Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: My latest comments are in GREEN.....Kevin Deegan wrote:
Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation'Can you elaborate?DAVEH: Sure Kevin. I'll try to explain my thinking, but forgive me if I make some assumptions about how I perceive the nature of salvation as I think you (and Protestants in general). I really don't understand the explanations that have been given me on TT about salvation. So.....please don't bloody my nose for making some assumptions about your beliefs.At this point in my understanding, I imagine that salvation in a Protestant sense means to be saved from sin in its simplest form. IOW....the grace of Christ's atonement saves you (from the fiery pit) from any sin that you may have committed in the past, or may be committing now or may commit in the future will keep you from from being consigned to hell (the fiery pit)......Am I reasonably close to understanding your perspective, Kevin? In effect salvation is like a perpetual get out of jail free card. The only requirement for many Christians to inherit this gift of grace is faith and repentance. It seems there are more than a few who would also include being born again with those requirements, but I'm not sure if that is as much a requirement or rather that it is a reflection of having been saved. It seems like I am hearing that once saved, whatever happens in the future will not have any effect on you escaping the fiery pit (unless you were to do something extreme, such as if you were to actively turn against the Lord).
On the assumption that I understand Protestant (knowing that you may not consider yourself as such) salvation in that way, let's go back to the Garden of Eden. Before taking the forbidden fruit, Adam had a promise of a way to know good from evil (partaking of the fruit of the tree of good and evil), but God told him not to partake unless he was willing to suffer death. Let's for a moment consider what would have happened if he had not transgressed, Kevin. There would not have been a fall, is that correct? Adam would not have sinned (from your perspective and that of Protestants). So.....if there was no sin by Adam, then why would he need to be saved from the sin which he did not commit? Does that make sense, Kevin? Hang in there with me a little further.....
So.....if Adam had not sinned in the Garden, there would have been no need for salvation and there would have been no need for a Savior to save us from sins we (or at least Adam) did not commit. In short, there would have been no need for the plan of salvation, nor the Savior's role in our salvation, nor Jesus coming to earth or dying on the cross or being resurrected. I hope you followed me on all that, Kevin. Do you agree or disagree with my logic on this?
If you want me to explain anything that I inadequately covered, please ask. I sometimes (oft times) ramble on and bore folks with my convoluted explanations. Let me just say that my above explanation is only half the Garden of Eden story. I merely explained as much as I did to answer your above request to elaborate.
--Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
michael douglas wrote:
DAVEH: Michael.....I appreciate your serious questions above, however, I do not have complete answers for all your questions, and I do not wish to give you partial answers here. I think discussing it in TT would only incur the wrath of other TTers who would attempt to derail any serious discussion.jt: I understand what you are saying but not the point of all of it. Why accuse God? This is just the way it is and if there is more to it that we should know he will reveal this also - in his time. But then I've been doing a little research, and have read that your Church believes that there was some kind of a council of gods in heaven and that Lucifer and Jesus (who are supposedly spirit brothers) both presented their plans. Lucifer's plan was to force men to worship godMichael D: No wonder LDS can't stand public evangelism...
and Jesus' plan was to show them how to worship god. Lucifer's plan was rejected, and Jesus' plan was accepted. (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 4:103) Is the above what you believe DaveH?
DAVEH: Yes.Michael D: Dave H, What a thing!!! LDS maintains that this 'council of the gods' has resulted in the present scenario that allows man to be tested and subsequently be able to attain godhood. This leads me to a couple serious questions. According to LDS:
i) Which council led to the scenario where God the Father had to come through His 'testing' as a man before He could 'become' omnipotent God.
ii) Which 'gods' were involved in that council?
iii) What councils determined the multitude of different scenarios where all of the preceding generations of gods went through their testing and qualified to be 'omnipotent gods'
iv) Who were on those councils?
jt: This is interesting. Do you think that Lucifer's plan would have been the better one?DAVEH: No, not at all. The Lord's plan of "salvation" was infinitely better than the Adversary's plan. (I could explain why, but some in TT would accuse me of preaching Mormonism, or even worse!) To me, the plan of salvation as enveloped in the gospel has a grand an noble purpose that requires all the steps we've/I've discussed (in TT since I've been posting), starting with Adam & Eve transgressing......which I believe was a fundamental step in that plan. Without the 'fall', there could be no 'salvation' (as I would think of it....which is distinctly different from the Protestant definition). Hence, the Lord's work would not be able to progress. BTW......I realize my above explanation might seem convoluted and difficult to follow.....sorry 'bout that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
