Do Evangelicals Go To Heaven

[prisonchaplain]

aww come on PC!!!

Where are we going?

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

BTW, PC, I don't put you in the 'rabid evangelical' box that presents itself here from time to time. You have shown yourself to be thoughtful and thought-provoking, unlike those who come here to sully the LDS just because they heard we believe differently than they do.

I think PC is LDS. He just doesn't know it yet. :)

Maybe LDStalk is slowly, ever so subtley, and with great stealth, being transformed into AOGtalk.com?

[tiancum]

PC, I gotta admit my question was a bit bold, so i will qualify it.

no matter what your answer would have been, it would not have changed my opinion of you. I have seen your mettle many times here on the boards, and know you are a good man. If I had to guess, I would say that much of what you have become is because you have walked through a very trying refiners fire, and come out the other side, stronger, and a true follower of Christ.

Honestly, the thought went through my mind, if PC thinks mormons are going to hell, we would be "the least of these, they brethren" and how you treat us is exemplary. I didn't think it would hurt to ask.

I did not ask to expose you. You have already done that, at least in my eyes.

Another reason I asked, is 'cos I was curious.

[Traveler]

I'm an evangelical christian and i do not believe mormons will enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you believe the other denominations of the world will?

You are welcome to your belief - I believe that you will be rewarded in eternity according to the desires of your heart. If you do not want any "Mormons" in your heaven - I am sure that eternity will provide a place where you do not have to deal with "Mormons" - just as Jesus pointed out to the Jews (including the 1st Christians) that they would not have to endure Samaritans in their eternally desired place

Yes - I believe G-d is both merciful and just. He will not force anyone to live with him and those whom he loves and who love others like unto themself.

BTW - I have yet to meet anyone that believes in heaven that does not draw their own sinful self into heaven and other out of heaven - thinking they will be forgiven but other's sin are not to be forgiven. As for myself - I believe anyone that wants to be in heaven will go to heaven and will be helped there by the L-rd and his saints. Likewise, anyone that does not want to be in heaven will not be forced there - regardless if they call themselves Christian or what church they attend.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

PC, i gotta ask...

Do you think a Mormon can go to heaven? Or does he have to change religions in order to get there.

I guess what I am asking is; do you think it's possible to be a Practicing Latter day Saint, and be a true Christian?

Tiancum, my apologies. I totally missed this particular post. So, when you said, "Aw come on...etc.," I really didn't know what you meant.

To answer your question: I sincerely leave it to God. With that answer I'm offering two opinions.

1. LDS, imho, are not automatically and clearly condemned. Some reasons:

A. Over 40% of LDS responded to an evangelical survey in ways that "fit" the evangelical definition of being "born again."

B. The moral and ethical practices of LDS teaching are above reproach.

C. The care given within your community is biblical.

D. There are many positive "fruits" with your community of faith.

And yet, the second opinion is that LDS are not, imho, on safe doctrinal ground.

A. In a fun and informative thread I did here a couple of years ago, we found that a side by side comparison of the Articles of Faith (LDS) and the Statement of Fundamental Truths (A/G) found almost no agreement.

B. Our doctrinal disagreements are signficant. What is the nature of God and of humanity? What is the Plan of Salvation? What is the meaning of the Fall and of sin?

So, the question is posed to me: Is there a doctrinal test for getting into heaven? If so, is that not indicative of a work? So, how can we say salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone?

I'm drawn back to the offerings of Cain and of Abel. Abel offered what God told him to. Cain improvised, and used his skills, his talents, his gifts, to prepare an offering that he believed was better.

So, if your faith in God is true (regardless of initial doctrine), would the Spirit not direct you to sound teaching? And if so, how could one end up, not with mere error, but with a whole system of belief that is wrong? To whom much is given much is required. As one begins to mature in Christian faith, s/he should grow in knowledge also.

One of my professors, an evangelical pastor, always asked people if they have had "the baptism of fire and the holy ghost." He could actually see it in people. When he spoke of God, he glowed. He indeed, did speak with the power of the holy ghost. I know he was a man of god. He said he could see it in some LDS.

It's ironic that an LDS inmate, at his parting service (he chose to participate in Protestant worship) bore his testimony--and included that he sensed the Spirit of God in me.

We're on to you though, if you don't give a direct answer, "yes i believe a Mormon can be a true Christian", or "No, you guys are frikking nuts" that you are avoiding the question.

Perhaps I am. My dilemma, put simply, is how wrong can we be about God, and still be right--particularly if our conversion experience was years ago?

