368 replies to this topic

[Vance]

nackhadlow, on 06 July 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

I don't think you read Rob's comment correctly. He said, "virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical basis." - he wasn't claiming the LDS ordinance of Baptism didn't have a biblical basis. He was referring to the additional Temple Ordinances, of which while I agree, are not to be found discussed the Bible.


We do not base our religion on the Bible, but find the Bible to be an incredibly useful additional source of records of the Lord's dealings with mankind, and especially sacred records of the mortal ministry of the Savior.

It is interesting to me that Rob is complaining that, ordinances that are so sacred that they are not discussed publicly and wouldn't have been anciently, aren't found in the Bible.

Well, DUH!!!!

Edited by Vance, 06 July 2010 - 03:51 PM.

[LeSellers]

nackhadlow, on 06 July 2010 - 03:44 PM, said:

I don't think you read Rob's comment correctly.

We'll have to disagree on this. I believe I am right. His entire thrust was about baptism, and I can't see where he changed the antecedents.

nackhadlow said:

We do not base our religion on the Bible, but find the Bible to be an incredibly useful additional source of records of the Lord's dealings with mankind, and especially sacred records of the mortal ministry of the Savior.

This is all correct, of course. The question of the source and authority of the canon for those who have neither the sources nor the authority to dictate it rises to its correct place.

Hoary as the Bible is, it is not what most believers claim it to be.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You quoted me as follows:

"virtually all Christian denominations practice baptism. The issue here  has to do with the distinctive LDS ordinances that have no biblical  basis."

You then commented:

LeSellers, on 06 July 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

This is simply false. The LDS ordinance of baptism most definitely has biblical bases. The question at hand is that those bases do not coincide with your interpretation of the Bible. There is a huge difference between those two concepts, one you need to understand and recognize.

By "distinctive LDS ordinances" I did not mean baptism, since (as should be obvious) baptism is not "distinctive" to the LDS religion. I meant such ordinances as endowments, marriages for eternity, sealings of family members, and proxy ordinances.

[Lightbearer]

So I guess now that the subject has changed, and I have yet to receive an answer or rebuttal,  I can claim victory in my arguments in post #321?
Here is the link: post # 321

[David T]

I think the discussion of the elements embodied in your post continues. I know I specifically detail another aspect of it in my post 333 above, which is also awaiting a reply

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 07 July 2010 - 07:16 AM, said:

By "distinctive LDS ordinances" I did not mean baptism, since (as should be obvious) baptism is not "distinctive" to the LDS religion. I meant such ordinances as endowments, marriages for eternity, sealings of family members, and proxy ordinances.

You know best what you meant. I obviously misunderstood.

However, the point you make, that distinctive LDS ordinances have no biblical basis is wrong in its own right.

Please describe the reasons for the second floor of the Temple of Solomon (see 2 Ch 3:9 and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, on page 166 of the Whiston translation).

We take the two "bookend" ordinances, baptism for the dead and eternal marriages, or, better, sealings.

We freely admit that there is no precise descriptions in the Bible, but that does not mean there is nothing in the Bible on these subjects.

For instance, we read Paul telling us that baptism for the dead is a significant evidence for the resurrection of mankind. This is the only direct mention of the ordinance, but it is there. I have seen many commentaries on this verse (1 Cor 15:29) from before the mid-XIX. None of them rejects the concept that we Saints embrace, although they are uniform in saying they do not know what Paul meant by this argument. It was only after God revealed the meaning to His prophet in the 1840s that non-LDS Christians started turning their backs on the clear interpretation (Paul was a much better logician than modern Evangelicals give him credit for being).

Then we read, again from Paul, "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord." We read, from Matthew, that the Church of Jesus Christ would have (in her Priesthood leaders) the power to seal ("bind") and unseal ("loose") both in heaven and on earth. We, with our wider understanding of the power and visions of God, know these passages to point directly to eternal sealings of husbands and wives and their families.

Further, in the same Matthew passage alluded to above, Jesus Christ implicitly (narrowly missing an explicit note) tells Peter, James, and John that His Church (not He, Himself) will overcome the gates of Hell (the entrance point into the spirit world) and release the captives therein.

Your church does not do this, but ours does. That's one of the primary reasons we construct and operate Temples dedicated to the Lord.

You are imposing your idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to miss the bases for the "distinctive LDS ordinances", because those bases are there.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

  I wrote:

  “Although you say that I misunderstood your question, I don't see any clarification as to what that question meant. I fully expected that you would affirm that LDS obey God's commandments because they love him and want to please him. Yet it is puzzling that you would ask what the point of the commandments is if they are not preconditions of salvation. Perhaps you could try to clarify what you were asking.”

  You replied:

  

Quote

What I am asking is if keeping the commandments (such as those given in the sermon on the mount) is not a condition for salvation, then why did Jesus give them? What good can they accomplish? Now if the reason they are given is to convict one of their sins, then why the need for these things to be observed after a person attains to faith in Christ? Now I realize that your argument is that good works are evidence of faith, not a requirement for the "so-called gift" of salvation. Yet do you not see the contradiction here? If we have no good works, if we do not keep God's commandments then that can only mean that one does not have faith in Christ. If one does not have faith in Christ one cannot be saved. So how then can one accept the gift? Is there a way of loosing this gift once it is gained? That is what I am asking!

  Well, you seem to be asking a couple of questions, and I’m still not sure that I completely understand your objection. Let me approach your question from a different angle and then we’ll see if I have cleared things up.

  All evangelicals believe that when our redemption is complete, consummated, in the resurrection and glorification that is still future, we will then be perfect, sinless, absolutely holy beings. There is no salvation that does not have this end result. You cannot be saved and not eventually arrive at this consummated state of redemption in which sinless obedience is the norm. However, this does not make meaningless the observation that we don’t save ourselves by attaining such a state. Sinlessness or perfect holiness is not a condition of salvation but the final result of salvation. Are you following what I am saying so far?

  Now, when someone receives the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, as we evangelicals understand it, the act of receiving this gift entails receiving the whole gift. That is, what a person receives is not just the bare forgiveness of sins—a kind of “Get out of hell free card”—but the gift of eternal life in God’s kingdom as his adopted children. Salvation does not mean that a sinner “gets saved” and is allowed to go on his merry way ignoring God and his will. It means that a sinner “gets saved” out of a life estranged from God and into a life reconciled to God. Salvation means that a sinner “signs up” for a life that will culminate in the consummation of redemption described above, eternal life in sinless holiness in God’s eternal kingdom as his adopted children.

  In this context, believers are in an awkward “in-between” stage in which they are still part of this fallen, corrupted world and yet belong to the age to come in which everything will be made new. We are sinners saved by grace and living by faith on the basis of a hope for eternity. God’s commandments to us in Scripture provide specific directions on how we ought to live in this awkward transitional stage. We are to live as people who are living in the present evil age and yet destined for the glorious age to come. Perfect obedience is the ultimate result we know will be realized in the consummation; we pursue holiness in this life because God has called us into reconciled relationship with him and that relationship begins now even though the consummation is still future.

  Now, you argued that my position is contradictory because if I agree that those who produce no good works are showing that they don’t truly have faith, then I am implicitly agreeing that those who produce no good works will not be saved. There is no contradiction, because the good works are the fruit, the result, of salvation, not its precondition. Again, evangelical theology affirms that those who are saved will be changed; some measure of good works in this life, and perfect goodness in the age to come, will result from God’s gracious salvation. But we don’t do good works to earn or merit or prove our worthiness to receive that salvation.

  I still don’t understand why you keep asking questions about good works like “what good can they accomplish” if we affirm salvation by grace alone. Good works accomplish a lot! Obedience to God is a good end in itself; we should obey God because he is worthy to be obeyed, because he is our Creator and Sustainer and Lord and Judge. Furthermore, obeying God has good effects in our lives and in the lives of others. These good things that obeying God accomplishes don’t need to be conditions of salvation for them to be good.

  I wrote: I have already responded to this line of reasoning. There is a fundamental difference between faith as an act of accepting a gift and works as acts one must perform as conditions for receiving the (so-called) gift. I must insist that it is only "so-called" if there are conditions of works to be performed before the "gift" may be received. Confirming the problem is the fact that LDS authorities routinely affirm that a person must "earn" or "merit" this individual salvation. I'm sorry, but it is axiomatic that if you have to earn or merit something, it's not a gift. This is true not only definitionally but also biblically. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due" (Romans 4:4 NRSV). If God gives us salvation as a gift, as an act of grace on his part, then it is not something we can earn or merit by our works. Again, Paul says so explicitly: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). To try to overturn this point by claiming that even evangelicals agree that we must have faith to be saved completely misses the point. Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvation; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

  You replied:

  

Quote

So the heart of the argument is what constitutes "humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit" what is the means of that acceptance? Is it faith alone?

  Yes. That is what faith means. Again, this acceptance will demonstrate itself or be evidenced in good works, but faith means accepting the gift, not working for it.

  You wrote:

  

Quote

Now James (the book of "straw" according to Luther) explains something very different from what you are proposing.

  I consider the aside about Luther a bit of poisoning the well. My theology is in complete agreement with James, just as much as with Paul or John. You quoted the following:

  (James 1:21-27) "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

  I completely agree with what James says here. You wrote:

  

Quote

Now is being a doer of the word earning salvation?

  No.

  

Quote

Can one be just a hearer and not deceive there own selves? What way are they deceiving themselves, if it is that they may think they are "saved" when they are not.

  Please notice a couple of things here. (1) James contrasts those who merely hear the word with those who do it. He does not contrast those who believe the word with those who do it, but rather those who merely hear it. (2) James does not say that the person who hears but fails to do will be condemned eternally even if he has faith. Again, then, James is not denying that we are saved through faith alone, but arguing that those who are saved should do what God says—a point with which I fully agree. (3) James does not contrast faith with works; rather, he contrasts empty religion with a religion that shows itself by good works.

  You wrote:

  

Quote

You are trying to suggest that we (LDS) do not accept Christ's atonement, that we somehow think that it is only necessary for forgiveness of sins, or just to attain the resurrection. You are suggesting that we look upon the atonement as an optional plan.

  No, I never suggested any such thing.

  I had written:

  You then go on to state that for LDS the necessary conditions for individual salvation are (1) repentance, (2) looking to Christ for remission of sins, and (3) baptism. In support of this explanation, you quoted at length from several passages of the Book of Mormon. The problem here is that your list is incomplete; your quotations of the Book of Mormon do not represent the complete LDS teaching on this matter. The LDS Church teaches that in addition to these three things, one must (4) accept the LDS Church, its scriptures, prophets, and ordinances, (5) be endowed and married in a temple, (6) keep the commandments (again, as a precondition), including such commandments as not drinking coffee and tea, (7) do genealogical research, (8 ) perform proxy ordinances for the dead, (9) tithe, and (10) attend Church meetings as often as possible. Again, the LDS doctrine is that these things must be done to "earn" or "merit" eternal life. And that simply cannot reasonably or biblically be interpreted to be consistent with the idea that eternal life is a gift.

  You commented, “Now this is not true,” and quoted 2 Nephi 31:19-20, which does not address my point. In fact, you went on to agree with me that a person must do all ten of the things I listed above in order to attain individual salvation. You also went on to affirm that you hope to be saved by your obedience to Christ as the means of obtaining the “gift” of eternal life:

  

Quote

Obedience to Christ is the first law of heaven and the means of salvation, the means of laying hold upon the gift of eternal life.

  I respectfully continue to insist that if you must perform “obedience” in the sense of living a superlative life of conformity to a list of commandments as “the means of salvation,” then it is not really a gift. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom. 11:6). In this regard, you have misunderstood Hebrews 5:8-9, which says:

  "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."

  I agree that we must “obey Christ” to be saved in the sense that we must respond affirmatively to him as Lord and Savior in order to be saved. This is very different from saying that we must keep a list of commandments in order to attain eternal life.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You asked:

nackhadlow, on 06 July 2010 - 01:47 PM, said:

for the sake of this discussion, Rob, what is your personal belief concerning if one chooses not to participate in this behavior? I do know of many who have accepted Christ, have had a powerful experience and desire initially, but then do not participate in 'biblically based spiritual disciplines'. Their lives, as observed,  cannot be considered 'holy' in respect to their behaviors and actions in this life. Is it your belief then that if one dies in this state, at the Judgement, when their Justification through Christ marks them as clean, that they will enter into the presence of God with an automatically transformed Holy behavioral desire? Do you believe that there will be additional progression into becoming such in the Heavenly Realm?

I believe that the legal term of relevance here is "calls for speculation." In general, people who profess faith in Christ but live as if Christ doesn't matter to them probably aren't sincere. But that is a generalization and the realities can be far more complex. Since we lack middle knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of what would have happened if things were different), we don't know how people who profess faith in Christ but seem spiritually immature would have lived had they not professed faith in Christ at all. I knew a man, now deceased, whose manner of speech and behavior was rather "rough," and those who didn't know him well would probably have judged him not very spiritual. However, I know enough about his life history and spent enough time with him to know that for all his faults, his faith in Christ made a real difference in his life. Who knows what he would have been like without Christ. For that matter, who knows what I would be like. I'm certainly not the epitome of holiness. But (1) my standing before God is not based on what I do for God but on what God does for me in Christ, and (2) for all my failings I am aware of evidence that my Christian faith has made me a significantly different person.

The Bible doesn't address in any specific or detailed way how God brings about our transformation from believing, partially holy individuals to completely holy, perfected individuals. However, I can find no basis for the notion of progression in spiritual development or personal holiness after death. What I do know is that we will be made spiritually and morally perfect (and physically perfect, too) in the resurrection. My best understanding, and I'm not sure I can be dogmatic on this, is that once a believer dies physically, he or she is completely freed from sin. This follows from the fact that the corruption of sin is effective through the classic biblical trio of spiritual enemies of holiness: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Those who have died in Christ are freed from these negative influences, and so I would assume that those believers will then be freed from all sin.

You wrote:

Quote

I understand you coming from the perspective that nothing presented or added by LDS prophets are authoritative. This is a fundamental point of departure.

Indeed.

You wrote:

Quote

If the statements are read to say that one earns (IE, deserves) their own Salvation, then yes, I believe their choice of words was unfortunate, and probably led to misunderstanding - especially for those approaching them without a strong understanding of the LDS Scriptures (as I assume the General Authorities have). I believe the proper context needed for understanding would be that of D&C 130:21, "And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." - the Law that causes one to merit their own Saved/Exalted state is predicated on perfection. As sinners, we broke that law, fell, and nothing we can do can repair it.

The Law of Christ takes us under His power, and saves us by His merits.  He earned all the blessings and inheritance He received from the Father,  and none else did.

I respect your right as an individual to believe whatever you believe, and to interpret LDS scripture any way you choose. However, I have to say that I don't agree that you have interpreted D&C 130 correctly, and I don't think most LDS leaders or teachers would agree with you, either. As I understand it, and as I see most LDS teachers explaining it, D&C 130:18-21 is a law to which everyone remains subject and has to do with how far each individual advances spiritually. The passage leaves no room, so far as I can see, for the explanation that Christ keeps that law on our behalf. That is a nice, evangelical-sounding way of explaining it, but it is not the customary LDS way of explaining it, and it doesn't fit the passage.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

However, I have to say that I don't agree that you have interpreted D&C 130 correctly, and I don't think most LDS leaders or teachers would agree with you, either.

First, nackhadlow is far far far more likely to interpret scripture (including LDS unique scripture) correctly than Rob.  

Second, I find nothing wrong with nackhadlow's so called "interpretation" of D&C 130.  

Quote

As I understand it, and as I see most LDS teachers explaining it, D&C 130:18-21 is a law to which everyone remains subject and has to do with how far each individual advances spiritually.

One of the laws/principles is the law/principle of Repentance.  If we obey the law/principle of Repentance we receive the blessing of forgiveness.  And with forgiveness comes the imputation of (Christ's) righteousness/perfection to us.

Quote

The passage leaves no room, so far as I can see, for the explanation that Christ keeps that law on our behalf.

So?

It doesn't have to, for those that understand the principle/law of repentance.

Quote

That is a nice, evangelical-sounding way of explaining it, but it is not the customary LDS way of explaining it, and it doesn't fit the passage.

What do you know about "the customary LDS way of explaining it"?  You very often show that you don't really understand things LDS.

[Flyonthewall]

Rob Bowman, on 15 July 2010 - 11:59 AM, said:

...

  All evangelicals believe that when our redemption is complete, consummated, in the resurrection and glorification that is still future, we will then be perfect, sinless, absolutely holy beings.

Then when evangelicals say "I am saved", their salvation is incomplete?  Which means salvation is not an all or nothing concept, but a progression? hmmmm...

Quote

There is no salvation that does not have this end result. You cannot be saved and not eventually arrive at this consummated state of redemption in which sinless obedience is the norm. However, this does not make meaningless the observation that we don’t save ourselves by attaining such a state. Sinlessness or perfect holiness is not a condition of salvation but the final result of salvation. Are you following what I am saying so far?

So one can be "saved" but not totally saved?

Quote

  Now, when someone receives the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, as we evangelicals understand it, the act of receiving this gift entails receiving the whole gift. That is, what a person receives is not just the bare forgiveness of sins—a kind of “Get out of hell free card”—but the gift of eternal life in God’s kingdom as his adopted children. Salvation does not mean that a sinner “gets saved” and is allowed to go on his merry way ignoring God and his will. It means that a sinner “gets saved” out of a life estranged from God and into a life reconciled to God. Salvation means that a sinner “signs up” for a life that will culminate in the consummation of redemption described above, eternal life in sinless holiness in God’s eternal kingdom as his adopted children.

They "sign up" for a life?  Kind of like putting in their order?  Are they under any obligation to actually strive to live that type of life rather than just wait for it to come in the mail?  If they have any obligation to strive to live that type of life, then evangelicals seem to be in the same boat as LDS.

Quote

  In this context, believers are in an awkward “in-between” stage in which they are still part of this fallen, corrupted world and yet belong to the age to come in which everything will be made new. We are sinners saved by grace and living by faith on the basis of a hope for eternity. God’s commandments to us in Scripture provide specific directions on how we ought to live in this awkward transitional stage. We are to live as people who are living in the present evil age and yet destined for the glorious age to come. Perfect obedience is the ultimate result we know will be realized in the consummation; we pursue holiness in this life because God has called us into reconciled relationship with him and that relationship begins now even though the consummation is still future.

It sounds like the commandments aren't really commandments, but more like suggestions.
You state you "pursue holiness in this life because God has called us into reconciled relationship with Him...".  Is this pursuit of holiness required or optional?
If this pursuit is optional, does that mean a sinless and holy life will be given to everyone, no matter what their actions in this life were?
If this pursuit is required, no matter if the person isn't perfect, then what is the difference between EV's and LDS?

Edited by Flyonthewall, 16 July 2010 - 09:36 AM.

[David T]

First of all, thanks, Rob, for responding.

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 06:44 AM, said:

I believe that the legal term of relevance here is "calls for speculation."

I recognize this, but I do think your thoughts on the matter are useful in having a dialogue on the subject. Thanks for indulging me.

Quote

In general, people who profess faith in Christ but live as if Christ doesn't matter to them probably aren't sincere. But that is a generalization and the realities can be far more complex. Since we lack middle knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of what would have happened if things were different), we don't know how people who profess faith in Christ but seem spiritually immature would have lived had they not professed faith in Christ at all. I knew a man, now deceased, whose manner of speech and behavior was rather "rough," and those who didn't know him well would probably have judged him not very spiritual. However, I know enough about his life history and spent enough time with him to know that for all his faults, his faith in Christ made a real difference in his life. Who knows what he would have been like without Christ. For that matter, who knows what I would be like. I'm certainly not the epitome of holiness. But (1) my standing before God is not based on what I do for God but on what God does for me in Christ, and (2) for all my failings I am aware of evidence that my Christian faith has made me a significantly different person.

I have observed much of the same thing, and agree with (and have experienced) your conclusions as well.

Quote

The Bible doesn't address in any specific or detailed way how God brings about our transformation from believing, partially holy individuals to completely holy, perfected individuals. However, I can find no basis for the notion of progression in spiritual development or personal holiness after death. What I do know is that we will be made spiritually and morally perfect (and physically perfect, too) in the resurrection. My best understanding, and I'm not sure I can be dogmatic on this, is that once a believer dies physically, he or she is completely freed from sin. This follows from the fact that the corruption of sin is effective through the classic biblical trio of spiritual enemies of holiness: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Those who have died in Christ are freed from these negative influences, and so I would assume that those believers will then be freed from all sin.

These are some implications I have gathered from what you wrote. Please let me know if they are accurate representations of your thoughts (or biblical interpretation), and if not, please correct that which needs correcting!

1.  The created human spirit is essentially and originally good, pure, and pleasing to God.
2. Sinfulness is a state of corruption before God
3. To sin is the act which makes one sinful
4 A sinful nature is what causes one to sin
4a. Mortal flesh brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
4b. The state of living in a mortal world brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
4c.  Living in a state where the devil has access to tempt you brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
3. Because the created human spirit is brought into being in the conditions of 4a, 4b, and 4c, while on the earth, mankind has within it from the beginning the essential nature of sinfulness
4. At death, 4a and 4b are removed as co-conditions of the human spirit
5. At death, the human spirit naturally remains subject to the influence of the devil, and thus remains sinful. Unless 6a.
6. Jesus Christ provided for a reversal of 4a in 4aa (Resurrected Body), 4b in 4bb (Living in the Heavenly World), and 4c in 4cc (Freedom from the Devil) for those who accept him.
6a. Acceptance of Christ then leads to the removal of 4c from the human condition
7. For those who die in the state of having accepted 6, and effected the removal of 4a, 4b, and 4c, the essential nature of the created human spirit is restored and freed, with no influences or elements of the sinful nature.
8. Because of the acceptance of Christ, the human spirit is not just restored, but additionally enhanced (exalted) beyond its essential nature due to 4aa, 4bb

Is this accurate?

Quote

I respect your right as an individual to believe whatever you believe, and to interpret LDS scripture any way you choose. However, I have to say that I don't agree that you have interpreted D&C 130 correctly, and I don't think most LDS leaders or teachers would agree with you, either. As I understand it, and as I see most LDS teachers explaining it, D&C 130:18-21 is a law to which everyone remains subject and has to do with how far each individual advances spiritually. The passage leaves no room, so far as I can see, for the explanation that Christ keeps that law on our behalf. That is a nice, evangelical-sounding way of explaining it, but it is not the customary LDS way of explaining it, and it doesn't fit the passage.

I was taking the principle of D&C 130, and applying it to the principles of Salvation. It appears the rest of my post, which explained what was meant by this, was un-addressed or misunderstood. It explains how the Atonement of Christ is what gives our actions value as 'merit'. the latter portion of the post is reproduced here with additional underlined emphases.:

Under Justification in the Covenant of Christ, our faults do not count against us as they would through the Raw Law of Justice. But through the Mercy of the Justification of Christ, the obedience that we do based on the grace given us in His name is counted to us as righteousness due to the grace of the merits of Christ working within us. Christ allows us to reap the benefits of our obedience that otherwise we would not deserve.

I will reference a 2006 conference talk by Elder Richard G. Scott, which I believe does a good job of placing this into context.

Quote

Each of us makes mistakes in life. They result in broken eternal laws. Justice is that part of Father in Heaven’s plan of happiness that maintains order. It is like gravity to a rock climber, ever present. It is a friend if eternal laws are observed. It responds to your detriment if they are ignored. Justice guarantees that you will receive the blessings you earn for obeying the laws of God. Justice also requires that every broken law be satisfied. When you obey the laws of God, you are blessed, but there is no additional credit earned that can be saved to satisfy the laws that you break. If not resolved, broken laws can cause your life to be miserable and would keep you from returning to God. Only the life, teachings, and particularly the Atonement of Jesus Christ can release you from this otherwise impossible predicament.

It's a sign of the great humility and Love of the Savior to, at the Judgment, present the works we accomplished through Grace to be credited as our own, and to allow us to reap the rewards associated therein, all the while not bringing to the table the even more numerous things we had personally done which would completely remove our right to any such spiritual blessings and endowments.

Because of this, I believe it makes a mockery of the Savior for those who enter into such a Covenant to not take full advantage of what He has given us. All those who desire and strive to obey the Son will receive the benefits thereof. His grace is sufficient to save all who continue to have a desire to obey the savior and remain in Covenant with Him. All who do have the desire will be given, through grace, the divine strength and power necessary to do all he asks. (the 1 Nephi 3:7 principle). the only who will not accomplish these things are those who choose to, as the wording of D&C 84 puts it, "But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." And why do they not have forgiveness? Not because they 'didn't live up', but because they, in knowledge, rejected, 'altogether turned from' the Covenant of Christ.

It's a far more detailed and explicit of the simplified concept of "Those who are truly saved will automatically do the works of God". LDS have just been given what we believe to be more concrete markers as to what those are, and we also believe that the process can - and does - extend beyond death, up until the Resurrection.

The Lord will save us in our weakness, but not in our rebellion.

Again, from Mosiah 2: "And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?"

There will be no one, Latter-day Saint or otherwise, at the Last Day who stands cleansed before God and would say, "I did it. I earned this. I deserve this."

Edited by nackhadlow, 16 July 2010 - 09:52 AM.

[Rob Bowman]

Flyonthewall,

I have already posted earlier in this thread an overview of the evangelical doctrine of salvation, pointing out that it classically affirms past, present, and future aspects of salvation.

