LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[ParkerD]

What I am saying is really not all that difficult, Parker. As we all agree, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They attempted to trap Jesus with a clever question in order to disprove the resurrection. …

But Jesus does not stop with only addressing the specific question of the seven brothers. He continues by stating "And concerning the resurrection of the dead (not only the seven brothers) have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching." (Mt 22:31, 32)

So Jesus clearly understood that the real question in which they were attempting to trap Him concerned the resurrection in general, otherwise He would have had no reason to address it in this manner. There was clearly a “crowd” that was listening, and they were astonished at his teaching. If this had only applied to the Sadducees would He not have had a duty to explain this to them?

SteveVH,

No, He wouldn’t, which was my original point. He carefully gave and gives free will choice.

“Resurrection from the dead” was not a new teaching that would be astonishing to anyone who was familiar with either His teachings or the Jewish teachings. Why would it astonish them?

 

[Peter_John]

Peter John,

Correctly stated sentence. That’s why I asked specifically about the word “glory”, yet your post in reply used passages wherein the word “glory” had nothing to do with the resurrection from the dead, yet you were using those to prove you had reading comprehension and I didn’t. I suggest the reverse is true.

Wishing peace to all readers.

That is circular reasoning, Parker.

To summarize our exchange: You affirm that “Terrestrial glory” in 1 Cor. 15 refers to a condition in eternity. We say that instead it compares the glory of our earhtly (literal meaning of terrestrial) condition to the greater glory we will have in our heavenly (literal meaning of celestial) condition, as Paul clarifies:

1 Corintians 15
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

We respond by breaking the passage down showing how one thought leads to the next and the premise promote the conclusion, while your premise leaves Paul’s conclusion a non sequitur.

You say that glory must refer to the state after the resurrection, but you will accept our explanation if we provide uses of glory that are the same. I provide a slough of uses of “glory” as referring to a mortal state. You reject this because they do not refer to the reurrection.

That is circular reasoning. In philosophy it is an faulty logic process called “begging the question”. Its the same thing as using lack of evidence that UFO’s exist as evidence that the government is covering up that UFOs exist. In this case your reasoning basically says the passagehas to mean what you say it does because you say so, regardless of what it actually says.

Not soap. Radio.

 

[Peter_John]

SteveVH,

No, He wouldn’t, which was my original point. He carefully gave and gives free will choice.

“Resurrection from the dead” was not a new teaching that would be astonishing to anyone who was familiar with either His teachings or the Jewish teachings. Why would it astonish them?

What astonished them was how obvious and simple a response Jesus used to confound these educated men. “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” If he is the God of Abraham, isaac, and Jacob, they must not be dead. TheSadducees seemed to miss that.

 

[Tony888]

Do you believe what your prophet teaches in general conference to be doctrinal?

I expect him to teach and interpret doctrine at GC, not make it. New doctrine is issued jointly by the President and his council as a Proclamation.

The difference with JS is that he taught sin as doctrine. Being married to more than one person at a time is adultery, yet, he taught it was divinely inspired doctrine. Do you believe polygamy is a doctrine?

Please get your facts straight. Polygamy is a crime rather than a sin. You should Google Christians for Polygamysin. Even the founder of the Protestant movement thought it not a sin

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

No, He wouldn’t, which was my original point. He carefully gave and gives free will choice.

What in the heck does “free will choice” have to do with this? Does someone have a choice when they do not have the information available to make a choice?

“Resurrection from the dead” was not a new teaching that would be astonishing to anyone who was familiar with either His teachings or the Jewish teachings. Why would it astonish them?

Well the Scripture says they were astonished, Parker. What would you like me to say? Should I take your word over the word of God?

 

[ParkerD]

What in the heck does “free will choice” have to do with this? Does someone have a choice when they do not have the information available to make a choice?

SteveVH,

The Savior said “all power is given unto me”, and taught the apostles that they should ask for their heart’s desires so long as it was a righteous desire, and ask for those things in Jesus’ name (John 16).

If He were to have spelled everything out by saying something to the effect of “you ought to want this, and you ought to want this”, then that is limiting free will choice and the opportunity to “learn” through the Holy Ghost “what to desire” and “what to ask for that is good and righteous”.

