What Are The Requirements For Salvation?

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 28 2005, 01:27 PM

Do you believe that the Heavenly Father was once a man?  Ray responds

Yes, and I also believe Jesus Christ was once a man.

If God once was a man--as we now are--and now he is more, then he has changed. He has evolved. This notion is quite different from the historic Christian understanding.

←

PC:

It simply won’t do for you to say that Mormons believe in a god that changes. To say that God changes violates our official stated doctrines found in our canon:

Mormon 9

9 For do we not read that God is the same byesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? 10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

Doctrine and Covenants 20

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them

Hebrews 13

8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

What you are doing is making certain philosophical assumptions about the nature of God and about what is possible and what is not possible that we do not share.

We hold that when the prophets talk about an unchanging God, they are teaching that God is eternally the same, that “we can trust the Lord because he never varies his course; he always operates by law; he is no respector of persons and always bestows the same blessings as a reward for the same obediance. The prophets are trying to distinguish the true and living God from the false gods of pagan religions.” (J Walsh).

We not believe that, say, the author of Hebrews was attempting to affirm what god was before the beginning of time. The bible neither affrims nor denies what God might have been before the begining of time or what he might have done in any prior eternity.

Most uses of the words “eteranal” and “forever” in the bible actually read “to the end of the age” or just “to the age.” The Greek words olam and aion mean “age” and first century Jews understood eternity to consist of successive ages or eons - all within the parameters of beginning and end.

That our understanding differs from the orthodox Christian understanding bothers us not one bit. We do not measure ourselves against the mainstream. Our measuring stick is our canon and the prophets.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Ray+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray)</div>

Now, responding to your idea that a God can never change, I will submit the idea that Jesus Christ underwent a “change” when He came to Earth as a man, even though He was still God then, before, and continues to be God now, so Jesus Christ himself refutes your idea that a God can never change.

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain

I would submit that Jesus' nature never changed. Philippians 2:6-7 says: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus willingly humbled himself, taking on the form of humanity. He never ceased to be God. His nature did not change.

The all-powerful, all-knowing, every-where present God that Christians have worshipped throughout history is perfect. By its nature, evolution or change, suggests that God is not perfect, but is improving. If so, the very nature of "God" becomes that of a mere being, who happens to be more powerful than us.

I agree that the nature of God never changes, even though the person who was Jehovah underwent a change when His spirit came to Earth in a mortal body and was given the name of Jesus, in which He then grew from grace to grace in favor with God and man, prayed to our heavenly Father that some would understand the one true God and he whom He had sent, and later was resurrected in a glorified body and given all authority both in heaven and on Earth.

Yep, that’s right. The nature of God never changes.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prisonchaplain)</div>

Here's the bottom-line on what Christian churches have taught. God the Father was, is, and will always be the perfect Spirit. He was never anything but God. He created all that is. Jesus is God's one and only Son. He too has always been, is, and will always be. He was not created, and he is equal with the Father. He did take on the form of a man, dwelled amongst us, and was sacrificed for our sins. The Holy Spirit, was, is, and will always be God. These three persons are the one true and living God. There are no other gods, and there never will be any other gods.

While you can support some of those assertions with scriptures in the Bible, most of those assertions are only supported by your reasoning and the reasoning of some other men. Or in other words, you are not using only the Bible to support those beliefs.

But hey, as long as you realize that and are comfortable with the idea, perhaps because you consider the words of some other men to be equally valid as scripture, go ahead and knock yourself out.

Originally posted by Ray+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray)</div>

You’re saying yourself that Jesus Christ became a man to dwell among us, while also saying that Jesus Christ was God before that and that He continued to be God after that, just as He continues to be God now, so why is it so hard for you to accept the idea that our heavenly Father has always been God even though He also once took the form of a man???

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

Do you mean to say that God the Father has always been Spirit, but that at some point in time, he took the form of a man? Perhaps I have misunderstood your theology. I thought that Mormons believed that God was once a man (like us), and that he became or evolved into a deity.

Yes, God has always been a Spirit, but at some point He took the form of a man and was clothed in a mortal body, just as Jesus Christ has done, and yes, just as we have done also. The only difference is that most of us need a Redeemer to make us as clean and perfect as God has always been, while some of us are in fact the Redeemer and God of most of us others.

And btw, I’m using the term “us” to refer to every “person” who has and will ever exist.

Originally posted by Ray

Somehow you fail to see that YOU are among those who are suggesting that Jesus is less in nature than our heavenly Father, while we [LDS] are suggesting that the nature of our heavenly Father is exactly like the nature of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

It's one thing to say that Jesus humbled himself, and took on the form of man, and quite another to say that the Father created him as a human man.

Which word do you have a problem with? Created? Or Human?

I define “creation” as the use of elements of matter to form some “thing” or “being”, and I define “human” as a being in our form who is subject to death [or bodily corruption].

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@

It is also one thing to say that God the Son submitted himself to the fashion of a man, and another to say that the heavenly father once was a man and became God.

Let me get this straight. You don’t have a problem with the idea that the person we now know as “Jesus Christ” was once God who became man while still remaining God, you just have a problem with the idea that our heavenly Father did what Jesus did.

Is that right?

If so, then you probably believe there is only one “God” person in heaven with a body, while we believe there are at least two, considering the fact that we both seem to believe that the Holy Ghost does not have a tangible physical body.

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain

Now, you seem to be suggesting something else...that the heavenly Father has always been God, but used to be a man. I have never heard that before. Perhaps you can explain it.

I believe a thorough knowledge of Jesus Christ and the power of His atonement should explain all you need to know, but if you still want to know more about Him, I suggest that you search the words of all of His prophets.

And btw, in case you’ve forgotten, we [LDS] are the ones who claim to accept more teachings from more prophets of our Lord, so the idea that you have something to teach us about the gospel is a little misplaced, don’t you think?

[Serg]

Still Paul, answer Snow's question.

If a, b and c is the only efforts made by men to be saved, are mormons saved then? For we have : Acknowledge we are sinners, repented from our sins, believe and confess him as our ONLY Saviour and that by His grace and His grace alone we will be saved(though we support that we sholud be righteous, but omitting that)...now, are we?

[paul6150]

Originally posted by Serg@Nov 29 2005, 01:04 PM

Still Paul,  answer Snow's question.

    If a, b and c is the only efforts made by men to be saved, are mormons saved then? For we have : Acknowledge we are sinners, repented from our sins, believe and confess him as our ONLY Saviour and that by His grace and His grace alone we will be saved(though we support that we sholud be righteous, but omitting that)...now, are we?

←

SERG and SNOW

I thought I did answer the question as best I could in my previous post. But let me try again.

Lets first define a few things:

SAVED according to the Bible means we have absolute assurance through God's grace and the shed blood of Jesus that we are going to heaven (Not the heaven described in Section 76 of the D of C though). See 1 John 2:24-25 We have assurance of salvation by what Jesus did and not what we do to attain it or keep it. The Holy Spirit is given to us and live inside of us to be that guarantee of salvation.

ACKNOWLEDGE means truly recognize that our sins is what separates each of us from Christ and that He died for those sins (past, present and future). "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). No works will ever make me presentable before the Lord if I haven't received Him as my personal Savior and Lord. Section 76 says a totally different story but we won't get into that now.

REPENT means to turn 180 degrees away from the sin that so easily trips us up and choose to follow Jesus in what He calls us to do. Yes obedience, walking out our faith, doing the works He prepares for us is a "post-salvation" work by the Holy Spirit to complete the justification and sanctification process but we must realize it is still Him that is working in us and changing us from the inside out as I have posted before. Is this going to mean we never sin again - OF COURSE NOT. We will struggle with sin no matter how mature in the Lord we become. A key example of this is what Paul wrote in Romans 7:7-25 about his own personal struggle with sin many years after his Damascus Road experience

Now to the question "If they do the A, B, C,'s of salvation are Mormons saved?" As I said before I believe that if the person whether a Mormon, Catholic, atheist, Hindu, etc. etc. truly acknowledges their sins to the Lord and truly accepts God's free gift of grace through the work of Jesus Christ and confesses the same with their mouth they are saved (Romans 10:9-10). The Bible clearly states that God is able to pick us up out of the miry clay and set us on a solid rock. Even the quicksand of Mormonism or the errors of Catholicism cannot keep God from pulling "His newly adopted child" out and setting them "guiltless" on the solid rock because of what He has done.

However after salvation, you are continually asked by the Lord to examine ourselves and if He convicts you of a sin or sins that are being harbored we need to once again confess these before the Lord and recognize that He will cleanse us of these "post-salvation" sins which must be dealt with. Positionally, in Christ Jesus, these "post-salvation" sins have already been forgiven however He still asks us as part of the justification and sanctification process to recognize that we have sinned (1 John 1:5-10).

After salvation the Holy Spirit will begin to show each us of areas of un-truth and sin in our lives and expose these areas often a little at a time. I would be really afraid if He revealed them all at once. Now for the Mormon He will start revealing things of untruth in the BOM, D of C, and other teachings of the LDbecausese they do not agree with the Bible (His Word). Now here is where the rubber meets the road. If you have done the A, B, C's as you have said then you better be believing the Bible for it is the revealed Word of God that we must measure all other teachings against including the BOM and D of C. This is where Mormons struggle because they have been totally misled to believe that the BOM is true and the Bible has errorbecausese the BOM says so (a circular argument if I ever saw one).

If you don't start seeing this doctrinal error in the light of God's Word then one has to wonder whether you were really saved and meant what you stated when you made a profession of faith to the Lord Jesus (See 1 John 2:18-19).

I hope this clears this issue up some more. If you still insist on the heavy yoke of working your way to salvation by your own strength and the Mormon teachings; and not take the easy yoke of salvation by Jesus shed blood then I pray that someday the burden will become so heavy that it will cause you to truly call upon Him for His grace and mercy and let Him truly be your personal Lord and Savior.

I am sure this will cause some response from you all but it is as plain and loving that I can state the truth.

Paul

[Ray]

To summarize a bit, two members of this forum who are not LDS have shared their beliefs regarding salvation.

prisonchaplain: who seems to believe that if we don’t accurately worship the true God, we will forever suffer in Hell, regardless of how much we truly tried to get to know God. Or in other words, prisonchaplain seems to believe that all of us [LDS] are going to Hell, unless we reconcile our beliefs of God and His gospel to the beliefs of other Christians.

For comparison, we [LDS] believe that everyone who exercises Faith in Christ, Repents of their sins (the ones they know about), while accepting all of the other laws and ordinances of the gospel (they know about), will be assigned to a “mansion” in heaven, according to the degree that each individual actually does accept all of the laws and ordinances of the gospel (that they know about).

paul6150: who believes that we simply need to:

A: Acknowledge that we are “sinners and that we need a Savior

B: Believe in the Lord Jesus: that He died for our sins on the cross and rose in victory so we through Him can also be victorious, and

C: Accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, confessing that we accept His free gift of grace

For comparison, we [LDS] pretty much have those same beliefs, although we [LDS] also believe our Lord has told us about some other things we must do which paul1650 does not seem to accept as revelation from our Lord.

Does anyone else have any other input regarding what they think we need to do to be saved?

And btw, to those whose beliefs I have summarized, please feel free to edit or enhance my understanding of your beliefs if you believe my summary is not accurate. (And please try to keep your comments as brief and to the point as much as possible.)

[Snow]

Paul,

So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.

That's a straight forward anwer.

The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.

So - what's all the hub bub, bub? I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 28 2005, 07:20 PM

Next question: Do you suscribe to sola scripture

Here's my qualified yes. The Catholic Church holds that Scripture and Tradition should be weighed equally, and that only the church has authority to interpret Scripture. Protestants hold that Scripture alone is the final authority, and that all believers should "study to show themselves approved, workmen that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God."

That said, of course tradition, church history, and even creeds carry some weight. God has given some a gift of teaching. There are learned men and women who have dedicated their lives to the study of the word, who have mastered the biblical languages, and who's writings deserve respect.

To use a non-controversial (for this site) example: When the Oneness Pentecostals proposed that the Trinity was wrong, that the formula of God was not three in one, but one in three (Jesus is God, manifested sometimes as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Holy Spirit), the movement was right to go to theological war over the issue. The Trinity had stood the test of some 1700 years, and the teaching was not to be discarded easily. My denomination lost a fourth of its members and a third of its clergy over that battle.

So, my bottom-line answer is: The Bible trumps tradition, but new interpretations have a burden of proof far greater than historic doctrines. Furthermore, learned teachers with recognized training bare more careful attention than a layperson who thinks they've discovered something.

←

You can't have it both ways Prisonchaplain,

The definition of sola scriptura is that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.

So - either the Bible is clear and sufficient or it is not clear and sufficient; if it's not, if tradition is necessary to interpret and understand the Bible, then you don't believe in sola scriptura.

Since you seemed to come down on the side of SS, I will assume that is your real position.

Now - back to your earlier point about "another Jesus." We both know that we aren't talking about "another Jesus" but rather the same Jesus of Nazareth. What you are really talking about is that Mormons believe certain things about Christ's character that are so different from what you believe that you hold that, potentially, Mormons will not be saved despite having accepted Christ as their Savior and repented of their sins. Another way to put it is that because Mormons believe certain things about Jesus, Christ's grace may not be sufficient to save Mormons.

Personally I think that is a wholly indefensible position just on the face of it. More ever, since you (I think) accept sola scriptura, and Mormons believe everything that the Bible teaches about Christ is it absurd to think that God's grace will not save them.

True - we believe things about Christ and God that are not part of the Bible but they do not contradict the Bible; they do fill in Biblical gaps. Those things may contradict YOUR interpretation of the Bible but they do not contradict our interpretation. As a sola scripturian you cannot tell us how we must interpret the Bible - that would violate the entire principle of sola scriptura that holds the Bible to be clear and sufficient. Any interpretation you mandate is at best superflourous and at worst holding itself up as superior to the word of God.

Your position is internally inconsistent.

[Serg]

Originally posted by paul6150+Nov 29 2005, 06:34 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Serg@Nov 29 2005, 01:04 PM

Still Paul,  answer Snow's question.

     If a, b and c is the only efforts made by men to be saved, are mormons saved then? For we have : Acknowledge we are sinners, repented from our sins, believe and confess him as our ONLY Saviour and that by His grace and His grace alone we will be saved(though we support that we sholud be righteous, but omitting that)...now, are we?

←

SERG and SNOW

I thought I did answer the question as best I could in my previous post. But let me try again.

Lets first define a few things:

SAVED according to the Bible means we have absolute assurance through God's grace and the shed blood of Jesus that we are going to heaven (Not the heaven described in Section 76 of the D of C though). See 1 John 2:24-25 We have assurance of salvation by what Jesus did and not what we do to attain it or keep it. The Holy Spirit is given to us and live inside of us to be that guarantee of salvation.

ACKNOWLEDGE means truly recognize that our sins is what separates each of us from Christ and that He died for those sins (past, present and future). "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). No works will ever make me presentable before the Lord if I haven't received Him as my personal Savior and Lord. Section 76 says a totally different story but we won't get into that now.

REPENT means to turn 180 degrees away from the sin that so easily trips us up and choose to follow Jesus in what He calls us to do. Yes obedience, walking out our faith, doing the works He prepares for us is a "post-salvation" work by the Holy Spirit to complete the justification and sanctification process but we must realize it is still Him that is working in us and changing us from the inside out as I have posted before. Is this going to mean we never sin again - OF COURSE NOT. We will struggle with sin no matter how mature in the Lord we become. A key example of this is what Paul wrote in Romans 7:7-25 about his own personal struggle with sin many years after his Damascus Road experience

Now to the question "If they do the A, B, C,'s of salvation are Mormons saved?" As I said before I believe that if the person whether a Mormon, Catholic, atheist, Hindu, etc. etc. truly acknowledges their sins to the Lord and truly accepts God's free gift of grace through the work of Jesus Christ and confesses the same with their mouth they are saved (Romans 10:9-10). The Bible clearly states that God is able to pick us up out of the miry clay and set us on a solid rock. Even the quicksand of Mormonism or the errors of Catholicism cannot keep God from pulling "His newly adopted child" out and setting them "guiltless" on the solid rock because of what He has done.

However after salvation, you are continually asked by the Lord to examine ourselves and if He convicts you of a sin or sins that are being harbored we need to once again confess these before the Lord and recognize that He will cleanse us of these "post-salvation" sins which must be dealt with. Positionally, in Christ Jesus, these "post-salvation" sins have already been forgiven however He still asks us as part of the justification and sanctification process to recognize that we have sinned (1 John 1:5-10).

After salvation the Holy Spirit will begin to show each us of areas of un-truth and sin in our lives and expose these areas often a little at a time. I would be really afraid if He revealed them all at once. Now for the Mormon He will start revealing things of untruth in the BOM, D of C, and other teachings of the LDbecausese they do not agree with the Bible (His Word). Now here is where the rubber meets the road. If you have done the A, B, C's as you have said then you better be believing the Bible for it is the revealed Word of God that we must measure all other teachings against including the BOM and D of C. This is where Mormons struggle because they have been totally misled to believe that the BOM is true and the Bible has errorbecausese the BOM says so (a circular argument if I ever saw one).

If you don't start seeing this doctrinal error in the light of God's Word then one has to wonder whether you were really saved and meant what you stated when you made a profession of faith to the Lord Jesus (See 1 John 2:18-19).

I hope this clears this issue up some more. If you still insist on the heavy yoke of working your way to salvation by your own strength and the Mormon teachings; and not take the easy yoke of salvation by Jesus shed blood then I pray that someday the burden will become so heavy that it will cause you to truly call upon Him for His grace and mercy and let Him truly be your personal Lord and Savior.

I am sure this will cause some response from you all but it is as plain and loving that I can state the truth.

Paul

←

If this is so, and ONLY through Christ is everyone saved....*as i believe too*, why then are Zacariah and Elizabeth described in the gospels as "blameless" before the Lord? Coul such state of virtue and guiltless come from the law? I think not, but also that the prophets or anyone from the begining had to believe in some extent in the messiah to come in order to show sufficent faith as to be saved....dont you think?

[paul6150]

Originally posted by Serg+Nov 30 2005, 07:22 AM-->

Originally posted by paul6150@Nov 29 2005, 06:34 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Serg@Nov 29 2005, 01:04 PM

Still Paul,  answer Snow's question.

     If a, b and c is the only efforts made by men to be saved, are mormons saved then? For we have : Acknowledge we are sinners, repented from our sins, believe and confess him as our ONLY Saviour and that by His grace and His grace alone we will be saved(though we support that we sholud be righteous, but omitting that)...now, are we?

←

SERG and SNOW

I thought I did answer the question as best I could in my previous post. But let me try again.

Lets first define a few things:

SAVED according to the Bible means we have absolute assurance through God's grace and the shed blood of Jesus that we are going to heaven (Not the heaven described in Section 76 of the D of C though). See 1 John 2:24-25 We have assurance of salvation by what Jesus did and not what we do to attain it or keep it. The Holy Spirit is given to us and live inside of us to be that guarantee of salvation.

ACKNOWLEDGE means truly recognize that our sins is what separates each of us from Christ and that He died for those sins (past, present and future). "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). No works will ever make me presentable before the Lord if I haven't received Him as my personal Savior and Lord. Section 76 says a totally different story but we won't get into that now.

REPENT means to turn 180 degrees away from the sin that so easily trips us up and choose to follow Jesus in what He calls us to do. Yes obedience, walking out our faith, doing the works He prepares for us is a "post-salvation" work by the Holy Spirit to complete the justification and sanctification process but we must realize it is still Him that is working in us and changing us from the inside out as I have posted before. Is this going to mean we never sin again - OF COURSE NOT. We will struggle with sin no matter how mature in the Lord we become. A key example of this is what Paul wrote in Romans 7:7-25 about his own personal struggle with sin many years after his Damascus Road experience

Now to the question "If they do the A, B, C,'s of salvation are Mormons saved?" As I said before I believe that if the person whether a Mormon, Catholic, atheist, Hindu, etc. etc. truly acknowledges their sins to the Lord and truly accepts God's free gift of grace through the work of Jesus Christ and confesses the same with their mouth they are saved (Romans 10:9-10). The Bible clearly states that God is able to pick us up out of the miry clay and set us on a solid rock. Even the quicksand of Mormonism or the errors of Catholicism cannot keep God from pulling "His newly adopted child" out and setting them "guiltless" on the solid rock because of what He has done.

However after salvation, you are continually asked by the Lord to examine ourselves and if He convicts you of a sin or sins that are being harbored we need to once again confess these before the Lord and recognize that He will cleanse us of these "post-salvation" sins which must be dealt with. Positionally, in Christ Jesus, these "post-salvation" sins have already been forgiven however He still asks us as part of the justification and sanctification process to recognize that we have sinned (1 John 1:5-10).

After salvation the Holy Spirit will begin to show each us of areas of un-truth and sin in our lives and expose these areas often a little at a time. I would be really afraid if He revealed them all at once. Now for the Mormon He will start revealing things of untruth in the BOM, D of C, and other teachings of the LDbecausese they do not agree with the Bible (His Word). Now here is where the rubber meets the road. If you have done the A, B, C's as you have said then you better be believing the Bible for it is the revealed Word of God that we must measure all other teachings against including the BOM and D of C. This is where Mormons struggle because they have been totally misled to believe that the BOM is true and the Bible has errorbecausese the BOM says so (a circular argument if I ever saw one).

If you don't start seeing this doctrinal error in the light of God's Word then one has to wonder whether you were really saved and meant what you stated when you made a profession of faith to the Lord Jesus (See 1 John 2:18-19).

I hope this clears this issue up some more. If you still insist on the heavy yoke of working your way to salvation by your own strength and the Mormon teachings; and not take the easy yoke of salvation by Jesus shed blood then I pray that someday the burden will become so heavy that it will cause you to truly call upon Him for His grace and mercy and let Him truly be your personal Lord and Savior.

I am sure this will cause some response from you all but it is as plain and loving that I can state the truth.

Paul

←

If this is so, and ONLY through Christ is everyone saved....*as i believe too*, why then are Zacariah and Elizabeth described in the gospels as "blameless" before the Lord? Coul such state of virtue and guiltless come from the law? I think not, but also that the prophets or anyone from the begining had to believe in some extent in the messiah to come in order to show sufficent faith as to be saved....dont you think?

←

SERG

You still miss the point I have made several times in that just like Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him righteouness. The same applies to Zacharias and Elisabeth (Luke 1:5-25) Verse 6 says the were "righteous before God" - IN OTHER WORDS THEY BELIEVED GOD AND IT WAS COUNTED UNTO THEM RIGHTEOUSNESS. Out ot this righteousness from God flowed their ability "to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". Because they first believed they not only were able to walk in God's commandments but they also were blest by God with a long desired child even in their old age. It says that they desired to have a child and I would imagine that they prayed many times for a child. BUT AS I HAVE POSTED BEFORE IT IS THE SIMPLE PROCESS OF BELIEVING GOD AND TRUSTING HIM TO WORK OUT THE PLANS HE HAS FOR EACH OF US. Even the OT saints even though they didn't have the same revelation that we have as NT peoples can still be considered righteous before the Lord by simply BELIEVING GOD.

It is as I have posted before about what we do but what God has done and will do. Again going back to Psalm 51:6 King David said "Behold you desire truth in my inward parts and in the hidden part thou shall make me know wisdom." King David understood that it is God working inside of us that will reveal truth. Then King David in verses 7-15 says a prayer of repentance to the Lord and then in verses 16-17 he states that it is not in the burnt sacrifices that God finds pleasure but in a "contrite and broken heart" which God won't despise. King David clearly understood even in OT times what it meant to live for the Lord. So the OT saints did not earn their righteousness by keeping the law they received it simply because they believed. SAME AS TODAY - GOD'S MESSAGE HAS NOT CHANGED.

[paul6150]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 29 2005, 07:52 PM

Paul,

So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.

That's a straight forward anwer.

The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.

So - what's all the hub bub, bub?  I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.

←

SNOW

If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.

I refer to Romans 4:19-22 and Philippians 1:6 where in the 1st passage it says od Abraham that he believed even in his old age and then Paul says in the 2nd passage that he was confidant that what God had started He was able to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

To me the Gospel of Grace glorifies the Almighty God where the Gospel of Works makes it something people can boast about (look what I have done) which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other scriptures.

SO IF YOU ACCEPTED THE GOD OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR. All of us need to be asking God to show us the "fine points of deception" and to reveal all the facets of truth about Him. The Holy Spirit will honor that prayer and gradually show you as He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin. Once He reveals these untruths He asks that we believe Him above the traditions and beliefs we have held for so long and He will set us free. I had to jettison many beliefs from the "church of my youth" and follow Him rather than tradition and untruth. You must allow Him to do the same for you and Mormonism.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by paul6150+Nov 30 2005, 07:31 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 29 2005, 07:52 PM

Paul,

So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.

That's a straight forward anwer.

The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.

So - what's all the hub bub, bub?  I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.

←

SNOW

If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.

I refer to Romans 4:19-22 and Philippians 1:6 where in the 1st passage it says od Abraham that he believed even in his old age and then Paul says in the 2nd passage that he was confidant that what God had started He was able to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

To me the Gospel of Grace glorifies the Almighty God where the Gospel of Works makes it something people can boast about (look what I have done) which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other scriptures.

SO IF YOU ACCEPTED THE GOD OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR. All of us need to be asking God to show us the "fine points of deception" and to reveal all the facets of truth about Him. The Holy Spirit will honor that prayer and gradually show you as He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin. Once He reveals these untruths He asks that we believe Him above the traditions and beliefs we have held for so long and He will set us free. I had to jettison many beliefs from the "church of my youth" and follow Him rather than tradition and untruth. You must allow Him to do the same for you and Mormonism.

←

IF YOU ACCEPTED THE G-D OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR - Wow, how can someone that accepts G-d - sin after G-d has shown him the truth from error? Since the time that "He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin" (Your words) - have you sined? Even just a little one where you got mad at someone that did not deserve it? If your current church and religion has set you and everyone else there stright (ended devorce among its menbers - ended pride and envy and everything else bad) please send me the location where you all are - I'll be there Sunday to check it out.

The Traveler

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

First, let me summarize the rather lengthy set of quotes this post developed into. Snow explained that the LDS Church believes that the Bible, and indeed none of the Standard Works, describe the nature of God prior to this world's beginning. Furthermore, than when scriptures do address God using terms like "eternity," they are referring to this world's time frame.

Quite frankly, these claims--with reference to the original languages--will require a bit of digging on my part. I do not wish to give an off-the-cuff response to a substantial theological posit.

So...I want to address the last portion of the post.

Snow says: That our understanding differs from the orthodox Christian understanding bothers us not one bit. We do not measure ourselves against the mainstream. Our measuring stick is our canon and the prophets.

On one level, this goes without saying. The LDS Church does not consult the Assemblies of God, the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the various Councils of Church, before formulating doctrinal statements or teachings.

However--me thinks you do have concern for what "the mainstream" thinks. Most Mormons would be quite pleased if the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints were to be embraced by other Christian denominations. Many of you have proudly proclaimed your sense that you are solidly Christians--even "born again Christians."

So, perhaps this is a good time to address the LDS understanding about Christians who lived between 100 - 1800 A.D. Were they mostly apostate? Are the teachings and theology that came out of this time of any value? When you think of the creeds that came out of that time, do you do so with derision, or appreciation?

[prisonchaplain]

I say: So, my bottom-line answer is: The Bible trumps tradition, but new interpretations have a burden of proof far greater than historic doctrines. Furthermore, learned teachers with recognized training bare more careful attention than a layperson who thinks they've discovered something.

Snow responds: You can't have it both ways Prisonchaplain,

The definition of sola scriptura is that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.

So - either the Bible is clear and sufficient or it is not clear and sufficient; if it's not, if tradition is necessary to interpret and understand the Bible, then you don't believe in sola scriptura.

I'm not sure I accept your forced dichotomy, nor your tailored definition. I'll stick with my understanding: Yes, the Bible outweighs tradition, and is the ultimate source for discerning God's words. The Bible is infallible, it is enough. Is it clear? Well, the Good News is so simple that very young children embrace its truths. On the other hand, theologians have spent a lifetime in full-time study of the Bible, and confessed that their understanding "only scratches the surface."

Since you seemed to come down on the side of SS, I will assume that is your real position.

I will not ask what happens when you assume. I will not ask what happens when you assume. I will not ask what happens when you assume--nor will I break the word up to explain.

Now - back to your earlier point about "another Jesus." We both know that we aren't talking about "another Jesus" but rather the same Jesus of Nazareth.

Actually, when Paul criticizes the Corinthians for accepting teachings about "another Jesus," I am fairly certain he does mean wrong teachings about Jesus...not that the false teachers were presenting an alternative to Jesus.

What you are really talking about is that Mormons believe certain things about Christ's character that are so different from what you believe that you hold that, potentially, Mormons will not be saved despite having accepted Christ as their Savior and repented of their sins. Another way to put it is that because Mormons believe certain things about Jesus, Christ's grace may not be sufficient to save Mormons.

Keep in mind, first of all, that non-LDS Christians do not agree with the LDS teaching on a general grace, or a near-universal salvation. We believe it is heaven or hell, and that the way to heaven and God is through Jesus.

To offer a neutral example of a religion that believes in and honors Jesus, consider Islam. Muslims refer to Jesus as a prophet (peace be upon him). At first glance, there reverence is strong. They believe he was born of a virgin, and they always refer to him with honor, and with a special blessing attached to his name. Yet, they deny that he is the Son of God, and do not consider him the way to God. In fact, Islam says that whoever says that God has a son, or that the Son is God is an infidel (an unbeliever).

So, Muslims believe in Jesus. And, we are talking about the Nazarene--not your definition of "another Jesus." Yet, they do proffer "another Jesus." It is no honor to call God the Son a mere human prophet.

Snow, I believe your argument ultimately is that requiring right doctrine about Jesus is tantamount to attaching works to God's grace. Instead, rejecting God's true revelation of himself, through his Son, and adhering to "another Jesus...another gospel" is to commit the sin of Cain. Cain has his own way of worship, and when God called him on it, he lashed out at the one worshipping God in spirit and in truth, instead of changing his ways.

So, in that vain, God does offer a universal grace--but his creation must embrace the offer. To refuse the gift is to refuse reconciliation. Likewise, to say to God, "I'll take your grace...but on my own terms, according to the ways I was raised in," is no acceptance at all.

The open question is whether or not what Mormons believe about Jesus is so far removed from what God has revealed, that it amounts to an actual rejection of His revelation. Frankly, I'll be interested to read How Wide the Divide, for better perspective on this matter. I have it on order. Ultimately though, this is a matter between you and God.

Personally I think that is a wholly indefensible position just on the face of it. More ever, since you (I think) accept sola scriptura, and Mormons believe everything that the Bible teaches about Christ is it absurd to think that God's grace will not save them.

Snow, this is the bottom-line question, all right.

True - we believe things about Christ and God that are not part of the Bible but they do not contradict the Bible; they do fill in Biblical gaps. Those things may contradict YOUR interpretation of the Bible but they do not contradict our interpretation. As a sola scripturian you cannot tell us how we must interpret the Bible - that would violate the entire principle of sola scriptura that holds the Bible to be clear and sufficient. Any interpretation you mandate is at best superflourous and at worst holding itself up as superior to the word of God.

I've already suggested that your definition of SOLA SCRIPTURA is bit too tailored to this debate, and creates a false dichotomy.

[Snow]

Originally posted by paul6150@Nov 30 2005, 06:31 AM

SNOW

If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.

←

Tsk, tsk, tsk Paul,

It just won't do for you to misstate the LDS position and then criticize us for it.

I'll assume, for the sake of the conversation, that you are simply making an error rather than intentionally misstating our belief.

1. We believe that Christ's sacrifice is suffient for salvation.

2. We believe that Christ is able to complete what he started.

While Christ CAN save anyone, we believe, like you, that he has put conditions on that salvation. What both you and I agree on about what is required is that we accept Christ as our Savior. Where we diverge is that you seem to think accepting Christ consists of mere mental assent. We Mormons heartily endorse the idea of salavation by grace through faith but do not divorce "faith" from is Semitic origin meaning - "faithfulness. To have faith in Christ, to us implies subsequent faithfulness. To be "in Christ" (Paul's term) or to be "perfect in Christ is a covenant relationship. While there are no preconditions to enter the covenant relationship with Christ and to be justified by his grace through faith, we do incur covenant obligations by so entering. We are obliged to serve Christ, to make him our Lord by imitating his behavior and keep his commandments.

You chastise Mormons for believing that we have to continue following Christ (in order to be saved) even after accepting Christ (or being saved as you would say). However, the LDS view is a standard Protestant view. While a Calvanist might believe that someone who doesn't "hold to the iron rod" and perservere to the end was never really converted, Mormons and Arminian Evangelicals and those in the Wesleyan tradition hold that one may fall from grace.

[Snow]

PC,

I did not tailor my definition of sola scriptura to this debate. I went to the internet, typed “definition sola scriptura” and it was the first hit listed. It matches what I know about it. It is similar to numerous other explanations that can be found in books and articles.

Personally I cannot fathom what about the definition of “only scripture” you find unpalatable:

“...scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.”

Let’s break it down:

1. Is the Bible not the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice?

2. Is the Bible not infallible?

3. Is the Bible not sufficient?

4. Is the Bible not clear?

Please tell me which of the four parts you disagree with.

You may hold that the Bible is unclear but if that is so, you can hardly blame Mormons if they interpret the Bible differently than the many other’s who also interpret it. You could accuse us of being non-mainstream but you cannot accused us of being anti biblical.

You said: “Instead, rejecting God's true revelation of himself, through his Son, and adhering to "another Jesus...another gospel" is to commit the sin of Cain. Cain has his own way of worship, and when God called him on it, he lashed out at the one worshipping God in spirit and in truth, instead of changing his ways.”

What rubbish. What you really are saying is that if we interpret the Bible in a way that is not you your liking then you are going to liken us to the murderer Cain. I could easily say the exact same thing to you but I wouldn’t because it is an absurd and incendiary thing to say.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 30 2005, 07:26 PM

However--me thinks you do have concern for what "the mainstream" thinks.  Most Mormons would be quite pleased if the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints were to be embraced by other Christian denominations.  Many of you have proudly proclaimed your sense that you are solidly Christians--even "born again Christians."

Oh PC,

What bother with that kind of thing. You ought know perfectly well what I was talking about. I made a point that we don't look to the Protestants to define what we believe and practice - not that we didn't want to be popular. We are a missionary Church. In order to be successful in carrying out mandate to bring souls unto Christ, we want to appeal to as many people as possible. We proclaim that we are Christian because we are. But - then you know that's what I meant.

So, perhaps this is a good time to address the LDS understanding about Christians who lived between 100 - 1800 A.D.  Were they mostly apostate?  Are the teachings and theology that came out of this time of any value?  When you think of the creeds that came out of that time, do you do so with derision, or appreciation?

←

Certainly we can all agree that the in Christiandom there was ample corruption and oppression and conflict. Still, in spite of all that, I believe that there were likely many Christians that sought to do the right thing and succeeded in teaching and doing right things with the truth that was available to them. Setting aside the firey rhetoric of yesterday, we believe that others church have a measure of truth and we invite them to receive the fullness of truth.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow

Personally I cannot fathom what about the definition of “only scripture” you find unpalatable:

Let’s break it down:

1. Is the Bible not the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice?

2. Is the Bible not infallible?

3. Is the Bible not sufficient?

4. Is the Bible not clear?

Please tell me which of the four parts you disagree with.

It might help if we [LDS] submit that we do accept “only scripture” as the basis of our beliefs, but we do not accept “only Bible” as the basis of our beliefs, as we do not believe the Bible contains all of the scriptures which have ever been written.

So to conform what Snow just said to our beliefs, I would say:

“...scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that <scripture> is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.”

And to break it down I would say:

1. <scripture> is the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice.

2. <scripture> is ininfallible.

3. <scripture> is sufficient.

4. <scripture> is clear.

Or in other words, we believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. – Article of Faith #9

[Laureltree]

Originally posted by paul6150+Nov 30 2005, 08:31 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 29 2005, 07:52 PM

Paul,

So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.

That's a straight forward anwer.

The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.

So - what's all the hub bub, bub?  I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.

←

SNOW

If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.

I refer to Romans 4:19-22 and Philippians 1:6 where in the 1st passage it says od Abraham that he believed even in his old age and then Paul says in the 2nd passage that he was confidant that what God had started He was able to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

To me the Gospel of Grace glorifies the Almighty God where the Gospel of Works makes it something people can boast about (look what I have done) which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other scriptures.

SO IF YOU ACCEPTED THE GOD OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR. All of us need to be asking God to show us the "fine points of deception" and to reveal all the facets of truth about Him. The Holy Spirit will honor that prayer and gradually show you as He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin. Once He reveals these untruths He asks that we believe Him above the traditions and beliefs we have held for so long and He will set us free. I had to jettison many beliefs from the "church of my youth" and follow Him rather than tradition and untruth. You must allow Him to do the same for you and Mormonism.

←

How can his sacrifice be enough if those around us continually sin the same sin and dont go through a full repentance process ...Even heavenly father said we must have faith repentance, baptism by emersion ....Then christ's plan works from there... but you must do your part for him to do his ...It's a puzzle that fits together.......it's that simple...

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says:  We not believe that, say, the author of Hebrews was attempting to affirm what god was before the beginning of time. The bible neither affrims nor denies what God might have been before the begining of time or what he might have done in any prior eternity.

Most uses of the words “eteranal” and “forever” in the bible actually read “to the end of the age” or just “to the age.” The Greek words olam and aion mean “age” and first century Jews understood eternity to consist of successive ages or eons -  all within the parameters of beginning and end.

Our discussion here is about whether God is immutable (changeable). You have cited both LDS prophets and quotations from the Standard Works to show that he is not. Then comes the great exception. You say the Bible does not address how God's nature and character might have changed or been prior to the beginning of time.

In response to the nature of God, I am offering to links, which represent the two best Christian understandings of God's eternal nature: God as atemporal, or beyond time; and God as omnitemporal, or everywhere in all time.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/publi...237251/toc.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/realtime.html

Frankly, these writings grapple with some pretty substantial theological/philosophical thinking. I offer them only to point out that BOTH standard views of God's eternal nature preclude God being changeable or evolving from man prior to the existence of time. Furthermore, it seems self-evident that if God ever did change in nature, such change would indicate temporality--it would have to happen in the context of time.

[prisonchaplain]

Let’s break it [the definition of sola scripturadown:

1. Is the Bible not the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice?

No problems.

2. Is the Bible not infallible?

Correct again. However, I would caution that human interpretations are subject to error.

3. Is the Bible not sufficient?

Amen!

4. Is the Bible not clear?

This is the one that is most open to "over-interpretation." If by clear you mean that there is always one, easy-to-see answer to any question we may ask, then no, the Bible is not always clear. More directly, if you mean that the Bible has clear answers to every question imaginable, then no it's not clear.

However, the Bible is clear in teaching us who God is, how we should live, what our primary mission is. In fact, while the Bible offer limitless teaching material, if you compiled all the sermons preached on a given Sunday, my guess is they could quickly be categorized and summarized into relatively few themes.

Too often, where controversy and lack of clarity arise, is at the place we try force answers to questions the Bible does not directly address.

Here is an oft-repeated axiom: In essentials unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity.

Please tell me which of the four parts you disagree with.

You may hold that the Bible is unclear but if that is so, you can hardly blame Mormons if they interpret the Bible differently than the many other’s who also interpret it. You could accuse us of being non-mainstream but you cannot accused us of being anti biblical.

And this is the real false dichotamy you seem to be driving at: Either we must account ANY individual interpretation as equally valid to all others, or we must submit to a single source of authoritative doctrine. If the second answer is true, then, the argument goes, would the Catholic Church be that source? Since most non-Catholics are troubled by many aspects of Catholic history and teachings, that would lead us to an alternate source...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Alternatively, I would suggest that all believers do have a responsibility to study and understand the Scriptures--that there is a level of biblical teaching that is imminently clear, and that all literate Christians should master. Furthermore, that there are indeed learned teachers and leaders, who's offerings demonstrate great gravitas, in contrast, for example, to some of the lay-sites on the internet.

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS!

Snow, you love clearcut equations. You've offered me an A OR B equation (Scripture Only vs. Equal consideration for Scripture & Tradition) and my bottom-line answer is: YES. You accuse me of falling on both sides of the fence. My contention is that the Bible, rooted in eastern thinking as it is, often offers paradox and solutions that do not neatly fit into our western courtroom style of reasoning.

You said: “Instead, rejecting God's true revelation of himself, through his Son, and adhering to "another Jesus...another gospel" is to commit the sin of Cain. Cain has his own way of worship, and when God called him on it, he lashed out at the one worshipping God in spirit and in truth, instead of changing his ways.”

What rubbish. What you really are saying is that if we  interpret the Bible in a way that is not you your liking then you are going to liken us to the murderer Cain. I could easily say the exact same thing to you but I wouldn’t because it is an absurd and incendiary thing to say.

If you want to be a victim, you can join all the other religions who say the same thing: How can you say that your religion is the only right way? The short answer is: I don't. There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, including 1 billion Catholics and about the same number of non-Catholics. Do I believe that all Catholics will go to heaven? No. But, then again, neither will all those who attend Assemblies of God churches. I have some serious concerns about some RCC teachings. I disagree with sacramentalism (salvation is found in religious rituals, such as baptism). However, we agree on who God is, what our sacrad writings are, who Jesus is, etc. We have enough in common that I'm convinced that most faithful Catholics will be with me in heaven. I disagree with Southern Baptists about eternal security, about the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace, etc. However, we'll figure those issues out in heaven.

Lots of people will disagree with me about lots of matters, and we'll still have eternal fellowship in heaven.

We're back to the bottom line question: Is your understanding of Jesus and the gospel so different that it fits under what the Apostle Paul called "another?" I don't have that answer for you. You are right...it's not about me. It's between you and God. Again, though, I'm hoping to gain further insight by reading "How Great the Divide." It should prove interesting.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 1 2005, 03:45 PM

Even at ldstalk.com I give some posters more attention than others, and I'm not even LDS!

Heh, I think I could tell you what I think that means, but I'd rather hear it from you.

What did you mean by that?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 1 2005, 08:58 AM

And to break it down I would say:

1. <scripture> is the absolute source of authority for all doctrine and practice.

2. <scripture> is ininfallible.

3. <scripture> is sufficient.

4. <scripture> is clear.

←

I wouldn't.

I usually argue for a narrow interpretation of what constitutes doctrine but I wouldn't simply limit it to only scripture. Joseph Smith received revelation and it was instantaneously accepted as the definitive word of God - canonization did not make it any more true. If the brethren today were to declare officially and in harmony that such and such were true - you needn't wait until it were canonized to make it equivelent to scripture.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 1 2005, 01:25 PM

In response to the nature of God, I am offering to links, which represent the two best Christian understandings of God's eternal nature:  God as atemporal, or beyond time; and God as omnitemporal, or everywhere in all time.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/publi...237251/toc.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/realtime.html

Frankly, these writings grapple with some pretty substantial theological/philosophical thinking.  I offer them only to point out that BOTH standard views of God's eternal nature preclude God being changeable or evolving from man prior to the existence of time.  Furthermore, it seems self-evident that if God ever did change in nature, such change would indicate temporality--it would have to happen in the context of time.

←

Okay - that's interesting, however we Mormons are hardly bound by that philosophers philosophize about the nature of God and His place in or outside of time.

[Snow]

However, the Bible is clear in teaching us who God is, how we should live, what our primary mission is.

PC

Personally, I wouldn’t agree to that. When I said the Bible was clear, I was trying to define the sola scripture position but I think the Bible is far from clear in the ways you just described.

In many cases it is morally confusing. For years the Bible was used by “good christians” to justify slavery. The Bible recommends beating children with a stick. The Bible promotes genocide of those of other religions. The Bible authorizes legal rape, the punishment of grandchildren of a sinner. It seems to allow for the murder of someone who practiced birth control, etc.

Nor is the Bible explicit in it’s description of God and God’s nature.

And this is the real false dichotomy you seem to be driving at: Either we must account ANY individual interpretation as equally valid to all others, or we must submit to a single source of authoritative doctrine. If the second answer is true, then, the argument goes, would the Catholic Church be that source? Since most non-Catholics are troubled by many aspects of Catholic history and teachings, that would lead us to an alternate source...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Alternatively, I would suggest that all believers do have a responsibility to study and understand the Scriptures--that there is a level of biblical teaching that is imminently clear, and that all literate Christians should master. Furthermore, that there are indeed learned teachers and leaders, who's offerings demonstrate great gravitas, in contrast, for example, to some of the lay-sites on the internet.

I don’t think it is a false dichotomy at all. You are free to interpret the Bible how you will but if you take something outside of the Bible and use it as a mandate to decide what the Bible means, you are no longer adhering to strict sola scriptura. Requiring one particular interpretation of the scriptures, puts that “creed” on par with the scriptures an that blows the whole principle.

Snow, you love clearcut equations. You've offered me an A OR B equation (Scripture Only vs. Equal consideration for Scripture & Tradition) and my bottom-line answer is: YES.

I didn’t actually do that. Personally I have no great respect for tradition... that is if by tradition we are obligated to accept the creeds and councils of 1600 years ago. Granted I am no expert on the ancient councils but what I do know about them makes me doubt anything that came out of them. If God wanted to communicate with his people - do you think he would use a mass murderer / serial killer (Constantine) to facilitate it? Maybe you are using “tradition” differently than I am however.

If you want to be a victim, you can join all the other religions who say the same thing:

I don’t think that even makes sense. You like Mormons to the fratricidal Cain, I say that is absurd and you retort something about victimization...

???

How can you say that your religion is the only right way? The short answer is: I don't. There are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world, including 1 billion Catholics and about the same number of non-Catholics. Do I believe that all Catholics will go to heaven? No. But, then again, neither will all those who attend Assemblies of God churches.

That is precisely the difference between mainstream Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ. You can’t/won’t say that you are right. We, however believe that God is unchanging and will do nothing save he reveal his word to his servants, the prophets. Abraham or Isaiah or Noah or Peter, James and John did not have to wonder whether or not they were on the right track or whether they were just one of many competing denominations trying to get by. No - they were prophets who received a more sure word of revelation and knew the mind of God because God revealed it to them... just as we believe that God reveals to us, the saints, that he has chosen prophets in the latter-days to guide us.

[paul6150]

Originally posted by Traveler+Nov 30 2005, 06:43 PM-->

Originally posted by paul6150@Nov 30 2005, 07:31 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Nov 29 2005, 07:52 PM

Paul,

So a Mormon can just as likely be saved as a baptist provided they accept Christ and repent.

That's a straight forward anwer.

The rest of your post is really irrelevant to the issue of salivation - that once saved God will reveal to Mormons that the Book of Mormon is false, etc. It doesn't matter if he does or he doesn't because we are talking about salvation, not knowledge of scripture or apocrypha and pseudopigrapha. For that matter God could reveal that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other unique LDS beliefs and practices are true and correct - and of course millions of Mormons would testify that he has - but at any rate all that is irrelevant to salvation.

So - what's all the hub bub, bub?  I don't know what you yourself personally think but why do so many from your faith tradition attack and denigrate Mormonism when it brings people to Christ and urges them towards salvation.

←

SNOW

If you truly have accepted the Lord as you say then why do you all still teach that His sacrifice on the cross is not enough for salvation. If He is able to die for all the sins of all the people who ever lived even before we were born then WHY ISN'T HE ABLE TO COMPLETE WHAT HE STARTED IN EACH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. Mormonism teaches that even after all the holding onto the rod and reaching the tree of life and eating its fruit people can still fall away (Lehi's dream). Which is saying that we have to work for our salvation and even after doing all that is required still falling away.

I refer to Romans 4:19-22 and Philippians 1:6 where in the 1st passage it says od Abraham that he believed even in his old age and then Paul says in the 2nd passage that he was confidant that what God had started He was able to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

To me the Gospel of Grace glorifies the Almighty God where the Gospel of Works makes it something people can boast about (look what I have done) which is contrary to Ephesians 2:8-10 and many other scriptures.

SO IF YOU ACCEPTED THE GOD OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR. All of us need to be asking God to show us the "fine points of deception" and to reveal all the facets of truth about Him. The Holy Spirit will honor that prayer and gradually show you as He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin. Once He reveals these untruths He asks that we believe Him above the traditions and beliefs we have held for so long and He will set us free. I had to jettison many beliefs from the "church of my youth" and follow Him rather than tradition and untruth. You must allow Him to do the same for you and Mormonism.

←

IF YOU ACCEPTED THE G-D OF ALL TRUTH HE WILL SHOW YOU TRUTH FROM ERROR - Wow, how can someone that accepts G-d - sin after G-d has shown him the truth from error? Since the time that "He has shown me those areas in my life that I had as untruth or sin" (Your words) - have you sined? Even just a little one where you got mad at someone that did not deserve it? If your current church and religion has set you and everyone else there stright (ended devorce among its menbers - ended pride and envy and everything else bad) please send me the location where you all are - I'll be there Sunday to check it out.

The Traveler

The Traveler

←

TRAVELER

DON'T YOU RECALL MY POST ON ROMANS 7. In this passage even the great Apostle Paul who was used by God to write over half of the NT admits he sinned and struggled with sin. I too admit that I too often struggle with sin but I too like my namesake recognize the battle between the old man and the new man in Christ Jesus. The Apostle Paul at the end of Romans 7 and the beginning of Romans 8 states that the only one who could save such a wretch as him and me also is the Lord Jesus Christ. Then in Romans 8:1-9 we have these words:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. "

Here the Apostle Paul makes it clear that as long as we follow the law of the Spirit, in other words let the Holy Spirit have His way then He will keep us from sin, however if we fall back in our old patterns, or fail to pray and seek God's guidance then we start following the law of the flesh once again which produces sin in us.

No where in my previous posts have I ever said we will never sin and fail God after salvation for the Bible says we will but God is quick to forgive us when we through the conviction of the Holy Spirit once again confess those "post salvation " sins. These sins as I have said before are now covered by the blood of Jesus and they only affect the outcome of our reward in heaven (not Section 76 type of reward though). 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 clears this up: "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire."

Those things we do after salvation will also be judged by Jesus as to whether they were truly works we did to glorify the Lord (gold, silver, costly stones) or whether we did them for our own desires (wood, hay or stubble). If for our own desires these will be burned but the things that were done for God's glory will remain.

It is not that we will never sin after salvation but that we have a God who is quick to wash these new sins with the precious blood of Jesus. Once again we come back to it is His grace (unmerited favor) that sets us free from sin and death

TILL NEXT POST