dberrie2001

Hi Traveler: My beliefs don't have anything to do with the fact the LDS church teaches those who don't enter into exaltation are in a state of damnation. How are you relating the two? As to your question--I'm happy to let the Lord be the final judge me, and have perfect faith the outcome of that will be fair and just.

I'm not sure I would classify official church websites as a place that offers personal interpretations.

Well, yes. Anything less than exaltation is damnation. Damnation--https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/damnation?lang=eng The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

The LDS preach a gospel that all those who do not enter into eternal life(exaltation) will be eternally damned.

Yes, agreed--if the Biblical testimony is true--which I believe it is. But it's always strange to me some believe in being saved independent of works--and then use works as a standard--after the fact of salvation--as a measure of whether one is saved or not. If works had nothing to do with being saved--how can it be a measure to determine whether one is saved or not?

That is just the most incredible postulation--and one the Biblical record won't bear testimony to, IMO: Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV) 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Where do we find the disobedient being saved in the Biblical text? 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9---King James Version (KJV) 7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

I agree with your assessment--my point being--the faith alone(sola fide) theology is a salvation through a faith without works--regardless of what the variations within membership opinion might be: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement. The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works".

The LDS believe one can be in a saved condition here on this earth, through repentance and water baptism. The final decision of whether one will enter into life--according to the testimony of the Savior--will depend on the final judgment: John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. That's a judgment according to works--after death--and that for life or damnation. Matthew 10:22---King James Version (KJV)22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. How do you collate that with a theology that preaches a salvation through a faith without works?

Good Morning, Prisonchaplain: While I would agree with most of your post--James' conclusion was more basic than many will believe--that is--that faith without works is dead faith: James 2:20-26---King James Version (KJV)20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. That is the very faith(dead faith) the faith alone claim one is saved through--a faith without works.

I'm not sure why anyone would believe we should berate people, for whatever stance they take--even if they choose disbelief. My point centers on the faith alone theology, as a salvation through a faith without works. IOW--the faith alone claim salvation comes to mankind independent of works. You then make this statement: prisonchaplain, on 23 Nov 2015 - 7:07 PM, said:So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead. My question--is someone saved through a dead faith? Or, are works necessary for salvation(eternal life) to occur? If so--what works?

I've read some of your posts--and I believe there is a lot of truth in what you say. I enjoy reading your comments. The one thing that confuses me is your statement--"So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead." That just does not make any sense, for faith alone theology. Works has nothing to do with salvation, in the faith alone theology. One of the faith alone theology cannot redact, following salvation--and use works as a standard of salvation---for the simple reason--if works had nothing to do with obtaining salvation--then it can't be used as a measuring stick for the presence of it, following salvation, IMO. Revelation 22:14---King James Version (KJV)14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Hi Prisonchaplin: The LDS believe this is the command for all, in the forgiveness of sins: Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV) 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. And was the very beginning and doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: Mark 1:1-5---King James Version (KJV) 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 2 John 9---King James Version (KJV) 9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. The faith alone usually deny Acts2:38, as salvational--because it involves a "work"--and faith alone theology is ---salvation through a faith without works. The LDS pattern their theology, concerning the remission of sins--after the Biblical doctrine.

Hi Lehi-- That still leaves the Articles of Faith a creed--with a distinction. Lehi--my argument is not that the Articles of Faith are looked at differently from the creeds of man. They are. But that does not mean the Articles of Faith cannot qualify under the term "creed". They can. The difference I see in the creeds of the various faiths--and the creed found in the Articles of Faith--is that one has man-made doctrines within(maybe along with some truth)--the other(Articles of Faith)--I believe reflects eternal truths.

And, to be fair--the adherence to the "others", while ignoring the specific definitions. I believe both sides of that line has legitimacy. But not to the point of the broad brush claim the Articles of faith are not a creed.

As to the "full definition of creed--It was just part of the copy and paste job. I don't believe it means a coverage of all the various definitions of creed. Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle I don't find anything in your alternative offer that excludes the Articles of Faith from being a creed. In a definition--if one can fit the Articles of Faith into any of the components of the definition of "creed"--then it can qualify under the defined term.(in your submission--the Articles of Faith can qualify under the term "creed") Lehi--where do you find me as labeling your submission as "substandard"? Could you give us a cite on that one?

