. Just cuz you are out of the loop doesn't mean it isn't happening ! If He didn't anymore, He wouldn't be God.
●This, I must say, is purely a fabrication of Mormonism. There is no “collection” of new covenants. This is not only unbiblical, it borders on blasphemy by denigrating the finished work of Christ to establish the new and “everlasting” covenant in His blood. Read Galatians and Hebrews. In Galatians Paul speaks of the covenant of “law” (Torah) and the covenant of the “promise.” Here is what Paul says about the covenant of law (the old covenant):
Galatians 4:24-31 …One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. [25] Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. [26] But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
●While there are other covenants mentioned in the Bible (in the OT) beyond the covenant of law and the covenant of promise, these are the only two that are critically relevant to salvation history. Of the two, obviously, the covenant of promise which is mediated by Christ himself far surpasses any other covenant. Here is what Hebrews says about that covenant:
Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.