[CrimsonKairos]

It's ironic that an LDS inmate, at his parting service (he chose to participate in Protestant worship) bore his testimony--and included that he sensed the Spirit of God in me.

Why is that ironic? The LDS Church never claimed to have a copyright on the Spirit or Truth. :) We just believe we have a fulness of it. I too sense the Spirit of God in you, but that's just me. Or should I say, your "behavior" on this website has been among the most Christian I've seen along with several other LDS posters.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

It's ironic that an LDS inmate, at his parting service (he chose to participate in Protestant worship) bore his testimony--and included that he sensed the Spirit of God in me.

Why is that ironic? The LDS Church never claimed to have a copyright on the Spirit or Truth. :) We just believe we have a fulness of it. I too sense the Spirit of God in you, but that's just me. Or should I say, your "behavior" on this website has been among the most Christian I've seen along with several other LDS posters.

Thanks CK.

What was ironic was that the post I responded to mentioned a pentecostal professor seeing the "baptism of Spirit and fire" in some LDS. Some of us see it in you and some of you see it in some of us. Ironic...interesting, that's all. B)

[AnthonyB]

Crimson,

Oddly enough "fullness" is a term pentecostals use as well. Thus you have the Full Gospel Businessmen Association et al (Which always makes me think their a group that eats to much.)

PC,

Great response, and I apologize for the length of the following reply, brevity is not a gift I’m blessed with, but the line...."So, if your faith in God is true (regardless of initial doctrine), would the Spirit not direct you to sound teaching?"

Given the doctrinal diversity within the traditional church, what is "sound teaching"? (Which denomination represents sound teaching.)

If Holy Spirit is leading us all into the truth then how come our versions are so different. I will propose 3 solutions (there might some I have thought of)

1) He isn't very good at leading us into truth. (I'm not going to disparage God, so let’s ignore this one.)

2) We aren't very good at listening to him. Now this might be true for many people and possible I included but there are people who I believe are really men/women of God who have vastly different doctrinal views and at times opposing views on what to them are vitally important doctrines. I could not conceive that they all have misheard God.

3) God isn't nearly as concerned with doctrines as we are. If he had wanted people to obsesses with doctrines then he could have made the "Institutes of Christian Religion" or any book of systematic theology scripture not the very short and doctrinally pliable books of the NT.

(Of course there is the option that the LDS are correct but that is not a path either of us is currently on.)

I grew up with the saying, "In essentials unity, in unessential harmony and in all things love." This of course begs the question as to what are the essentials of Christianity.

Having done a "systematic theology" course at an AOG college, and having seen that nearly all the students at the beginning of the subject of the trinity, when pushed to define it ended up describing one or another heresy. If a person needs to hold to a precise doctrine of the trinity then there are lot of AOGers (and I would think just as many ordinary members of other denominations) that are going to be in trouble.

How far from doctrinal purity do you need to be to on dangerous ground? Do we really want to return to 1800's were the Christian churches were constantly breaking into smaller sects each one think that it had the pure gospel and all others were tainted apostates on the beginnings to the path perdition.

I'm still thinking about the boundaries and how inclusive to be. How do we decide on monophysites, binatarians, unitarians, modelists/oneness? I could retreat to “bible words for bible things” and as long as I can see the belief fitting somehow into the biblical framework see it is as an allowable opinion.

I suppose for me I don’t want to be tying burdens on people that we the church have failed to carry. If very few traditional Christians hold an exactly correctly view of say a doctrine like the trinity, how can we insist that others have to accept it as a “shibboleth” of acceptance by us.

I’m happy to leave it as one God: Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit and allow people to think how that oneness exists in different ways. (I do have a problem when LDS talk of 3 Gods, as in my currently received scriptures I don’t find any reference to the number 3 being related to how many Gods there are.)

[prisonchaplain]

Crimson,

Oddly enough "fullness" is a term pentecostals use as well. Thus you have the Full Gospel Businessmen Association et al (Which always makes me think their a group that eats to much.)

We do eat too much.

I've done strings in the past about some of the similar vocabulary that LDS and Pentecostals use. The similarities start to break down pretty quick thought (i.e. tongues as ehanced language skills vs. unknown ecstatic utterances).

[AnthonyB]

<div class='quotemain'>

Crimson,

Oddly enough "fullness" is a term pentecostals use as well. Thus you have the Full Gospel Businessmen Association et al (Which always makes me think their a group that eats to much.)

We do eat too much.

