My View Of Evangelicals

[Traveler]

Normally I do not like to post this kind of stuff. I find it pointless. Sometimes I will engage a evangelical if I think it is possible to communicate but for most of my experience I believe their attitude to be negative and no desire to exchange ideas. This is not all their doing. I have become rather negative myself but the difference seems to be that I personally do not like the spirit of contention and therefore I do not seek out an argument. I would never go to an evangelical web site and explain what I dislike about them. However, this is an LDS site so I will assume that evangelicals visiting this web site ought to be expectant of a different point of view. Never-the-less I still do not desire a contentious discussion. If you are evangelical and wish to argue a point - knock your self out - but you will lose me and my respect. But then again from past experiences that never was an issue of concern. I state this for you knowledge now should I not respond to what you think is off the scale brilliant argument in your post.

I will now address two subjects that I have found cannot be discussed. The first is the LDS theological doctrine of G-d. I will not go in to the entire genre, just the LDS concept that man was created to model G-d. Despite that the ancient Hebrew that describes man’s creation as meaning exactly that (modeling G-d). I really do not understand why evangelicals go so ballistic with this idea. Whenever this subject is addressed with evangelicals they become obsessed with G-d’s power. Of all that is G-d this is the only thing of G-dlyness they care about enough to discuss with LDS. It appears to me that they believe that G-d’s power is evil and any use of such power is evil. This is such a thing with them I am concerned that they may really believe G-d to be evil. Usually the argument presented to LDS is all about having our own worlds over which we will be G-d as if a world having a G-d over it is the ultimate evil.

This approach is so immature and childish I am amazed it is so universally used by evangelicals. Again, when G-d created man the scriptures tell us that G-d intended that man have “dominion” over all other things in the world in which he was placed. I think evangelicals think dominion is a bad and evil thing, regardless how it is exercised and despite the fact that G-d commanded it. Since G-d is the ultimate example of how a dominion ought to be exercised - I see all evangelical arguments on this matter to be directed directly at G-d and what he has done. Else why do they criticize doing what G-d does in the manner that he does it. The Satan argument is so wrong because Satan desired G-d’s power in order to use the power in a different manner. I find it odd that evangelicals seem to think the only way to use such power is as Satan would - They do not seem to understand at all why G-d is different. This is such a no brainer to me I do not get their whacked out approach.

The Second big deal is Salvation. The faith and works arguments. The LDS concept is not difficult but there are two issues and if the LDS are to be criticized both issues must be addressed. LDS believe that the atonement of Christ addressed both issues in the LDS understanding. The first issue is that Jesus paid for all sin. Evangelicals do not seem to catch this doctrine so let me state it as clearly as I can. LDS believe that the atonement of Christ is an infinite atonement and paid for all sins. G-d’s part is a done deal and finished but we must repent for the atonement to have effect on our hearts. The evangelical arguments on this matter convince me that they have no concept what the atonement or repentance is. As near as I can tell they think in “me” terms or “I” terms and they see the atonement strictly on selfish terms. They will see only their sins as being paid. Their belief in Christ is for a personal savior and they do not see or care about anything beyond that. Forgive others? Not a requirement they say, salvation cannot be earned. What I do not understand is how they think they can believe in Christ and believed that Christ suffered for sins and still believe that other’s sins are not part of the deal. They only believe Jesus paid for their personal sins and since other’s sins are not paid for they do not have to forgive. I think they are nuts. I cannot see how anyone can believe in the atonement of Christ and not know that they must forgive others because Christ paid for sin so we could be free of sin - not just the selfish our sins but free of other’s sins as well - We are not free of other’s sins until we forgive them. In essence repentance is forgiving yourself or your sins and other’s of their sins. But believing such a thing gets you labeled a non Christian and believing in a different Jesus. Don’t evangelicals have better fish to fry?

The other issue in the atonement concerns blessings. LDS believe that because of the atonement of Christ man can again have relationship with G-d and receive G-d’s blessings. The notion is very complex so try to keep up. Atonement two parts - redemption of sins (1) and enabling of blessings (2). This is a very important concept. Jesus gave a sermon on the Mount and devoted a whole section to blessings. He clearly taught that there are eternal blessings for righteous, even and especially if righteous must suffer in the short term - blessings come in eternity. I think from the arguments of evangelicals that they are extremely selfish and want all blessings for themself and to no one else especially those that followed the counsel of Jesus concerning to whom blessing are given accordingly to Matt chapter 5. For what-ever reason evangelicals hate the idea that righteousness has eternal connections. I do not think they care one bit about justice or that G-d is merciful in forgiving sins because of the atonement of Christ but that G-d is also just in that he only blesses the righteous. Sins do not reap eternal blessings - I do not see why they hate this concept but they do and I think their goal is the make anyone’s life miserable for believing such a thing for as long as they have power to do so.

I realize that not all evangelicals believe and argue these points but because of the tactics used by those that do pretending all kinds of things I have not yet figured how to tell the mean ones that will act friendly from the friendly ones that are friendly. When someone approaches the issues I have listed in the manner and means customary to the mean evangelicals I figure I don’t need any more experience and they are welcome to anyone that likes the way they address the matter.

The Traveler

[livy111us]

I agree Traveler. I find it odd that some argue over what teaches us to be humble, meek, loving, charitable etc....It doesn't make any sense to me. I have been guilty of getting contentious in debates in the past, but find that it is completely useless. The Spirit leaves, you leave feeling angered, and no one learns a thing. Whoever talks over the other person, cuts them off, and is better at rhetoric, wins. It's crazy to me. I'm all for understanding others without the arguing and willful contention. I think the ones that look for us are just those who want an argument. The kind ones, which I believe to be the majority, are the ones who can accept that others may believe differently. It's the vocal minority fanatics that we usually run into.

Alma says it best in Alma 1:21-24

21 Now there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should anot• any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

22 Nevertheless, there were many among them who began to be proud, and began to contend warmly with their adversaries, even unto blows; yea, they would smite one another with their afists•.

23 Now this was in the *second year of the reign of Alma, and it was a cause of much affliction to the church; yea, it was the cause of much trial with the church.

24 For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were ablotted• out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also many bwithdrew• themselves from among them.

Some use Jude 1:3 as an excuse to argue, but fail to mention that it is rebuked in Rom. 2:8-9, your not sincere if you preach the gospel that way (Phil. 1:15-16), but must do it meekly and with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25) see also 1 Cor. 11:16

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 27 2005, 04:33 PM

LDS believe that the atonement of Christ is an infinite atonement and paid for all sins.  G-d’s part is a done deal and finished but we must repent for the atonement to have effect on our hearts.  The evangelical arguments on this matter convince me that they have no concept what the atonement or repentance is.  As near as I can tell they think in “me” terms or “I” terms and they see the atonement strictly on selfish terms.  They will see only their sins as being paid.  Their belief in Christ is for a personal savior and they do not see or care about anything beyond that.  Forgive others?  Not a requirement they say, salvation cannot be earned.  What I do not understand is how they think they can believe in Christ and believed that Christ suffered for sins and still believe that other’s sins are not part of the deal.  They only believe Jesus paid for their personal sins and since other’s sins are not paid for they do not have to forgive.  I think they are nuts.  I cannot see how anyone can believe in the atonement of Christ and not know that they must forgive others because Christ paid for sin so we could be free of sin - not just the selfish our sins but free of other’s sins as well

The Traveler

←

Nicely said Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 27 2005, 08:27 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Nov 27 2005, 04:33 PM

LDS believe that the atonement of Christ is an infinite atonement and paid for all sins.  G-d’s part is a done deal and finished but we must repent for the atonement to have effect on our hearts.  The evangelical arguments on this matter convince me that they have no concept what the atonement or repentance is.  As near as I can tell they think in “me” terms or “I” terms and they see the atonement strictly on selfish terms.  They will see only their sins as being paid.  Their belief in Christ is for a personal savior and they do not see or care about anything beyond that.  Forgive others?  Not a requirement they say, salvation cannot be earned.  What I do not understand is how they think they can believe in Christ and believed that Christ suffered for sins and still believe that other’s sins are not part of the deal.  They only believe Jesus paid for their personal sins and since other’s sins are not paid for they do not have to forgive.  I think they are nuts.  I cannot see how anyone can believe in the atonement of Christ and not know that they must forgive others because Christ paid for sin so we could be free of sin - not just the selfish our sins but free of other’s sins as well

The Traveler

←

Nicely said Traveler

←

Thank you Snow - I think this goes in the record books for you and I seeing something in the same light :)

The Traveler

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Nov 28 2005, 04:13 PM

Thank you Snow - I think this goes in the record books for you and I seeing something in the same light :)

The Traveler

←

Nah - truth be told I agree with much of what you say. It would make for dull posting if I said "hear, hear" on everything so I look for what to disagree about and stir up a little controversy...

I think it is part of my character to need to cause a little conflict in order to generate some passion so that I an interested enough to study and learn something new.

Thanks.

Snow

[sonofpaul]

Do the LDS believe that God works in the life of the believer, so that they may be transformed?

Here is a picture of what I believe.

Son of Paul

[Traveler]

SonofPaul: I will speak for myself. I believe that being born of the spirit is a beginning - similar to your understanding. We then are tutored by G-d through covenants and trials of those covenants. Line upon line upon line upon line we gain understanding of G-d and are made stronger according to our loyalties. The ancient word that is used in our modern scriptures for "Perfect" has direct reference to being loyal and complete to covenants - it does not necessarily mean flawless.

I believe that G-d intends that we become children of G-d to manifest his attributes and take upon ourselves his name (which is also his title) while we are yet living mortal lives. The misuse of his name - or to turn to sin having received his name is the ultimate vain use of his name and extends our fallen state. I also believe the G-d intends man to become even greater than was his initial estate in Eden and that this is why he allowed the fall in the first place. That man could have greater knowledge and be able to take upon themself the very name of G-d which is greater than his image.

The Traveler

[sonofpaul]

Originally posted by Traveler@Dec 3 2005, 10:04 AM

SonofPaul:  I will speak for myself.  I believe that being born of the spirit is a beginning - similar to your understanding.  We then are tutored by G-d through covenants and trials of those covenants.  Line upon line upon line upon line we gain understanding of G-d and are made stronger according to our loyalties.  The ancient word that is used in our modern scriptures for "Perfect" has direct reference to being loyal and complete to covenants - it does not necessarily mean flawless.

I believe that G-d intends that we become children of G-d to manifest his attributes and take upon ourselves his name (which is also his title) while we are yet living mortal lives.  The misuse of his name - or to turn to sin having received his name is the ultimate vain use of his name and extends our fallen state.  I also believe the G-d intends man to become even greater than was his initial estate in Eden and that this is why he allowed the fall in the first place.  That man could have greater knowledge and be able to take upon themself the very name of G-d which is greater than his image.

The Traveler

←

In your opinion, is it possible to gain all knowledge?

How then do you address Exodus 20:3-4, two of God's Commandments?

3 You shall have no other gods before me. 

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Exodus 20:3-4

[prisonchaplain]

Normally I do not like to post this kind of stuff.  I find it pointless.  Sometimes I will engage a evangelical if I think it is possible to communicate but for most of my experience I believe their attitude to be negative and no desire to exchange ideas.

If you were an evangelical, would you want to tread this ground? Traveler has obviously had some less than fruitful conversations. Despite his skepticism, hopefully, I can contribute something of worth.

I will now address two subjects that I have found cannot be discussed.  The first is the LDS theological doctrine of G-d.  I will not go in to the entire genre, just the LDS concept that man was created to model G-d.  Despite that the ancient Hebrew that describes man’s creation as meaning exactly that (modeling G-d).

Here's a short-version answer to what I believe is your query: evangelicals, and indeed most Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe that God is one. Consider the the schema: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. (Dueteronomy 6:4). The notion that humans can become gods (model God) is foreign to our theological understanding, and generates a good deal of alarm.

The Second big deal is Salvation.  The faith and works arguments.  The LDS concept is not difficult but there are two issues and if the LDS are to be criticized both issues must be addressed.  LDS believe that the atonement of Christ addressed both issues in the LDS understanding.  The first issue is that Jesus paid for all sin.  Evangelicals do not seem to catch this doctrine so let me state it as clearly as I can.  LDS believe that the atonement of Christ is an infinite atonement and paid for all sins.  G-d’s part is a done deal and finished but we must repent for the atonement to have effect on our hearts.

Evangelicals believe that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, and confession of sins. (John 3:16, 1 John 1:9). Yes, Jesus died for the forgiveness of all sins. However, we believe that each of us most embrace the gift. God does not force his salvation upon us. Those who do not embrace the gift--whose names do not appear in the Lamb's Book of Life, we not be saved. So, the LDS teaching of a general salvation is too permissive to evangelicals, in that faith in Jesus is not required. On the other hand, exaltation, seems too restrictive to us. The sacramental requirements, all exclusively in the LDS context, strike us setting up false barriers between God and his people, by requiring an organizational gatekeeper.

Christ suffered for sins and still believe that other’s sins are not part of the deal.

Jesus died for everyone's sins. However, each person is free to embrace or reject the gift of forgiveness. God will not force his mercy on us. The narrow gate of Jesus is narrow because there is only one way (Jesus: John 14:6), but wide enough that whosoever will may come.

They only believe Jesus paid for their personal sins and since other’s sins are not paid for they do not have to forgive.  I think they are nuts.  I cannot see how anyone can believe in the atonement of Christ and not know that they must forgive others because Christ paid for sin so we could be free of sin - not just the selfish our sins but free of other’s sins as well - We are not free of other’s sins until we forgive them.

I've never heard an evangelical say that we are not required to forgive the sins of others. Where are you hearing this? Of course we must forgive. Jesus said if we cannot forgive others he cannot forgive us.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 4 2005, 06:47 PM

I've never heard an evangelical say that we are not required to forgive the sins of others.  Where are you hearing this?  Of course we must forgive.  Jesus said if we cannot forgive others he cannot forgive us.

←

Okay so this sounds a little more complex than at first. So salvation is not by faith only. Salvation is by:

1. Accepting Christ as your Savior

2. Repenting of your sins.

3. Believing certain orthodox doctrines about Christ's nature, and

4. Forgiving others.

Anything else?

[Traveler]

Originally posted by sonofpaul@Dec 3 2005, 08:30 AM

In your opinion, is it possible to gain all knowledge?

How then do you address Exodus 20:3-4, two of God's Commandments?

3 You shall have no other gods before me. 

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Exodus 20:3-4

←

First I apologize for not having more time to respond to all your question in several threads. Next I am some what taken back from your questions. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a worthless or stupid question - it is just that you are talking about such basic concepts I have assumed that such matters would be easy for you to see answers.

As to knowledge - Part of my understanding of the “damned” is that they are stopped, limited and are bounded in their knowledge. There is a line that they cannot cross and they are forever confined to finite limitations. All knowledge as you have asked is infinite and unbounded. Consider with me John 8:31-32. Infinite knowledge is freedom. Limited knowledge = Damnation. Infinite knowledge = freedom (salvation).

Now to your question concern the verses in Exodus chapter 20. Many of the conversations I have had with Evangelicals leave me think this religious group does not understand “The Fall”. This is a most important concept and is central to understand the teachings of Christ, his atonement and the scriptures that explain such things as repentance and salvation. The fall removed mankind from G-d the Father and his eternal kingdom of heaven. Because man was cut off he was lost forever - with one possible exception. Jesus Christ the divine mediator between all mankind and the Father. There is only one G-d for fallen man. Other than Jesus Christ (that is also the G-d of the Old Testament and the New Testament) there is no other G-d, savior, redeemer, or help. Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses and all other prophets of all ages since the fall must have only one that is their G-d to bring salvation. That one single G-d and divine redeemer is the same Jesus Christ the very Son of The Father.

Jesus is the only “Way” to the “Tree of Life” and only by him and no other G-d or image of G-d can bring man to the Father and the Kingdom of the Father. Exodus chapter 20 is given that we (that are fallen) might be saved by the atonement of Christ - for there is no other way. But who is this Jesus Christ. For one he is L-rd of L-rds and a King of Kings. Do you have any idea what a L-rd of Lords or a King of King is? This has nothing to do with earthy Lords or Kings but pertains to the kingdom of the Father which is in heaven and the children and joint “heirs” of Jesus Christ.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 4 2005, 07:47 PM

I've never heard an evangelical say that we are not required to forgive the sins of others.  Where are you hearing this?  Of course we must forgive.  Jesus said if we cannot forgive others he cannot forgive us.

←

This stems from the question of faith and works. I have asked if any works are necessary and they respond no - all that is required for salvation is to "Believe" that Jesus is the Christ. I ask again are the works of forgiveness required. There response has been - works are not required you can not earn salvation by the works of forgiveness or any other works only by the Atonement of Jesus.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Okay so this sounds a little more complex than at first. So salvation is not by faith only. Salvation is by:

1. Accepting Christ as your Savior

2. Repenting of your sins.

3. Believing certain orthodox doctrines about Christ's nature, and

4. Forgiving others.

Anything else?

Jesus commands those who are saved to forgive. You've been forgiven, you must also forgive. It is not a prerequisite of salvation.

When Jesus is teaching on forgiveness, he is speaking to his followers. When he tells the parable of the fellow who's huge debt was forgiven, and who then proceeds to have somebody who owes him a pittance thrown into debtor's prison--the expectation to forgive FOLLOWS the reception of forgiveness.

In other words, Jesus' expectation that we forgive is not prequisite of salvation, but an expected outcome of the experience.

[prisonchaplain]

This stems from the question of faith and works.  I have asked if any works are necessary and they respond no - all that is required for salvation is to "Believe" that Jesus is the Christ.  I ask again are the works of forgiveness required.  There response has been - works are not required you can not earn salvation by the works of forgiveness or any other works only by the Atonement of Jesus.

O I C. The requirement to forgive is one issued to believers. We are not expected to clean ourselves up before we are forgiven (saved). We believe and confess our sins. However, an OUTCOME of salvation is that we forgive others. So rather than "faith and works" we would say "faith THEN works."

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 4 2005, 09:26 PM

Okay so this sounds a little more complex than at first. So salvation is not by faith only. Salvation is by:

1. Accepting Christ as your Savior

2. Repenting of your sins.

3. Believing certain orthodox doctrines about Christ's nature, and

4. Forgiving others.

Anything else?

Jesus commands those who are saved to forgive. You've been forgiven, you must also forgive. It is not a prerequisite of salvation.

When Jesus is teaching on forgiveness, he is speaking to his followers. When he tells the parable of the fellow who's huge debt was forgiven, and who then proceeds to have somebody who owes him a pittance thrown into debtor's prison--the expectation to forgive FOLLOWS the reception of forgiveness.

In other words, Jesus' expectation that we forgive is not prequisite of salvation, but an expected outcome of the experience.

←

Okay then - The prerequisites for salvation are:

1. Faith

2. Repentance

3. Correct understanding of certain doctrine

... but not forgiving others. What about rape and murder? Does one have to refrain from rape and murder in order to be saved?

My other question would relate to the salvific prerequisite of believing correct doctrine about Christ - is it an affirmative requirement - in that you have to believe certain things about Christ or a negative requirement - in that you are prohibited from believing certain things?

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: Okay then - The prerequisites for salvation are:

1. Faith

2. Repentance

3. Correct understanding of certain doctrine

... but not forgiving others. What about rape and murder? Does one have to refrain from rape and murder in order to be saved?

Perhaps understanding #2 might help a bit. It's not, "God forgive my sins, so I can keep on living my life the way I want to, and keep on asking forgiveness as I keep on sinning." When we repent, with the help of God we do indeed turn from our wicked ways. I'm not sorry I got caught. I am sorry that I have offended a holy, righteous God with my immoral acts. HOWEVER, I realize I cannot possibly clean myself up, before presenting myself to God. So I come "just as I am." God forgives me because of Jesus' acceptable payment for my sins, and as a RESULT, by the power of God, that now lives within me, my life is no longer mine. I have given it to God. THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC.

Snow asks: My other question would relate to the salvific prerequisite of believing correct doctrine about Christ - is it an affirmative requirement - in that you have to believe certain things about Christ or a negative requirement - in that you are prohibited from believing certain things?

You continue to frame the very fancy and difficult sounding "correct doctrine" as a work. What happens with salvation is really an acceptance of God's gift. It only makes sense that we acknowledge correctly both the gift and the giver!

[porterrockwell]

First of all, salvation or being "saved" will come to you regardless of whether or not you accept Jesus Christ and his teachings. It is an infinite atonement, unless you become a son of perdition(which very few will ever have the chance to do), you will recieve a level of glory. Now, exaltation on the other hand is a different matter, to enter back into the presence of the Father recquires not just the first principles and ordinances of the gospel-which are 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2. Repentance, 3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, 4.Laying on of hands by the gift of the Holy Ghost(by one have authority and being commisioned of Jesus Christ...by line of authority)-but also EVERY saving ordinance available to the human family through the Lord's sacred Temples. Not to mention ADHEARING to the covenants you make and taking the neccessary steps to repentance when such covenants are violated.

I can't personally understand this whole "pray and be cleansed" deal with the EV's. The spirit within us needs a chance to heal, a process by which to refrain and strengthen itself against it's former weaknesses. Do they not understand combating the carnal nature and that without process there can be no cleansing effect? Unfortunately I have a dear friend who is mormon and believes all you have to do is pray and you are forgiven(even for the major stuff), and i can see nothing more dangerous or cancerous than such a perceptions and understanding(or lack thereof) of the atonement and how it works in our lives.

To say that one need only accep Jesus Christ and nothing after that can keep from the presence of God is a petty and irresponsible concept. If I am correct in my understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ brings one to a knowledgeable and accountable state. The "EV way" takes accountability out of their hands and returns them to a terrestrial state as they were in the garden of Eden(in concept), hence the fall means nothing and you are no more like him than Adam and Eve were and this probationary period is meaningless. Let's not forget that you have also limited what the Atonement can do for you and you fall short of the measure your Father in Heaven created you for. You do nothing to honor his glory by existing in such a way either. I apologize for the soap box, but just some things that needed to come out. Plus, it's my P-day, so, other than studying the scriptures all day and listening to 2005 General Conference on CD I have nothing better to do.

[jiggypoo]

Porter -

You make excellent points about the application of the Atonement of Christ. I stand as a witness to this truth. In my recovery from pornography addiction, I had to come face to face with the many false bleiefs I carried about God, forgiveness, and the Atonement. It is very difficult to begin to own one's actions and stand accountable before God and his judges for our actions. It, though, is the fire which helps begin the purging process.

Thanks for this post.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

What happens with salvation is really an acceptance of God's gift. It only makes sense that we acknowledge correctly both the gift and the giver!

PC, we [LDS] do believe we acknowledge correctly both the giver and the gift, and we also believe that you and other Christians acknowledge correctly both the giver and the gift, it’s just that we [LDS] acknowledge that we know some more things about the giver and the gift than you do.

For instance, there is nothing written in the Bible about Jesus or Jehovah that we do not believe. However, there are some things written in the Book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine & Covenants that we [LDS] also accept, because we [LDS] believe those writings correctly reveal many of the attributes and experiences and words of Jesus and Jehovah that the Bible does not mention. And the same thing is true regarding salvation, and grace, and works, and many other things which the Bible does not fully reveal.

Or in other words, we [LDS] acknowledge every word we have from God, while you and many other Christians appear to acknowledge His words in the Bible only.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 5 2005, 12:57 AM

  THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC.

Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.

As I see it, there are three answers:

1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?

2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved.

3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved."

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 5 2005, 07:18 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Dec 5 2005, 12:57 AM

  THE RESULT WILL BE THAT I FORGIVE, THAT I FORSAKING RAPING, MURDERING, LYING, THIEVING, ETC.

Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.

As I see it, there are three answers:

1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?

2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved.

3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved."

←

Snow: Just so you and I (and anyone else) have a clear understanding of where I stand. I personally believe that coming unto Christ has much more to do with loving your neighbor than it does espousing a doctrine or religion. (Or even getting yourself saved). I do not believe it is about self.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.

As I see it, there are three answers:

1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?

While in some ways, this is the least palatable answer, it is the closest to being accurate. I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved." However, it is difficult to lose one's salvation. The Bible tells that God chases after us, that there is no where we can hide from him. However, if the "saved" one continually rejects or ignores the conviction of the Holy Spirit, s/he will come to the place of having once been "saved" but now being "lost."

2. No, you cannot rape and murder, after being saved, and still stay saved - obeying God is a condition of staying saved.

There is no perfection this side of glory. Rapists and murders have been gloriously restored to faith. The balance is that Scripture does warn us about guarding our salvation, enduring to the end. So, those who believe God can be played are only deluding themselves.

3. No, the raping and murdering indicate that the person wasn't really ever saved to begin with - so no matter how sincere they seemed or how their life changed, sin after the fact indicates that it was a false "saved."

There certainly are cases where the crimes proves the darkness and insincerity of the heart. Yet, I would not want to be the one that makes this condemnation. The answers will come on the Day of Judgment when Jesus will say to some, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Sorry I can't package this up neatly for you, Snow. When it comes to matters of the heart, of sincerity of faith, of whether a struggling "believer" is going to endure to the end or not, we often will not know until the day when we see Jesus.

[Snow]

Snow asks: My other question would relate to the salvific prerequisite of believing correct doctrine about Christ - is it an affirmative requirement - in that you have to believe certain things about Christ or a negative requirement - in that you are prohibited from believing certain things?

You continue to frame the very fancy and difficult sounding "correct doctrine" as a work. What happens with salvation is really an acceptance of God's gift. It only makes sense that we acknowledge correctly both the gift and the giver!

←

Man! It's hard to get a clear answer from you. You are less explicit than even the Bible.

So when you correctly acknowledge the giver of the gift - are you required to affirm certain things about Him - for example homoousis, cosubstantiality, indivisibility and ungeneration? Or are you required to disaffirm certain thing about the giver, like not believe that He was the brother of Satan?

What about if you lived in the jungle hundreds of years ago and had only heard tidbits about the giver of the gift and didn't know enough to believe and understand correct doctrine or not but accepted him as your Savior anyway?

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 5 2005, 07:36 PM

Snow says:  Okay, I got that. When one comes unto Christ, they have to really mean it Still people have "come unto Christ" and then wind up somehow raping and murdering, or maybe buying the services of prostitutes (and getting caught and aplogizing and crying about it on TV only to do it again) or if you extend it out to sinning in general, then everybody who comes unto Christ winds up sinning again. Which brings me back to the original question - can one who is saved committ rape or murder.

As I see it, there are three answers:

1. Yes, once saved, always saved and no amount of raping and murdering can change that?

While in some ways, this is the least palatable answer, it is the closest to being accurate.  I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved."  However, it is difficult to lose one's salvation.  The Bible tells that God chases after us, that there is no where we can hide from him.  However, if the "saved" one continually rejects or ignores the conviction of the Holy Spirit, s/he will come to the place of having once been "saved" but now being "lost."

←

Well now it looks like we are getting somewhere. So, after accepting Christ and becoming "saved," we are then required to obey the commandments, at least in some measure, in order to maintain our salvation. Right?

[pushka]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 6 2005, 04:10 AM

What about if you lived in the jungle hundreds of years ago and had only heard tidbits about the giver of the gift and didn't know enough to believe and understand correct doctrine or not but accepted him as your Savior anyway?

←

I'm not professing to know anything about all this, but I would have thought that you would be saved by believing whatever you understood to be correct doctrine, as long as you followed whatever example Christ showed you in order to be saved.