Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

... doesn't that mean every member of the Church has Christ as his/her husband?

Heh, you seem tired, Bob. Have yourself a very nice and good day.

Thats good stuff here. Its nice of Bob to think you have a husband. Lol. Bob I am really glad, now more than ever that you are here. You made a funny and you got post 666. good times

[Bob Betts]

He never said that at all...not once. Not in Matt. 25:31-46. Not in any passage. You're making an assumption, while not taking the rest of the NT scriptures about salvation into consideration or context.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Salvation cannot be had without faith, faith cannot be without works. Easy enough to follow.

Cherry-picking a verse again, without taking the rest of the NT scriptures about salvation into consideration or context.

I've already posted a verse-by-verse commentary on this verse in context with half of chapter 2. If you have any questions after reading it (or maybe you already have; I'm a few pages behind in responses), then we can talk when I get caught up to that point.

Above, you said that "grace is what God has done for us that we cannot do for oursleves." You do not understand what grace is. Grace is not what God does, it's what He is in His nature, and gives to us: unmerited and and undeserved favor. Contrary to what your religion teaches and believes, grace cannot be earned. It's free from God (Eph. 2:8-9). Not only are works not required for God's unmerited favor, works cannot buy God's favor.

Ah yes, telling us what we teach. I was never taught that His grace is earned, or that I can gain favor through works.

Why not? The LDS definition of "grace" is right there on the official LDS scripture site. Are you suggesting that the truth was withheld from you? Or, are you suggesting that you didn't read the BoM for yourself? 2 Nephi 10:24, 2 Nephi 25:23, Moroni 10:32 speak quite plainly about it being earned.

I was taught to show my faith through works, works that Christ taught, those being charity and love.

And, that's true. But, what about salvation. Were you taught that forgiveness of sins and everlasting life are the free gifts of salvation by way of undeserved favor from God, through Christ, by faith, not of ourselves, and not of works?

30 pages and still can't come to any type of agreement to end the conversation?

Makes ya wonder how LDS missionaries get away with telling investigators that there's not much difference between your beliefs and mine, huh?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Makes ya wonder how LDS missionaries get away with telling investigators that there's not much difference between your beliefs and mine, huh?

Bob,

Not every body keeps on issues after they have been explained or resolved. You seem to reject any thing that is given to you that comes from an LDS perspective. It doesnt matter what it is, you seemed to have rejected it. Im surry you will say( I am now useing my mind reading powers) That it isnt that you reject it becuase its LDS, you reject it becuase it false. How ever there have been a number of points that have been brought up that you havent yet explained what soever. How ever I will take as long is as need to explain these thing to you till they sink in.

[Bob Betts]

I went to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that the details of Rev. 13:7, and much of the rest of the chapter, do not fit into the history of the post-apostolic era. If you don't agree, fine. But, no LDS to date has demonstrated that the details of Rev. 13 fit at all.

You do not believe that people are being deceived by satan in these days? That people follow him, put trust in "miracle pill" placebos, think that crazy things will save them, etc?

People are deceived by Satan in every generation, including placebos and other crazy things that will save them. Why are you changing the subject, rather than accepting my challenge to demonstrate how the details of Rev. 13 fit the immediate post-apostolic age?

Paul talks about several things he would like to apprehend and attain to, starting with verse nine. But, he says not one word about attaining or apprehending salvation.

Maybe not in that part but here it is said about him and salvation:

2 Peter 3: 15 And aaccount that the blongsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Okay, so Phil 3:12-13 didn't fit into your doctrine as you thought. And, now we're going to 2 Peter 3:15 to show me what? How does this verse refute my statement that the salvation of the Lord is spoken of in the present tense, not future tense?

What "mark" does every follower of Christ press toward for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ? What did God promise to every true believer? Eternal life in heaven with God. What does this have to do with God giving the free gift of salvation by grace through faith, not of ourselves and not of works? I think you're very confused about the gospel difference between being saved by good works, which is not possible, and being saved in order to DO good works. Salvation and grace cannot be earned, as your religion believes they must.

I think you still refuse to believe when we say we do not believe our works earn us anything, merely show our faith. Please show where it is taught, "and by works you are saved and it can only be done if you have works"

Ahhh, does it have to be word-for-word as between your quotation marks, or can it just be blatantly similar?

Here it is again from scripture.lds.com:

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of manâ??s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, â??It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can doâ? (2 Ne. 25: 23). It is truly the grace of Jesus Christ that makes salvation possible. This principle is expressed in Jesusâ?? parable of the vine and the branches (John 15: 1-11). See also John 1: 12-17; Eph. 2: 8-9; Philip. 4: 13; D&C 93: 11-14.

Also, Moroni 10:32...

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

Jesus didn't use the word "first," nor did He imply it. You're adding to what He said. How can anyone endure until the end, without the power of the HG dwelling in them? I'm enduring until the end in the power of the HG, rather than my own strength. The evidence that I've been saved, is that i'm enduring to the end. The FACT that I've been saved, is found in all the verses about how salvation is gained by grace through faith, not of ourselves and not of works.

You do have a point that it is with the Lord's help we endure to the end, but the evidence is not there that you are saved, just that you believe and have faith.

But, belief/faith is what Christ said was the one condition for salvation, in the here and now. It's a guarantee, now. A Christian is one who IS saved by the atonement of Christ on the cross. Talking to Christians, Paul said, Eph 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith;" See how he's speaking in the present tense? Paul did NOT say, For by grace you will be saved through faith.

At any time you could lose said salvation through sin.

Oh my heck! Is that what you people believe? Every time you sin you lose your salvation? Oh my. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Where the heck did you get the idea that every sin costs you your salvation?

Back tomorrow, to wrap this one up.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Not every body keeps on issues after they have been explained or resolved. You seem to reject any thing that is given to you that comes from an LDS perspective.

Have you noticed it goes both ways? You (LDS) seem to reject anything that is given to you from my biblical perspective.

It doesnt matter what it is, you seemed to have rejected it.

Ditto.

Im surry you will say( I am now useing my mind reading powers) That it isnt that you reject it becuase its LDS, you reject it becuase it false.

According to my understanding of the Bible, it is, yes.

How ever there have been a number of points that have been brought up that you havent yet explained what soever.

That might either be because 1) there are certain people who are too hostile against me, that I'm ignoring them, or 2) I haven't caught up to the posts with those points, yet, as I'm still several pages behind (many posts are very long to respond to), taking them in the order recieved, or 3) I've inadvertantly skipped over a post or two. I'm out-numbered about 10-1, it seems, so I'm doing the best that I can.

How ever I will take as long is as need to explain these thing to you till they sink in.

Ditto. You might recall that many pages ago, I was ready to move on. But, I was encouraged to continue on if I had any more questions. Thus, the never-ending thread.

[Lightbearer]

This is the post that will not go away. I know you are having fun claiming that Christ will save us "in our sins" instead of "from our sins" but you could at least acknowledge when you loose an argument. Perhaps that is why you have ignored my last three posts, the first starting at post #614. But here it is again:

I made that choice a long time ago. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, and Him alone. The Bible does not tell me, nor show me by example, that I am to follow any man, prophets, apostles or anyone else. It tells me and shows me by example that I am to follow Christ alone.

This is simply untrue, the Bible does tell you to follow true apostles and prophets which I repeat for the third time, the post you have either overlooked or ignored, but here it is again: Just in case you overlooked post #614 (I realize that you have many questions that you are attempting to answer) I post it again for you:

Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

Actually the Bible says otherwise:

(Philippians 3:17) "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

And also this:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10) "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any manâ??s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

And yet another:

(1 Corinthians 4:15-16) "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. I also would like a CFR for a reference in the Bible that says that we are not to "follow the prophet and apostles" because that would contradict what Paul said in the above quotes. Thank you.

[captain-jack]

People are deceived by Satan in every generation, including placebos and other crazy things that will save them. Why are you changing the subject, rather than accepting my challenge to demonstrate how the details of Rev. 13 fit the immediate post-apostolic age?

I am trying to show an example, sorry you didn't like it. I'll try a little better when I have time. My examples don't always hit the mark.

Okay, so Phil 3:12-13 didn't fit into your doctrine as you thought. And, now we're going to 2 Peter 3:15 to show me what? How does this verse refute my statement that the salvation of the Lord is spoken of in the present tense, not future tense?

I seem to have made a mistake and meant another scripture, again, will be corrected later today.

Ahhh, does it have to be word-for-word as between your quotation marks, or can it just be blatantly similar?

Here it is again from scripture.lds.com: Also, Moroni 10:32...

No it does not need to be word for word, but when it isn't then it's up to interpretation, which is where we differ and it really doesn't matter how you try to change it. I get the message and I've had a confirmation through the Holy Ghost.

You do have a point that it is with the Lord's help we endure to the end, but the evidence is not there that you are saved, just that you believe and have faith.But, belief/faith is what Christ said was the one condition for salvation, in the here and now. It's a guarantee, now. A Christian is one who IS saved by the atonement of Christ on the cross. Talking to Christians, Paul said, Eph 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith;" See how he's speaking in the present tense? Paul did NOT say, For by grace you will be saved through faith.

You are saved through faith by grace. What is the faith he speaks of. So the faith is first, then the grace. Otherwise he would have said by grace are ye saved, then comes the faith. Not through faith you get grace. So that sounds like faith, which includes work, comes first. That would support 2 Nephi that grace is sufficient after all that you can do.

Oh my heck! Is that what you people believe? Every time you sin you lose your salvation? Oh my. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Where the heck did you get the idea that every sin costs you your salvation?

Back tomorrow, to wrap this one up.

I don't believe that all salvation is lost, I should have been more clear. Sin can be harmful to our salvation because it keeps us from Christ and Heavenly Father, no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Have you noticed it goes both ways? You (LDS) seem to reject anything that is given to you from my biblical perspective.

Ditto.

According to my understanding of the Bible, it is, yes.

That might either be because 1) there are certain people who are too hostile against me, that I'm ignoring them, or 2) I haven't caught up to the posts with those points, yet, as I'm still several pages behind (many posts are very long to respond to), taking them in the order recieved, or 3) I've inadvertantly skipped over a post or two. I'm out-numbered about 10-1, it seems, so I'm doing the best that I can.

Ditto. You might recall that many pages ago, I was ready to move on. But, I was encouraged to continue on if I had any more questions. Thus, the never-ending thread.

I can understand your perspective. Can you understand mine?

This is the post that will not go away. I know you are having fun claiming that Christ will save us "in our sins" instead of "from our sins" but you could at least acknowledge when you loose an argument. Perhaps that is why you have ignored my last three posts, the first starting at post #614. But here it is again:This is simply untrue, the Bible does tell you to follow true apostles and prophets which I repeat for the third time, the post you have either overlooked or ignored, but here it is again: Just in case you overlooked post #614 (I realize that you have many questions that you are attempting to answer) I post it again for you:Actually the Bible says otherwise:And also this:And yet another:So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. I also would like a CFR for a reference in the Bible that says that we are not to "follow the prophet and apostles" because that would contradict what Paul said in the above quotes. Thank you.

Lightbearer, you may be on Bobs ignore list. I dont know what to say. Sorry Bro.

Bob these are the verse LIghtbearer brought up

(Philippians 3:17) "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

And also this:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10) "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any manâ??s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

And yet another:

(1 Corinthians 4:15-16) "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer, you may be on Bobs ignore list. I dont know what to say. Sorry Bro.

That would be quite an honor, and very interesting

[consiglieri]

That would be quite an honor, and very interesting

Welcome to the green bean team . . . and don't ad lib.

[PacMan]

Bob:

PacMan: 1) Are all unbelievers rejected to the Lord's left-hand because He didn't see fit to allow many of them to even HEAR of Him?

Bob: Why would you think that? I have no doubt in the justice and fairness of God at judgement time.

Well, if His sheep are only those that accept Christ, then those that donâ??t are goats. Am I misreading the scripture? If someone (using your paradigm) never knows of Christ and dies, then He canâ??t be a sheep for he hasnâ??t accepted Christ. However, itâ??s not His faultâ?¦God has thus judged him for an opportunity was not given. THAT is the quintessential definition of God as a respecter of persons. Youâ??ve got a huge problem to juxtapose.

PacMan

[consiglieri]

As a note to anyone who may be interested, I have started a new thread dealing with Bob Betts' assertion that a true Christian band has remained on the earth continuously since the days of Christ.

If anybody wishes to support that proposition, they may want to post some evidence there.

So far, it looks like nobody is buying it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[PacMan]

Oh goodâ?¦then you can understand why we consider the current 12 as part of the same foundation.Yes. Which is why I CAN'T understand the LDS belief that the quorum ended because God wouldn't authorize John to appoint replacements, effectively halting the organization. Which is unparalleled when compared to the sustained organization under Moses.

Unparalleled? The parallel is He gave a commandment that contradicted a previous on, although His previous one was still eventually met.

So, YOUR church believes that the quorum of 12 is of the highest importance in the church organization, but God apparently didn't care that much to ensure perpetuation.

Be as flippant as you want. I bet the children of Israel were saying the same things while wandering for 40 yearsâ?¦wondering why the Lord wouldnâ??t let them to the promised land when thatâ??s where He wanted them to go.

But, the all-important quorum did end. And, without the quorum the Church organization of of non-effect. Earlier in our discussion, the quorum of 12 meant something. Is that now insignificant.

But, no quorum. No quorum, no organization. No organization, no authority. What good is the unbroken lineage for 1,700 years, without any authority to sustain the organization?

What are you talking about? The quorum was still effective because of John. It wasnâ??t full, but neither was it when Judas left. And the authority to sustain the organization was with John, again. Your strawman is curious, if not mildly irritating.

I DO believe it. 1) When Paul said that, did he mean that the unity had to be accomplished in his generation, or just eventually? 2) When Paul said that, did he mean unity between true churches and false churches, or unity amonst ourselves? If he meant unity amonst ourselves, did he mean we had to agree on everthing, or just on the important doctrines? If Paul meant the important doctrines amongst ourselves, did he mean there was no room for discussion on the minutist of details, or did he mean despite any discussion on the minutist of details? If he meant the latter of each of these points, we're pretty much already there.

1)Neither; 2) He said ALL. When Christ comes again, the wicked will be burned. The unity isnâ??t going to come because weâ??re going to compromise with the wicked, but because those opposing wonâ??t exist. Moreover, even if the unity were among Christians, what in the world makes you believe that Christians are any more unified than they were in the time of Paul? Forget the semanticsâ?¦why are Christians more unified today then then, and are we ALL unified? NOO! THUS, Apostles are needed!

THEN THE BIBLE SAYS WE NEED APOSTLES! Where are they, Bob? They're in the field as missionaries, reaching unreached people groups, bringing souls to Christ, starting indigenous Churches.

So you agree that apostles are needed? Thatâ??s a good step.

Unity is ongoing until Christ's return. When did Christ or Paul put a time limit on achieving unity. We're doing remarkably well, considering all the opposition from within and without (tares and wolves).

Good or not, it ainâ??t done.

If dead Apostles must be replaced by living ones, and the replacement causes a reconstitution of the organization (as I've been told), then that part of the foundation is apparently removable. Remove the deceased Apostle from the foundation, replace him with a mortal one. One comes out, another goes in. The foundation of the early Church apostles and prophets is, in effect, removable.

That is logically untenable. The President of the United States is the President of the United States. It doesnâ??t matter whoâ??s in the White House, nor does it matter that Bill wants to get back in. Heâ??s not the President and thus the position isnâ??t removable in the least. The people are, but the position isnâ??tâ?¦and what point you can possibly prove with that escapes me.

Paul said the foundation was laid. There is absolutely no reason, due to the present tense he uses, to believe that the foundation of those early Church Apostles, was only "part of that foundation," needing latter-day apostles to complete it.

Youâ??re missing the point! HE wasnâ??t the foundationâ?¦the Apostles were! Peter and James werenâ??t the foundation, but as Apostles they were! It didnâ??t matter if they died, for the one to follow would be that same foundation!

But why the heck are you arguing, since you've already conceeded that there ARE apostles? You're contradicting yourself. Why hasn't a single person ever come forward from the EV masses as an apostle? Or perhaps, the EV missionary in Mexico that I met was an apostle...along with his non-married female partner? Did the Apostles DIE and are no more, or did they NOT? Let's be consistent! Again, if you're playing a semantic game with what apostle means, then explain the difference between the 12 and the 70. They were distinct then, and are now.

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

No it does not need to be word for word, but when it isn't then it's up to interpretation, which is where we differ and it really doesn't matter how you try to change it. I get the message and I've had a confirmation through the Holy Ghost.

You are saved through faith by grace. What is the faith he speaks of. So the faith is first, then the grace. Otherwise he would have said by grace are ye saved, then comes the faith. Not through faith you get grace. So that sounds like faith, which includes work, comes first. That would support 2 Nephi that grace is sufficient after all that you can do.

I don't believe that all salvation is lost, I should have been more clear. Sin can be harmful to our salvation because it keeps us from Christ and Heavenly Father, no unclean thing can dwell in his presence.

Very well done, captain-jack !!!

I like it when you don't let certain opportunities pass you by.

[Paul Ray]

Bob: But, the all-important quorum did end. And, without the quorum the Church organization of of non-effect. Earlier in our discussion, the quorum of 12 meant something. Is that now insignificant.

...But, no quorum. No quorum, no organization. No organization, no authority. What good is the unbroken lineage for 1,700 years, without any authority to sustain the organization?

PacMan: What are you talking about? The quorum was still effective because of John. It wasnâ??t full, but neither was it when Judas left. And the authority to sustain the organization was with John, again. Your strawman is curious, if not mildly irritating.

I think Bob was headed in the right direction, there, for a moment.

"What good is the unbroken lineage for 1,700 years, without any authority to sustain the organization?"

The all-important quorum of apostles did end in the sense that only John remained after the death of the apostles (in the East), and one apostle does not constitute a quorum of 12 apostles. We believe John still had the keys of the kingdom, in subjection to the will of our Lord, but our Lord would have had to authorize him to re-organize, or restore, the quorum of 12 apostles on the Earth then and we see no evidence in the Bible showing that our Lord authorized him to do that.

For some reason, John didn't, and we don't really know all the reasons.

What we do know is that at some point there were no longer 12 apostles living among the mortal members of the Church to guide them all into unity, as there once was for that purpose... until the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith.

Bob: 1) When Paul said that, did he mean that the unity had to be accomplished in his generation, or just eventually? 2) When Paul said that, did he mean unity between true churches and false churches, or unity amongst ourselves?

1) Who really knows? Did Paul say, explicitly, in his writings?

Personally, I believe the Church was united as long as every member was a member of the one actual organization that was lead by our Lord through all of his apostles who had our Lord's authority to establish... and correct... all the church(es)... so when any member fell away... for any reason... he/she became divided from the one Church with our Lord's authority to bring them into the one fold.

2) Who really knows? Did Paul say, explicitly, in his writings?

Personally, I believe Paul was referring to the unity of all members of the Church as one body, or organization, of believers.

Bob: If he meant unity amongst ourselves, did he mean we had to agree on everything, or just on the important doctrines?

Who really knows? Did Paul say, explicitly, in his writings?

Personally, I believe he was referring to having the same body, or organization, with all of the members of the organization being directed by our Lord through all of the same leaders.

Bob: If Paul meant the important doctrines amongst ourselves, did he mean there was no room for discussion on the minutist of details, or did he mean despite any discussion on the minutist of details?

Who really knows? Did Paul say, explicitly, in his writings?

Personally, I believe that if there ever were any discussions, they would have, or should have, been resolved by all of the apostles, since it was the work of the apostles to bring us all into unity. Once they made a decision the discussions would have or should have been resolved.

Bob: If he meant the latter of each of these points, we're pretty much already there.

Who really knows? Did Paul say, explicitly, in his writings?

Personally, I believe there is only one organization on Earth that accepts ALL of our Lord's apostles, considering the fact that I know we have modern apostles of our Lord living among us today.

The fact that some people don't believe the modern apostles of our Lord in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are really and truly our Lord's apostles, doesn't give the people who don't believe they are the authority of our Lord to either become or remain apostate from our Lord and his apostles and his true church... regardless of their personal opinions and choices to the contrary.

Many people are simply going their own way while thinking that their way is really our Lord's way, and/or the best way.

[captain-jack]

Very well done, captain-jack !!!

I like it when you don't let certain opportunities pass you by.

I try not to let them all pass me by. But only being 22 means I've got a lot to learn.

[captain-jack]

And if faith must precede salvation and grace, sounds like it has to be earned. Faith is dead without works, and grace cannot work unless you are charitable as Christ. So you must earn grace, isn't that obvious and blatantly similar?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And if faith must precede salvation and grace, sounds like it has to be earned. Faith is dead without works, and grace cannot work unless you are charitable as Christ. So you must earn grace, isn't that obvious and blatantly similar?

Actually we should never use the word "earn". It is not correct to say if we have to have faith it sounds like we earn it. God just gives us conditions in wich we must perform to access grace. Grace is not something that is given liberally to all who ever they may be, even if said people dont repent and esp if they dont want Christs saving grace. Otherwise we are talking about a universal salvation. And that is clearly a false notion.

Nothing in this life can be obtained with out some sort of effort on our part.

[Hoops22]

Otherwise we are talking about a universal salvation. And that is clearly a false notion.

Would you not agree that there is a universalist strain running through LDS?

Actually we should never use the word "earn". It is not correct to say if we have to have faith it sounds like we earn it. God just gives us conditions in wich we must perform to access grace.

I don't see a huge difference here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Would you not agree that there is a universalist strain running through LDS?

I don't see a huge difference here.

Ok 2 points. Does every one, in the LDS view recive, exaltation?

And how does one access grace? Are all that ever live saved from a spiritual damnation? Surely Hoops you can see that salvation is conditional upon certain requirements. The least of the requirments are accepting Jesus as your savior and repenting from sins.

[Hoops22]

Ok 2 points. Does every one, in the LDS view recive, exaltation?

And how does one access grace? Are all that ever live saved from a spiritual damnation? Surely Hoops you can see that salvation is conditional upon certain requirements. The least of the requirments are accepting Jesus as your savior and repenting from sins.

I think we will have to agree to disagree that "accepting Jesus" is not a work.

Even me can not. Salvation is unconditional. But, for a moment, let's really talk and temper are equally aggressive impulses to take rhetorical jabs at each other (I'm probably more guilty than you). I have difficulty getting my hands around a God that requires us to do anything to help Him save us. Not much of a god in my opinion.

Grace is given, not accessed. I will freely admit that I am undecided regarding Calvinism and Armeniasm (I butchered that) but I am leaning toward Calvinism. Just seems like a God who is worthy of worship. And the scriptures that support it are pursuasive to me - I'm sure you know them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think we will have to agree to disagree that "accepting Jesus" is not a work.

Even me can not. Salvation is unconditional. But, for a moment, let's really talk and temper are equally aggressive impulses to take rhetorical jabs at each other (I'm probably more guilty than you). I have difficulty getting my hands around a God that requires us to do anything to help Him save us. Not much of a god in my opinion.

Grace is given, not accessed. I will freely admit that I am undecided regarding Calvinism and Armeniasm (I butchered that) but I am leaning toward Calvinism. Just seems like a God who is worthy of worship. And the scriptures that support it are pursuasive to me - I'm sure you know them.

So then if we lean toward a Calvanistic view, then none have a choice. Do you believe man has agency to choose?

Side note, it appears I have derailed the thread. I suppose I should start a new thread. What say you?

[Paul Ray]

Actually we should never use the word "earn". It is not correct to say if we have to have faith it sounds like we earn it. God just gives us conditions in wich we must perform to access grace.

Right, just as we must actually receive a gift from someone to receive their gift.

The gift is available to everybody, but we must receive the gift from the giver of the gift.

It does a person no good if it's just sitting around somewhere waiting to be received by that person.

Grace is not something that is given liberally to all who ever they may be, even if said people dont repent and esp if they dont want Christs saving grace.

Right. It is freely available to all, but not everyone receives the gift from the person who has it to give.

Suppose I have an inexhaustible supply of $ bills in my pocket and offer one to anyone who wants one, with the only condition being that you must actually receive one to get one.

If you don't receive one, it isn't my fault.

I have enough for everyone.

Come and get it.

[Hoops22]

So then if we lean toward a Calvanistic view, then none have a choice. Do you believe man has agency to choose?

Side note, it appears I have derailed the thread. I suppose I should start a new thread. What say you?

I'm up for it, I love talking with the good folks here. It's fun and stimulating - and, don't spread this around, you guys are smart and funny and ones I consider friends. But I fear I won't be able to hold up my end of the bargain because I am undecided on the issue. Still, if you allow me to jump from the assessor's fire to the refiner's fire, great.

Suppose I have an inexhaustible supply of $ bills in my pocket and offer one to anyone who wants one, with the only condition being that you must actually receive one to get one.

Let's have lunch - and bring those bills.

The difference being that God would stuff the bills in your pocket because He wants you to have it.

[consiglieri]

I have difficulty getting my hands around a God that requires us to do anything to help Him save us. Not much of a god in my opinion.

Here I think you put your finger on the philosphical inclination that leads many Christians toward your position--the idea that if humans do anything that contributes to their salvation, it simultaneously detracts from God's glory and grace.

I think this fundamental presupposition should be examined.

It could be correct, but only if salvation is a zero-sum game.

I tend to think that salvation, like economics, may be slightly different.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Cognoscente