Salvation

[Traveler]

Some years ago I was involved in a formal public debate with the president of the Utah chapter of Atheists, Chris Allen. At the time Chris and I were working at the same place and the debate took place during our lunch break. Over several weeks the debate took on quite a following (BTW – Chris and I were friends and worked together on issues of smoking in the workplace). The debate was friendly and centered on weather or not G-d exists.

One of the points I presented is that there is a possibility that some individual being, with intelligence greater than man, (both individual and aggregate) that is involved in events unfolding around mankind and civilization on this planet, exists. It was not my intent to use the full extent of what G-d means, just a definition that we could utilize and discuss within the limited range that we have living on this earth.

As part of that debate I presented 5 points that I submitted as governing of G-d’s superior relationship to man. I offer these points for the sake of understanding as follows:

1. G-d will not do anything for man that man is able to do himself.

2. G-d will do for man that which man cannot do for himself.

3. G-d will not do anything for man that will not be of greater benefit for man.

4. G-d will do for man that which will result in the greater benefit for man.

5. G-d will not do anything for man without man’s concurrence.

In the discussion of salvation I would like to touch on numbers 1 and 2. I submit that there is something man can do to affect their own salvation. The reason I insist that man can do something is because of the logic in scripture that some will receive salvation (or greater blessings of salvation) than others that are excluded in some degree. The only reason that there is a difference or reason to differentiate is because of what man does or does not do. I present this idea not to define any or all such things only to indicate that such things exist and that they are things that man can do.

At the same time I submit that G-d does what man cannot do for himself. Therefore, in order that man receives salvation, G-d must do what man cannot do as an unearned gift. It cannot be earned because it involves something that man cannot do or anything equivalent to something man can do. Therefore it cannot be earned or traded.

In the LDS concept of salvation, it is both important and necessary that man do that which he can. In fact, it is LDS doctrine that if there is anything man can do for salvation, then he must do it even though man is reliant on G-d for what G-d does for man’s salvation. Or in other words: “After all that man can do, he is saved by the grace of G-d”.

As far as Christians debate this issue I do not see that debate is over weather man does or does not do something necessary for salvation. Nor do I see the debate over that G-d does something for man that man cannot do for themselves. The only debate I see is over what it is that man can do that affects salvation. The argument that I present is that if there is nothing that man does, then all men are saved to the same degree or level or blessing of salvation regardless of what anyone does, believes, thinks, hopes or whatever - and no one believes that. It does not appear to me that the basic LDS concept of salvation is really that different from any other Christian’s basic concept.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler's bottom line question is whether the LDS and evangelical understanding of the doctrine of salvation is really that different. The answer actually depends on which "school" of evangelicalism you query.

1. Calvinists argue that humanity has nothing to do with salvation. God has chosen who will be saved and who will be damned. The draw to salvation is irresistable for the chosen, and repugnant to the damned. Furthermore, Calvinists believe in "the perserverance of the saints." In other words, those who are chosen will not only BECOME saved, they will STAY saved. "Once saved always saved," is a common saying amongst this believers.

2. Armenians argue that humanity has free will, and that "whosoever will may come." The chosing of God and of grace is not considered a work, but simply a willingness to receive the free gift. Thus, salvation is not humanity's doing. On the other hand, Armenians believe it is possible to lose one's salvation. Some, like myself, argue that it is extremely difficult to do so. God chases after us when we are wayward, wooing us back to himself. To "lose" salvation really means to intentionally walk away from it, most often for repeated denial of the conviction and drawing of the Holy Ghost. Others argue that it is not so difficult, that willful disobedience could result in losing salvation. Such folk have frequent calls for "recommitment to Christ," and may even call for new baptisms.

3. Universalists argue that Jesus died for everyone's sins, so in the end all will be saved. They suggest, "Can anyone really outsin the love of God? Is anyone's evil inclinations really more powerful than God's goodness?"

So, how would these look at the LDS view? Calvinists would have much heartburn over the idea that we can do anything to earn our salvation. Armenians would also question such direct talk us doing anything. but might more easily accept that much of the "doing" is really "enduring to the end." Universalists would struggle with the degrees of glory.

[Traveler]

Traveler's bottom line question is whether the LDS and evangelical understanding of the doctrine of salvation is really that different. The answer actually depends on which "school" of evangelicalism you query.

So, how would these look at the LDS view? Calvinists would have much heartburn over the idea that we can do anything to earn our salvation. Armenians would also question such direct talk us doing anything. but might more easily accept that much of the "doing" is really "enduring to the end." Universalists would struggle with the degrees of glory.

My point and the LDS view is that G-d will not do for man what man can do for themself and that G-d will do for man what man cannot do for himself. Even though you gave some rather interesting examples I do not see where G-d does for any man what they can do for themself concerning salvation. Although it does appear that you think some believe G-d will not do for some for what-ever-reason that they cannot do for themselves. This is confusing because as you stated those with salvation must do as they are drawn which is something they can do - therefore they still do everything they can. It does appear to me from the examples that man must do what they can. What is defined as what man can; appears to be the matter of question even if all that man can do is come to and accept G-d.

It does appear to me that you and I agree that G-d does not do for man what man can do for themselves and that G-d does do for man what man cannot do for himself.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

It does appear to me that you and I agree that G-d does not do for man what man can do for themselves and that G-d does do for man what man cannot do for himself.

I clarify the bottom-line evangelical view: Humanity can do NOTHING with regard to salvation. It is a free gift, given by the grace of God to "whosoever will." On the other hand, believers are called to "work out their salvation daily, with fear and trembling." So, concerning the life of salvation, God certainly does call upon us to 'take up our cross.' Then again, Jesus promises that his yoke is easy, his burden is light. And yes, He's there with us the whole way.

I stressed the "we can do nothing" part, because this is where evangelicals and LDS usually run into a huge miscommunication problem. Whenever LDS discuss salvation, you almost always mean the life of salvation and enduring to the end. Whenever evangelicals discuss salvation we almost always mean the moment of conversion. The life of salvation is something we distinguish as progressive sanctification (becoming more like Christ).

So, our beliefs about salvation are not so different, but the language we use to discuss them lead to much misunderstanding. BTW, I would again refer interested readers to the chapter on salvation in the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Discussion, by Profs. Robinson and Blomberg (BYU & Denver Seminary, respectively).

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler & P.C.,

So which of your faiths, with regard to salvation, is based 100% on the grace of God?

Thanks

[Outshined]

So, our beliefs about salvation are not so different, but the language we use to discuss them lead to much misunderstanding.

Exactly; this is where so many problems arise. Salvation comes through Christ alone. B)

[Ray]

Hello Traveler & P.C.,

So which of your faiths, with regard to salvation, is based 100% on the grace of God?

Thanks

I would also like to hear both of them answer this too. :)

I have given my answer in some other threads, but it appears that that didn't help you.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

Yes, sir, you're correct. Please know that I am not trying to dismiss your atttempts to inform me about your beliefs. You did, on a number of occasions try to explain your take on this issue. As you read in that other thread, I am having problems understanding what you were trying to say. You were patient with my questions and did try to answer in a variety of ways. I still kept getting hung up on the word "after" in that verse and the apparent "role" you kept placing on people's actions. I've asked these two gentlemen because I'm interested in hearing someone say, "it is a combination of what we do with what God has done", "It is 100% God's grace," "We earn our own salvation," etc. Bottom line: I want to know, Is salvation based 100% on the grace of God or not?

Thanks

[Ray]

Okay, just in case I might be able to better explain it this time, I’ll take one more shot at it, while trying to be as clear as I can.

Is salvation based 100% on the grace of God or not?

Forgive me if I sound like a politician, but a Yes or No answer would not be complete.

Or in other words, I could say Yes, and give you the wrong idea, and I could also say No, and give you the wrong idea, because I wouldn't be mentioning a few key ideas.

But to try to answer it simply, with the understanding that the grace of God refers to His generosity, I will say Yes, salvation is based 100% on the generosity of God, and I’ll try to leave it at that.

But now you are probably asking how exactly is God being generous. And if you’re not, you probably should.

And to answer that question I will now say that He sent His son when, as a point of fact, He didn’t have to. And Jesus also didn’t have to do what He did, and what He continues to do.

So there. I hope you’re happy. We are saved by God’s grace completely.

Oh, but before you go, I would like to help give you one more thought which may help you to understand this issue.

Lest you think the fact that God sending His son to save us, saved us, or that the fact that His son actually came and did what He did and continues to do for us, saved us, I hope you will also try to consider the fact that we must go with Him and accept what He tells us.

Or in other words, to use the example I gave you before, that man had to get in the car, or truck, or raft, or boat, or helicopter, to actually be able to be saved, and he also had to go where he wanted to go otherwise his savior wouldn’t have helped him that much.

Or in other words, in case you don’t remember that example too well, and it wasn’t really all that great of an example anyway, I’m saying that we must go to our Savior and do what He tells us to do in order to truly be saved, because if you only thank Him for coming, you’ll be stuck and stay stuck without a Savior… and you’ll have nobody to blame but yourself.

Okay? That’s probably good enough for you now.

But if you really don’t think so, you’ll have a few other people to tell you this too.

And btw, as I told you before, if you really want to hear some really good information, you'd be better off by listening to the Presidency and apostles of the Church.

[BenRaines]

Define Salvation. Salvation from what? Mortal death? If resurrection is to all then yes we are all saved by Christ. If others wish to define salvation and living with God and Christ in eternity not freely given to all.

[Traveler]

Not intended for PC.

This thread is based on the following statements concerning man and G-d:

G-d will not do anything for man that man can do for himself.

G-d will do for man what man cannot do for himself.

For salvation, what do statements like:

Jesus stands alone.

All that is needed is the grace of Jesus.

It is only by the grace of Jesus that we are saved.

(What do these statements mean?)

Well for one, even if the statements true they are worthless and a complete waste of time. As is anything and everything else any person can say, think, do, hope, believe or dream. If we are saved by grace only then nothing else matters, has effect, should be considered or even discussed, thought about or hoped for. It does not matter if you are Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Jew, Atheist or G-d hater because the only thing that has anything to do with salvation according to those statements is the grace of Jesus and only the grace of Jesus.

In fact living is a waist of time as is prayer, reading scripture, going to church, telling anyone about Jesus, or believing in Jesus (or for that matter anything about us) because it is only by the grace of Jesus that we are saved. Anything other than the grace of Jesus is pointless and useless and that includes the doctrine of the Trinity or any other doctrine - good or evil. Even Satan and doing his bidding is pointless if resisted or embraced. Only the grace of Jesus matters.

If you believe only the grace of Jesus matters you are a complete idiot to be on this forum and reading this or any other post and posting anything yourself - you are just wasting your’s and everybody else’s time..

WHY? Because if you are right nothing here matters - you are wasting your time because we are all saved because it is by the grace of Jesus and only Jesus we are saved - Nothing else matters.

On the other hand if there is anything man can do ???? - and you refuse to consider anything other than the grace of Jesus - you just blew it big time - your just through away your salvation.

You can take your worthless doctrine and do what ever you want - as for me - I will pray, read scripture, follow G-d’s council and follow the teachings of Jesus and everything else that I am capable of and encourage everyone else to do likewise. I will do all that G-d commands and says it is necessary (which is not really that much). I will believe our purpose is not worthless but through and because of the atonement of Jesus everything we do is given meaning and even if I am 100 % wrong - I have lost nothing, I did not through anything away. All I have done is waist my time doing what G-d says is good. I’ll take my chances??? - not really; from where I sit, it is you (grace only believers) that are taking all the chances.

If you can do something worth while - I suggest you do it. If you believe man cannot do anything worth while then whatever (you) man does is meaningless and your wasting time just living.

The Traveler

[M98Ranger]

Hello Ray,

Yes, sir, you're correct. Please know that I am not trying to dismiss your atttempts to inform me about your beliefs. You did, on a number of occasions try to explain your take on this issue. As you read in that other thread, I am having problems understanding what you were trying to say. You were patient with my questions and did try to answer in a variety of ways. I still kept getting hung up on the word "after" in that verse and the apparent "role" you kept placing on people's actions. I've asked these two gentlemen because I'm interested in hearing someone say, "it is a combination of what we do with what God has done", "It is 100% God's grace," "We earn our own salvation," etc. Bottom line: I want to know, Is salvation based 100% on the grace of God or not?

Thanks

I have a strong feeling you won't accept my answer. You have preconceived notions that will not be changed (I think your notions are wrong obviously). But I will say that as a member of the LDS church I can say definatively that I believe in grace*100000000%*. It takes Christs atoning sacrifice to make us pure before GOD. But it does not make any sense to me when someone says that "True Grace" ie "100% grace" as you put it, takes away a persons free-agency to choose whether or not they will do whats right.....or do whats wrong. Freedom of Choice is a basic component of development for us here on this training ground of earth. God would not and has not taken Freedom of Choice from us, as you in otherwords are implying.

A person CANNOT be in Heaven by virtue of the Grace of God AND AT THE SAME TIME, be a person that CHOOSES to DO unrighteousness. I remember a saying that goes like this, "WICKEDNESS NEVER WAS HAPPINESS"....I DON't know what better word for describing HEAVEN but HAPPINESS. Therefore if wickedness never was happiness, then it would serve to reason that you would have to CHOOSE to turn from your wicked ways BEFORE "true Repentence" and "GODS GRACE" ( which are synonomous so far as process is concerned) can take affect in ones life (be that life after death, or life here on earth).

Not only that but I cannot help but think how such such sophistry (Grace without works) has vitiated the morals and actions of generations of God's children. I am not pointing my finger at you, but it is true that if I thought that what I did "did not matter" ....so long as I "proffessed" (whatever proffess means) my patronage to Christ, then it would be quite easy for me to take advantage of my brother. Indeed, why not in order to get gain, (lie a little, cheat a little, steal a little, murder a little)....heck we are all going to the same place no matter what, aren't we? Heck I am doing that woman a favor by killing her...she is too good for this earth anyway and I am sending her to heaven because she already accepted christ. No reason not to kill her....we can only gain from doing evil.

To sum it all up in one convenient thought....The devil knows Christ intimately, if he thought he could get "ALL THE POWER" and "ALL THE GLORY" which he wanted by simply saying "I accept you Christ", then why didn't he do it? HE would not have been put in that hopeless position that he is in now. It would serve his purpose and he could do WHATEVER HE WANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONSEQUENCES if grace without works is true doctrine. It is obviously, therefore not a true doctrine.

If you choose to comment on my post I would appreciate you dealing with the entire explanation, rather than attacking a convenient peice.

Nice to meet you by the way.

Traveler, ben and Ray....WOOOOHOOOO!...right on brothers! Sorry if I repeated what some of you said, but I just had to get my two cents in so I didn't read the whole thread. I look forward with trepidation to his response to everyone's thinking. I somehow doubt the ability of anyone to INTELLIGIBLY refute everyone's posts.

[Dr T]

Hello all,

Wow, great thoughts! There is a lot here. I don't want to takeover someone else’s thread but I see similarities in the last 3 posts and would like to address them all. I want to continue and reply to the last three posts if it is ok with the originator of this thread. Just let me know and then we can either start a new thread or just continue on this one.

Also, as a side note, I initially started frequenting this site to get an understanding of the LDS believer’s religion, "Direct from the horses mouth" so to speak, so as to understand how to best work with them in my profession. You guys are broadening my curiosity and making me desirous of deeper discussion, which I am just starting to get into here. There seems to be a reaction to looking at those things philosophically. Philosophy however is from the roots: Philos (philia) someone who loves something/befriended something, and Sophos (Sofia) wisdom. What we try to get at with notions of intelligence or knowledge of notions of the like. Scientific knowledge like episteme is also very important to me. I hope that this type of exploration doesn’t spur you to ask me to leave this site. I will try to be as respectful as possible. I am not here to try and debunk, tear down your beliefs, or to propogate anti-mormon sentiment. I am just curious as to the core questions of life. The existential and transcendental questions and answers that religion puts forth and that you all base your lives and eternity on. I’m interested in hearing what you guys, who live the LDS life day in and day out, have to say on these issues. How do you justify those beliefs and how you would respond/how do you put into words your reasons for belief. So, as a have a common standard by which to gauge your responses, I will use my understanding of what the Bible has to say on the topics.

Thank you all and look forward to continuing our discussions,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Not intended for PC.

[Dr T]

P.C.,

I think that was intended for me but I do not think he meant that this was a Mexican meal conversation:

Taco (Dr. T), included

Burrito (Traveler) included

Nachos (P.C.)! not included

Add your thoughts

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

Define Salvation. Salvation from what? Mortal death? If resurrection is to all then yes we are all saved by Christ. If others wish to define salvation and living with God and Christ in eternity not freely given to all.

Define salvation: Reconciliation with God.

Salvation from what: The wages of sin - an eternity not in reconcilation with God.

I would have thought true salvation would result in living with God and Christ in eternity. So, if it's not free, what does it cost?

(BTW, if the answer is that the candidate must "endure to the end," I would argue that salvation is free, and that once obtained at the moment of conversion, the labor we extend to maintain it is not payment, but gratitude).

Hello Traveler & P.C.,

So which of your faiths, with regard to salvation, is based 100% on the grace of God?

I'll answer for myself, and say that mine is. The Admit you're a sinner/Believe Jesus is Savior and Lord/Confess your sins roadmap is not a set of three works. Rather, it's akin to one holding the box containing the gift of salvation, and looking at the instructions on how to assemble it. The fact that you put it together does not detract fromt the fact that you have a gift, fully and freely given.

After all, the admission of sin comes through the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Even this awareness is a gift. The Believing in Jesus also comes via the witness of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the confession of sins, while heartwrenching, is hardly a work. Confession is the first step towards recovery. Hi, my name is Tom. I'm a sinner. (everyone choruses: Hi Tom!)...

[M98Ranger]

PC,

I really appreciate your answer. Actually, reading your thoughts I can see that actually LDS beliefs on faith and works are more mainstream then most would be able to admit at first glance. Perhaps when LDS members claim work as a necessity to salvation it is looked at as something totally separate and distinct from admitting a sin/admitting you are a sinner and accepting/beleiving in Jesus Christ. Perhaps if people realized that in the process of repenting, (or in other words changing your path) there are certain steps that must be taken. For instance if you lied to someone or took advantage of someone dishonestly, then one of the steps to forgiveness might be to let that person know what you did wrong and that you intend to make recompense for the injustice.

This sort of action is probably a given for a lot of religions and so I could understand if often it is seen as un-noteworthy that you should try to right the wrong to the best of your ability. Maybe because we tend to focus on those sorts of things we allow people to misunderstand our beliefs.

I really didn't notice anything particular that we don't agree with in general terms.

PS PC...you are from seattle area eh? So do you have an LDS relative that lives near Tacoma? An Engineer brother who possibly does or did work for Boeing?

[prisonchaplain]

PS PC...you are from seattle area eh? So do you have an LDS relative that lives near Tacoma? An Engineer brother who possibly does or did work for Boeing?

We're in Federal Way now, but I grew up in southwest Seattle (near SSCC). No LDS relatives that I know of--not in Tacoma, and, while my mother is retired from Boeing, we had no engineers in the family.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Not intended for PC.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I believe you and I have come to somewhat of a understanding. I did not want you to think I was plowing in old dirt or attempting in any to be critical of things you have posted.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

PS PC...you are from seattle area eh? So do you have an LDS relative that lives near Tacoma? An Engineer brother who possibly does or did work for Boeing?

We're in Federal Way now, but I grew up in southwest Seattle (near SSCC). No LDS relatives that I know of--not in Tacoma, and, while my mother is retired from Boeing, we had no engineers in the family.

Interesting. I used to live in Federal Way. Well not exactly Federal Way. We lived at Browns Point which is North East Tacoma but you almost have to go through Federal Way to get there. At the time I was an engineer at Boeing. I worked for the Space and military division. I still have many friends in that area. In June we have a wedding that my wife and I wanted to go to but we also have a granddaughter being baptized the same day. We are thinking that if we can catch a flight we will do both.

Take Care PC. You live in one of the best places in the world. I would still live there buy my wife is a sun person and does not like overcast days - but I loved it there. My son plans to return to that area after he finishes school.

The Traveler

[M98Ranger]

The reason I asked is because when I saw the apparent picture of PC, it reminded me a lot of the first counselor in Bridgeport Branch that I attended in Tacoma a few years back when I was single and in the Military. Oh well, its nice to see some fellow washingtonians. It's a good place.

[prisonchaplain]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I believe you and I have come to somewhat of a understanding. I did not want you to think I was plowing in old dirt or attempting in any to be critical of things you have posted.

Okay, sorry about that. I'm not usually the sensitive type, but thought you might be suggesting that my comments were not needed on your post. Silly me. Thanks for clarifying.

Interesting. I used to live in Federal Way. Well not exactly Federal Way. We lived at Browns Point which is North East Tacoma but you almost have to go through Federal Way to get there.

FYI for those not knowing--Browns Point is one of those rare neighborhoods in S. King County (Seattle-Tacoma) where the people live.

Take Care PC. You live in one of the best places in the world. I would still live there buy my wife is a sun person and does not like overcast days - but I loved it there.

I'd say something about you being the man, the leader, the priest of your household, but I'm well aware that wise men, leaders, priests choose to live in places where the better 1/2 can be happy. B)