LDS and Arminian Opposition to Eternal Security

[prisonchaplain]

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)

2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)

3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)

4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)

5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

Edited November 8, 2009 by prisonchaplain
Explanation of string move

[Justice]

There are many teachings restored though Joseph Smith, and other modern prophets, that work against the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. Indeed, that's why the truth had to be restored.

To throw a different twist, if you were taught that your works played a part in your eternal salvation, and you doubted yourself or loved the things of the world and didn't want to give them up, you would move toward a teaching that God alone is responsible for your salvation, and as long as you made a once in a lifetime effort to accept Christ you were saved. It seems many people want the easy salvation as opposed to the "possible" salvation offered through Christ. He never said it would be easy, just that it would be worthwhile.

So, I don't view modern revelation as working against false beliefs so much as restoring truths that man misinterpreted and changed. If the Bible teaches we have to keep the commandments today, then it taught them 2,000 years ago. It's the man-made "in between" original revealtion and the restored modern revealtion that works against God's teachings.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice...my only concern is that you appear to easily dismiss those who believe in Eternal Security of wanting to skirt responsiblity for sin. In reality, sincere Calvinist will work hard towards holiness and righteousness in order to demonstrate that they are of the Elect. Nevertheless, it's likely true that when people are hungry for something they will gravitate towards belief systems that affirm their right to what they want.

[Justice]

It's true.

I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason people have that belief today. I do, however, believe it was the main reason people moved away from the truth over 1,000 years ago, when the church was in the hands of the government (politicians).

[symphonyofdissent]

I see nothing wrong with viewing the work of a prophet as restorative in the sense that he or she responds to excess and moves towards a golden mean of faith. In Joseph Smith's day and still today, many denominations went well too far in the salvation by grace and grace alone direction. Thus, Joseph Smith worked to restore a proper relationship between fulfillment of covenants and the promises of God. It does seem to me like the church has periodically gone too far in the direction of speaking of salvation as something 'earned' but this is quickly righted by a renewed focus on teaching the book of mormon which more fully shows our dependance on the grace of christ than any other earthly book. This shows one of the benefits of having prophets to institute calibrations and changes that redirect the true church on its proper course.

[Moksha]

Nevertheless, it's likely true that when people are hungry for something they will gravitate towards belief systems that affirm their right to what they want.

I know that if I was hungry and homeless, I would gravitate to the Salvation Army. So your point is well taken.

I think your main point is that if we view salvation as a freighter that has hauled the shipwrecked from the ocean, there is no way to jump overboard again since we are permanently tethered to the ship's hull.

[Just_A_Guy]

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)

2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)

3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)

4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)

5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

I think Joseph Smith (under divine inspiration, of course) tried to split the difference here.

A person can receive the conditional assurance through the Holy Ghost (received after baptism) that he will be saved if he continues in the path, and relying on the merits of Christ. But that assurance of the Holy Ghost can be lost fairly easily through sin.

BUT: Joseph Smith also taught that that assurance can become (to all intents and purposes) unconditional; and that a person who receives this assurance receives a personal visitation from Jesus Christ (the "second comforter"). This assurance can also be lost, but it takes a lot more to do it. The downside (as I understand it) is, if you lose this, you've achieved the relatively difficult feat of qualifying for the condition Mormons call perdition or outer darkness.

[prisonchaplain]

JAG...sounds like assurance can be a double-edged sword. To whom much is given much is required. Then again, if we're in a love relationship with our God, we'll want all He has for us, won't we?

[Traveler]

I believe that error is in understanding salvation in the first place. The word salvation comes from the same root as salvage. If we understand that G-d’s salvage operates on his love and grace we have a point of view that helps us understand the importance of G-d. That is, that there would be no salvation or salvage without G-d’s grace. None – therefore we are all dependent on his grace for our salvation.

But it is also important to understand that G-d will not salvage anything that is not of worth or value to him. The only way that the soul of man can present anything of value for G-d to salvage is by obedience to G-d’s commandments.

There has been discussion on another thread about giving one’s self to G-d. I pointed out on that thread that the only way to give one’s self to G-d is by obedience to G-d’s commandments. If someone thinks they can give themselves to G-d without being obedient to G-d’s commandments they lie to themselves about their relation ship with G-d.

