Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 1/17/2006 3:42:07 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/17/2006 9:41:03 AM (GMT-6)

Tom: Prove the atonement? How can you prove the atonement? You can only experience the reality and fruit of the indwelling Christ and THEN deduce the theological claim that this experience means my sins have been adequately dealt with.

Jeff: But where did the "theological claim" come from, Tom? 

Tom: It comes from reflecting on experience. Even for the apostles and the early church. What did they do? They started with what had happened to them and then came up with a theology to explain it. We don’t like to say it, but it’s true. They reasoned that Jesus actually lived a sinful life, died, and rose, and saved them from their sin. They experienced this. THEN they concluded theologically that Christ must be X, Y, and Z if he really does these things. The doctrine of the atonement is just a reflection on the experience of forgiveness that’s found in Christ. But to ‘prove’ it rationally to an unbeliever?

Jeff: Let me get this straight. You don't think that the fact that the OT says things to the affect that Christ's stripes would heal them, and that remission of sins required the shedding of blood, and that Christ himself said he would give his life as a ransom for many had ANYTHING to do with why they might have thought Christ's death had propitiatory effects? You think it's inconceivable that Christ could have revealed these things to them with WORDS, even though supposedly the spirit was to bring all things to their remembrance, and even though Paul explicitly said he received visions and revelations? It's INCONCEIVABLE to you that words might have just REVEALED it? You may be right. But I don't see how a) you could know that you're right, or b) prove that a raw emotional experience can generate that kind of propositional knowledge.

And here's the thing that I come back to. When it's conceivable that a fact can be known intellectually, why would I prefer to believe that it is more subjective than that. That seems anti-intellectual to me. And here's the problem that I have with anti-intellectual approaches: They GROUND knowledge in one's presumably authentic experience. It ends up that every one thinks they're right because they're more in tune with God, experientially, than their neighbor. Or they think they interpret experience better than their neighbor. Such an approach seems SO inevitably destined to division and arrogance. It's SO exclusive. Oh well, maybe that's the appeal, and I just can't relate to it.

Jeff: Are you honestly saying that at no time in your life did you just accept the "theological claim" about atonement simply because the bible said it?

Tom: And we could never expect people who have not experienced atonement to accept the theology of it. That’s backwards.

Jeff: Right. But we wouldn't expect them to give scriptural propositions the benefit of the doubt, either. Why should they? There is a VERY good reason why we should. Because once you accept Christ's lordship, it only stands to reason that there must be SOME way to know what Christ expects of his servants. And scripture is the most probable and inclusive candidate on the table.

Tom: You simply can’t demonstrate that this assumption of biblical truth is not derived from your experience of certain of the Bible’s truth-claims.

Jeff: I can't demonstrate historical claims. That's irrelevant. Knowledge grows primarily by INDUCTION. And induction takes as givens those axioms, like parsimony and analogy, that enable us to infer BEYOND our experience. Those inferences, then, though unproven in a deductive sense, become the GROUNDS for guiding our experience. If this, then...and so on. 

Why else would we have sent people outside our atmosphere except that our confidence in induction is truly REASONABLE. Hence we ACT off of such inferences. Granted, our experiences can prove our inferences wrong. But what experience can prove that Jesus wasn't God's son? Or that his death was not propitiatory? Can you answer this for me?

Jeff: There is NO experience which DEDUCTIVELY implies an atonement.

Tom: Sure there is. The experience of atonement, the experience of salvation through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Dude, the doctrine of the atonement is nothing BUT deducing (inspired by the Spirit, in community, over time, etc.) what must be true theologically on the basis of experiencing Christ.

Jeff: On the contrary. Read Paul's sermons to the gentiles in Acts. I can't recall Paul ever talking about the propitiatory nature of Christ's death in those sermons. A person can believe God is forgiving and merciful without knowing anything about the propitiatory nature of Christ's death. Myriads of believing Israelites in the OT believed just that as far as I know.

Tom: It doesn’t prove the doctrine objectively to those who haven’t experienced Christ. But that’s not the purpose of the doctrine of atonement. Did you think it was?

Jeff: Of course not, Tom. scripture is to be believed, not proven.

Jeff: Maybe this is why we disagree. Experiences are EMOTIONS. But EMOTIONS don't PROVE matters of fact or propositions. They can only be CONSISTENT of INCONSISTENT with certain propositions.

Tom: Really? Experiences are just emotions? How about the experience of self-awareness? Can I not justifiably deduce from the experience of self-awareness the truth of the proposition “I exist”? Of course I can. But this is far more than saying the experience of self-awareness is just consistent with the truth of the proposition.

Jeff: Sure, if by experience you mean a KNOWING experience. What experience do you have by virtue of the holy spirit that gives you propositional knowledge about the resurrection or the propitiatory nature of Christ's death? You've already admitted that the apostles themselves were INFORMED by their knowledge of the OT. That's the point. No RAW emotional experience can generate the kind of propositional knowledge that is important in theology.

Jeff: I see it as identical for the reason I said above. There are people who EXPERIENCE what they believe is the indwelling Christ while practicing free love. If you want to tell me that we can't know anything about the morality of free love, fine. THEN you're making sense to me. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're saying.

Tom: But in the end chances are there will remain gays who experience what they believe in the indwelling Christ. You’ll just have to be as lovingly honest as you can and say you’re unable to affirm their faith as genuine. That’s all you can do.

Jeff: Yep.

Tom: I think it’s pretty clear what that fruit is, and it seems clear TO ME that our sexuality is embraced by the effects of the indwelling Christ. But once we admit errors of a historical nature into scripture and go with the infallibility view, I don’t know how to argue homosexuality is morally impermissible simply on the basis of the Bible’s prohibiting it. Help me out. We universally condemn slavery as immoral, yet there doesn’t seem to be a clear biblical condemnation of it. On the contrary, the Bible everywhere seems to condone it. So tell me, on what basis do you condemn as immoral what the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn but which it appears to accommodate by regulation in both Old and New Testaments?

I don’t have all the answers.

Jeff: It's precisely because I don't have all the answers, either, that I DON'T say slavery is intrinsically wrong. And it is NOT universally condemned, nor has it ever been. Like everything else, some people agree that it's intrinsically wrong in every conceivable circumstance, and others don't.

But I can make this comparison. If a man steals from another man and the only way justice can be done (in this life) is for that man to labor for the victim to pay him back OR spend time in a prison like an animal, can you honestly tell me that it's more dignified to be in jail? I don't see how. Especially in TODAYS prisons. I simply think there are complexities in certain societal conditions that make these questions less than self-evident.

Or consider, if there is a wealthy Christian in 1st century Rome, and slaves are being sold, is it really that hard to believe that it might be a greater good for that Christian to buy that slave and treat him well until he works off his cost, as opposed to being sold to who knows what kind of master? Working is honorable, right? 

Heck, if it can be seriously entertained that natural evil is a case of God working a greater good, I would think slavery might be in certain cases, as well. The latter is no harder to believe than the former.

The benefits of society are numerous and manifold. But those benefits require order and justice. They don't just occur spontaneously (or if they do, we should advocate anarchy). So when Rome is bringing in myriads of conquered folks as slaves, how does the refusal of christians to buy them necessarily result in a greater good?

Tom: You can’t think of any reason independent of the Bible for why promiscuity ought to be considered wrong or hurtful?

Jeff: There are plenty of people who do see consentual, "safe," adult sex as harmless. Surely you're aware of this. They're aware of all our arguments and think they're bunk. If scripture has to be independently verified in some way that requires the assent of all professing christians, we're in bad shape. If not all, then WHO does it have to be independently verified by. Who's the clique that gets to decide for the rest of us christians?

Tom: I don’t think sexual promiscuity is wrong just because the Bible condemns it.

Jeff: Me either. But I don't think homosexuality is, either. But if I DIDN'T know of any arguments against it, I would STILL give the bible the benefit of the doubt and try to brainstorm some possible arguments against it. I wouldn't assume that I, in my unimaginative ignorance, qualify as a competent judge of the bible without doing SERIOUS seeking for answers compatible with the bible. Faith must believe that God rewards those who seek Him. Sometimes these things can take time and effort. Not everything has to be self-evident. If it was, no revelation would be necessary.

Tom: If the ONLY reason we have to condemn something as immoral is “because the Bible says so” then we’ve already lost where convincing others is concerned. Aren’t there practical reasons why the Bible condemns certain behaviors? There has to be. Let’s find those reasons and argue them. Can we do that?

Jeff: I'm not talking about anybody, Tom. I'm talking about people who claim the bible plays a role. Like Albert says, you either have an epistemological theory that can account for the value of learning in seminaries, etc. or just ground it all in raw, emotional experience and deduce it all therefrom. The latter seems impossible to me.

In a very real sense, Mephi, when Christians and Muslims talk with each about their faith it IS a comparison of and challenge between experiences. That’s exactly what we offer the world—an experience, a life, a way of living, and of course the underlying worldview. And the reason we offer this way of life, this experience of God, this worldview, to others is because it WORKS FOR US. We’ve discovered that the Christian story works.

Of course we also argue that it MAKES SENSE. We offer philosophical arguments for this way of life, this worldview. We start with arguments for God’s existence and basic attributes. Then we show how the Christian story and biblical worldview is consistent with the sort of God and the sort of world that philosophy tells us most likely exists. But that’s a far as we can go in arguing our position without then putting ourselves, which is just our experience, on the table as evidence. Remember “testimony” evening every Sunday night at church? Yeah, well, that’s what it’s about. We testify, we bear witness. We stand up and declare what the Christ of the gospels has done in us. If some Muslim stands up and bears witness via his own experience to a contradictory story, so be it. Call it a night, go home, and wait for round two.

If this is basically how we come at it (and it is for me), then we can consider how infallibility fits in. What I’m trying to say is that if infallibility is there, it’s there primarily in the biblical story’s unfailing ability to mediate the presence and power of God through the gospel. The Bible is at least infallible in this sense—its story never fails to mediate the saving power of the Spirit for those who choose in faith to embrace it. And this I suggest is the ground for any conviction we might also have about the infallibility of any or all the various parts of the story. There’s simply no other way to approach it that I can see. There’s no ‘objective’ proof of scriptural infallibility that one can get to independent of personally encountering God therein. Anything else we then want to conclude about the infallible nature of the Bible has to be implied in the Bible’s being the sort of book/story that unfailing mediates the presence and power of God through the gospel. What kind of (book) story would do that? What else must be, or is likely to be be, the case about such a book if this much is true?

So anyhow, when I sit down with my Muslim friend as he says, “Hey, my experience of God, the world, and the Quran convinces me that the Quran is the Word of God and that its claim that Jesus was not divine and did not die on the Cross is true,” what objective proof, what syllogism, what logic independent of my own experience of God in the scriptures can I offer to dislodge his disbelief in the Jesus of the gospels? There is none. I can probe into his experience a bit looking for opportunities, believing as I do that God really wants my Muslim friend to embrace life in Christ and that the Spirit is already present in his life at some level—convicting, drawing, etc. All I can do is share my story and then try to discover where the Spirit might already be at work in his life and encourage it along. But to get back to inerrancy and infallibilty, the point is that even IF I believed in inerrancy, I’d still have to approach interfaith dialogue this way. Forget inerrancy and infallibility.

But it's not interfaith dialogue of this kind where the difficulties surrounding infallibility arise. It’s within the Christian community, among those who claim to share the experience of Christ and who profess allegiance to the Bible since it’s the Bible’s story (and not some other) that mediated the life they share. Naturally then, we want to know how, having all experiencec the new life found in the Bible's story, we are to relate as a community to the Bible’s story. It mediated new life to us. How will it now guide us in living that life out in community? That's the question.

If the Bible unfailingly mediates the saving presence and power of God (as we only know to be the case because we’ve experienced it), then how do we get from this to the Bible’s being an infallible guide to living the life it mediates. It's this latter question that we as the Church must answer. We’ve all come to experience the saving power of the gospel and so gather together around THIS story. But salvation is experienced in community. We live it out in relationship to others who share the experience. And it’s THAT community that creates the context in which the Bible is inevitably looked to as a guide to living out in community the life which God mediates to us through the Bible's story.

This community dimension of life in Christ is not some incidental addendum to my own personal experience of the story’s life-changing power. It’s part of the one story’s invitation. From the get-go we were invited by a community to experience Christ in community.

I’m getting tired. My point is that it’s perfectly natural to assume that the story that mediates life to individuals and calls them to community in and around that story be trusted as the basic guide in matters essential to the community’s health and mission. And THAT includes moral issues.

Does this make sense so far?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/17/2006 10:58:02 PM (GMT-6)

Jeff: …once you accept Christ's lordship, it only stands to reason that there must be SOME way to know what Christ expects of his servants. And scripture is the most probable and inclusive candidate on the table.

Tom: Totally agree.

Jeff: And induction takes as givens those axioms, like parsimony and analogy, that enable us to infer BEYOND our experience.

Tom: Exactly.

------------------------

Jeff: There is NO experience which DEDUCTIVELY implies an atonement.

Tom: Sure there is. The experience of atonement, the experience of salvation through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Dude, the doctrine of the atonement is nothing BUT deducing (inspired by the Spirit, in community, over time, etc.) what must be true theologically on the basis of experiencing Christ.

Jeff: On the contrary. Read Paul's sermons to the gentiles in Acts. I can't recall Paul ever talking about the propitiatory nature of Christ's death in those sermons. A person can believe God is forgiving and merciful without knowing anything about the propitiatory nature of Christ's death. Myriads of believing Israelites in the OT believed just that as far as I know.

And

No RAW emotional experience can generate the kind of propositional knowledge that is important in theology.

Tom: You didn’t say “raw” before and I did agree that the sort of reflection upon experience that yields doctrines like that of the atonement are ‘informed’ by the OT. That’s obvious. What I’m saying is that nobody would have come up with a doctrine (and believe it) of CHRIST’S being the atoning sacrifice for our sins apart from experiencing Christ, and that it’s the experience that grounds our confidence in the truth of the doctrine.

------------------------

Jeff: Let me get this straight. You don't think that the fact that the OT says things to the affect that Christ's stripes would heal them…

Tom: Where’s the OT specify Jesus Christ as the one whose stripes would heal us? The OT anticipates somebody doing this, yes.

Jeff: …and that remission of sins required the shedding of blood, and that Christ himself said he would give his life as a ransom for many had ANYTHING to do with why they might have thought Christ's death had propitiatory effects?

Tom: Of course all this OT history informed their reflection. But it’s their experience of Christ through faith that they’re reflecting upon.

I pretty much agree with all the social issues stuff you talked about. Do you see any clue in how you dealt with the slavery issue that might help us figure out how the Bible is to function as a moral guide?

Tom

Post Edited (selah) : 1/18/2006 9:29:24 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/18/2006 7:11:21 AM (GMT-6)

Following up on Mephi’s mention of the Nicene Creed (325 AD), can we agree with the substance of the following creeds & statements of faith?

The Rule of Faith (Irenaeus, 140-202 AD)

…faith in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…

Apostles’ Creed (190 AD)

I believe in God, the Father almighty, 
creator of heaven and earth. 

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Hippolytus Account of Water Baptism (early 3^rd Cent.)

When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: "Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?" And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?" And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say: "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?" The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.

Nicea (325 AD)

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say 'There was when he was not,' and, 'Before he was begotten he was not,' and that, 'He came into being from what-is-not,' or those that allege, that the son of God is 'Of another substance or essence' or 'created,' or 'changeable' or 'alterable,' these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Chalcedon (451)

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten -- in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality {hypostasis}. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word {Logos} of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers {the Nicene Creed} has handed down to us.

Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 AD)

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son—we’ll leave the Filioque options open]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Athanasian Creed (late 4^th Cent.)

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, except a man keep whole and integral, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Now the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. For such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet, there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three incomprehensibles; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For, as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after the other. None is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal together. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary unto eternal salvation that he believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world; and Man of the substance of His Mother, born into the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Godhead as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God, and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their works. And they that have done good shall go into everlasting life, and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This, then, is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

----------------------------

Notice that as time goes along the lists GROW and more is expected. When you get to the Athanasian Creed you have the Church saying “if anybody doesn’t believe this [and ‘this’ is very complicated philosophical language about the Trinity] he cannot be saved.”

What’s also interesting is the absence of any moralizing in the Creeds. It was expected that believers would be holy, pure, and righteous, but that’s never spelled out in terms of specific social behaviors. But perhaps we could at least agree that believers ought to live above the world’s lowest common moral denominator.

Tom

CLEMENT--

 

Chapter IV.-True Confession of Christ.

Let us, then, not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith, "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness."²³ Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works, by loving one another, by not committing adultery, or speaking evil of one another, or cherishing envy; but by being continent, compassionate, and good. We ought also to sympathize with one another, and not be avaricious. By such works let us confess Him,²⁴ and not by those that are of an opposite kind. And it is not fitting that we should fear men, but rather God. For this reason, if we should do such [wicked] things, the Lord hath said, "Even though ye were gathered together to²⁵ me in my very bosom, yet if ye were not to keep my commandments, I would cast you off, and say unto you, Depart from me; I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity."²⁶

Chapter VIII.-The Necessity of Repentance While We are on Earth.

As long, therefore, as we are upon earth, let us practise repentance, for we are as clay in the hand of the artificer. For as the potter, if he make a vessel, and it be distorted or broken in his hands, fashions it over again; but if he have before this cast it into the furnace of fire, can no longer find any help for it: so let us also, while we are in this world, repent with our whole heart of the evil deeds we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord, while we have yet an opportunity of repentance. For after we have gone out of the world, no further power of confessing or repenting will there belong to us. Wherefore, brethren, by doing the will of the Father, and keeping the flesh holy, and observing the commandments of the Lord, we shall obtain eternal life. For the Lord saith in the Gospel, "If ye have not kept that which was small, who will commit to you the great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much."⁴⁸ This, then, is what He means: "Keep the flesh holy and the seal undefiled, that⁴⁹ ye may receive eternal life."⁵⁰

 

Post Edited (TGB) : 1/19/2006 7:45:39 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/19/2006 7:13:15 AM (GMT-6)