LDS and Arminian Opposition to Eternal Security

[Misshalfway]

Sorry PC... I didn't finish my thought. I just wanted to end by saying that the perspective that one can't fail.....that seems far more prideful or boastful that doing what working out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Sorry to be blunt. It's just how it looks to me. It would seem they are lying to themselves and pride goeth before the fall.

In my mind, having a peaceful assurance of ones salvation is a different thing. One can enjoy the peace the gospel brings but one must never stop being watchful.

[prisonchaplain]

You have got me until this....

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

David did not fail. Predesinationists believe they are Chosen by God--that it is God's will for them to perservere to the end, and that God's will must be accomplished. So, they may stumble, but they will cross the line because God has predestined it.

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.....

See if this analogy makes sense:

LDS: God wants to give you this gift (salvation), but before you can really say it's yours you must live out your life according to these standards...

Arminian: Here...God's given you this. Just repent and admit that you need it. Great...Now in order for this to work for you here are instructions. Be careful, if you ignore them, you could break it--and it will become dead and useless.

Calvin: Here's God's gift for you. Use it well...God chose you for this gift. The instructions are right here, and even if you try to resist, eventually you will follow them--God's chosen you, after all.

[prisonchaplain]

You have got me until this....

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.....

Here's the kicker: What if you are not of the Elect? I mean, really...how do we know? By their fruits, right? You can't just tell me God chose you. Show me. Uh uh...I see you sinning...are you sure God chose you?

Not so prideful after all...you gotta keep demonstrating that you're chosen.

[Misshalfway]

Having you lay out all the different perspectives, while I learn much by the way you do this, it sidesteps my comments.

Perhaps that is the purpose of your thread....to yet again discuss all the different angles in Christianity.

Frankly, that is interesting and informative but not my purpose in participating in this discussion.

[Misshalfway]

Here's the kicker: What if you are not of the Elect? I mean, really...how do we know? By their fruits, right? You can't just tell me God chose you. Show me. Uh uh...I see you sinning...are you sure God chose you?

Not so prideful after all...you gotta keep demonstrating that you're chosen.

And why must you keep demonstrating?? Because it ISN'T a sure thing.

Not to mention the fact that god isn't a respector of persons and the fact that the definition of being "chosen" completely misunderstood.

I am not trying to be rude. It's just hard sometimes to respectfully call out a false notion. Perhaps I am not as good at is as others. But I can't, in all your exhaustive descriptions, see that this perspective is anything but.

[Misshalfway]

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

OH....like you don't do the very same thing.

[prisonchaplain]

And why must you keep demonstrating?? Because it ISN'T a sure thing.

Not to mention the fact that god isn't a respector of persons and the fact that the definition of being "chosen" completely misunderstood.

I am not trying to be rude. It's just hard sometimes to respectfully call out a false notion. Perhaps I am not as good at is as others. But I can't, in all your exhaustive descriptions, see that this perspective is anything but.

It's a hard thing for one who believes in free will to explain predestination. My goal was to do so in a way that is fair, and that shows that is is reasonable, non-arrogant (done right), and also responsible. It's reasonable in that there are scriptures that speak of us being chosen and predestined. It's non-arrogant in that good Calvinists try to live up to their selection, rather than bragging about God being on their side, and it is responsible in that one Chosen is expected to show that they are indeed chosen by the way they live.

You can come back and argue the unreasonableness, the arrogance, and the irresponsiblility of their position...but there are no Calvinists here to defend themselves.

[HillCumorahCC]

I don't understand the sense of hostility towards PC in his attempt the reasonably explain the Calvinist though process, and how it's isn't always about "live it up because we are saved". From what I have observed many Calvinists are very strict and kind of contradict their own "no works" stand. It is the "cheap grace" crowd of understudied wordly Christians they Bonhoeffer refers to that are what you are arguing against.

I see no fundamental difference between Arminism and the LDS concept of of Grace+Works=Salvation. If their is a disagreement here between the two, it is because their is a misunderstanding between the people discussing the topic.