The gospel is available to people in the marvelous way of giving them access to the level of righteous desires that they sincerely have in their heart or seek after through prayer and then have in their heart as something attainable. But any sense of force or obligation, other than the general “keep the commandments”, would limit growth opportunities and limit free will choice by making one feel obligated rather than acting out of pure love and pure personal relationship with the Savior and the Holy Ghost.

The full range of free will choices also means that a person ought to have the possibility of justifying their personal choice with rationale that allows them to feel truly vindicated in their choice, because that is consistent with human nature. It’s what people want to be able to do with their personal choices. So the Savior upheld that possibility by allowing the Bible to be written and translated in precisely a way that allowed for people to feel justified in thinking “there is no such thing as the possibility of marriage in heaven.” (That way they also don’t have to feel forced into such a choice if one side or the other of a relationship said, “you don’t love me enough or you would want that for our marriage”—another human approach to making one feel obligated rather than allowing full, free will choice.)

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

The Savior said “all power is given unto me”, and taught the apostles that they should ask for their heart’s desires so long as it was a righteous desire, and ask for those things in Jesus’ name (John 16).

If He were to have spelled everything out by saying something to the effect of “you ought to want this, and you ought to want this”, then that is limiting free will choice and the opportunity to “learn” through the Holy Ghost “what to desire” and “what to ask for that is good and righteous”.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the discussion at hand. Your obsession with “free will choice” is a red herring. Free will is a gift given to us from the beginning, it is part of our created nature. No one has ever argued that we do not have free will, which by its very nature means that we have the ability to choose in any situation. Was Christ not a teacher? Did his teachings influence our “free will choice”? Hopefully they did. One cannot make a choice if he does not understand the choices. Christ not only taught us but commanded us to love, to baptize, and to teach all that He has commanded to the entire world. The fact that He gives us information and even commands us to act in very specific ways does not take away our free will. We always have the ability to refuse, which is sin.

We are discussing Christ’s words concerning the resurrection and eternal marriage and the only words Jesus used concerning eternal marriage were words that denied eternal marriage. You have “chosen” to believe that those words only applied to a specific, very small group of people and have then extrapolated that it therefore does not apply to the rest of us when that was never stated by Jesus. It has nothing to do with “you ought to want this, and you ought to want this”. In other words, the nature of the state of being in heaven is what it is. We don’t get to “choose” what heaven is any more than we get to “choose” what creation is. That is up to God and God alone.

The gospel is available to people in the marvelous way of giving them access to the level of righteous desires that they sincerely have in their heart or seek after through prayer and then have in their heart as something attainable. But any sense of force or obligation, other than the general “keep the commandments”, would limit growth opportunities and limit free will choice by making one feel obligated rather than acting out of pure love and pure personal relationship with the Savior and the Holy Ghost.

What could be more forceful or obligate a person more than receiving a direct command from the living God?

The full range of free will choices also means that a person ought to have the possibility of justifying their personal choice with rationale that allows them to feel truly vindicated in their choice, because that is consistent with human nature. It’s what people want to be able to do with their personal choices. So the Savior upheld that possibility by allowing the Bible to be written and translated in precisely a way that allowed for people to feel justified in thinking “there is no such thing as the possibility of marriage in heaven.”

The only word that comes to mind after reading the logic contained in this statement is “Bizarre”. Sorry, but you really have to be kidding me. This is the clearest example of approaching scripture with a preconceinved notion that I have ever seen and then reading into scripture an idea that has been clearly refuted by God himself.

No offense meant here at all, Parker, but I think it is time to move on to other subjects at this point as this is truly a fruitless conversation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Choosing evil is not the definition of freedom. Being liberated from all that is evil occurred on the Cross. By our baptism we are joined to Jesus Christ, becoming His Body, and through Him we are set free.

Free will is a gift given to us, one that allows us to freely love God. Jesus never taught us to sin in order that we could learn to follow Him in a freer fashion.

Jesus calls us to always choose good. We are liberated when we align ourselves to the freedom that He paid for on the Cross, as He is our Freedom. This is why God has given us the gift of free will, in order that we can Love Him, freely. As what sort of love is forced?

If I say to someone I love, “I treated you poorly in order that you can know I love you more.”…who is going to accept this as love? If instead I say to someone, I see in you your destiny, which is Jesus Christ, and you treat that person with this understanding, then this person will know the Love of God.

