Share This Episode
Outer Brightness  Logo

What About ORIGINAL SIN? Part 1

Outer Brightness /
The Truth Network Radio
April 29, 2021 9:38 am

What About ORIGINAL SIN? Part 1

Outer Brightness /

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 165 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.

April 29, 2021 9:38 am

From Mormon to Jesus! Real, authentic conversations among former members of the Church Of Latter-Day Saints

Kerwin Baptist
Kerwin Baptist Church
The Masculine Journey
Sam Main
Running to Win
Erwin Lutzer
What's Right What's Left
Pastor Ernie Sanders
Summit Life
J.D. Greear
Running to Win
Erwin Lutzer

Your answering and and is going to know this release time or seminary classes in the first class. Citing Scripture mastery versus one of them was two Nephi 225 which states Adam fell that men might be in men are that they might have joy in LDS theology. This passage establishes the idea of the fortunate fall suggestion established more explicitly elsewhere in LDS Canon that Adam knew the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was necessary to bring about the procreation of their offspring. The book of Moses is Joseph Smith's expansion of Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai wearing Smith expanded the Genesis material to support his theology and Moses. Chapter 5 is presented as saying of the fall were it not for our transgression.

We never should have had Steve and never should've known good and evil and the joy of our redemption and the eternal life which God giveth time to all the obedient another Scripture mastery passage was Mosiah 319, which states for the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put it off the natural man can become at the same through the atonement of Christ the Lord and become it as a child, submissive, make humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord see fit to inflict upon him, even as a child to submit to his father. This passage supports the idea in LDS theology that humans are free to choose good or evil. The second LDS article of faith is typically seem to reject the doctrine of original sin as classically described within Christian theology. It reads, we believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

All of this comes together in Mormonism's unique approach to free will and his Christian theology and introduction Alister E. McGrath discusses the doctrine of original sin and the thought of Augustine. She wrote, quote the essential point which Augustine makes is that we have no control over our sinfulness. It is something which contaminates our lives from birth and dominates our lives. Thereafter."

McGrath notes that Augustine discussed original sin and using three analogies with personality traits and is a hereditary disease which is passed down from one generation to another.

This disease begins humanity and cannot be cured by human agency. The second analogy treats them as a power which holds us captive and from his grip.

We are unable to break free by ourselves.

This human free will is captivated by the power of sin and may only be liberated by grace. The third analogy treats same as an essentially judicial or forensic concept, guilt, which is passed down from one generation to another McGrath contrast Augustine's thought without his theological sparring partner Pelagius of who McGrath wrote quote for Pelagius. However, sin is to be understood in a very different light. The idea of a human disposition toward sin has no place in Pelagius's thought for Pelagius the human power of self-improvement could not be thought of this, is being compromised." In this sense, Mormonism takes a similar approach to humanity's will and choice as to Pelagius Mormon apostle James E. Talmage industry just the articles of faith, wrote the following quote true God has given commandments and his established statutes with promises of blessings for compliance and penalties for infraction but in the choice of these men are untrammeled in this respect. Man is no less free than are the angels, except to see us federate himself that the bonds of sin and forfeited his power of will and force of soul the individual has as full a measure of capability to violate the laws of health the requirements of nature and the commandments of God in matters both temporal and spiritual as he has to obey all such here Talmage seems to give credence to the idea of the bondage of the will.

But then just as quickly seems to contradict himself but to read Talmage in Mormonism correctly.

I think you have to note that what Talmage is saying here is that humans are born free and made by their choices and put themselves in bondage, but that they are not in bondage to sin. From birth, but I found interesting is that this is a different approach to original sin than you find and say Robert Nolan and including him from the book claiming Christ, which she wrote with the Gerald R. McDermott is a Christian scholar there, Miller says, quote every man and woman who comes into mortality is quote conceived in sin," meaning one year. She is conceived into a world of sin into conception becomes the means the vehicle by which mortality following major the flash is transmitted to the posterity of Adam and if the effects of the fall are inherited."

So Talmage and and Millicent to present two very different views to original sin within Mormonism.

So that's overtopping up-to-date ability to sin or sin nature bondage of the will or free will, as were tackling said as I think I think the first thing to cannot tackle before we jump in his is whether or not I've captured LDS doctrine accurately in my introduction.

How do you think I did something about what I think that you did a really good job something summing it up as a summary, I think there's definitely something is eating dive into an assortment be doing in the podcasts that as a as a basic introduction absolutely unit now now on the head.

Thus, there from what I understand I it's hard to remember that the different views in my past when I study this stuff. It's hard to keep and keep it all straight from I recall I think it was pretty accurate I think. I think it's difficult like you said, as is sometimes you read a passage that sounds like it goes one way and then in the same passage or else where they might sound like they go a different way so hard to get out straight and sometimes unite I come across is a lot to like in the forms and things were Latter Day Saints will say some some things sound completely different and then when you try to bring them to the table and say look like she's saying this in your saying that they will agree with each other and say all of this is still within the scope of you know, LDS doctrine, since, like there's an umbrella.

There, and as long as you're just within certain certain distance of the core doctrine dishes ways is that they say things but Leno actually mean something different like all were saved by you know, by grace and somebody else I say were saved by works, but they're actually both saying the same thing if that makes sense yeah desert. I think it's hard to to reconcile Talmage's statement though with with Millet's is Talmage seems to see you directly on a completely free will right the individual has as full a measure of capability to disobey as he has to obey and Millet is presenting a view that community seems to much more in line with the classical view of Original Sin right that that man inherits us the sin nature.

The effects of the fall are inherited without idea that that the effects of the fall, at least, at least in terms of guilt. Immunity can dig in that we get to get to talking about the second are the second article of faith seems to me like when I when I was LDS and into the spring 10 years next year so I could be forgetting something But it seems to me like when I was LDS to get the idea of original sin was was kind of anathema in my mouth – there were hunting how I kind of proceeded and I'm putting on my apologist had here a little bit that it was my understanding there was an original sin, but that we just viewed it differently from traditional Christianity, so we come to earth with a clean slate, but with a fallen nature and so were going to be prone to sin a lot more but that doesn't mean we have sent and since I think that's how I would try to reconcile you know Millet and Talmage here because it's like yeah were conceived in sin because were conceived with a sin nature and were going to mess up at some point and that's why we need to have a Savior but but ultimately yes we still have that choice but I'm a regular talk in Sacrament meeting one time househunting about in a week and she's our actions that we can't choose the consequences for actions and sometimes the consequences hinder our future agency and and I use an example I said at this moment I have the ability to run 2 miles and if I practice every day. You know*train every day. Someday I might be able to run 10 but if I sit on the couch and eat potato chips and ice cream every day. Well let's just say that my real life right now is a reflection of man, and I can't run to save my life. So that's how I viewed it that our actions either hinder or promote our agency asset that seems consistent with with the one statement from Talmage that the man is no less free than are the Angels except disease flattered himself of the bonds of sin and forfeited his power will enforce the soul okay so there's there's certainly a possibility that to an extent. I misread and misunderstood LDS doctrine on Original Sin. But then again, maybe it's all about original guilt more so than the sin nature to think it's fair to compare Mormon Jesus standing free will to those of Pelagius saying for my understanding of Pelagius's view is that he was mean he believed that there was no such thing as Original Sin that that as far as we are. We are completely free to perform good or evil so I don't think that all this. She was quite think it's exactly like that because like you said, we do still inherit a sin nature in the sense that we think, how would you describe it that we are more predisposed to commit sin. I think they would say were still free to do good or evil because they quickly from Rob. I believe that they believe that the atonement claims the sin of Adam's transgression, and because of that, for free, as of the current passage like that right second Nephi to maybe present on the earlier possibly might be the learner talk about oppositional things. I think you're right. Second Nephi to but so they believe that that Christ there is atonement made it possible for us to do good and evil that were kind of free to make that choice that were in that we are not guilty of that transgression, and they always stress that it's that was in the sin was transgression because Adam and Eve didn't have knowledge yet because and taken the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So when they were transgressing God's law. They didn't have a full knowledge of what they are doing so they don't consider to be a sin so that they would say that sin requires both committing an act against God's law and it requires a certain level of understanding risk for spiritual enlightenment in order to do so.

So I think that also correlates to animate getting off topic but I guess what correlates to the idea that they have of the age of accountability, where before eight years old and out. Children will do things that are not in accordance with God's law.

But since there without a certain level of maturity or understanding. They don't consider it to be sin, so I think it's kind of the same concept. So yes I don't think it's entirely like Pelagius's view. It's I think from promptly pointing like Pelagius believed that were were completely free to do good or evil. We we don't have were not burdened by not burdened to go more one-way than the other way. Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe I'm not quite assessing acquire it what it what do you both think this sounded about you know what I experience and is in the church so I think you got it signified 227 is one of thinking of were four men are free. According to the flesh, and all things are given them which are expedient unto man and they are free to choose liberty and eternal life through the great hitter of all men or to choose captivity and death. According to the captivity captivity and power of the devil for easy get that all men might be miserable like unto himself the best one I was thinking of so I still have that one memorized. How sad is that I visited.

I just worry where I was picking out the commonality between Pelagius and what Talmage says is is is where McGrath says the other for Pelagius the gym power self-improvement cannot be thought of as being compromised and Talmage says although goddess has given commandments with promises of blessings for compliance and penalties for infraction in the choice of these men are untrammeled so I read those two statements you know human powered and of self-improvement has not been compromised, being the same thing is that staying know the but their choices untrammeled rating can untrammeled the choice or what is going to trample the choice even if it's even if existing major then and some cents is in the choice untrammeled editing to do what I'm saying in a slats, I pointed out that Talmage knows to say one thing and then choose to contradict in the nest next statement and that was that was kind of my understanding of Mormon. The Mormon approach to free will right is that it is you are describing. Matthew the guilt of Adam was paid for by the atonement of Christ and of course we would make mistakes, but we were completely free to choose good or evil, and my understanding of Mormon anthropology is that at least at the theoretical level is possible for someone to be completely obedient.

Do you do you guys read it differently so I do think it you used to think that yes, it is possible to be completely obedient, just that was really not likely remain near impossible.

You know, because of that sin nature that it was just gonna is going to pull us down, but you I'm really discussing about how our choices really aren't untrammeled by by what we do, by sin, and I think this kind of a paradox in Mormonism because on one hand you got like that Scripture in the book of Mormon… You know Satan. He likes to wind us up with his his flaxen cord, and then he binds us with his strong cords any seals as his leg.

It's like yes there is a point where it becomes too late because you are complacent, but then I also see a lot of these apologists will all talk about sin and how none of us are perfect and and then I'll start you know to to kinda make it personal like body telling me that you're perfect and and thus they will know but what's interesting is there not slowed down by their own Sanderling on time. They just they just excuse it real easily and will say will I'm on the past. As long as I'm on the past when confines its is a lot more about learning than it is about actually being cleaned. Like all were here to learn to be God's and Emily just they hate the idea that God would just give salvation away for free because we haven't we haven't gotten any wiser. We haven't gotten our battle scars and and you have to do something and so that is just a paradox that I've seen in the church that on one hand, it absolutely slows us down and binds us and in another sense it doesn't seem like it's a big deal. The Latter Day Saints and all yeah and I've made the case before the this to me seems to be a big deal for all of LDS theology and an outside and to the point you made in your article you published this week.

Michael so is it a theoretical level because humans have free will as conceived by Mormon theology for the theoretical level, someone could be completely obedient no sin in their lives, then they wouldn't need a Savior and soft systems as well. Okay that's not really possible. Right. We know it's not then you have to ask the question with woman. How did Jesus on Mormon theology because same species right so what enabled Jesus to do it that you are higher. Matthew couldn't do it right and so then that bad, ties into the point you were making the first plane article this week Michael about about the obvious fear of God is a good she could fall from God, right, which is the opposite, the opposite side of that coin enough if someone could justify their by their own will and and and and and and were talking on on LDS theology were all of the same species God and humanity or someone could justify their own will be perfectly obedient then why why would God not billable. This is just the opposite side of the same coin, but it seems to me to be a major problem for LDS Christology and we can get into that and sent to the topic of Christology, but any thoughts on that.

What I guess one thing that jumped in my head is the also have a lot more like when you're Mormon is a lot more like layers to the mysteriousness of different sin, you know, I mean it's like it's almost like Catholicism where you got like some penal stands and shoot that's what enabled me to take the sacrament most Sundays because you're not supposed to take it in the church.

If you're unworthy and every time a tray would come around like what I definitely did some things wrong this week but you know it wasn't the work major sins. And so that I would still partaken consider myself to be worthy because I just I was encountering about 10 of us with what you're saying.

It's like yes theoretically we could be totally obedient and not need Jesus.

But on the other hand, even for saying that all of us have sinned and fallen short. You know some of us might not really need Jesus that much. Maybe we just need him to make up an inch that we fell short and and that's a big difference between Mormonism and Christianity because in Christianity you recognize that you are a wretched sinner and you have you haven't even made it that and he's gonna make up the whole thing arises, kinda tease out the difference between good Matthew was alluding to write where were Adam's active enemies active taking of the fruit is not viewed as a stands for is a transgression right is not is not a serious it's not a rebellion to God. I met really kinda tease up.

I think in many ways that a difference in the way that sin is viewed. You know it's it's interesting that LDS a lot of LBS's are coming out of out of the Mormon faith will react very strongly against the heavy shame and guilt that they felt within Mormon culture, whether it's know in relation to Bishop interviews or whether it's in relation to having felt judged by members of their ward for coming home from a mission early, or having sex out of wedlock or who knows what one man been but there's there's this sense that they have that they they felt an inordinate amount of guilt and shame within within the Mormon community that seems to me to be something I see talk about quite a bit. And yet if you did on to some of the boards and where evangelicals and LDS discuss things from my experience that I think LOL evangelicals tend to portray a much more strong view of the seriousness of sin, but less guilt and shame. Do you Matthew find that to be the case as well or my office or nothing that's correct. I think it's it seems like the guilt that at least in my experience that I asked that I had wow is the LDS church was that the was the fact that like you said, there's this tension were taught both that we need to strive to live in such a way that we can attain exaltation because Ron become like our heavenly father.

So we want to strive to attain his perfection.

So there's this this grinding kind of tension in that was in my heart and my mind saying I got candy to work like I really needed to be pleasing to God like I can even get upset people. I can even now say a word that's insulting someone or even in my head so I be constantly checking the things I did wrong that day.

But in terms of like the seriousness of just cried. I don't think I really truly understood when when I came out of the discharge, you realize just like just how completely offensive. Our sin is to God. It's it's not merely just like oh we didn't reach perfection, you know like we got try better tomorrow and they will get will be closer. It's like the chasm between God's holiness and our sinfulness, according to God's word in the Bible is just so vast just fine out there like it's such a huge gaping wide chasm between us and God that it's like it's not it's there's no Matt there's no quantity of perfectionism or works or effort that can help even get anywhere close to God, so what, you realize that in and you really understand. Okay like I can't do it. That's when you really just at least for me. That's when it when God just collect empty myself. Marilla maybe realize that is not up to it. I really do need a Savior, not just someone who gives me the ability to do what I need to do to reach God's like he has to actually pick me up and carry me the whole way. Nothing I can do can even contribute to it and I wanted back something you're talking about earlier where Mike is on the same topic where no more, and some really thin and Mormonism he taught early and we don't really understand the full significance of our sin against God. And I think it makes sense.

20. Think about LDS theology as a whole.

Like James White mentioned it in one of his videos for your talk with Jeff Durbin about Mormonism and he said that the whole reason that they do have a such a lower view of sin, and in God's holiness is the fact that when they see God. They see a man just like them. Someone who went through the same trials that we do every day. So when you see that you look at God you don't really see sin is that big of a deal. It's it's kind like when you watch a little kid stumble or fall off his bike lanes going to ride the bike, so you help them pick himself back up and get on the bike and then he keeps trying like as a and LDS view of sin. That's kind of how we saw is just like a little a little stumbling block.

But you get back up and keep trying, thing. So when when we have the incorrect view of who God is, that if we see God is someone like us.

Someone who overcame the same trials as we do, then you will have a correspondingly incorrect or distorted view of what sin is going to one of the things I find interesting is on the boards as I often see evangelicals when discussing this topic with Mormonism with Mormons. There will still appeal to lived experience to support their belief in Original Sin and anyone that often.

Kinda makes me chuckle is when someone will so an evangelical will point out, you know like if you don't believe in Original Sin, just like a toddler race And see latter-day St. on the boards get so incensed that that suggestion right because you know that is as you pointed out Matthew latter-day Saints kinda view it as we were the guilt of Adam's sin was paid for by the atonement of Christ. So when when a child is born into states perform a pleasant warm it is united to some form of the blank slate right and and so is Canada's tension sometimes between evangelicals, latter-day Saints over this topic. Original Sin does does lived experience playing a part in your position on the Stockton now and and if so how, so I don't remember me, and I you're talking about, like beyond being eight years old are you talking about when I was a located just remove the lived experiences in his precise, the floor joists.

I guess what I mean is when you when you look at humanity.

Actually I play a part now in your position on the Stockton community definitely does mean is this is cool to know you learn something in the Bible, but then you see it all around you everywhere you just constantly thinking like me when you want is all yes my thought was everybody's basically good.

Like more good than evil. You know and and that's when things have made me so angry and evangelical Christians is that he has believed God's given throat like 99% of his creations in the hell it's like, what about Mother Teresa on and what about the southern good person and these nice atheists and and I thought people were just just good analogy. I look at the world and every damn dislike man, how can people be so evil and is like I couldn't see it before and now it's as plain as day, but that I think when things really started to get me out of the church was was actually starting to see it in myself to and remember being in Institute one day and the instructor was saying he's courting that that passage in the D&C, and since he who sins against the greater light receives the greater condemnation and I pose this question and I said are we doing people a disservice by bringing them into the church and giving them that greater light because you know were were setting the bar higher and were making that judgment stricter on that person is alleges caused you off of firestorms in that Institute class. It was pretty crazy. That is like the first time that I may stir the pot you know and look at me now unite, I just asserted kinda see it in myself because people do you want those would ask me like do you think you're going to the celestial team number might well know, like thank I'll be lucky if I make it to the celestial kingdom element so you it's just a lot of the stuff started to shatter my view that no matter just are naturally good, we have a natural leaning towards God, and we look that's definitely not true at all regimented. So when it comes to so I think there's. There are several aspects to Original Sin. Part of it comes down to the fact that because Adam sinned, all all have sinned and maybe we'll talk a bit about that, as it says in Romans five so there's that aspect where where I believe the Adam meal because Adam stand where all kind of complicit in that sin, even though we went there in the garden. He represented all humanity. And that's collector the reformed view of of Adam's federal headship that he represented humanity. So when he rejected God and his and his commandment than all of mankind fell with them around kind of in that same boat so there's that aspect within if you're talking specifically about the fact that were born and were kind of born sinful by nature and I think it does play a part, but I think it it wasn't made most clear to me until like Michael said when you read Scripture and you read what it says about the nature of man and then once you really understand that that man is sinful by nature that we aren't you know that that is not our choices that make us evil.

You know work were kind of born sinners.

Calvin said that our heart is a factory vitals were just by nature were just really good at creating idols out of everything and and doing what is pleasing to us versus God, and I think this is most evident.

You can look it. The world around us. We can see evidence of that, but I think my view of that was based in Scripture.

But as Michael said when you read that you understand Scripture you see it everywhere. I mean you look at all the other religions of the world.

All of them revolve around some concept of okay you are in the state to achieve some kind of higher state, you have to follow X, Y, and Z and if you follow this path or perform these rituals or do these good works, then you will achieve some higher state or some kind of higher steel existence. So when you look at Christianity. It's it it it's the exact opposite is not about what we do to achieve salvation. It's what God has done for us is condescension and giving his life and in the sun so so it really is has to be based in Scripture when we when we are on were coming when were trying to decide what is true what is false, but I think that the world around us does confirm what Scripture teaches them. I think there's there's there's attention that I can proceed with the Mormon theology on this point.

So not too long ago I made a post in one of our groups on Facebook where I was, pointing back to Mosiah 319, which are quoted earlier in the intro for the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put it off the natural man and become of the same to the atonement of Christ the Lord.

So I asked the question of a Latter Day Saints noble point I will point have you put off the natural man is just the passage seems to imply that the doctors this nature writers. This is natural man that that has a sin nature and and as a result, is the is an enemy to God, and the only thing the changes that is the atonement of Christ, but Mormonism has this doctrine of free will and so the question becomes how does how does a person accept the atonement of Christ and thereby move from the state of being a natural man and an enemy to God, into a state of the same right in this passage was I 319 says that know the person must yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and put off the natural man, which seems to imply that the requirement of having a freewheel free will to yield to the Holy Spirit, and yet there is the implication in the first line that that the natural man is an enemy to God, so that the passage to me seems contradictory and and and kind of reveals that tension within Mormonism where, lipservice lip service is given to this idea that we have a sin nature, but a war in heaven was fought over free will so that the human will is, all bound up and in this question. In this doctrine of original sin.

So the next question. I think we should attack London. This is one where we could see how well you did your homework. What is the Bible say about human will is a free stuff are talking or talking positive. Obviously, I think most the most reformed confessions of admit that Adam and Eve in the garden. They were they had no sin nature. They were, in a state of innocence in the sense that so you would agree in that sense with with Latter Day Saints where they were free to choose both good and evil. They were not compelled to one direction of the other. Now after the fall we see that there is no true freedom meet and I'm saying is I received from a more reformed perspective, but I'm not saying it is because you know I want to call myself reformed and I and I want to jump on the bandwagon, but one is really starting us out. It I think it's really clear in Scripture that we do not have a truly libertarian autonomous free will and some passages you can point to to demonstrate this are Romans eight so I'll read a little bit here from the English standard version says for those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit for to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace for the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law. Indeed, it cannot those who are in the flesh cannot please God. So it is says that those who are not in Christ have not been born again have not been changed by nature we are enemies to God and we we cannot even submit to God's law. We we don't even have truly the desire to to submit to God's law. So this is also confirmed in a ship of this authority that Ephesians 2, so Paul is speaking here on his convict continued from Ephesians 1 race is a speaking of all these blessings that the true believers have in Christ.

So Ephesians 2 verse one says and you were dead in trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. So I think these two passages are sufficient enough to show two things. One, that by nature. As a result of the fall we follow after the lust of the flesh revived evil and so that is just what we do, that's what we desire. We we we desire. After the sinful things and to that we we do not desire to follow God. We do not desire to submit to God and and we are not even capable of submitting to God.

Colossians 21 also says that it's split up China misquoted so Colossians 2 verse 13 and you, who were dead in your trespasses and the un-circumcision of the flesh, God made alive together with him for giving us, having forgiven us all our trespasses, so he says of the former state before salvation and of the state after salvation. The former state. They said they were dead in our trespasses and un-circumcision of your flesh so were spiritually dead where incapable of doing what's pleasing to God now dismisses this goes back this is this is all view this isn't something that just count. John Calvin came up with this is, this goes all the way back to Augustine and he was going against Pelagius. He he affirmed the doctrine of original sin and he affirmed the need of God's grace and salvation and that that we are completely in bondage to our sinful desires without God's grace. So when you when you see those two contrasted Augustine.

He said they were born in the sinful nature we cannot please God. We cannot come to him without grace and Pelagius who said they were born, basically with a with a neutral nature are not willing no where were capable of doing good and evil, you see that with those contrasting views really see that that was why they were so different and why the church opposed Pelagius. So I think I think personally think that the Scripture is clear that truly free will to do good or to please God is not possible.

Apart from God's grace in men really like that that is the statement that we are dead in our trespasses because you just did for my LDS perspective you think about legwork for the dead. Somebody has to go and do that work for the dead person because a dead person cannot go and get baptized or or really do anything you know and if you guys ever tried to teach in a dead corpse, like how to drive her you know how to work anything but it's impossible.

And even if you do 99% of the work they're never there and ready to pick it up so it just definitely shows that we couldn't do anything where we are completely helpless. We didn't have the free will to just be saying and this is the same thing in. In the book of John, Jesus says no man can can come to me except the Father that sent me should draw him so you know God's gonna God's gonna make that move. You know, we don't have that that ability when I do think there's some some some agency in our lives. Rising is just so minimal like I can decide what to have for breakfast. You know about one thing I've been thinking about little bit too is just all the prophecies you in the Old Testament talking about how Christ would be crucified and and what would happen if you know that the Jews at that time and just you know said you know what like this just use our agency and that's not that's not crucify him you know if those prophecies hadn't had happened. It would've made God a liar and yet you know those prophecies were made and… God.

Jesus knew exactly everything that was going to happen and we were powerless to stop any of his plans and the stew that I was listening to Rick and some leaves earlier this week and I was was doing.

I was listening to James White's the forgotten Trinity on audible and she was she was working through some some biblical passages and it just kinda struck me as I was listening. I thought you and you and you all know I I'm not. I've been working through the various Arminian versus reformed positions on on the question of free will for a while now, but it just kinda struck with the thought that you know, at least in my own life.

I before I really knew Jesus I didn't love God and I just had this thought struck me know know no one comes to no one loves God on their own and in Mormonism, presents this default position that we all will come with this blank slate and and and when we want to do good people are generally good and I know it's fixed it can be viewed as a as a fatalistic position to to to think that while people are people are wicked people are evil, right and you don't tend to in your interactions with with most people say man this person's evil right but it is the biblical position that no one comes to faith.

No one comes to the love of God on their own. God works first in their life and the thought struck me as I was raking leaves that that's that I that I think you and even LDS would assent to that position. If you presented to the to them this way and asked them how do you what what drew you to God, right, and if and if it's an LDS person who was had God work in their lives, because I believe there are LDS people who are who have been born again of how God work in the last if it's an LDS person who's had God work in their lives. They will say they will talk about how God worked in their lives and I just think that's interesting. Med lived experience. In my opinion, shows that not no one comes to God on their own, even though there are there are theologies like LDS theology that that kind of asserts that that that would happen, and they may countered by pointing to that passage, I can as I three and assess that we have to yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.

So I think they would probably say that God is calling all of us that he's draw. He's trying to clean out to eat.

He's trying to entice us trying to call us to him. You know, give everybody the opportunity to come to him and then it's up to us to kind of accept that call and end there are and are Christians a kind of have that perspective that it's like you know the that may accept the fact that there is original sin. And there were sinful but that God is is trying to entice everyone by different ways and that it's up to us to choose God, but I don't and I think it has to be much more than that because when we look at those passages it's not just a simple, you know, making a simple choice to go down the correct path. It's like we're just so corrupt by nature that even if we see the right path. We don't want it. That's not what we want. We love sin by nature.

We we just want to jump straight into sin even if we know it hurts us know it is like going through a thorough garden of roses is like we just love those roses so much and will get pricked and will bleed all over the place.

We just love it so much. We just can't get enough of it and it's not until God actually does something to us to changes so that the wheel actually want to come to God and and another problem to you is that there may be those who say they want God or they want peace, but as I said you know we were so good at coming up with their own understanding of who God is. We we, if were not changed by God himself will invent a God that we prefer will choose a God that that is more enticing to us. That is more palatable. So were always finding different ways to to kind of appease our guilt or to appease our consciences are to reach some some kind of status of peace, but until God actually works in our hearts, we won't actually be able to grasp onto that salvation. And that was that. That was the point that James White was talking about on the audible book. I was listening to was just that the humanities proneness to create a God of our own choosing right and that no one, no one comes to the true God. No one comes to the God revealed in the Bible on their own. They are drawn and no one comes to love that God is revealed in the Bible on their own. They are drawn into that love by God himself, and I thought… Just just struck me as important at that.

When I was listening to that female because it if you think about lived experience.

So many people may say you know all will I I'm good person and I will and I love people and I and I and I think there may be a God but not not that God that's in the Bible right and so the thought just struck me know what no one comes to that true faith on the realm and it is not just know is Michael reporting Upjohn six is not just that the Bible says that it's it's a lived experience of talking to people and interacting with people in their in their quest for faith that leads me to the point and in regards to Messiah three Magi was the exact point I was trying to tease out the question I posted in one of the boards is that no and at what point does a Latter Day Saints become not an enemy because unilaterally sin theology posits that someone can fall from salvation right that if they send, they can be held responsible for those sins. If they don't repent of those sentenced and so can fall from salvation amendment and so I was asking the question. You know I will point is are you no longer an enemy to God is the natural man is his prone to sin and you can fall from salvation by sinning a bump at what point in your life are you no longer an enemy to God, and no one know no one touched the question at all, but but I was the point of the past.

I was trying to turn it can tease out there. You know, I actually asked the question kind of like yours in one of these forms one time is trying to ask them if the church ever does. Three baptisms for the dead.

Like what you talking about only will they still have their agency right if they can choose to be baptized in the spirit world and certainly some of them choose to imposter size right and they didn't like that at all to decide what we you know we don't know about me this thing is like in LDS theology.

You never say until you've endured to the end and and if there still agency in the next life, then you still not reached the end. And so you're constantly in a state of peril and many can constantly fall in is not something they ever think about mutilation of the temple duties this work for the dad in existing okay that works been done like happy endings all around the site. While that person still has that agency so you don't know that but just a kind along with what you're saying into a just really like this verse and now first John chapter 4 verse 10, for it says here in his love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. And I love the first two I've got part two of my article on why I still love God and the dead covers my kind of first encounter with that passage. While I was on my mission so you can look forward to read Matt. I do but but she's kind interesting here because I think Mormon theology kinda says that you know when we love God. He reciprocates that love to us but but Christianity is none of us love God and he gives us undeserved love and grace. And that's what opens the door for us to love him back. Thank you for doing into this of the outer brightness podcast love to hear from please visit the out of rightness podcast Facebook. Feel free to send us a message than with comments or questions, send a message of appreciated page align. We also have an out of rightness and others as the pursuit can also send this out of rightness to the outer brightness podcast on Comcast's cast box cast the modify and stitch. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel.

If you like it certainly is likely surveyed also connect with Michael just lined up blogs and sometimes Poland as well. Music for the outer brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road.

Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry page. It Adams Road Stay bright fireflies to show the kind of man is a man in he may say that in

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime