Markk wrote: That said I assure you that like most LDS, most Christians are a nice bunch of folks also. I certainly agree with you that we can be friends, but equally believe we believe in and worship another Jesus and another gospel. We can certainly be friends, good friends, and not enemies...be we can certainly disagree and debate our differences, while having respect for each other as individuals and not putting a blanket of hate on others.
I'm going to have to agree that the concept and relationship of the Mormon Jesus to the Mormons is very different than that of the Christian Jesus and Christians in general. There are clear differences in every way. Mormons are ordered to report to their Jesus and submit to the church authority and Christians are just drawn to their Jesus and utilize church according to their own desires.
The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the traditional Jesus had by Christians in general.
Servant wrote:Did Jesus rise from the dead? Come on, it's been over 2,000 years since the Lord was crucified. If His body was in a grave or hidden, it would have been found by now folks. Jesus did rise, and that's something every atheistic ex-Mormon here needs to know:
If Jesus conquered death, then you unbelievers need to study what He taught, and come to Him. Joseph Smith has a grave in Nauvoo, Ill. I've seen it twice. He never came out, folks. He never conquered death, regardless of all the monstrous worship the Mormons give to him (making his blood equal to Christ's). Who will you believe? Jesus or Joseph? They are mutally exclusive.
Hi Servant,
The first link you provided focuses on debunking arguments against there having been a resurrection. Let's couple that with your own commentary that if Jesus hadn't risen from the grave we'd have found his body by now which is quite a remarkable bit of evidence in itself. "Evidence for what?" being another question.
The link takes on three different arguments against there having been a resurrection: That Jesus was actually just out cold but recovered in the tomb; that the resurrection is the result of a hallucination; and that the apostles lied about it. The first two presuppose there were witnesses of good faith who saw what appeared to be a deceased Jesus but then had to reconcile his being up and about later on. Whatever one wants to say about those arguments, they still condense down to someone, somewhere who knew the truth and was hiding it.
In other words, there's little value in treating each separately as the first two are contingent on the third condition. And the refutation of that argument came down to: It's difficult to maintain a con in the face of opposition and threats or acts of violence so why would the early Christians have endured torture and death if they knew the story was a lie?
Now, as someone who has taken up the cause of refuting Mormonism, I have to ask how you go about arguing against the same apologetic when Mormons use it to claim the Book of Mormon must be true? And the miracles and visions must have been real because otherwise the witnesses and early members wouldn't have stayed nor would Joseph Smith have faced a lynch mob but instead have ran off to the Rocky Mountains? Now, I'm not saying I think there is a good argument FOR Mormonism in that claim, but I am curious why you would dismiss it in the case of Mormonism a little less than 200 years ago but accept it in the case of an event around 2,000 years in the past?
Put simply, why is this an acceptable apologetic FOR the resurrection, but a bad apologetic FOR the Book of Mormon and the Mormon faith?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
candygal wrote:Savant, whatever you believe in...whatever your Lord and Christ is to you, it certainly hasn't brought you any peace.
I hope find it.
And you have peace candygal? You're over here trying to defend Mormons and what they do? That's not peace, that's something else. Peace is in Jesus Christ, not in our own persons. Mormons have another "Jesus" and that "Jesus" gives no peace at all, only mindless submission as people are boiled slowly in the cauldron of heresy, like the frog who could have easily jumped out of the pot, but did not - and ended up as dinner. Save it for somebody else, I've had lots of Mormons say the same when I've posted about Smith or Young, or the cult. It's one of their favorite tools - "you attack Mormonism so you can't possibly have peace." They say the same type of thing to Mormons who leave and then work against the cult - "you can't leave the Church alone." Tell you what, candy, I am commanded to do what I do by Jude. God and read his epistle.
I resigned in 2008..no longer a Mormon but it will always be a small part of who I am. Did I have trouble with Mormonism??? I did. But there is no hate to a chlld that was my great great grandmother coming across the plains. Peace. I have found it in acceptance of who I am ..who I can become and loving patience for those who may disagree with me.
Now, the second link shares arguments FOR the resurrection. Primarily, it begins with the argument, "If we begin with the evidence available to us and then infer what would, if true, provide the best explanation for the evidence." Let's run with that rather than debate it's accuracy for the sake of discussion.