Edited November 10, 2009 by HillCumorahCC

[Vort]

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but I don't see any hostility directed toward PC. On the contrary, he is probably as respected and well-liked as anyone on the board. I do see (as, for example, from Vort) confusion about how and why some people believe as they do, but I suspect the other participants join me in thanking PC for his clear explanations. Questioning or even railing on the beliefs that PC is so patiently explaining to us is much different from railing on PC himself.

[prisonchaplain]

I suspect this issue is frustrating and heartfelt to some, and it is too bad we do not have a committed Calvinist to explain them better. IMHO Joseph Smith was right to side with free will (agency) on this matter. Nevertheless, my understanding of church history compels me to much respect for the intelligence and gift of teaching that has come out of the Reformed tradition--one that is mostly Calvinist. Hey...I stole my wife from the Presbyterians, so I must be grateful.

[HillCumorahCC]

That's the trouble of a written forum... people read words differently because we each have our own unique spin on the definition of certain words. I hope their is no impatience with PC, because he is, after all, trying to explain something he himself does not personally believe in.

[Traveler]

OH....like you don't do the very same thing.

In mathematics each set of numbers has laws and rules that govern them. For example there are great differences between the rational numbers and complex numbers. Treating complex numbers like rational numbers (applying the laws that govern them) will result in what is classically known as a “mathematical syntax error”. The end result is that according to the laws by which each are governed there are limits as to what a person can apply and still get accurate results.

Using the logic in math it is impossible to accurately solve electrical logic problems with the rational number system that is accomplished with complex numbers. However, it is interesting that complex number can be used to accurately calculate any problem that is solved using rational numbers.

There are reasons that we come to different conclusions. I suggested these reasons are because there are constructs (logic or doctrine if you will) in the LDS paradigm that Evangelicals do not believe are worthwhile eternal constructs in their paradigm. Specifically the construct of ordinances overseen by proctor – which imply either G-d (as Kingdom Suzerain) himself or his proxy (his appointed servant).

If there was not this disconnect it would be “easy” within the laws of rhetorical logic to prove or disprove which is more accurate – just like with the use of complex or rational numbers. Or as I suggested above concerning a Suzerain or proxy. We solve such problems all the time in our legal system with such things as determining who can withdraw monies from a bank account. What I am suggesting is that using PC paradigm one could not prove or disprove who has right to any bank account. And that I prefer using the logic that controls such things with accuracy.

The Traveler

[HillCumorahCC]

In mathematics each set of numbers has laws and rules that govern them. For example there are great differences between the rational numbers and complex numbers. Treating complex numbers like rational numbers (applying the laws that govern them) will result in what is classically known as a “mathematical syntax error”. The end result is that according to the laws by which each are governed there are limits as to what a person can apply and still get accurate results.

Using the logic in math it is impossible to accurately solve electrical logic problems with the rational number system that is accomplished with complex numbers. However, it is interesting that complex number can be used to accurately calculate any problem that is solved using rational numbers.

There are reasons that we come to different conclusions. I suggested these reasons are because there are constructs (logic or doctrine if you will) in the LDS paradigm that Evangelicals do not believe are worthwhile eternal constructs in their paradigm. Specifically the construct of ordinances overseen by proctor – which imply either G-d (as Kingdom Suzerain) himself or his proxy (his appointed servant).

If there was not this disconnect it would be “easy” within the laws of rhetorical logic to prove or disprove which is more accurate – just like with the use of complex or rational numbers. Or as I suggested above concerning a Suzerain or proxy. We solve such problems all the time in our legal system with such things as determining who can withdraw monies from a bank account. What I am suggesting is that using PC paradigm one could not prove or disprove who has right to any bank account. And that I prefer using the logic that controls such things with accuracy.

The Traveler

You points may be revelant in terms of the Calvinist mindset and belief concerning grace, but does not explain Arminiast teaching which is fundamentally no different then the LDS teaching of Grace+Works= Salvation.