The point is that G-d will always provide to every man all the grace that is needed to bring about salvation. There is nothing of concern about G-d because He will always provide his part. The question is will man invest in G-d (accept his grace) by obedience to his commandments?

I interpret a person that says that keeping the commandments as not being necessary to be someone that has no understanding about G-d or anything he has asked of us.

The Traveler

[Vort]

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)

2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)

3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)

4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)

5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

I do not understand the "unconditional security" position, PC. That is, I understand how you have explained it, but I do not understand how any person claiming to believe the New Testament can hold to it. I realize that you, like the Latter-day Saints, also don't believe it, but you do seem to have a better handle on the mindset than I do.

Given that, can you explain how a believer in this doctrine would explain Hebrews 6:4-6?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Does not this verse teach openly and overtly that those "once enlightened" may yet indeed still fall away, and that such cannot again be "renew[ed]...again unto repentance"? How do the believers in the "unconditional security" doctrine you describe deal with this verse?

[prisonchaplain]

Given that, can you explain how a believer in this doctrine would explain Hebrews 6:4-6?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Does not this verse teach openly and overtly that those "once enlightened" may yet indeed still fall away, and that such cannot again be "renew[ed]...again unto repentance"? How do the believers in the "unconditional security" doctrine you describe deal with this verse?

The most common response is to say that this refers to those who are Christian in name only...those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. In other words, to hypocrites--pretenders. There is a passage in which Jesus speaks of those at the judgement who will say, "But Lord, we did so much in your name," and He'll respond that they must depart for He did not know them--they were workers of iniquity.

As you suggest, I do not buy this interpretation. Hebrews clearly refers to those who've known God. But...that's the Eternal Security apologists most common take on the passage.

[Jamie123]

To throw a different twist, if you were taught that your works played a part in your eternal salvation, and you doubted yourself or loved the things of the world and didn't want to give them up, you would move toward a teaching that God alone is responsible for your salvation, and as long as you made a once in a lifetime effort to accept Christ you were saved. It seems many people want the easy salvation as opposed to the "possible" salvation offered through Christ. He never said it would be easy, just that it would be worthwhile.

I can well understand this view of things, and I suppose there is that danger. But some of the most successful evangelists over the last few centuries have been Calvinists. I suspect that no one is ever really a Calvinist when they are out in the world looking for converts, so why do they always return to Calvinism when they are on their knees? This puzzles me, but it certainly isn't explained by a love of worldly pleasure.

[Traveler]

I believe I understand the Calvinist’s point of view. Not that I agree but if one considers that many are playing the “game” of life and salvation without a complete deck; or in religious terms – without the “fullness” of the Gospel of Christ.

The problem is that G-d both knows all things and controls all things – there is nothing that can take place without G-d allowing it to be. This is where the concept of pre-destination not only has root but is a major idea to deal with. Because G-d controls all the parameters it is difficult to argue that he does not determine outcome. With this understanding of control the next logical step is that once G-d has determined by his will that a particular soul is saved – how can G-d’s will not be accomplished when G-d controls all things? Therefore if an individual soul is not accomplished the only possible explanation is that G-d never determined it to be in the first place.

It can be argued more that man has no real or true choice because man does not know the future of things. Selecting the unknowns behind 3 doors is not a real and free choice. It is not a matter of will but a blind guess. Which means that punishment or reward for such a selection cannot be just – only chance and arbitrary.

Therefore if the salvation of man is determined by his mortal existence only then it must be that man really does not nor can he have real choice or any input into his eternal destiny. Since man cannot see or determine anything beyond the moment in which he lives we must understand his actions to be arbitrary and only G-d determines anyone’s salvation.

Only with the fullness of the Gospel of Christ as it has been restored can one understand the plan of Salvation and that man does indeed have opportunity to affect his eternal destiny.

The Traveler

[sixpacktr]

Traveler,

You are always spot on with your assessments. I do have to take issue with a comment someone stated on the 1st page that the church swings too far to the 'works' side and has to be corrected from time to time. I do believe that individual members may do that, thinking they can earn their way into heaven. This, to a degree, is true, which is why falsehood is so easy to sell for Satan: base it in truth and pervert it enough to lead people away (even just 1 degree, as per Elder Uchtdorf's talk a conference or two ago). But I don't think that church has ever swung that way: it has always been the grace of Christ that saves us. Nephi tells us that we are saved by grace, after all we can do. Well, there is precious little we can do, but what we can do, we need to do. The grace of Christ will make up the vast majority of our salvation 'earnings', as it were, as we enter into that partnership with him for our salvation.