The argument includes three facts that it places central to the apologetic:
1 - The tomb was discovered empty by some of Jesus' followers. 2 - History proves that a group of people sincerely believed they interacted with a resurrected Jesus. 3 - As a result of the teaching of these people, eventually a world-wide church or churches arose to share this story with the world.
Now, according to our methodology we've accepted, we should begin with the evidence available to us. I agree, but would add we ought to put ALL the evidence on the table and not just what appeals to us. And, without leaving the New Testament, I think the evidence available to us calls 1 and 2 into question as to it being an actual fact or just a story. And 3 is not evidence for the resurrection but rather evidence for the appeal of the romanticized Jesus-myth as created and spread by Paul.
To start with, here is an argument I've made on the board before that shows the Gospels shouldn't be taken as historically accurate documents. Rather they appear to be records of varied, and contradictory, tellings around Jesus. So here's evidence that is available that needs to be taken into account before we can infer what actually happened:
Many modern scholars agree those who built a church up around Jesus after his death believed he was the Jewish Messiah. This would mean they believed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah which were popular in Roman Palestine at the time. Examples included being a descendant of King David, being born in Bethlehem, and that he would come to the people riding a donkey or ass. And, he'll be raised from the dead.
To make a case for why the New Testament is a poor witness for Jesus' resurrection, let's first look at how the New Testament describes another event in Jesus' life that would require fulfilling Messianic prophecy - his birth.
Mark, the earliest and probably closest Gospel is silent. Why? We don't know. Some scholars have suggested that Mark does not describe a Jesus who sees himself as the Messiah, but rather one who is declaring the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel who would bring a literal Kingdom of God to the earth. Maybe that's true, maybe not. Either way, Mark does not try to show us parallels between Messianic prophecy and the life of Jesus.
John, the last of the gospels to be composed, is also silent on the physical birth of Jesus. Instead, we are given the poetic description of the Logos. I think it's likely that the author of John was not concerned with proving Jesus was the Jewish messiah (as the Gospel of John is also anti-Semitic in general), but instead focuses on showing the reader that Jesus is much more than that - Jesus is the Word of God and with God from the beginning. The John birth narrative isn't missing, in my opinion as is often stated. Instead, it tells the reader the question of what happened at Jesus' birth is the wrong question.
We are left with the two other synoptic gospels to find out about the birth story of Jesus. And they don't match up on almost every point. Why is that? Since they both used Mark and at least one other common source, this also suggests the earliest sources about Christ's life in circulation did not include a birth narrative. The scholarly suggestion is that there wasn't a codified version of the Nativity at the time of their writing. But the Messiah has to fulfill certain prophecies at his birth. What to do? Most likely, both authors took from legends being shared and fit them together as best they could. They may also have invented pieces of the story from whole cloth.
In Matthew, we see constant reference to prophecy being fulfilled. Jesus is born in Bethlehem. Matthew or his sources (from now on I'll just reference Matthew and Luke as short hand for the potential other source) tell a story about Herod killing all of the male children in Bethlehem age 2 or younger, has wise men from the east visit the infant, sends Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod's men, and of course tells us Mary was a virgin. And there is the genealogy that shows Jesus was a descendant of King David. All of the above are specifically included because there is a scripture somewhere that needed to be addressed associated with beliefs about the Messiah.
Yet none of this matches Luke’s telling other than the general idea that Mary was a virgin.
Luke invents the story of a census to get Jesus to Bethlehem, has shepherds visit Jesus, and tells us Jesus and John the Baptist are related. And there is a virgin birth narrative and a genealogy.
The core stories don't match where there is no original source material to provide background consistency.
The parsimonious answer for why, rather than the apologetic one, is simply that the authors invented a backstory for Jesus that met the requirements that showed Jesus was the Messiah. Because they did not/could not collaborate and there wasn't a common source available at the time, the stories differ.
This gives us a couple of general rules of thumb when examining the gospel authors and the Resurrection account.
First, it gives us a hint that if there is a commonly understood event in Jesus’ life and it has been recorded in one of the source gospels, it is likely to show up as common to Matthew and Luke. But absent such an account, they will fill in the gaps with an eye to ensuring the narrative fulfills Messianic prophecy.
Since the Messiah has to be raised from the dead, and Jesus was the Messiah, it is only natural that both accounts tell us this is so. Both Matthew and Luke had Mark as a source, so we should expect to see Mark’s narrative in the account of the passion leading to the resurrection.