I've done strings in the past about some of the similar vocabulary that LDS and Pentecostals use. The similarities start to break down pretty quick thought (i.e. tongues as ehanced language skills vs. unknown ecstatic utterances).

PC,

Sorry didn't mean to offend by the joke about "Full Gospel Businessmen Assocaition", it is just that it always makes my mind think that when I hear it.

My fav bible college lecturer, (Rikki Watts, who's AOG) pointed out that Acts 2 has Judeans as one of the people who had heard the apostles speak in tongues. Given that it is generally though that gallilean jews and judean jews spoke the same language, it is presumeably possible to speak in tongues in your own language! He indicated that he believed he had heard a student who was usually not very fluent in speech, suddenly burst into very articulate and well spoken praise of God, and thought that it might have been tongues given in the student's own language.

[prisonchaplain]

AnthonyB, your humor qualified as cute. BTW, I've never been to the FGBM meetings. :-) I have been full though.

Not sure what I think of somebody speaking more fluently in their mother tongue. Perhaps that's simply inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I'd be hesitant to call it the gift of tongues (who'd interpret???)

[AnthonyB]

AnthonyB, your humor qualified as cute. BTW, I've never been to the FGBM meetings. :-) I have been full though.

Not sure what I think of somebody speaking more fluently in their mother tongue. Perhaps that's simply inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I'd be hesitant to call it the gift of tongues (who'd interpret???)

So what are Judeans doing in the list of Acts 2? What is your take on that?

[prisonchaplain]

So what are Judeans doing in the list of Acts 2? What is your take on that?

I just look through the passage again and my sense is that Luke is explaining where everyone in the crowd is from, not intimating that each group listed necessarily spoke in a foreign language. There also does seem to be some suggestion that even dialect and accent were overcome.

[adobo44]

Who will go to heaven(Celestial Kingdom) or not is something we as humans can not judge about,this is the handwork of Jesus,He is the Eternal Judge,and He and Heavenly Father decide who will go to Heaven,and no one else!!!!!!

[WANDERER]

Oh ok, somewhat relieving to know an AOG member has defined not understanding the trinity as a difficult topic...er yes, the word heresy was running through my mind... ; ) but apparently it's a common problem.

[Dale]

The best book on the Trinity i have ever found is Understanding The Trinity by Allister E. McGrath.

Many people call thing's heresy because they think their idea's perfectly match the scripture's. The Trinity idea is one idea of God, but i don't see it as an unquestionable idea. With many scripture's they seem to fit the Trinity, but other's i think not so clearly.

[WANDERER]

Heresy is probably the least of my problems if I haven't been to church in a decade...but I won't forget the reference. Understanding where I'm at is important to me....if a bottomless well to dig.

[USNationalist]

Just like to throw out there that people need to brush up on the "judge not" nonsense that is constantly thrown around. The idea that Christians are not supposed to judge one another is absolutely ludicrous.

I am of the Protestant persuasion, I do not believe that being affiliated with the Mormon church is in anyway cause for "damnation". My guess would be that a larger % of Catholics are going to fall short then Mormons. I could go into all that in detail if I felt inclined... at the moment I do not.

From what I gather (at least as I can remember) the Mormon doctrines say that the previous model Christians (like me) would predominately find themselves in the 2nd rung of heaven (the Terrestrial I believe) due to their faith and service in Christs name, but unable to reach the top level (Celestial?) due to not accepting the full revelation.

[MorningStar]

We believe there are three levels in Heaven, so your chances are very, very, very, very good! ;D

[NateHowe]

Only a perfect Judge can make such a permanent judgment, and as a perfect Judge, He will take into account all the circumstances of one's life. Thus, many people who faithfully practiced various religions in this world will have no worries for the next life. We cannot place ourselves in the position of that perfect Judge, because we honestly cannot see the thoughts and intents of the heart. This question comes up frequently, and I can't help but think it's the least important for a committed Christian to ask. If your relationship with Jesus Christ is good, you need not ask the Mormons where they think you'll go. If you are confident in your faith, you should know the answer.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I don't know if this point has ever been raised previously but this thread brought it to my thoughts so I hope no-one minds me asking here.

I have asked other Christians in the past what they believe will happen to those people who have no opportunity of hearing the Gospel during their lives. In the LDS church we believe that they will have the opportunity in the Spirit World after their death and that by being baptised on their behalf we give them the opportunity then to progress into the Heavenly Kingdoms.