I wouldn't consider the standard dictionary definition of the term "creed" particularly articulated for the educated. Full Definition of CREED 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

That was my point. The "priesthood of all believers" is usually derived from the verses found in 1Peter2:5,9, or possibly Revelation1:6. 1Peter2 :5,9 is looked at as a quote from Exodus19:5-6. My point? Since there was no preisthood found in the OT which included all believers--then the very priesthood Peter was referring to in 1Peter2:5,9--which was a quote from Exodus19:5-6--could not have been a preisthood of all believers either.

For some reason--you ignore the standard definition--and seek for some evidence to purport your view. Full Definition of CREED 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle That's fine--but the fact is--the Articles of Faith fit the standard definition of the term "creed" very well. I'm not sure why some LDS fight against that obvious fact.

For me--canonization only indicates the level of importance we place on that creed, not whether it can qualify as a creed. A creed is usually considered a brief and condensed profession of belief: Full Definition of CREED1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle The Book of Mormon, or the Bible, would possibly be too protracted to fit that definition. The Articles of faith fit that definition perfectly, IMO.

A couple of points here: 1) There was an apostasy--and that is evidenced in the creation of new denominations with a different theology, resulting from the Reformation. Resorting to the claims of--"He never declared a complete apostasy."--cannot solve the problem for the faith alone. There remains the evidence of apostasy--regardless of what one believes the percentages are. Could you explain to us what the difference is in a restoration for a 50% apostasy--and a 90% apostasy? 2) Peter's reference to the priesthood, found in 1Peter 2.., was thought to be a quote from Exodus19: 1 Peter 2:9---King James Version (KJV)9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Exodus 19:5-6---King James Version (KJV)5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Where do we find a priesthood of all believers in the OT?

Well--one thing for sure--nobody can argue it's obvious to you. Maybe others also.

Helloooo Lehi-- It could be approached in that manner--but whether one punches in "creed" with small case--or caps--the definition comes out the same. The fact that the LDS have canonized the Articles of Faith somewhat complicates the problem further, when taking your approach. It would be difficult to divide the importance the faith alone place on their creeds--and ours, as the Articles of Faith, at that injunction, is not only a creed--it is a canonized creed. For me--that is a capital Creed. That fact renders it more than just a generic creed--IMO.

Hi Vort--no offense intended. I just like an exchange of ideas, and try and stay focused. Please don't interpret my focus on a particular point as a failure to understand all points included in the post. I just did not address them, but instead--remained with the same subject in view, IE--the the Articles of Faith are not creedal--or that one needs to repent if they believe the Articles of Faith are creedal.(surmised) Your explanations of why you believe the Articles of Faith is a different animal, as to the creedal reference-- was not touched. That does not mean it was not important to you, or that what you stated in those explanations are not true. It just was not my primary concern. Rather, I was amazed that someone would argue that the Articles of Faith are not creedal in nature. They are. The Articles of Faith are creedal--by definition. They fit perfectly with that definition. The reason I jumped on that-- I just finished on a site where an LDS tried to argue the point against creeds--the faith alone poster cited the Articles of Faith--and cited the definition of "creed". It fit. And if the shoe fits--then wear it, is the old adage. The LDS poster had nowhere to go. They backed up--and tried to restart, but the attempt fell short, at that point. There was a certain loss of credibility. An attempt to explain how we interpret the "creeds" differently would have worked fine. But an attack on creeds--when the LDS have what can be defined as a "creed"--is less than a viable approach, IMO. I have enjoyed your intelligent posts--but don't be too hard on me--I would like to believe we play on the same team--even if we don't swing at the ball in the same way. I would like to challenge the LDS in some of their posts--not to start an argument--but to gain an understanding that this is the internet age--and our statements need to be pure and precise. Cyberspace don't forget.

Why does it have to be termed a "battle"? Why not an exchange of ideas? Something to ponder? A difference of views? Battles aren't much fun. An exchange of ideas can be--even if one disagrees with the poster.