Aaron Shafovaloff and 2 Nephi 25:23

[Anakin7]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[robuchan]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Unfortunately, I think he nails it. There are different ways to interpret the verse, the grace oriented way that Stephen Robinson does, which I think is the more logical reading. But by far the most frequent interpretation of the verse, especially by GA's in conference or in official church publications, is the works oriented view. You really have no response to Shafovaloff if you take that interpretation. Very unfortunate.

[Ahab]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Does he [or any LDS critic} get what???

Grace???

I'm sure he does, to some extent, but he {and any other LDS critic} still needs to do all he can do to receive grace sufficient for exaltation.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Unfortunately, I think he nails it. There are different ways to interpret the verse, the grace oriented way that Stephen Robinson does, which I think is the more logical reading. But by far the most frequent interpretation of the verse, especially by GA's in conference or in official church publications, is the works oriented view. You really have no response to Shafovaloff if you take that interpretation. Very unfortunate.

It has been made 100

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

He and others keep trying to define the BoM and our entire faith by this one scripture. Something we would never get away with on their turf.

[robuchan]

It has been made 100

[Ahab]

We as layman can make the argument as many times as we can, but as long as the interpretation by prophets and apostles and official church publications is different, than it carries no weight.

It's really very simple to understand once you know the correct answer to this question:

Is there anything you (or I) need to do to receive grace from God?

Hint: The fact that God offers grace to us doesn't necessarily mean we will do what it takes to receive it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We as layman can make the argument as many times as we can, but as long as the interpretation by prophets and apostles and official church publications is different, than it carries no weight.

I disagree

[robuchan]

It's really very simple to understand once you know the correct answer to this question:

Is there anything you (or I) need to do to receive grace from God?

Hint: The fact that God offers grace to us doesn't necessarily mean we will do what it takes to receive it.

If you want to hold onto that doctrine, then Shafovaloff's got you. All you can do is admit your doctrine isn't Christian, and agree to disagree.

[Ahab]

If you want to hold onto that doctrine, then Shafovaloff's got you. All you can do is admit your doctrine isn't Christian, and agree to disagree.

What utter nonsense, but you can believe what you say if you want to without me trying to convince you otherwise.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If you want to hold onto that doctrine, then Shafovaloff's got you. All you can do is admit your doctrine isn't Christian, and agree to disagree.

No...our view is the correct "Christian" view or doctrine. Christ defines "Christian", not Aaron. I think GBH siad this..."If there be any Christians; we are they".

[robuchan]

No...our view is the correct "Christian" view or doctrine. Christ defines "Christian", not Aaron. I think GBH siad this..."If there be any Christians; we are they".

Correct. I should have clarified "Christian" as in orthodox Christian defined by Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Correct. I should have clarified "Christian" as in orthodox Christian defined by Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.

Even that varies from one congregation to another. They have no Apostolic central control to define doctrine. Each is antonymous (Autonomous...both terms fit), and as such their individual Pastors define their view of

[ERayR]

If one really wants to understand 2 Nephi 25:23 you must do it in light of Mosiah 2:21. "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Unfortunately, I think he nails it.

Unfortunately, you are wrong.

You really have no response to Shafovaloff if you take that interpretation. Very unfortunate.

Hardly. We have been over this time and time again. What is unfortuante is that our responses fall on def ears or blind eyes in, the case of this board, and we keep having these conversations in the vain hope that he will understand.

[WalkerW]

Unfortunately, I think he nails it. There are different ways to interpret the verse, the grace oriented way that Stephen Robinson does, which I think is the more logical reading. But by far the most frequent interpretation of the verse, especially by GA's in conference or in official church publications, is the works oriented view. You really have no response to Shafovaloff if you take that interpretation. Very unfortunate.

Fortunately, I don't give a damn what the Shaf thinks. If he wasn't so scripturally illiterate and utterly bigoted, I might.

Nor do I care to define Christianity through the lens of Reformed evangelicalism or his ridiculous "ministry."

I'm also not really interested in taking a post-Augustinian approach to the term "grace." And, thankfully, I don't hold a fundamentalist paradigm when it comes to modern prophets, even when they continue to use Protestant-like rhetoric regarding "grace."

I had an interfaith dialogue on grace, faith, and works at the UNT Institute with the director of the upcoming Religion & Redemption: A Documentary of Mormonism. He is a friend of Aaron's and actually interviewed McKeever for the documentary (objective, I know). Anyone interested in reading my presentation from the dialogue can read it here.

[maklelan]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

First, what is "it"? Do you mean 'does he get our understanding of grace?' I don't think so, but I don't think he's trying to 'get it.' The point of his paper is to conjure up a conflict within the LDS community, not interpret the scriptures. He doesn't provide any argument of his own or try to interpret anything. He simply says there's an official position and a "neo-orthodox revisionist" position (note the well-poisoning). He then does nothing but quote representative statements from each position. The piece is pure rhetoric. The "orthodox" position is the one that Mormons have to believe, and the other one is a rogue position that Mormons only follow if they are disobedient. This is just a way for him to try to avoid having to directly confront the argument that we're not all that different (he either believes that salvation is utterly arbitrary or dependent on our earning it, but try to get him to respond to that). "You're not a good Mormon if you don't believe position X, and I'm only interested in talking to good Mormons." He also doesn't bother to address the rhetorical nature of the writings he's quoting from church leadership (nor do most Mormons). This is simple rabble-rousing, not a serious investigation.

[CV75]

When someone loves God with all his heart, might, mind and strength, and has submitted his will to God's, what does he do? Only after someone loves God is he saved (exalted) by grace. But before that, he is also saved (resurrected) by grace.

[frankenstein]

Correct. I should have clarified "Christian" as in orthodox Christian defined by Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.

if "christians" could agree in this type of discussion something might get somewhere, however, "christians" do not agree, so it just goes in circles.

some christian teach "You MUST confess Christ" this MUST is an action which MUST be DONE, thus a person MUST DO SOMETHING, thus grace is conditional and not freely given to all.

other christian teach baptism (that meer confession is not enough), thus again and ACTION which MUST be done, thus grace is conditional and not freely given to all

So either one MUST DO SOMETHING to receive grace or grace is given to all without any sort of stipulation/conditions/requirements.

If one MUST confess Christ, then I as a Mormon am saved, why, because I have confessed Christ as my Savior, so by "christian" standards I am saved.

If I am not required to do ANYTHING, then I as a Mormon am saved, because nothing is required of me as a Mormon to be saved by grace.

so which is it? Are their requirements for grace or not. and what is the Biblical basis for said requirements if they exist.

[Brad]

I would have hoped to have seen actual intelligent discussion and rebuttal against Aaron's article here. You should at least give Aaron respect for doing his homework, as his article is well documented and cited. Instead I see arguments such as "you are wrong" without saying why, and "Aaron is a bigot". Well, frankly, I wouldn't expect you to agree with his position if you are LDS. And Walker - I doubt you would have the low opinion of Aaron as you currently do if you weren't in fact Mormon. Put yourself in his shoes. He is merely just doing apologetic work in the same fashion as many people on this board do, because Mormonism contradicts his own beliefs. One needn't get so offended by a differing viewpoint. As Walker and I have discussed before, arguing is usually when thinking stops and our own preconceived notions and beliefs take full harness and our minds close. Friendly dialogue is the only way we're going to get anywhere, folks.

Please don't lower yourself to insults. The point of this thread was to have "dialogue" on Aaron's article. If you do not wish to do that, I recommend not posting in this thread.

[Brad]

if "christians" could agree in this type of discussion something might get somewhere, however, "christians" do not agree, so it just goes in circles.

some christian teach "You MUST confess Christ" this MUST is an action which MUST be DONE, thus a person MUST DO SOMETHING, thus grace is conditional and not freely given to all.

other christian teach baptism (that meer confession is not enough), thus again and ACTION which MUST be done, thus grace is conditional and not freely given to all

So either one MUST DO SOMETHING to receive grace or grace is given to all without any sort of stipulation/conditions/requirements.

If one MUST confess Christ, then I as a Mormon am saved, why, because I have confessed Christ as my Savior, so by "christian" standards I am saved.

If I am not required to do ANYTHING, then I as a Mormon am saved, because nothing is required of me as a Mormon to be saved by grace.

so which is it? Are their requirements for grace or not. and what is the Biblical basis for said requirements if they exist.

Hi Frankenstein -

From my own study, I believe the biggest difference between the LDS and Protestant/Evangelical position on grace is a doctrine called "Regeneration".

My own belief is that no, there are no requirements put on someone to receive eternal life. It is all of grace, as Spurgeon would say. However, when one is "Saved" and their name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, they become "a new creature" (2 Cor. 5:17). They receive a new nature, in which their old, sinful nature is crucified on the cross with Christ (buried symbolically in Baptism). So yes, if one has really received the grace of God, their life is going to be radically different. This is why James so adamantly reprimanded the type of faith that was not accompanied by works. No, the works are not "required" in the sense that they are a part of what is contributing to the reception of grace (otherwise grace would not be grace), but the works will naturally flow because God's kindness "will lead us to repentance" (Romans 2:4).

There is no such doctrine of "regeneration" to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) taught in the LDS Church, so naturally it just becomes pragmatic in the question of whether there are works present or not. I believe it is imperative, however, for and LDS person to thoroughly understand the doctrine described above to be able to understand what the true Evangelical doctrine on this topic is. I would recommend listening to this sermon by an Evangelical preacher named Paul Washer if you are truly interested in learning more about this Evangelical doctrine:

http://upp.mypodcast.com/2007/11/Being_What_You_Are_Romans_6_and_Regeneration_by_Paul_Washer-59710.html

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would have hoped to have seen actual intelligent discussion and rebuttal against Aaron's article here. You should at least give Aaron respect for doing his homework,

I guess we have all known him longer than you.

[maklelan]

I would have hoped to have seen actual intelligent discussion and rebuttal against Aaron's article here.

I don't see anything that needs rebuttaling. He's just saying that general authorities and LDS scholars disagree. I don't disagree with this. General authorities also disagree with each other, as do LDS scholars. I disagree with the notion that this bears at all on the discussion, but that's the argument that lies behind his rhetoric, and that's what I addressed in my comments.

You should at least give Aaron respect for doing his homework, as his article is well documented and cited.

General authority quotes on this scripture can be found by simply searching for the scripture on this website. The assertions of LDS scholars are also not difficult to come by, although more difficult than the above. The fact that he looked in a handful of books doesn't make his reticence regarding the rhetorical and parenetic nature of the GA quotes any less problematic.

[frankenstein]

Brad, thank you for you response. The problem I have with the work cited in the OP, is that the author does not address from a Evangelical/Protestant view what one must DO.

You seem to distinguish eternal life from saved and having ones name written in the Book of Life. Are there requirements or must do's for one to have their written in the Book of Life?

My problem is the author, he seemingly would lambast the LDS for "works" while not addressing the "works" this his own religious philosophy would require. i.e. confess christ, accept christ, baptism, etc,

[maklelan]

Hi Frankenstein -

From my own study, I believe the biggest difference between the LDS and Protestant/Evangelical position on grace is a doctrine called "Regeneration".

My own belief is that no, there are no requirements put on someone to receive eternal life. It is all of grace, as Spurgeon would say.

Correct me if you believe me to be in error, but doesn't this mean salvation is utterly and completely arbitrary as far as our beliefs, thoughts, and actions are concerned?