YES I'd like for you to post the
'newer'
material
DAVEH: I'm not fond of borrowing material from another forum to post
in its entirety, but I find Court Watch's comments from another forum
in which I lurk to be interesting to ponder, Lance........
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
Court Watch wrote:
Subject:
[Grace-to-you] To Sandra: This One's For You!
If I understand it
correctly,
the Protestant view of what we call the "Fall" in the Garden of Eden
need not have occurred. It was possible for Adam and Eve to always
obey God and, if they had done so, the human race could have continued
in a state of primal innocence. For the sake of argument, let's
suppose that the first couple had remained obedient and sinless. All
of their offspring would be born in the same condition, but each of
them would also then face the choice of whether to obey God or not.
(Presumably, Satan could have been very creative in thinking up various
ways to put them to the test.)
The odds are overwhelming that at least
some
of these offspring would fall into sin, although others might not. The
sinful ones would then pass this fallen condition onto their children,
who would become the inheritors of their parents' "original" sin and
guilt. These people would stand in need of the redemption and
atonement for sin later offered by Christ, and might become inclined to
do all sorts of wicked things.
But the ones descended from sinless
parents,
who also did not sin themselves, would not. They would have no need of
salvation as long as they remained perfectly virtuous.
If this could happen at all, I don't see
why
it couldn't go on indefinitely. The human race would then have two
basic lines of development, but what a curious situation this would
be. It's a safe bet that the two groups would be in constant conflict
with each other. When it finally came, the gospel message to the
sinful group would be: "You need to repent and be saved." The message
to the sinlessly perfect group would be: "Don't worry, you're fine just
the way you are."
Now, it's safe to assume that the sinful
group might come to outnumber the sinless group, if only by virtue of
their ability to procreate more naturally sinful people. On the other
hand, the sinless folks would go on living forever on earth since they
would not be subject to physical death. That sounds nice at first, but
at least some of the sinful people would probably repent and be saved,
so that while their death was inevitable, so too was the possibility
that they would go to heavenly glory upon dying.
Who would then be better off--the perfect
people or the saved sinners? Which is better, a permanent existence on
earth, or eternity in a heavenly state? Once word got out that
forgiven sinners could go to a higher plane of existence and remain
there forever, wouldn't the perfect people be inclined to say: "This
business of obeying God is all very well and good, but I think I'd be
better off if I sinned and then repented of it so I can go to heaven
instead!"
If that all sounds far fetched, that's only
because it is--but then, so is much of what passes for "Christian"
theology about original sin. In light of the above considerations, why
is the LDS view of a "necessary" Fall (and one that didn't take God by
surprise) so outrageous? God knew exactly what would happen with
Adam
and Eve, and it was just what he had in mind all along. And if that's
not the case, then you are required to believe things that are much
more absurd than the "some sinless and some sinful" scenario described
above.
Things like:
Unbaptized infants spend eternity in hell.
St. Augustine certainly believed it, and he's the hero of Catholics and
Calvinists alike. After all, if original sin and guilt are inherited,
why should babies get a free pass? And if we think they're innocent,
maybe that's only because we're guilty ourselves. God's justice is
infinite, and so is his wrath. If the tykes haven't been "born again"
they're out of luck.
Some people have been predestined to be
saved, while others have been predestined by God to spend eternity in
hell, and there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do about it.
Why not? Because God is sovereign and that's the way he wants it.
Case closed. If you're smart, you'll at least pretend to be sure that
you're predestined to be one of the saved--and hope you're right.
(Hint: vilifying Mormons is regarded as a sure sign that you're saved,
so do it as often as possible.)
The vast majority of the human race will
spend eternity in hell anyway, because they never made a decision for
Christ.
This includes all those who have never even heard of Christ, from
33
A.
D. right up to the present. They also haven't been "born again" and
they never will be. If that sounds harsh, just remember that it isn't
God's fault that it took 20 centuries to invent television and
the Benny Hinn Show. Those who have access to a TV set now at least
have half a chance, but the rest are still hopelessly doomed.
Eternal security of the believer.
Once you're saved, you're always saved--whether you like it or not.
Since there is nothing you can do to lose your salvation, there's
nothing you can't do while not worrying about it. The possibilities
are endless and don't require much thought. Have fun! And if anyone
dares to refer to you as a "carnal Christian" because of your antics,
just tell them that Christ died to pay the price for your sins, and
you're just making sure that you get your money's worth. (If they
still aren't convinced, they have probably been visited by Mormon
missionaries so you are free to ignore anything they say.)
And why is it that Protestants (Catholics
too--don't mean to leave them out) think that Mormon theology is
erroneous? I give up on that one.
Well. . .in so far as any of this makes
sense, you can thank Sandra Tanner. These ideas came to me after
reading her contrast of the Mormon view of the Fall vs. the
dyed-in-the-wool true believer version she subscribes to. And if none
of it makes sense, let's just go ahead and blame. . .er, uh, I mean,
"thank" Sandra anyway. I'm a big believer in giving credit where
credit is due.
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++
............There are a few things about this I found particularly
interesting, and highlighted them, such as.......
"This
business of obeying God is all very well and good, but I think I'd be
better off if I sinned and then repented of it so I can go to heaven
instead!"
.........and......
God knew exactly what would happen with Adam
and Eve, and it was just what he had in mind all along. And if that's
not the case, then you are required to believe things that are much
more absurd than the "some sinless and some sinful" scenario described
above.
...........and.......
This includes all those who have never even
heard of Christ, from 33 A.
D. right up to the present. They also haven't been "born again" and
they never will be. If that sounds harsh, just remember that it isn't
God's fault that it took 20 centuries to invent television and
the Benny Hinn Show. Those who have access to a TV set now at least
have half a chance, but the rest are still hopelessly doomed.
............I will be interested in hearing what you think about the
above material, Lance.
