Born Again and Saved

[Justice]

In case my post on the John 3:16 thread was too long for some to read, I'd like to make this additional thread.

I offer it is simply the willingness we have, through our love for and faith in Jesus Christ, to give of ourselves to others.

The word is sacrifice.

Christ did it, and He commands us to do it if we are to claim to be His.

YouTube - MormonMessages's Channel

Edited November 1, 2009 by Justice

[Traveler]

I find it most interesting that in the religious debates concerning salvation that there is discussion about what man needs to take upon themselves and what needs to be relied upon G-d. I find this interesting because LDS believe that a restoration or truth cannot be achieved even by the best works of man but it requires prophets and revelators like Moses and Isaiah of the Old Testament and Apostles like Peter, John and Paul (who utter living scripture by G-d direction) and traditional Christians believe that man on his own inspiration can interpret and determine what is scripture and doctrine even unto salvation.

Yet it would seem that LDS argue that man must contribute his own efforts and submit to the ordinances given by mercy from G-d, where as it appears to me that traditional Christians (Evangelicals) believe all is necessary is G-d’s mercy. I see the doctrines of Salvation as the twin of the doctrine of restoration, such that if our non-LDS-Christians applied their understanding of Salvation to the doctrine of restoration we would perhaps find more in common.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Maybe this will help...Christians ought to be able to rest in the Lord, confident of his grace and mercy, trusting in those still waters he promises us. At the same time, we ought to live with a constant sense of urgency, knowing the hour is late, the harvest is ripe, the trumpet call of God is about to sound, and that we should be found ready, and about the Father's business.

Such is possible because Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and he promises that his burden is easy and light...and because we labor, knowing "it's not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit sayeth the Lord." (Zecharia 4:6 )

[Justice]

I'm curious what you thought of the video PC...

[prisonchaplain]

Can't watch it from work...will have to comment on it later.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

... traditional Christians believe that man on his own inspiration can interpret and determine what is scripture and doctrine even unto salvation.

Um... don't know about that; thought we were both getting scripture from God through prophets and apostles, etc. Perhaps we only disagree on exactly who qualifies as a mouth piece of God and who does not, but not on the method of receiving truth?

... LDS argue that man must contribute his own efforts and submit to the ordinances given by mercy from G-d, where as it appears to me that traditional Christians (Evangelicals) believe all is necessary is G-d’s mercy.

I think we would rather say that there is flat out, no ordinance to submit to when it comes to receiving salvation (eternal life). If there is any requirement or entry fee then it would simply be faith (but I'm sure that horse has been pulverized, so I won't go on about that).

I see the doctrines of Salvation as the twin of the doctrine of restoration, such that if our non-LDS-Christians applied their understanding of Salvation to the doctrine of restoration we would perhaps find more in common.

I'm not sure what you mean by restoration. If you mean the restoration of the true church, then I don't know how that relates to an evangelical's understanding of salvation by grace through faith. But if you mean restoration as the LDS teaching that the atonement has ensured that all people will go to some level of heaven, whether they believe in God or not, then I still fail to see how that is anything like the salvation which evangelicals preach.

The reason is that while God is the one doing the saving, it is the person who does the receiving and the deal is sealed for eternity. On the other hand, if the LDS teaching is true, the man who rejects God still has to put up with God's blessings in a level of heaven. Sure, it is technically better than hell or outer darkness, but the person's free will has been negated, something which God would never do (something we both believe I think).

[Justice]

Rhi, somewhere yoou got the wrong idea that we believe God will interfere with one's choices.

In fact, He must execute justice (punishment and reward) for our day-to-day actions (works).

Matthew 25 teaches this very plainly 3 times.

[Traveler]

Um... don't know about that; thought we were both getting scripture from God through prophets and apostles, etc. Perhaps we only disagree on exactly who qualifies as a mouth piece of God and who does not, but not on the method of receiving truth?

.....

Many of the ancient texts that are not included in Biblical canon were specifically identified and the reason published at the time the canon was created. Since then we have discovered that the reasons for rejection were not true. For example the "Testaments of the Patriarchs” and the “Book of Enoch” were both argued to not have Hebrew origin and to have been written after the New Testament was created. We now know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the reason given for rejection is not true.