I was in the Palmyra temple on Friday night with my lovely wife. We were able to do sealings for those that have gone before. As I sat as a witness and at times as a proxy, and as the sealer pronounced the welding of those marriage's thru time and eternity and then pronounced the blessings that attend that union, I could see chains being welded together. Literally, I had that image in my mind when he would pronounce those blessings. My wife had a very special experience being a proxy for a daughter on one union, and there was a feeling there that that family had waited a LONG time for that ordinance.

Nothing in life is guaranteed. In another thread I noted of people I have known that did all they were supposed to up to a point in their lives and then chucked it away, becoming more and more bitter against the church for their problems. They can, as the prodigal son, still come back and be welcomed back, but they need to make that effort themselves. They are only abandoned as much as they choose.

In a like manner, we can receive the necessary ordinances to get us back to our Father's presence, and he has paid 99.9% of the 'toll' to get us there thru the beauty of the plan of salvation and the law of sacrifice. So while our portion is miniscule, it is our ALL, which is what the Lord requires of us. And that doesn't mean that we don't mess up from time to time. But it does mean that we repent all of the time and try to be more like Him....

Edited November 9, 2009 by sixpacktr

[Vort]

The most common response is to say that this refers to those who are Christian in name only...those who have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. [...] As you suggest, I do not buy this interpretation. Hebrews clearly refers to those who've known God. But...that's the Eternal Security apologists most common take on the passage.

If this is so, then the "eternal security" apologists have no claim on being taken seriously. We might as well be talking about flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy theorists, or Obama-as-messiah-worshipers.

[prisonchaplain]

Vort, while I do not accept the view, it's not without some merit. I'd even agree that the view is plausible...possible. But, not probable. To play Calvinist Advocate a little further, consider that:

1. 60% of LDS are inactive.

2. 50% of members in Assembly of God and Southern Baptist churches tithe--20% in most other Protestant and Catholic churches.

3. In the parable of the Sower and the Seed there are those who receive the gospel, but who quickly die out. There are others who seem to grow in the gospel, but who eventually give in to the cares of the world.

How unreasonable is it to say that instead of these people being truly converted, and then having fallen away, to argue that they never truly converted. The assented to an idea, to joining a group of good people, but never truly embraced Jesus?

Ultimately, imho, the approach does not convince. But, I can respect those who make the argument. They are hardly fringe theologians.

[Vort]

How unreasonable is it to say that instead of these people being truly converted, and then having fallen away, to argue that they never truly converted. The assented to an idea, to joining a group of good people, but never truly embraced Jesus?

Very unreasonable, in my opinion. The author of Hebrews very clearly states that he is talking about:

"...those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come..."

In my view, no reasonable and honest reader can assert that this verse is talking about people who merely "assented to an idea, to joining a group of good people, but [who] never truly embraced Jesus". Such is a shameless twisting of the plain meaning of words.

[Misshalfway]

PC, let me ask a question about the nature of the "truly converted" and the "unconditionally saved".

It's my understanding that most SBG people say that everyone is a sinner, even the ones who are saved. Is this a correct understanding of your view?

[prisonchaplain]

Miss 1/2-way, there is much Christian literature and devotional writing about the struggle against "the old man." Very few Christian leaders believe we can achieve "sinless perfection," this side of Glory. So, in a sense, yes, we are all sinners.

On the other hand, and I taught on this yesterday, when we say we are "saved," what are we saved from? Hellfire? Judgment and punishment? When I was 10, I prayed that Jesus would come into my heart and forgive my sins. So, I'd contend that we are saved FROM OUR SINS. So...ought we not to stop sinning then?

One gal asked, "Are you saying I can be perfect and never again sin?" My answer was that we are not called to worry about tomorrow. Can my next decision be a right one? Can the next thing I do be righteous and holy? If so, one at a time. If I stumble and sin, I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. I repent in sincerity, and ask God to empower me to move on.

[Vort]

On the other hand, and I taught on this yesterday, when we say we are "saved," what are we saved from? Hellfire? Judgment and punishment? When I was 10, I prayed that Jesus would come into my heart and forgive my sins. So, I'd contend that we are saved FROM OUR SINS. So...ought we not to stop sinning then?