In the process of aligning ourselves to the Will of God, we are set free, and over time, one should come to see that there is no choice but to do good, and seeing this, is not able to sin. Such a person knows the graces of God like no other, and understands fully God’s liberating Act.

There is no other name by which we enter heaven, except Jesus Christ. We align ourselves to HIM, not to our spouses. In a Catholic marriage, both people come to marriage baptized, sealed to Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. In marriage two people become one, in a union that is a communion. This communion is not separate from God, but is an expression of the communion that God has with us. This is a reality, something very literal, and not a metaphor.

 

[ParkerD]

…
What could be more forceful or obligate a person more than receiving a direct command from the living God?

…
The only word that comes to mind after reading the logic contained in this statement is “Bizarre”. Sorry, but you really have to be kidding me. This is the clearest example of approaching scripture with a preconceinved notion that I have ever seen and then reading into scripture an idea that has been clearly refuted by God himself.

No offense meant here at all, Parker, but I think it is time to move on to other subjects at this point as this is truly a fruitless conversation.

SteveVH,

You have vindicated yourself, which is what I was saying that free will choice provides.

In the process, you didn’t choose to answer why Jesus would be speaking directly to a group of people, including them in His teaching which was going to be one of the most important teachings He would ever give because of what the Jews obviously believed about eternal marriage given the Sadducees’ question, and that He would say “they” in His verb choice rather than “ye” as He did in all other cases when He was teaching the people directly, with love for them (including those present) expressed in the use of the verb conjugation meaning “ye”.

So it is indeed a fruitless conversation, and Christ has power to grant something which some people want and some people don’t want and evidently don’t think He has the power to grant. That is why I noted the important verse, “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

 

[Stephen168]

The full range of free will choices also means that a person ought to have the possibility of justifying their personal choice with rationale that allows them to feel truly vindicated in their choice, because that is consistent with human nature. It’s what people want to be able to do with their personal choices. So the Savior upheld that possibility by allowing the Bible to be written and translated in precisely a way that allowed for people to feel justified in thinking “there is no such thing as the possibility of marriage in heaven.” (That way they also don’t have to feel forced into such a choice if one side or the other of a relationship said, “you don’t love me enough or you would want that for our marriage”—another human approach to making one feel obligated rather than allowing full, free will choice.)

That is the wackiest thing I’ve heard in a long time, but very modern; such is Mormonism.

 

[zaffiroborant]

But any sense of force or obligation, other than the general “keep the commandments”, would limit growth opportunities and limit free will choice
)

Well except when it comes to polygamy, then it’s perfectly alright to threaten folks into obeying.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

You have vindicated yourself, which is what I was saying that free will choice provides.

In the process, you didn’t choose to answer why Jesus would be speaking directly to a group of people, including them in His teaching which was going to be one of the most important teachings He would ever give because of what the Jews obviously believed about eternal marriage given the Sadducees’ question, and that He would say “they” in His verb choice rather than “ye” as He did in all other cases when He was teaching the people directly, with love for them (including those present) expressed in the use of the verb conjugation meaning “ye”.

When Jesus healed the woman with the hemorrhage due to her great faith, does that only apply to the woman with the hemorrhage or to all of us Parker? Was he not speaking directly to only her?

So it is indeed a fruitless conversation, and Christ has power to grant something which some people want and some people don’t want and evidently don’t think He has the power to grant. That is why I noted the important verse, “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

Christ has the power to do what ever he wishes. He does not arbitrarily grant things to people depending upon what they may want or not want. He grants what we ask if it is in line with the will of God, not just because we think we should have it. Your notion of progressing through trial and error is in complete contradiction to God’s grace and His saving power. It is not about us and our actions, Parker, it is about the goodness and mercy of God. It is about our complete surrender to His will, not our own. Your idea that he would leave us in a state of confusion so that he does not step on our “free will choice” is just absurd.

 

[SteveVH]

Choosing evil is not the definition of freedom. Being liberated from all that is evil occurred on the Cross. By our baptism we are joined to Jesus Christ, becoming His Body, and through Him we are set free.

Free will is a gift given to us, one that allows us to freely love God. Jesus never taught us to sin in order that we could learn to follow Him in a freer fashion.