There is another interesting text that is exist and claims to come from the very hand of Jesus. For centuries Traditional Western Christians claimed it to be a forgery but with modern science it has been carbon dated to the time of Christ and analyzed to be parchment that could have only come from the area around Jerusalem – which means that for all the rules of validating ancient text this particular text is more valid than any other Biblical text in existence.

My problem is not with what we have – my problem is with those that argue that is it complete and as such is worthy of canon.

The Traveler

[jadams_4040]

Maybe this will help...Christians ought to be able to rest in the Lord, confident of his grace and mercy, trusting in those still waters he promises us. At the same time, we ought to live with a constant sense of urgency, knowing the hour is late, the harvest is ripe, the trumpet call of God is about to sound, and that we should be found ready, and about the Father's business.

Such is possible because Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and he promises that his burden is easy and light...and because we labor, knowing "it's not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit sayeth the Lord." (Zecharia 4:6 )

What is the fathers bussiness?

[prisonchaplain]

What is the fathers bussiness?

Love God & neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40)

Proclaim the Good News, baptize new followers, teach people to grow in their faith (Matt 28:19-20)

And there's a whole lot of good stuff in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7)

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

Rhi, somewhere yoou got the wrong idea that we believe God will interfere with one's choices.

In fact, He must execute justice (punishment and reward) for our day-to-day actions (works).

Matthew 25 teaches this very plainly 3 times.

I agree with you: God will never override our free will, but it seems to me that anyone who rejected God has rejected Love itself and all the goodness that flows from it. To me, it seems that the rapist/murderer who has implicitly rejected God by his actions deserves no part of God's goodness in the afterlife. In His fairness and justice, God fully respects the person's decision by sending him to hell/outer-darkness, which would be the only place where no one will ever experience God in any way. Both justice and free-will are respected by the existence of a hell/outer-darkness.

On the other hand, I think this is what LDS theology leads to: if the rapist/murderer, or an evangelical like me, having both rejected the LDS God, are destined to the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, then I think both our free will and justice have been negated. At least, if I've read D&C 76 (?) correctly, that's how it would fall out, wouldn't it?

[Justice]

Which of the 119 verses in D&C 76 are you referring to? Sorry, it's late and I'm tired. I'll look for the specific verses from you tomorrow.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm curious what you thought of the video PC...

It was a well done collage of LDS leadership testifying to salvation in a way that pointed towards exaltation. Non-LDS will hear hopeful confidence, and find little to argue with--unless they seek argument.

[Snow]

I agree with you: God will never override our free will, but it seems to me that anyone who rejected God has rejected Love itself and all the goodness that flows from it. To me, it seems that the rapist/murderer who has implicitly rejected God by his actions deserves no part of God's goodness in the afterlife. In His fairness and justice, God fully respects the person's decision by sending him to hell/outer-darkness, which would be the only place where no one will ever experience God in any way. Both justice and free-will are respected by the existence of a hell/outer-darkness.

Do you think that (if one rejects God he rejects goodness and deserves no goodness in the afterlife) is strictly about those that really reject God or do you also believe that it applies to those that reject what man says about God. That is, can man reject what other men say about God, while still accepting God, and still partake of God's goodness in the afterlife?

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

... "Testaments of the Patriarchs” and the “Book of Enoch” ... There is another interesting text that is exist and claims to come from the very hand of Jesus. ...

My problem is not with what we have – my problem is with those that argue that is it complete and as such is worthy of canon.

The Traveler

I think I have the Book of Enoch on a computer program, but do you have links to the others you mentioned?

By canon do you mean "something which is closed" or "something by which all others are measured"? I don't think the Bible is closed per say. For example, I think the Book of Acts is still being written. I have a feeling we agree at least on principle.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

Do you think that (if one rejects God he rejects goodness and deserves no goodness in the afterlife) is strictly about those that really reject God or do you also believe that it applies to those that reject what man says about God. That is, can man reject what other men say about God, while still accepting God, and still partake of God's goodness in the afterlife?

I would certainly hope that I could reject what men say about God but still accept God, that is, as He truly is. We are both in the exact same position in that respect: you say (as far as I know) that God is human; I say God is Triune and we both hope the other is wrong.

In other words, if what you say about God turns out to be true, then I am not just rejecting what you say about Him, I am rejecting Him. If it is not true, then all is well for me: I can reject what you say but not God Himself.

Back to rejecting/accepting God: I don't think this issue of salvation is really so much about working our way to a restored relationship, or conducting some sort business transaction with God--it is not a civil dispute where two parties can each meet their obligations to fulfill a goal. That is Islam, Buddhism, etc.

It is a situation more like C.S. Lewis what described where we are "rebels who must lay down our arms." It is not a question of what what we can do to appease God or meet Him halfway, it is not about quantity or quality of sins to atone for. Instead it is a question of loyalty: there is no middle ground, we either remain traitors or we defect and join God's family.

So you can see why it would seem very out of sync to me that criminals etc., should be allowed any sort of heaven.

[Rhi_Bran_y_Hud]

Which of the 119 verses in D&C 76 are you referring to? Sorry, it's late and I'm tired. I'll look for the specific verses from you tomorrow.

Can do...

Outer Darkness... D&C 76:41-48 (it says the atonement automatically saves everyone from this fate except for Satan and his buddies.)

Celestial Kingdom... D&C 76:50-70 (only the best of the best get this far; Celestial Glory = Eternal Life, correct?)

Terrestrial Kingdom... D&C 76:71-80 (generally decent folks who do not accept the LDS gospel get to go here. It says they did not receive it while in the flesh, but what guarantees that they will in the afterlife?)

Telestial Kingdom... D&C 76:81-89 and 98-112 (these characters have done hard time in hell, but are now admitted into the Telestial. Who says they have any more love for God than they did when they first died? What guarantees that they are reformed if they never chose it? Would we really want an unreformed rapist/murderer running free in any level of heaven?

It just seems very odd to me that sin would be treated as if it were a debt to be paid off by any amount of punishment or good works.

[Misshalfway]

I would certainly hope that I could reject what men say about God but still accept God, that is, as He truly is. We are both in the exact same position in that respect: you say (as far as I know) that God is human; I say God is Triune and we both hope the other is wrong.

In other words, if what you say about God turns out to be true, then I am not just rejecting what you say about Him, I am rejecting Him. If it is not true, then all is well for me: I can reject what you say but not God Himself.

Back to rejecting/accepting God: I don't think this issue of salvation is really so much about working our way to a restored relationship, or conducting some sort business transaction with God--it is not a civil dispute where two parties can each meet their obligations to fulfill a goal. That is Islam, Buddhism, etc.

It is a situation more like C.S. Lewis what described where we are "rebels who must lay down our arms." It is not a question of what what we can do to appease God or meet Him halfway, it is not about quantity or quality of sins to atone for. Instead it is a question of loyalty: there is no middle ground, we either remain traitors or we defect and join God's family.

So you can see why it would seem very out of sync to me that criminals etc., should be allowed any sort of heaven.

I guess I just don't measure things in such black and white terms. And I don't think God does either. The scriptures say that God judges upon the heart. One mans' belief about the nature of God may differ from another man's belief.... but the devotion inside both hearts the same and profoundly beautiful. I make every effort to understand God because as the Bible says eternal life is knowing God and the Savior he sent. But I may not always get it right. Experience, trauma, or culture may influence how much of the truth I am able to receive and I think God takes into account all of those things and will judge each person based upon the level of knowledge they obtained and the way they lived their life according to that knowledge.

If one is presented with truth and recognizes in some degree the spirit of truth and rejects it because of pride or fear of man or some other vice and then rebells against it or turns to fight against it, then that my friend is a horse of a different color and constitutes the kind of punishments God reserves for the wicked.

But I can't put ignorance and willful blindness in the same catagory.

[Justice]

So you can see why it would seem very out of sync to me that criminals etc., should be allowed any sort of heaven.

It seems from one point of view you are saying that what we do doesn't matter, in the way of gaining salvation, but that what we do does matter in the way of damnation.