PC, you are on dangerous ground. When you spout off such beliefs, many Latter-day Saints would call you a "dry Mormon".

You might be spending too much time around our bad influence. Beware! Repent!

[Misshalfway]

I know. I was gonna say the same thing. If I am not mistaken, you just said "WORK out my own salvation."

Seriously, though, if one needs to be careful and worry only about the decisions of today, then what is the purpose of unconditional salvation? This sounds like very "conditional" based upon what we choose and the certain need for future repentance.

I guess I am asking how can one be unconditionally saved if Jesus himself said salvation was conditional upon repentance?

[prisonchaplain]

PC, you are on dangerous ground. When you spout off such beliefs, many Latter-day Saints would call you a "dry Mormon".

You might be spending too much time around our bad influence. Beware! Repent!

Okay...

[Traveler]

I know. I was gonna say the same thing. If I am not mistaken, you just said "WORK out my own salvation."

Seriously, though, if one needs to be careful and worry only about the decisions of today, then what is the purpose of unconditional salvation? This sounds like very "conditional" based upon what we choose and the certain need for future repentance.

I guess I am asking how can one be unconditionally saved if Jesus himself said salvation was conditional upon repentance?

Again – one of the problems in this discussion is that in essence we are trying to explain to PC how to play solitaire when he is not using the same cards that we do; through the restoration. The game becomes impossible to play by the rules with the cards that traditional Christians have to play. Therefore, in order that the scriptures make any reasonable sense certain scriptures must be fudged or changed so there can be an outcome.

The ancient concept of covenant and loyalty to the Kingdom and Suzerain cannot be applied because to do so would demonstrate that there is no such kingdom and Suzerain in traditional Christendom. The argument against covenants that include trails of loyalty and proctors is that a just and loving G-d could not abandon 2000 years of believers into which they have place themselves.

In order to maintain ancient covenants there must be proctor authority and ordinances of the covenant. In short this leaves only one traditional possibility and that is uncertain of which within the Catholic and Orthodox movements; neither of which is acceptable to the Protestant movement – but with historical evidence that demonstrates an evolution and input of man into doctrines of scripture, ordinances and ministerial organization and training which in order to make sense must be defined as inspiration from G-d despite any ancient scripture support of such methods of change.

Within the various Christian movements the arguments of PC make a great deal of sense. But when the discussion comes to LDS doctrine everything changes. This is most obvious to LDS because we have more revelation to work with. But to the Evangelical that has labored to put the pieces of their puzzle together the extra peaces the LDS are an enigma that must be rejected or explained away.

We can become friends and enjoy discussions but at the end of the day there is a doctrinal void that cannot be crossed and both basic concepts remain in tact.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I know. I was gonna say the same thing. If I am not mistaken, you just said "WORK out my own salvation."

Seriously, though, if one needs to be careful and worry only about the decisions of today, then what is the purpose of unconditional salvation? This sounds like very "conditional" based upon what we choose and the certain need for future repentance.

I guess I am asking how can one be unconditionally saved if Jesus himself said salvation was conditional upon repentance?

I would say that salvation can be lost, so yes, we've got it and need to work it. Again, if salvation is FROM SIN, then we do wrestle, do we not? God's power gives us victory, but we must submit to that power and direction. What evangelicals argue with you about is not the working out of salvation, but the notion that we must work to get it in the first place. And again, I'm feeling pretty safe about suggesting that Apostle Paul would not have considered repentence a work...certainly nothing to boast about.

BTW, the predestination folk would say they are Chosen or Elected to do this working out of salvation--and guaranteed of success in doing so. So, yes, they work on their salvation, but they never fret about possibly failure. They cannot fail.

[Misshalfway]

You have got me until this....

So, yes, they work on their salvation, but they never fret about possibly failure. They cannot fail.

I simply don't see how this is possible. Even for the best and most trusted of God. David comes to mind.

I am also interested in this assumption that a required work would be something to boast about. King Benjamin in the BofM teaches us that even if we are nothing and even our best efforts are not worthy. If Christ bought us with his blood, and he sets the terms for my salvation and I comply, how could I boast? It just seems to me like an erroneous assumption. Maybe not if ones sin was pride.....

Edited November 10, 2009 by Misshalfway