I think there in a tendancy by members of the church to want to be correct and be the ones to "know" a certain truth, so they will sometimes argue semantically with those that have essentially the same belief but are not members of the church, so they can be correct and have something they perceive the other person as not having.

Wouldn't it be better to admit that the Arminians, indeed, were correct and rejoice that through the Bible they were able to see truth and not be deceived by Calvinism?

[prisonchaplain]

You points may be revelant in terms of the Calvinist mindset and belief concerning grace, but does not explain Arminiast teaching which is fundamentally no different then the LDS teaching of Grace+Works= Salvation.

You are largely right here (never completely as we're comparing two different faith systems): Arminian Christians believe that if we are converted, and then are faithful to our conversion, we shall be forgiven of our sins, and at judgment hear what Paul heard: Well done thou good and faithful servant. Enter into my kingdom. We believe Christ shall be the head of that kingdom, though the presence of the Father will be throughout. We'll not see the Father in corporeal (bodily) form, though. So, how you are right--the kingdom I describe might well be your Terrestial Kingdom. And, even according to your theology, sincere Christians will mostly end up there.

A difference in terminology--what you call salvation, we would call salvation + progressive sanctification (and flat-out faithfulness). We do consider ourselves "saved" at conversion.

...Wouldn't it be better to admit that the Arminians, indeed, were correct and rejoice that through the Bible they were able to see truth and not be deceived by Calvinism?

I vote yes.

Edited November 10, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Misshalfway]

That's the trouble of a written forum... people read words differently because we each have our own unique spin on the definition of certain words. I hope their is no impatience with PC, because he is, after all, trying to explain something he himself does not personally believe in.

Don't worry so much Hill. Many of us have been around discussing things for a while now, on doctrinal and more personal matters too. I have been discussing a variety of fun subjects with most of the posters here for many months. And you know what, PC can take it. He gets it. And, as always, he is fair minded and gracious in his responses even when some of us have our cantankerous moments. :) Not that I ever have days like that.....

[Moksha]

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

Might even have a seat on the Dry Council, although I suspect PC is too good of speaker for that.

[prisonchaplain]

And, as always, he is fair minded and gracious in his responses even when some of us have our cantankerous moments. :) Not that I ever have days like that.....

No...not you...but good that you speak up for those others!

[Misshalfway]

I know I can be a brat sometimes. I am sincerely sorry for that.

[Faded]

PC, the hurdle that LDS thinking runs into here is that many evangelical-leaning folks claim that once you are saved, there is no possibility of nullifying that salvation. We believe that a person can choose to walk away from their covenant with Christ, and thereby nullify their hopes for salvation. I've had people tell me to my face that, "Even if I murdered somebody tomorrow -- not that I would do such a thing -- I would still be saved in the Kingdom of God." The core problem is obvious: The man or woman who has been "Saved" might conclude that they can now do whatever they please because there will no longer be any eternal consequences. It is this concern that accents the difference between "born again" Christianity and LDS Christianity. It's also not quite what Evangelical Christianity teaches. But it can be and is often understood that way by many Latter-Day Saints and other denominations: "Born Again" = "Free license to do whatever I want for the rest of my life with no more consequences."

The hurdle for the Evangelical Christian to overcome in their understanding of the LDS doctrines and conditions of salvation are mainly that "they seem to think they can work their way to Heaven instead of relying on Jesus Christ to get them there." Many might see us as the builders of the Tower of Babel -- a group of people with the ridiculous notion that if we work hard enough, it'll get us into Heaven. Again, not a accurate perception, but it's an understandable one. I think that in the process of disagreeing with the perception of "free pass to do whatever I want" reaction to Born Again Christian thinking, many Latter-Day Saints tend to over-state the importance of our own works and drastically understate the role of complete reliance upon the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Thereby, they reinforce the misconception that "Latter-Day Saints are trying to work their way to heaven."

Stephen E Robinson offers the best treatment I know of for these perception issues in "Believing Christ." My favorite example he uses is the bank account parable. We all have personal worthiness bank account balances that are in the negative numbers. Some of those negative numbers are lower than others, but all of us are in the negative. Christ has a personal worthiness account balance that is infinite in the positive. When we come unto Jesus Christ we enter into a covenant relationship with him, we effectively merge accounts and gain an infinite balance of personal worthiness and righteousness. So all we have to do is stay in the covenant. We stay in the covenant by doing the best that we can to keeping his commandments, receiving baptism and other ordinances he has commanded, and living our lives in the way he taught us. While doing all of that, every Latter-Day Saint knows full well that he or she is not going to make it without Christ. As long as we stay in the covenant relationship, we can know without a doubt that salvation and eternal life are ensured to us. We still have the ability to choose to walk away from the covenant at any time, and in so doing, we return to having a negative account balance unless and until we return to the covenant with Christ.

I'd recommend that book. It does a far better job of explaining than I could hope to do. I would strongly recommend it to PC as well as everyone here. It's a good book to take help us take stock of whether we've gone too far with over-emphasis of works or grace. Many, many Latter-Day Saints have failed to understand the concept of Hope of Salvation -- aka an assurance of salvation that ALL of us can and should have in our lives. Many also fail to realize that our beliefs are not so different from Born Again Christians as we tend to think.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Faded

[HillCumorahCC]

Before we get to down on the "Once Saved Always Saved Crowd", we should explore the concept of having your "Calling and Election Made Sure" a teaching found within the Doctrine and Covenants which states that once you have had your calling and election made sure there is no sin besides murder that can keep you from exaltation and all the blessings of eternity.

Go.

[Misshalfway]

Before we get to down on the "Once Saved Always Saved Crowd", we should explore the concept of having your "Calling and Election Made Sure" a teaching found within the Doctrine and Covenants which states that once you have had your calling and election made sure there is no sin besides murder that can keep you from exaltation and all the blessings of eternity.

Go.

Which scripture? I'd like to see the actual wording. My understanding is that even the highest of blessings or spiritual stature can be lost. Why would Satan tempt Jesus if there was no possibility Christ would fall?

Where exactly do sons of perdition come from if not from this elete group?

[HillCumorahCC]

Which scripture? I'd like to see the actual wording. My understanding is that even the highest of blessings or spiritual stature can be lost. Why would Satan tempt Jesus if there was no possibility Christ would fall?

Where exactly do sons of perdition come from if not from this elete group?

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 26-27

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

Edited November 13, 2009 by HillCumorahCC
removed cross reference markers

[Misshalfway]

Ok. I can see your thinking. But those people who are given that status and DO sin will "be destroyed in the flesh and delivered unto the buffetings off Satan."

And then in the next verse...."the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world..."

Having ones calling and election made sure is NOT a guarantee. It can still be lost. And obedience is still required.

[HillCumorahCC]

Ok. I can see your thinking. But those people who are given that status and DO sin will "be destroyed in the flesh and delivered unto the buffetings off Satan."

And then in the next verse...."the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world..."

Having ones calling and election made sure is NOT a guarantee. It can still be lost. And obedience is still required.

Obedience to only one commandment, not to murder, but you can do anything else. I don't see much of a fundamental difference between the two concepts. But hey, I'm just dumb me, I still don't see the distinction PC is trying to make between Arminianism and Grace+Works= Salvation. Maybe I'm slow :)

[Misshalfway]

Obedience to only one commandment, not to murder, but you can do anything else. I don't see much of a fundamental difference between the two concepts. But hey, I'm just dumb me, I still don't see the distinction PC is trying to make between Arminianism and Grace+Works= Salvation. Maybe I'm slow :)

There is no licence to sin. There is no place where one transcends the need to obey. There are always consequences. And in this verse, apparently the consequences will be on earth.

I see a major and crucial difference. It is the same difference no matter where in the process obedience is discussed.