Your questions once again illustrate a serious problem, which is that Mormons routinely reason that if we don't have to keep the commandments to be saved, they must be "optional" and mere "suggestions." Let me offer an analogy (and like all analogies it has its limits). Our adopted child did not need to keep all of our family's house rules in order to become our child. In fact, we adopted her before she had any capacity to obey anything. However, obeying us as her parents is not "optional," and our house rules are not "suggestions." We expect her to abide by our rules, not in order to be our child, but because we are her parents and she is under our authority.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I don't have time for a point-by-point reply to your whole post. One thing that is missing or incorrect in your list of implications you drew about my position is that I don't view the human spirit as good without qualification. The human spirit as created is a good thing because God only creates good things, but as a result of Adam's fall all human beings are born with a sinful disposition that makes them morally and spiritually corrupt, including both flesh and spirit. That is why we need to be cleansed in both flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). In our "natural" state as a result of the Fall, all of us are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). In salvation, God regenerates sinners (i.e., they are "born again," born "of the Spirit," John 3:3-8 ) so that they are spiritually alive (see Rom. 8:10). Only those who are spiritually alive have the promise that when they die physically they will be freed from sin and its effects. The world, the flesh (=fallen human nature), and the devil continue to influence people, whether regenerate or not, as long as they live, but the regenerate have the capacity (and the responsibility) in Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit to resist those influences and to grow in Christlikeness even during their mortal lives. They are able not to sin, but in this mortal life they will not be at the point where they are not able to sin. Unregenerate people can mimic such spiritual growth -- they can live very moral lives, be extremely devout and religiously active, etc. -- but they are not actually growing in Christ because they are not connected to Christ in a redemptive way. Since they are still dead in sin, their lives are still incorrigibly mired in sin (not necessarily overt immoral behavior, but certainly sin in relation to God). At physical death, the regenerate are freed from the world, the flesh, and the devil, and in the resurrection they are raised from the dead with immortal, glorious bodies of flesh and bones; furthermore, their whole being (body and soul, or flesh and spirit) is no longer constitutionally subject to temptation. They will be then not able to sin. That means, of course, that redeemed people in the consummation, in the resurrection, will not merely be restored to pre-Fall Adamic innocence, but will be gloriously better than Adam was at his earthly best.

You quoted a 2006  conference talk by Elder Richard G. Scott, but I think you missed something. Scott, like numerous other LDS leaders, affirms that we must earn our salvation. Immediately after the paragraph you quoted, Scott has this to say:

"The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied through mercy,  earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws of God.  Such repentance and obedience are absolutely essential for the Atonement  to work its complete miracle in your life. The Redeemer can settle your  individual account with justice and grant forgiveness through the  merciful path of your repentance. Through the Atonement you can live in a  world where justice assures that you will retain what you earn by  obedience. Through His mercy you can resolve the consequences of broken  laws."

Scott goes on to argue, again as so many other LDS leaders have affirmed, that the grace of God simply makes up for our failings, as long as we have put forth our "best efforts" and done everything we can possibly do in the way of obedience:

"His mercy pays our debt to justice  when we repent and obey Him. Since with even our best efforts to obey  His teachings we will still fall short, because of His grace we  will be 'saved, after all we can do'" (citing 2 Ne. 25:23).

You also quoted D&C 84:41, "But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." You interpreted this to mean that as long as a person desires to obey Christ, he will attain individual salvation. However, I don't think this is quite correct. The point seems to be that those who break the covenant have no chance of restoration. You can argue from this text that those who simply fall into sin can be restored, in contrast to those who deliberately break the covenant and turn away from it, but that doesn't mean that all the priesthood-holder has to do to attain individual salvation is not deliberately walk away from his covenant. Rather, the standard LDS position seems to be that he must do everything he can, work as hard as he can, and be as obedient as he can, if he is to attain individual salvation.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 19 July 2010 - 11:20 AM.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

nackhadlow,

I don't have time for a point-by-point reply to your whole post. One thing that is missing or incorrect in your list of implications you drew about my position is that I don't view the human spirit as good without qualification. The human spirit as created is a good thing because God only creates good things, but as a result of Adam's fall all human beings are born with a sinful disposition that makes them morally and spiritually corrupt, including both flesh and spirit. That is why we need to be cleansed in both flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1). In our "natural" state as a result of the Fall, all of us are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1). In salvation, God regenerates sinners (i.e., they are "born again," born "of the Spirit," John 3:3- so that they are spiritually alive (see Rom. 8:10). Only those who are spiritually alive have the promise that when they die physically they will be freed from sin and its effects. The world, the flesh (=fallen human nature), and the devil continue to influence people, whether regenerate or not, as long as they live, but the regenerate have the capacity (and the responsibility) in Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit to resist those influences and to grow in Christlikeness even during their mortal lives. They are able not to sin, but in this mortal life they will not be at the point where they are not able to sin.


Unregenerate people can mimic such spiritual growth -- they can live very moral lives, be extremely devout and religiously active, etc. -- but they are not actually growing in Christ because they are not connected to Christ in a redemptive way. Since they are still dead in sin, their lives are still incorrigibly mired in sin (not necessarily overt immoral behavior, but certainly sin in relation to God). At physical death, the regenerate are freed from the world, the flesh, and the devil, and in the resurrection they are raised from the dead with immortal, glorious bodies of flesh and bones; furthermore, their whole being (body and soul, or flesh and spirit) is no longer constitutionally subject to temptation. They will be then not able to sin. That means, of course, that redeemed people in the consummation, in the resurrection, will not merely be restored to pre-Fall Adamic innocence, but will be gloriously better than Adam was at his earthly best.

So it does seem that I got it quite right, with a few minor modifications:

1. The created human spirit is essentially and originally good, pure, and pleasing to God.
2. Sinfulness is a state of corruption before God, which gives one the capacity to Sin.
3. To sin is the act which makes one sinful
4 A sinful nature is what causes one to sin
4a. All Mortal flesh brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
4b.  The state of living in a mortal world brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
4c.  Living in a state where the devil has access to tempt you brings with it an essential sinful nature for those created in connection with such conditions.
3. Because of Adam's sin, the created human spirit is brought into being in the conditions of 4a, 4b, and 4c, while on the earth, mankind has within it from the beginning the essential nature of sinfulness
4. At death, 4a and 4b are removed as co-conditions of the human spirit
5. At death, the human spirit naturally remains subject to the influence of the devil, and thus remains sinful. Unless 6a.
6. Jesus Christ provided for a reversal of 4a in 4aa (Resurrected Body), 4b in 4bb (Living in the Heavenly World), and 4c in 4cc (Freedom from the Devil) for those who accept him.
6a. Acceptance of Christ then leads to the removal of 4c from the human condition
7. For those who die in the state of having accepted 6, and effected the removal of 4a, 4b, and 4c, the essential nature of the created human spirit is restored and freed, with no influences or elements of the sinful nature. They are no longer able to Sin.
8. Because of the acceptance of Christ, the human spirit is not just restored, but additionally enhanced (exalted) beyond its essential nature due to 4aa, 4bb

Is that more accurate?

Quote

You quoted a 2006  conference talk by Elder Richard G. Scott, but I think you missed something. Scott, like numerous other LDS leaders, affirms that we must earn our salvation. Immediately after the paragraph you quoted, Scott has this to say:

"The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied through mercy,  earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws of God.  Such repentance and obedience are absolutely essential for the Atonement  to work its complete miracle in your life. The Redeemer can settle your  individual account with justice and grant forgiveness through the  merciful path of your repentance. Through the Atonement you can live in a  world where justice assures that you will retain what you earn by  obedience. Through His mercy you can resolve the consequences of broken  laws."

Please note the part I underlined. That is the substance of my point! Please read that in connection with my statements.

Quote

Scott goes on to argue, again as so many other LDS leaders have affirmed, that the grace of God simply makes up for our failings, as long as we have put forth our "best efforts" and done everything we can possibly do in the way of obedience:

"His mercy pays our debt to justice  when we repent and obey Him. Since with even our best efforts to obey  His teachings we will still fall short, because of His grace we  will be 'saved, after all we can do'" (citing 2 Ne. 25:23).

I don't seem him saying that it 'simply' (which in context, I read you as intending  'merely' and 'only') makes up for our failings'. It does, however, further illustrate the effects of such grace.

Quote

You also quoted D&C 84:41, "But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." You interpreted this to mean that as long as a person desires to obey Christ, he will attain individual salvation. However, I don't think this is quite correct. The point seems to be that those who break the covenant have no chance of restoration. You can argue from this text that those who simply fall into sin can be restored, in contrast to those who deliberately break the covenant and turn away from it, but that doesn't mean that all the priesthood-holder has to do to attain individual salvation is not deliberately walk away from his covenant. Rather, the standard LDS position seems to be that he must do everything he can, work as hard as he can, and be as obedient as he can, if he is to attain individual salvation.

Which is generally a manifestation of the desire. If one has a sincere desire, they do do all that they can, and each individual's capacity and visible manifestation thereon if different, based on their own unique circumstances. My best is not the same as someone's else's best. The covenants and ordinances are tools that empower us with the ability to increase the capacity of the nature of 'our best', and thus not only have greater joy in this life, but be of greater use to bettering the lives of our fellow man.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 12:15 PM, said:

You also quoted D&C 84:41, "But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." You interpreted this to mean that as long as a person desires to obey Christ, he will attain individual salvation.

Notice the part I highlighted.

Quote

However, I don't think this is quite correct.

Is this because you missed the part I highlighted?

Quote

The point seems to be that those who break the covenant have no chance of restoration.

Only if you totally disregard the part I highlighted.

Quote

You can argue from this text that those who simply fall into sin can be restored,. . .

Yes, if they have the desires to obey Christ, then they would repent and be restored.

Quote

. . .  in contrast to those who deliberately break the covenant and turn away from it, . . .

AND never repent and return.

Quote

. . .  but that doesn't mean that all the priesthood-holder has to do to attain individual salvation is not deliberately walk away from his covenant.

?????

The covenant is one of obedience.  One of the commandments to be obeyed is to repent, which implies imperfections will occur.

Quote

Rather, the standard LDS position seems to be that he must do everything he can, work as hard as he can, and be as obedient as he can, if he is to attain individual salvation.

Actually, I would say that this is another Rob Bowman misrepresentation of the LDS position.

Being saved "AFTER all we can do" doesn't mean that we HAVE to do EVERYTHING we can do (or in other words, we have to be perfect in our ability) to be saved.  To do so doesn't allow for imperfections.

Why is it that Anti-Mormons seem to always insist that our doctrine REQUIRES perfection when it clearly and plainly does NOT?

Edited by Vance, 16 July 2010 - 01:45 PM.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

Our adopted child did not need to keep all of our family's house rules in order to become our child. In fact, we adopted her before she had any capacity to obey anything. However, obeying us as her parents is not "optional," and our house rules are not "suggestions." We expect her to abide by our rules, not in order to be our child, but because we are her parents and she is under our authority.

I think our beliefs are very close, and sometimes it is a matter of how those beliefs are expressed.

How do you view Alma 41 on restoration in the spirit world, and chapter 42 on justice vs mercy.

Edited by cdowis, 16 July 2010 - 03:45 PM.

[Flyonthewall]

Rob Bowman, on 16 July 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

Flyonthewall,

I have already posted earlier in this thread an overview of the evangelical doctrine of salvation, pointing out that it classically affirms past, present, and future aspects of salvation.

Your questions once again illustrate a serious problem, which is that Mormons routinely reason that if we don't have to keep the commandments to be saved, they must be "optional" and mere "suggestions." Let me offer an analogy (and like all analogies it has its limits). Our adopted child did not need to keep all of our family's house rules in order to become our child. In fact, we adopted her before she had any capacity to obey anything. However, obeying us as her parents is not "optional," and our house rules are not "suggestions." We expect her to abide by our rules, not in order to be our child, but because we are her parents and she is under our authority.

What I am pulling from your posts is that your concept of salvation is not much different than the LDS concept, you just like to dress it up differently.

You are right that your analogy has limitations.  
Romans 8 states that those that are adopted are those that are led by the spirit, and to be led by the spirit, one must walk by the spirit.  We absolutely do have the capacity to choose and to obey.  How does one "walk" by the spirit?  By obedience to the word of the Lord.  What is the word of the Lord? At the very minimum, the commandments.
God will not adopt anyone that does not choose Him. How do we choose God?  By exercising our faith in Him.  What does it mean to exercise our faith?  As James puts it, faith without works is dead.

If the obedience to the commandments is not required for salvation, then they are optional.  How do you get around that?
I did not see an answer to my question about one's pursuit of holiness in this life.  Does one have to pursue holiness in this life or not?  If one does not pursue holiness, what else is acceptable?

[Lightbearer]

Rob Bowman, on 15 July 2010 - 11:59 AM, said:

  I agree that we must “obey Christ” to be saved in the sense that we must respond affirmatively to him as Lord and Savior in order to be saved. This is very different from saying that we must keep a list of commandments in order to attain eternal life.

Thanks for answering my post. But I still wonder what you are trying to say, you still insist that we LDS are trying to "earn our salvation" just because we believe that righteousness is a requirement for having our names in the book of life, but I think the problem is one of perspective. If, by your point of view, a person is already saved does it mean that after their "saved" experience or being born again, does that mean that they will not commit sin after that? If so, or if they do sin are they still saved? Is this rebirth possible if they sin again or are you saying that their rebirth was not real? Or if they commit sins after being saved that they do not have to repent but it is automatically forgiven by the virtue of their saved status? In LDS theology repentance and the resultant salvation is a process by which we perfect our lives. We repent after we have faith in Christ, because without faith we cannot repent. The ordinance of baptism is required as well, and it is also part of the process of salvation and is a sign of our acceptance of Christ as our savior. Since Christ said we must be baptized it is part of "obeying Christ" as are all other requirements of the Gospel. If abandoning sin is not part of obeying Christ, then what is repentance? You view all these "lists of commandments" like they are not required by Christ, that is where we differ. I really believe that Christ requires these things of those who would be saved. It may be nice to say that these are fruits of salvation and not requirements, but in the real world people sin after conversion and that is where we disagree. What is the means of retaining a remission of sins?

[GingerRed]

We also differ from Rob's view that we are 'born sinners'...that is not so.

Our 2nd Article of Faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

We believe we are all born with the 'light of Christ',clean and pure after leaving God's presence. We are born with the CAPACITY to sin. We CHOOSE to sin. We are not born that way. To say we are 'born sinners' takes away our free agency to choose good over evil. The natural man has this weakness to choose sin if they want to. And if we do choose to sin we can also choose to repent of that sin and do it no more. ( that doesn't mean we still don't make mistakes, mess up or fall away. That's what the Attonment is all about.

I see that a lot also, the some other faiths think we are gaining our 'own' salvation. That is false. And it's been explained how so over and over and over, but they still don't get it....

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Quote

Actually, I would say that this is another Rob Bowman misrepresentation of the LDS position. Being saved "AFTER all we can do" doesn't mean that we HAVE to do EVERYTHING we can do (or in other words, we have to be perfect in our ability) to be saved.  To do so doesn't allow for imperfections. Why is it that Anti-Mormons seem to always insist that our doctrine REQUIRES perfection when it clearly and plainly does NOT?

Please. I never said that your doctrine requires "perfection." You are the one who is misrepresenting me -- again.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 19 July 2010 - 02:05 PM.