Is that right?

[Justice]

It just seems very odd to me that sin would be treated as if it were a debt to be paid off by any amount of punishment or good works.

God is just. When a law is broken that law must be appeased. There is a punishment attached to law. If God does not enact the punishment (or allow the consequences) then He is not just.

What is offered through Christ is mercy in place of a just punishment. Christ allows the demands of the broken law by us, or debt to justice, to be paid in full. He then can extend mercy or forgiveness though what He accomplished.

He ransomed us.

Christ taught a Gospel of love and doing good to our fellow man. He said He would judge us based on this criteria. It is for Him to say what demands are attached to gain the gift He offers, since He paid the debt and we are indebted to Him now. He told us the criteria He will use for judgement.

He paid the debt for the rapist, murderer, and all the others you mention. He wants us to repent, forgive others, and to treat each other justly. He said if we do those things He will stike an agreement with justice on our behalf and grant us mercy. If we do not, we are left to ourselves, because that is what we chose by our actions.

I don't see anything inconsistent in D&C 76 with these principles.

[Snow]

I would certainly hope that I could reject what men say about God but still accept God, that is, as He truly is. We are both in the exact same position in that respect: you say (as far as I know) that God is human; I say God is Triune and we both hope the other is wrong.

In other words, if what you say about God turns out to be true, then I am not just rejecting what you say about Him, I am rejecting Him. If it is not true, then all is well for me: I can reject what you say but not God Himself.

Back to rejecting/accepting God: I don't think this issue of salvation is really so much about working our way to a restored relationship, or conducting some sort business transaction with God--it is not a civil dispute where two parties can each meet their obligations to fulfill a goal. That is Islam, Buddhism, etc.

It is a situation more like C.S. Lewis what described where we are "rebels who must lay down our arms." It is not a question of what what we can do to appease God or meet Him halfway, it is not about quantity or quality of sins to atone for. Instead it is a question of loyalty: there is no middle ground, we either remain traitors or we defect and join God's family.

So you can see why it would seem very out of sync to me that criminals etc., should be allowed any sort of heaven.

Let me be more specific - could someone reject what the men of the Bible (or BoM or D&C or PoGP) say about God and still be saved.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think we would rather say that there is flat out, no ordinance to submit to when it comes to receiving salvation (eternal life). If there is any requirement or entry fee then it would simply be faith (but I'm sure that horse has been pulverized, so I won't go on about that).

I think a metaphor to understand how LDS think of salvation and the difference between just believing and action is think about getting an advanced education. One can go to a college campus and walk around and even attend some of the classes and know that it is real and believe in the power of an advanced education. But if one really wants to take advantage of it you have to qualify, apply for acceptance. And then you have to sign a contract (like a covenant). Only then can the college really be a partner in helping you achieve your advanced education. It can guide you to take the right classes and learn the right material.

You say "submit to an ordinance" like you think it is a repressive thing, it's the opposite, like signing the acceptance to a college or signing mortgage papers (if it's not a bad mortgage). These covenants can open opportunities that weren't there before. Covenants are like the sting on a kite, without it the kite doesn't fly. Is there nothing gained by a marriage covenant? Even that covenant is being attacked. It's sad that people are losing sight of the power of covenants. I think the reflection of the 'do it yourself approach' is to reject covenants. That is the necessary belief that goes hand in hand with the belief that all one has to do is believe in Jesus. Covenants require authority. And so when one does not know where to find authority or doesn't believe it exists other than in the form of a book then that person has to reject covenants. And if one rejects covenants than it is more convenient to say that man does not have to do anything for salvation. All these things go hand in hand.

We believe this life is a test. If it is, someone has to administer the test, you can't give the test to yourself, this is why it is necessary to have ongoing direction and administration. And because it is a test, one can't be 'given' the answers. It requires action to complete the test. It isn't a one question test, "Do you believe that Jesus is your savior?" It is a series of tests, of which the questions are increasingly more and more complex, what we call the refiners fire. There is no refinement in a one question test. The perfecting process is one that requires patience and longsuffering. There is no longsuffering in "Do you believe Jesus is your savior?" yes? okay, you pass.