dberrie2001

The Articles of Faith, by formal definition--are a creed. Or--do you feel the Articles of Faith don't fit this definition? Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle Vort--I'm LDS, and believe the Articles of Faith are a creed. I know they are--I have the formal definiton before me. Why should I repent? How does that change anything? How does that alter the truths found in the Articles of Faith? What doctrine do you have that states if we believe the Articles of Faith fits the definitional parameters of a creed--then we should repent?

That's a good point--although I would say priesthood power. The Catholics still claim a priesthood. Lehi--one of my purposes and intentions on this forum might be to show how the points postulated here might look to those outside of the church--not to argue doctrine. I have witnessed many LDS struggle with their conceptions of the LDS POV, in attempting to explain their doctrines. We use too much language that can be ripped apart, quickly, by those who question our doctrines. And rightfully so, in many instances. It's usually only good when we are addressing other LDS, for the main, because we usually know where we are coming from. Just a thought.

IMO--once one makes this statement--there isn't any other alternative but to get smacked: The retort is a definition of a creed--which fits the Articles of Faith well.

The Articles of faith are a creedal statement--as to definition. The Articles of Faith fit the definition of "creed" very well. Almost perfectly: Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster 1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle The Articles of faith are also what we believe to be a Christian statement. So--what is there about the Articles of faith you would not consider to be "creedal Christianity"? One might have personal definitions or ideas that fit outside of that phrase--but it fits the accepted definition set by those who define terms in our society. We might explain why we as individuals look at creeds differently--but not that the LDS do not have creeds--or that they are not Christian statements, IMO.

Hi Lehi-- No, I don't feel there is but one way to understand creeds. But I do believe we can't exclude ourselves from having creedal statements, unless we make up specialized definitions. The fact is--the Articles of Faith fits the definition of a creed. That can't be compromised. I make this point because I have seen some LDS try this approach(the low road opinion of creeds)--and then get smacked when the Articles of Faith are presented on the opposite side of the argument--with the definition of "creed"--which fits the Articles of Faith well. I think caution is needed on how we approach that point.

I like your post. I find this is where the battleground has evolved--a "complete apostasy". IMO--it really does not matter if it was a 50% apostasy, a 75% apostasy--or a 100% apostasy. That will always be a parameter we can't agree on. There is no real answer there. No definitive proof we can submit, as to the exact percentages of apostasy. It then devolves into definitional statements, personal beliefs, etc.--and it goes south from there. I feel when we relegate the argument to percentages of apostasy--then we move the goalpost to another argument--and leave the real argument in limbo--an apostasy occurred. There was an apostasy. A Restoration was needed. The Reformation, and what followed--was a restoration, even if one believes it was not a restoration of truth. There was nothing reformed--new denominations were formed--with a claimed theology that was different. For me--the real argument is--who was authorized to restore what was lost?(the Catholics might say--nothing)

The term "creed" did make it to the dictionary. The Articles of faith have a defining characteristic on salvational principles and ordinances: 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is a salvational creedal statement--and a canonized one, at that. My point is that the LDS church can't go after creeds, as being deviant from God's norm--they have creedal statements that are canonized. That dog just ain't gonna hunt. One can make up special definitions for terms--but that is more akin to boundary maintenance, IMO, and seems to be a tool used by the faith alone in attacking LDS doctrines. The fact is--the LDS church has creedal statements that are canonized. I find the only conclusion I can make about creeds--if they are man-made creeds, with man-made doctines--then they are false. But to attack the notion of creeds is a double edge sword which cuts both ways.

I addressed your statement here: Again--the Articles of Faith are a creedal statement, if we believe the definition of "creed": Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle To be sure--the Articles of Faith fit that definition quite well. Some of the creedal statements found in the Articles of Faith are salvational statements--such as the fourth article of faith: 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Articles of Faith are canonized, in the LDS church. A creedal statement--canonized.

The Articles of Faith meet the definitional parameters of the term "creed"--IE-- Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle I don't find anything in our scriptures that prohibit creeds--just not creeds that reflect man-made theology.

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I believe salvation comes through God's grace, not anything independent of that. The only question I ask--who does God give His grace unto life to? 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; IMO--one cannot make the plea of faith without works for life through the idea that God died for them--Jesus Christ died for all of mankind--and all of mankind do not receive of eternal life. The Atonement did not forgive anyone's sins--nor give one person eternal life--as a personal reception. If you believe it did--could you explain why all were commanded to repent and be baptized, for the remsiion of sins--following the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ? The Atonement did offer the OPPORTUNITY for all men to inherit eternal life, as a free gift to all men: Romans 5:18--King James Version (KJV) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. "Came upon"--past tense. If you agree that faith alone would be dead without works--then why do those of the faith alone theology preach a theology of salvation through a faith without works?(sola fide) 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".

Hi Lehi-- Indeed, an interesting scripture. There seems to be a debate centering on being saved by grace. The faith alone make the argument that if we are saved by grace--then it can't be merited on anything. For me--once we agree man is saved by God's grace(which we are)--then there is but one question left to ask. That question is--who does God extend this salvational grace to? If the scriptures are correct--it's to them that obey Him: 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;

I suppose your reference to "the Creeds" is a specific reference to certain creeds--as the LFS are a people of creedal beliefs also--the articles of faith being one of those creeds. I agree with your post, in the main. The one point of duplicity, for me--is that the faith alone theology does not comport with Biblical NT Christianity. They run on two different tracks. There is also a notorious contradiction to the faith alone theology found in one of their accepted Creeds: Athanasian Creed ..."At his coming all people will arise bodily and give an accounting of their own deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life, and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully." Anathema to faith alone theology.

Thanks for that clarification. I have seen LDS differentiate between Christianity and LDS theology on a number of boards--and, for me--- it always brings to bear the question of what exactly that might mean--or how the LDS are defining the term "Christianity".

That has always been a strange statement, IMO. Are you saying the LDS aren't Christians--or that you have a different definition of "Christians" than what is portrayed in the Biblical NT?

Yes--I have respect for your replies--they are very good and courteous. I remain adamant about NT theology not agreeing with faith alone theology---running transverse to that theology, in obvious ways. Again--what is found in the Biblical NT--is also found in the LDS church, concerning core salvational doctrines. That there are doctrines found in the LDS church which is not revealed in the Biblical NT, could be evidence of continuing revelation--which is a cornerstone of the Biblical text itself. AS to whether the NT addresses the good works issue--I marvel that one does not consider the testimony of the Savior--who testifies all men will be judged according to their own works--after death--and that for life or damnation: 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.

Agreed--and a rather strange summation, seeing the scriptures connect repentance and water baptism with the beginning of the gospel--and with the remission of sins: 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.

I have often wondered, when someone makes this statement--are they referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical NT--or the "christianity" the Reformation brought? Chaplin--there is very little common ground between "faith alone" theology--and the Biblical NT. The faith alone theology is "another gospel", when comparing it to the Biblical NT: James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. What is found in the Bible--is also found in the LDS church, especially pertaining to core salvational doctrines.

Hi Lehi-- I don't believe the faith alone(sola fide) reject water baptism--they, for the main part, just do not connect it to any salvational grace. Works and salvational grace are not connected in the faith alone theology--but it is in the Biblical NT.

Hi Prisonchaplin: A very good --and fair --post. For me--the problem with that is the NT writers never included God the Son into the "one God" of the Biblical NT, IE-- 1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version (KJV)5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. That kind of language would probably have been considered blasphemy to those of the Deutero-Isaiah era. Considering the definition of "polytheism" is the belief of more than one god--was Paul polytheistic? 2 Corinthians 4:4--King James Version (KJV)4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Here is my observation: It's confusing when you place the comments in quotation marks in your above post. That makes it appear as though President Uchtdorf might have made those comments, even though you do claim them as your summarization. I had to go back and reread the talk--and the reference you gave to sort things out. I don't find your comments in quotations, within his conference talk.(It Works Wonderfully) But to add my inquisition--do the little children, who die as infants--have to qualify for exaltation through water baptism? We know they do not have to qualify through baptism for the Celestial kingdom(outside of exaltation)--but they do have to qualify for eternal life(exaltation) within that kingdom, ---would that include water baptism?

Hi Prisonchaplain-- I find your comments interesting. The interest being--it's the Bible that is most friendly with core salvational principles, as to the LDS church theology. I don't find any faith alone church that has much in common with the Biblical NT. Very little--and that is the truth. I believe the problem has it's roots in the fact very few people know but little about the Biblical NT--and it's doctrines--the LDS included, as well as all else, as to the whole. I look forward to the LDS membership discovery the Bible is the best friend the LDS have. I find the term "faith alone"(the very post and pillar of Protestantism)--but once in the whole Biblical text: James 2:24--New American Standard Bible(NASB)24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Although I don't believe one is going to make substantial headway through Bible bashing--I really don't understand why the Bible is not used more here--or any website, especially by the LDS.

The scriptures have God the Father as the Father of all spirits: Hebrews 12:9--King James Version (KJV)9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? If you believe there is a God, other than God the Father, which Fathers spirits--could you reveal Him to us? That places all spirits--including Christ's spirit, satan, and mankind's spirit--having the same Father--and they His offspring: Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV)29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

The scriptures have God the Father as the Father of all spirits: Hebrews 12:9--King James Version (KJV)9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? If you believe there is a God, other than God the Father, which Fathers spirits--could you reveal Him to us? That places all spirits--including Christ's spirit, satan, and mankind's spirit--having the same Father--and they His offspring: Acts 17:29---King James Version (KJV) 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.