We have Mark’s account in chapters 14-16. They tell us that the priests schemed to have Jesus arrested in Jerusalem but feared a riot by the people, there was a last supper of sorts, Jesus took his disciples and prayed before being betrayed by Judas, that before the Priests they ultimately convict him based on His claiming to be the Messiah, take him to Pilate and claim he called himself the King of the Jews which he does not deny. Pilate releases Barnabas when the Jews cry for Jesus to be crucified, and he is handed over to the Roman soldiers for execution. He is mocked as a would-be king, beaten, crucified, and dies at noon on the day before the Sabbath. His body is given to Joseph of Arimathia who places him in his tomb and has a stone rolled in front of it. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph see where he is buried. They wait until after the Sabbath (a night, a day, and a night) and go that next morning described as the first day of the week to wash the body. They wonder who will roll the stone away but find it is already moved. Instead they find a young man in a white robe who tells them that Jesus is not there but has risen. He charges them to go tell Peter and the disciples that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee and will meet them there. But they don’t go to Peter and tell him as charged. Instead, they are afraid and run away. And Mark ends his story here as evidenced by early manuscript copies and the later inclusion of what is known as the Marcan Appendix. The last verse of Mark before the Marcan Appendix, 16:8, ends with the women who are told of Christ's resurrection leaving and not telling anyone. Why? I don't think anyone can say with certainty. What we do know is that the v. 8 ending is the oldest existent forms of Mark that we have. Not that there was variety in these oldest texts but that they end at v. 8 and others speaking of the Gospel affirm this was the case in the manuscript copies available. Early variants that then follow v. 8 seem to lack cohesive language to suggest the replacement of lost language. Rather, they seem to be there to fill in a gap based on various author's understanding of what followed. It could be that there were oral traditions being passed around and the written variants reflect this. But we don't know.
How the authors of Matthew and Luke deal with this further supports that the text they had ended at what we know as v. 8. So what do Matthew and Luke do with this story when they again lack guiding information in their sources?
Luke, at the end of chapter 23, tells us about the women seeing the body laid to rest and going on the day after the Sabbath to find the stone rolled away. But instead of a young man in a white robe, they are met by two men in heavenly glowing robes who tell them Christ is risen and to go to the apostles. They remember that Jesus said he would rise and do as they were told. Luke tells us of Peter visiting the tomb and wondering. He tells us of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. He tells us of a direct appearance to the 11 who were still in Jerusalem. He tells them all this was in the fulfillment of scripture and Christ ascends into heaven. The 11 rejoice and remain in Jerusalem going often to the temple until Acts tells us about the Day of Pentecost.
Matthew inserts a little piece between the women seeing the stone placed before the tomb and finding it moved away the day after the Sabbath. He has the priest going to Pilate on the Sabbath (but saying the day after preparation day instead of the Sabbath. Kind of like saying the day after Christmas Eve) and claiming that they heard that Jesus proclaim he would rise on the third day after his death. Matthew tells us they feared a deception and ask for a guard and for the tomb to be sealed. Pilate grants this. So when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway, they are told to tell everyone that Jesus’ disciples stole the body and spread the lie about being resurrected on the 3rd day. Matthew tells us this lie is prevalent among the Jews even in his day. Matthew tells us the women go to the disciples being afraid (as Mark told us) BUT ALSO FULL OF JOY so they are doing as told. Then Jesus appears to them on the way to the disciples and tells them to have the disciples meet him in Galilee. They do so, and the 11 go to Galilee to meet Jesus who tells them they are to be filled with power and go to all nations. The end.
John has his own version of events and, as we’ve noticed with the birth narrative, he isn’t too concerned with what Mark or anyone else that we know of had to say. John includes many different stories of what happened during the passion, has Jesus executed on a different day to make sure it is clear he is the Lamb of God being sacrificed as the other lambs on the day before Passover. We have an entirely different account of who came to the tomb, who saw what, what was said, who saw Jesus where and when, and ultimately an extra chapter that the original author may not have written as the final word.
Like with the birth narrative, when Matthew and Luke are without a common source, their stories diverge wildly. One has the disciples remaining in Jerusalem, while the other has them go to Galilee. One has Jesus appear to many people, the other has Jesus appear to a few. Neither account matches up once we lose Mark as the common touchstone.