Jesus calls us to always choose good. We are liberated when we align ourselves to the freedom that He paid for on the Cross, as He is our Freedom. This is why God has given us the gift of free will, in order that we can Love Him, freely. As what sort of love is forced?

If I say to someone I love, “I treated you poorly in order that you can know I love you more.”…who is going to accept this as love? If instead I say to someone, I see in you your destiny, which is Jesus Christ, and you treat that person with this understanding, then this person will know the Love of God.

In the process of aligning ourselves to the Will of God, we are set free, and over time, one should come to see that there is no choice but to do good, and seeing this, is not able to sin. Such a person knows the graces of God like no other, and understands fully God’s liberating Act.

There is no other name by which we enter heaven, except Jesus Christ. We align ourselves to HIM, not to our spouses. In a Catholic marriage, both people come to marriage baptized, sealed to Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. In marriage two people become one, in a union that is a communion. This communion is not separate from God, but is an expression of the communion that God has with us. This is a reality, something very literal, and not a metaphor.

Well said Rebecca. I have tried to make this point on more than one occassion. Hope you have better success than I.

 

[ParkerD]

When Jesus healed the woman with the hemorrhage due to her great faith, does that only apply to the woman with the hemorrhage or to all of us Parker? Was he not speaking directly to only her?

SteveVH,

So do you think that when she “stepped forward” and let Him and the crowd watching know that it was she who had been healed, and He explained that her faith had made her whole, that she would have thought “He isn’t talking really to me”?

Just because we can apply the need for faith that we learn from her experience, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a personal experience where she personally felt truly loved and was truly healed personally by the Savior.

Christ has the power to do what ever he wishes. He does not arbitrarily grant things to people depending upon what they may want or not want.

Yet, He taught “ask, and it shall be given”. Some people are taught not to ask, because that would mean they are seeking a gift directly from Him rather than trusting the person doing the teaching that says “don’t ask for that”.

He grants what we ask if it is in line with the will of God, not just because we think we should have it.

Adam and Eve having a marriage that was “joined together” by God, was the will of God and Jesus showed that it was the preeminent marriage example since He used it as such.

Your notion of progressing through trial and error is in complete contradiction to God’s grace and His saving power. It is not about us and our actions, Parker, it is about the goodness and mercy of God.

But yet it is in complete agreement with the teachings of Paul, of Solomon, of Peter, and of the Savior. But, again, if a teacher says “don’t believe that” then the teacher takes over in place of those who taught, “Life is going to have trials.”

It is about our complete surrender to His will, not our own. Your idea that he would leave us in a state of confusion so that he does not step on our “free will choice” is just absurd.

Yes, no doubt the listeners to the parables who went their way shaking their heads thought it was absurd also that the Savior was teaching in a way that left many puzzled. No doubt readers of the parables who lack faith or the desire to really try and figure out the meaning, are left puzzling and shaking their heads also and saying to themselves, “this is absurd for a teacher to teach in a way that only allows understanding for those who desire the understanding.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Adam and Eve having a marriage that was “joined together” by God, was the will of God and Jesus showed that it was the preeminent marriage example since He used it as such.

And the preeminent example has 1 man and 1 woman.

 

[Stephen168]

Adam and Eve having a marriage that was “joined together” by God, was the will of God and Jesus showed that it was the preeminent marriage example since He used it as such.

OR

The full range of free will choices also means that a person ought to have the possibility of justifying their personal choice with rationale that allows them to feel truly vindicated in their choice, because that is consistent with human nature. It’s what people want to be able to do with their personal choices. So the Savior upheld that possibility by allowing the Bible to be written and translated in precisely a way that allowed for people to feel justified in thinking "__________________________.”

”it was the preeminent marriage example” and one could vindicate himself by claiming polygamy was the preeminent marriage example; except when it wasn’t.

 

[soren1]

This would be because both the word “Christian” (as used in the context of that sentence) and the word “substance” (which is not a Biblical word at all and given the context of that sentence) disregard Biblical teachings and go off on a tangent that is not in the Bible.

The term “sub-stance” is a Latin form of the Greek “hypo-stasis.” Both mean “under-lying or inner-lying being.” “Hypostasis” has many senses that are not uniform throughout the centuries, and Catholic theology has always been sensitive to this fact. Yet the meaning of “substance” in the required sense is thoroughly Biblical, and occurs choicely in Hebrews 1:3, found in the KJV as follows:

“…the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…”

Ironically, this is an anachronistic mistranslation in which an unconscious Trinitarian bias on the part of the translators has made the verse less Trinitarian than it actually is. “Person” is never a good translation of “hypostasis” in texts predating Tertullian in the third century. Instead, it should be understood here as “substance.” Moreover, the word for “image” (charachter) is better rendered as “stamp.” Given the context of first-century and Johannine logos-theology, I would translate the passage this way:

“…the refulgence of his glory and the stamp of his inner being…”

This defines the son’s relation to the father as a relation according to interior substance, whereby an immanent act of vision (the reflection of glory) produces the Son with the same internal characteristics as the Father. Anyone familiar with patristic and Augustinian thinking about the procession of the Son as “interior word” has a strong exegetical foothold in this verse, which uses “hypostasis” in just the way that “substance” is historically used in the Latin tradition of the divine nature.

Of course, by the time of Nicaea, the word for substance was not hypostasis anymore, but ousia. But this reflects not a distancing from biblical teaching but a real shift within the Greek language. “Ousia” at Nicaea can be consistently understood as a translation of “hypostasis” in most of its biblical occurrences.

It is worth pointing out that the author of Hebrews also uses “substance” with respect to the nature of faith, in another frequently mistranslated verse:

Faith is the underlying reality (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen." (Heb 11:1)

Thus both Catholic senses of ‘substance’ relevant to this conversation, as pertaining to God’s nature and the essential truth of the faith, can be substantiated from within a single epistle.

When the meaning becomes “owned” by the user of the word disregarding its origin, then of course the person will be able to take their definition of the word and say “anyone who uses the word I have defined in my certain way in a different way, even if it is as used in the Bible through its origin, has been deceptive”.

Thus the word “deceptive” has been re-defined also by the user of the word.

As I have shown above, we do not need to disregard the origin of the word. Moreover, the Catholic tradition as a whole is not dictatorial in the meanings of words. Indeed, the Greek and Latin Fathers, who often faced barriers in communicating to each other because of differences in terminology, succeeding in keeping peace by distinguishing between the words used to express the faith and the faith itself. This enabled them to read each other charitably, and the modern Catechism, quoting Trent, reflects the same sensibility:

We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. “The believer’s act of faith does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities which they express.” All the same, we do approach these realities with the help of formulations of the faith which permit us to express the faith and to hand it on, to celebrate it in community, to assimilate and live on it more and more. (CCC170)

Here we see one of many example of how the Catholic tradition reflects Biblical sensibilities in distinguishing the words of the faith from its “substance.”

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

So do you think that when she “stepped forward” and let Him and the crowd watching know that it was she who had been healed, and He explained that her faith had made her whole, that she would have thought “He isn’t talking really to me”?

Just because we can apply the need for faith that we learn from her experience, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a personal experience where she personally felt truly loved and was truly healed personally by the Savior.

Where did I even imply that she did not think Jesus was really talking to her? The point is that the story is included in the scriptures because the principal (faith) applies to all of mankind, just as Jesus conversation with the Sadducees applies to all of mankind even though He was addressing them specifically. Your argument simply doesn’t make good sense.

Yet, He taught “ask, and it shall be given”. Some people are taught not to ask, because that would mean they are seeking a gift directly from Him rather than trusting the person doing the teaching that says “don’t ask for that”.

Well, I’ve never been taught that if that is what you are implying. I actually can’t tell what you really mean by this statement.

Adam and Eve having a marriage that was “joined together” by God, was the will of God and Jesus showed that it was the preeminent marriage example since He used it as such.

And where does scripture state Adam and Eve’s marriage will go on for eternity? Paul certainly doesn’t believe that marriage goes on for eternity. All Christian marriages are joined together by God. The two become one flesh, that is until death.

" Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." (Romans 7:1-3 - KJV)

I agree that Adam and Eve’s relationship was the preeminent marriage example (which would speak directly against polygamy), but it does not speak of eternal marriage. Sorry, Parker, but as Paul pointed out, it is “until death do us part”.

But yet it is in complete agreement with the teachings of Paul, of Solomon, of Peter, and of the Savior. But, again, if a teacher says “don’t believe that” then the teacher takes over in place of those who taught, “Life is going to have trials.”

Well, you have yet to show , except in your own mind, that it is in agreement with any of those above mentioned. And no one, certainly not I, has ever said that life is not going to have trials. That is not the issue. Our free will was given to us so that we could freely choose to love God, not so we could make poor choices in order to somehow learn from those poor choices in order to progress. Again, it is not about our will, it is about God’s will. When we follow our will instead of God’s will we enter into sin.

Yes, no doubt the listeners to the parables who went their way shaking their heads thought it was absurd also that the Savior was teaching in a way that left many puzzled. No doubt readers of the parables who lack faith or the desire to really try and figure out the meaning, are left puzzling and shaking their heads also and saying to themselves, “this is absurd for a teacher to teach in a way that only allows understanding for those who desire the understanding.”

Your implication is obvious, Parker, but that dog just won’t bark. You again promote the elitist attitude that those of us who do not agree with you must have a lack of faith and little or no desire to gain understanding. I notice you ignored the part of my statement concerning doing God’s will and not our own. So let me ask the question: Do you believe in complete surrender of your will to God’s will? And please answer it very simply as it is a simple question. A yes or no will suffice.

 

[ParkerD]

Where did I even imply that she did not think Jesus was really talking to her? The point is that the story is included in the scriptures because the principal (faith) applies to all of mankind, just as Jesus conversation with the Sadducees applies to all of mankind even though He was addressing them specifically. Your argument simply doesn’t make good sense.

SteveVH,

If I were teaching a class, and asked the class members if they saw a difference between the way Jesus talked to the woman and the way He talked to the Sadducees, then right off the bat I think they would be able to come up with, “He talked to her in the first person”, and if what you have said is true then they would say, "He talked to the Sadducees in third person plural. That means He was not addressing them directly, or He would have said in the verb conjugation, “ye”.

Our class would discuss and be able to show that any other time Jesus was teaching a truth that He wanted all the people He was teaching to know applied to them, He would either address them as “ye” or if He was talking to an individual and letting the rest listen and learn from the example, He would address the person as “thee” or “thy” such as “thy faith hath made thee whole.”

'Got to run, I’ll add more later.

 

[ParkerD]

And where does scripture state Adam and Eve’s marriage will go on for eternity?

Hi, again, SteveVH,

That would be the part that says “what God hath joined together”, since God is eternal and man is not supposed to “put asunder” that marriage.

Paul certainly doesn’t believe that marriage goes on for eternity. All Christian marriages are joined together by God. The two become one flesh, that is until death.

" Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." (Romans 7:1-3 - KJV)

Here, again, (by the way, thanks for suggesting I read and think about Romans 7, which meant I looked back in the earlier chapters to gather the context for his remarks, and noted in chapter 5 that he was writing about Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant, as well as about circumcision and that Abraham lived by faith before he received circumcision),

if I were a teacher in front of a group of students, I would ask if studying Romans 7:1-3, why is Paul using this example in furthering his purposes while teaching the Roman converts? I would be hoping someone would respond with the correct answer that he was using the “law of marriage” (particularly the law of marriage the Roman Jews were familiar with, which was the Mosaic law of marriage) as an analogy, which is clearly shown in verses 4 and 5. The analogy is to show that living by the “letter of the law” is dead, and that instead they need to begin living by “newness of spirit” and by being made “free from sin” (sin being because of the law) and raised to a newness of life because of being under the new covenant,grace.

(By the way, the fact that a woman could remarry if her husband had died, says nothing about whether the first marriage was an eternal marriage, particularly under the Jewish law of marriage which looked to “raising up seed” unto the first husband, as the example of Ruth and Boaz shows.)

…let me ask the question: Do you believe in complete surrender of your will to God’s will? And please answer it very simply as it is a simple question. A yes or no will suffice.

No, I don’t, because surrender means “caving in” and means the loss of free will choice, and though I earnestly desire to know and do God’s will, and seek that through constant prayer in my heart, I also desire to learn to desire what God desires, so that “my will” is “His will”. That is how happiness is attained, and how keeping the commandments is truly a joyful thing, and never either a drudgery or a sense of “surrender” or forced behavior.