However, the common response I've had from non-LDS is that God knows what a person would have chosen to do if they had heard the Gospel ánd therefore they will be judged on that.

Now I find that very odd because it seems to indicate a predestination to a certain way of behaviour and seems to negate free will and choice. If it is pre-destined that someone will make such and such a choice then what is the purpose of missionary work? What indeed is the point of teaching anyone anything about the Gospel if their ultimate fate can already be decided based on what they would have done? Does it negate repentance? Does it smack of fortune telling and being controlled by forces outside of ourselves?

I just find it a little odd.

[VisionOfLehi]

I believe the same thing. That God knows what choices we'd make anyway. He's omniscient and knows each of us perfectly.

We have the ability to choose, yes. We have free agency. But just because we can choose, doesn't mean God doesn't know what we'll do. And just because God knows what we'll do, doesn't mean we don't have a choice.

Now, this isn't doctrine here, but I believe it firmly:

I do not think we are here on Earth so much to prove to God what choice we'll make, so much us to prove to OURSELVES what choices we'll make. I know we also need a physical body, and have to be fallen in order to be raised up by Christ... But I don't think Agency is meant to prove anything to Him. He already knows.

I also believe Agency means that God will not FORCE us to do anything. He knows we're going to do this or that, but with that knowledge He's not going to MAKE us.

D&C 29:36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

It means God did not stop them and make them not turn away.

Likewise, an important moment in history:

Moses 3:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So, some things are forbidden, but that doesn't mean we can't actually do them.

Does any of this negate repentance? I don't think so at all!

Repentance, I believe, has more to do than just making that choice to be repentant and ask for forgiveness. We take part of something, and make it active!

Think of it as pushing a button (of repentance.) Heavenly Father knows if we'll push the button or not. Nevertheless, we don't activate the repentance until we push the button!

Which, therefore, in the end explains my opinion on why we're not judged solely on what we would've done (even if God knows perfectly.) We still need to do our part. We need to press the button of repentance, as well as the buttons of the ordinances set forth by God.

[WANDERER]

Vision of Lehi that's probably close to what I think after trying to unjumble the whole thing of free agency and omniscience.

I have been reading the boggernacle (although I'm not sure if that's the correct term for it) and ended up on the Iron Rod Blog and the author there would definitely say no Evangelicals do not go to heaven. It's an interesting question and even if you substituted the word with evangelical with another faith, you'd get different percentages, but a spectrum of answers from yes to outright no. Same with things like free agency and predestination.

I'm also reading "Adventures in Apostasy" and "Ten Things Every Morman Needs to Know" blogposts.

[prisonchaplain]

Allow me to raise the bar a bit (oops...copyright infringment. LOL). IMHO, for both evangelicals and LDS, when we discuss who gets into heaven, we should probably narrow our focus on the Celestial Kingdom. After all, those of us who are serious enough about our faith to engage in conversations with those of other groups are surely aspiring to full fellowship with the Father.

Does that change anyone's answer?

[USNationalist]

I don't know if this point has ever been raised previously but this thread brought it to my thoughts so I hope no-one minds me asking here.

I have asked other Christians in the past what they believe will happen to those people who have no opportunity of hearing the Gospel during their lives. In the LDS church we believe that they will have the opportunity in the Spirit World after their death and that by being baptised on their behalf we give them the opportunity then to progress into the Heavenly Kingdoms.

However, the common response I've had from non-LDS is that God knows what a person would have chosen to do if they had heard the Gospel ánd therefore they will be judged on that.

Now I find that very odd because it seems to indicate a predestination to a certain way of behaviour and seems to negate free will and choice. If it is pre-destined that someone will make such and such a choice then what is the purpose of missionary work? What indeed is the point of teaching anyone anything about the Gospel if their ultimate fate can already be decided based on what they would have done? Does it negate repentance? Does it smack of fortune telling and being controlled by forces outside of ourselves?

I just find it a little odd.

I have also heard that one theory is that Christ went and taught to the dead durring the 3 days he was dead himself. But I guess there would still be people out there who never heard of him after that.

So I guess the God knowing how things would have gone down is probably a more accurate guess. I would say that it in no way implies predestination. An analogy I have coined (though that doesnt mean it is original, I am sure someone else thought of it before me) is that we are the authors of our lives, and God is just the reader. He can flip to the last page and find out we died at 48 from a heart attack, but that doesn't mean he ordered that event. So then he can read through our whole life, knowing we will die at that set time- but not being responsible for it himself, he will just be able to see what choices we made that led up to it.