What we know: Mark was the first of the Gospels to be written and the other Gospel writers used Mark while not being eyewitnesses to any of the events described. This includes the resurrection of Christ. The closest we come, as modern readers, to the resurrection is in the word of Paul in 1 Cor. 15 who shares what he was taught from James and Peter. It's here he tells the reader that to have hope in Christ in this life only would be miserable. Thus, Christ had to have been raised from the dead.
And, in the 2nd chapter of Acts, Peter is reported to share this with the people in the temple as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, placing emphasis on the fact he was raised from the dead to make this case:
14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. ...
22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25 David said about him:
“‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope,
27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]
29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’[f] 36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
Servant, the point here is that the evidence ought to be considered in full rather than just that which supports your view. If the scriptures call into question their own reliability for telling us what actually happened when it came to the claims Jesus was resurrected, are we then left with more to be skeptical of than sure of in that regard? It seems that way to me.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
As to point 3, one should keep in mind that what we view as Christianity today with it's many sects and variety of beliefs isn't a new manifestation but seems to have been a marker from very early on. Many different belief systems propagated around the Jesus-story in the Roman Mediterranean, Africa and Arabian Peninsula. Some seemed more Jewish, some took on mystic beliefs, and at least one founded by Paul has the distinction of incorporating Roman-friendly Hellenization that removed the law and replaces it with grace.
But another early divisions between the Jesus-believers was a group we know as the Ebionites. They viewed Jesus to be the Messiah, but born of Joseph and Mary, and they followed James the brother of Jesus/James the Just (who some scholars believe to be the same person) as the rightful leader of the believers following Jesus' death. They viewed Paul as a heretic who corrupted the right path. Theirs was a "Works Righteousness" view of the so-called gospel. That is, the law was not fulfilled in Christ but exemplified by Christ through the living of it, zealously. Their version of the Jesus-Church is one where the followers of Jesus were "zealous for the law" and anti-Roman rather than anti-Jewish establishment. In as much as Jesus had problems with the Jewish hierarchy it was with the Herodians/Sadducees and those "foriegners" who had corrupted the true people of God.
Now, what is it that makes us assume that just because Paul's Roman-friendly version survived and became the main form of Christianity means it's the right one as point 3 in your link claims? Why is the eradication of the Ebionites proof that they didn't more accurately reflect the beliefs of the historical Jesus? Because if they were right God would have prospered them? That assumes there is a God and not that the spread of culture is subject to the same forces we see around us today. Things that people find appealing prosper and get added to, changed, evolve. Things people don't find appealing tend to not. It's not evidence of their truth value so much as their cultural appeal. And in the case of Christianity, the culturally appealing version originates with Paul.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
...when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway,....
Man, if members of the CofJCofLDS are anything like what Servant is describing I'm super embarrassed. I guess I've been in Utah too long. We're actually a pretty nice bunch here. Not perfect. But trying to be good Christians.
When I travel outside of Utah members seem to be nice too. Yes, they do missionary work but I really don't think I can get on board with the accusation that they are being idiots about it. That's not the way to bring people to Christ...and members aren't so dumb that they don't realize that.
I do believe that we ought not to fight against our Christian brothers and sisters. If that has been your experience with members of the church, Servant, I feel bad that this is so. Folks like us who consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet also worship Jesus as Lord and Savior...just like you do. We ought to be friends, not enemies.
Regards, MG
Let me just say there are...go to MAD and try to post as a critic of the church. In years past when I posted there as a evangelical, I was called every name in the book, even by some here that have since left the church.
That said I assure you that like most LDS, most Christians are a nice bunch of folks also. I certainly agree with you that we can be friends, but equally believe we believe in and worship another Jesus and another gospel. We can certainly be friends, good friends, and not enemies...be we can certainly disagree and debate our differences, while having respect for each other as individuals and not putting a blanket of hate on others.
I don't disagree with you Markk that we do have different views in regards to Jesus Christ.
To be fair, however, I think that it's important to know that Pres. Hinckley and members of the CofJCofLDS have a deep and abiding faith in the Savior of the World.
Pres. Hinckley: Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.
I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity.
No wonder that when Joseph in 1842 wrote the Articles of Faith he stated as number one, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith 1:1). http://www.moroni10.com/General_Confere ... _Talk.html
This quote was taken from President Hinckley's final conference address.
We can have differences in the way we worship and understand Jesus of Nazereth and still respect our brothers and sisters of other faiths. I suppose that's why I jumped in on this thread. I felt that Servant was being a bit unfair and harsh.
Markk wrote: That said I assure you that like most LDS, most Christians are a nice bunch of folks also. I certainly agree with you that we can be friends, but equally believe we believe in and worship another Jesus and another gospel. We can certainly be friends, good friends, and not enemies...be we can certainly disagree and debate our differences, while having respect for each other as individuals and not putting a blanket of hate on others.
I'm going to have to agree that the concept and relationship of the Mormon Jesus to the Mormons is very different than that of the Christian Jesus and Christians in general. There are clear differences in every way. Mormons are ordered to report to their Jesus and submit to the church authority and Christians are just drawn to their Jesus and utilize church according to their own desires.
The Mormon Jesus is not the same as the traditional Jesus had by Christians in general.
I think you know what I mean, Markk.
As you both know, I'm not a believing Mormon nor do I believe in the Christ's divinity though I once was very much a believer in both and deeply so. But I have to take some issue with the way people present the Mormon view of the atonement in contrast with the one of Christianity based on my own experience and reading of scripture "back in the day".
As I believed in it, what Mormonism restored was the understanding that the atonement worked to allow us as God's children to learn from our mistakes rather than be 1) eternally punished for them, and 2) not be excused from them so we had no reason to learn from them. This supposed idea that Mormons believe we save ourselves through works is a false dichotomy needed to contrast it with Christian argument intended to make grace-only salvation seem necessary rather than what I still to this day view it as - leading to a lack of taking personal responsibility for one's own actions that is necessary to encourage a person to become a better person. I know way too many Christians of poor character who go to church regularly and make their belief in Christ the defining characteristic of their salvation despite their poor character to have a positive view of grace-based Christianity. Whatever moves a person to become a better person is alright in my book, and both Mormons and Christians can be prone to focusing on aspects of their belief system that doesn't move them in that direction. But it isn't inherent in Mormonism that grace is irrelevant and we are saved by works.
To the Mormon, each sin, each act of transgression of the law is contributing to the pain and suffering Jesus took on. And when one comes to recognize the enormity of love that is behind the idea that Jesus made it possible for us to not be damned for our sins but instead learn to rise above them and be able to be resurrected into a perfect form of our hope in Christ through living his example, it creates a bond of affection and deterrent from further behaving in ways that contribute to that suffering I think can't be rivaled by someone who believes they are saved and then goes around showing just how un-Christlike their heart appears to be.
Now, that's my own belief that I came to as a young missionary through my own experiences and what served as the basis for my faith in Christ through the teaching of the LDS church. And over time, evidence has shown both of those and many other things to have been ill-informed. But if you are going to complain about Mormonism as a belief system, please do so from the perspective of taking it seriously as from the view of a believer. It's not what it claimed to be, and that's what it is. But it isn't what you're making it out to be, either.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
...when the women go and find the tomb open Matthew has a little story about an earthquake and angels that scare the guards so they leave and we learn they are paid off to tell no one what they saw. Instead, they are to tell everyone they found the small plates of Nephi because God knew the 116 would be stolen…wait, wrong story. They seem similar to me so I mix those up sometimes… ;) Anyway,....
Thanks! I'm glad that made someone else smile, too.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Kishkumen wrote: People saw him, eh? The Bible says so. There’s your evidence.
Don’t get me wrong. It is evidence. The question is one of the strength of the evidence and whether it is convincing.
You confirm my belief that Mormons are atheists at heart and simply worship themselves - they are, after all, little bitty gods in embryo, right? I don't really care whether or not you personally believe in the Resurrection, or in Baal, or in Satan. Your choice, your UNfree agency! Unless the Holy Spirit regenerates you, you cannot believe. Your will, and the will of most Mormons or ex-Mos here is in bondage to Satan - men really are fallen, and this site proves that very conclusively. What did Jesus teach, not that most here really care:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." - John 6:44
Seeing the mockery here, the idolatry, the addiction to Mormonism, pretty much proves that Jesus spoke the truth when He said:
""No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." - John 6:44"
So, here's a little article from a Calvinist perspective, something Joey Smith would have hated:
