Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Dale]

In LDS belief salvation from outer darkness is by grace alone. Person's in the Telestial, and Telestial kingdom's certainly arn't living by strict celestial standards. I hate the definition that salvation by grace is mere resurrection. If person's who are resurrected pass the judgement even if they arn't abiding in Celestial law are still saved. Who say's all they got was mere resurrection?

[captain-jack]

Well, I've seen some good posts but I'd like to say that I'll bow out now. I know Mr. Betts is most likely busy and I think I've said and heard all I need. Thanks for the fun.

And Mr. Betts, this has been a faith promoting experience. I'm feel stronger in my beliefs, I'm a better Mormon because of you!

[Dale]

Just because obedience is esential to a Celestial inheritance doesn't make it any less of a gift. Certiainly we all are guilty no matter how much we try and follow the commandments. (James 2:10) All our best attempt's to do all we can do are insufficient for a Celestial inheritance. But if obedience is essential to that salvation the inheritance is also earned.

Ephesian's 2:8-9 doesn't say all those works are optional. Some of those works like baptism if you don't do it out of unbelief can lead to damnation. (Mark 16:16) Some of those works you have to do on pain of damnation if you don't do them. That would make living in the presence of God, and Christ earned.

The 1st citation doesn't use the 3rd article of faith to focus on mere salvation from outer darkness. He uses it to say salvation in the Celestial inheritance was in part earned. He wasn't saying that a terrestrial, or telestial inheritance for those saved from hell was earned by the same strict standards. LDS prefer to call hell outer darkness.

I am not certain that the declaration's that salvation must be earned is a problem for Mormonism. Roman's 11:6 might present a problem for it though. It say's "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it be of works then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."(KJV) Paul could only have been denying works alone merit salvation. He may not have been saying obedience was no longer essential to salvation. Works alone are voided for salvation. I am not sure Paul didn't believe atleast some obedience was essential to salvation.

[PacMan]

Bob,

If there's nothing we can do for our own salvation, how then can baptism save us? That IS, indeed, a work.

PacMan

[Zemah]

Well, I've seen some good posts but I'd like to say that I'll bow out now. I know Mr. Betts is most likely busy and I think I've said and heard all I need. Thanks for the fun.

And Mr. Betts, this has been a faith promoting experience. I'm feel stronger in my beliefs, I'm a better Mormon because of you!

'captain-jack' hit the sevens just like he foretold!

[captain-jack]

'captain-jack' hit the sevens just like he foretold!

One of my pirate prophecies.

[Dale]

Mark 16:16 is interpreted differently by Evangelical's. Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine say, "It is unbelief that brings damnation not lack of being baptized. When a person rejects the gospel and refuses to believe it, he or she is damned."(Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons pg.332) they want people to interpret it in light of easier, clearer verses. (pg. 332) Then on page 332 they refer to 1 Corrinthians 1:17 and 1 Corrinthians 15:1-2)

I have a set of three DVD's entitled Strong in the Full Gospel of Jesus from Oak Grove Restoration Branch. It was the best $20 dollars i spent. I was glad i bought two sets. It has some nice power point presentations in it. The Restoration RLDS split from my Community of Christ church in recent year's, but Elder Robert Bobbitt is a fine RLDS apologist. In his apolologetic lecture he was smart enough to give replies to 1 Corrinthians 1:17, and the type of argument i found in my above book. He give's his response to 1 Corinthians 1:17.

"Response: This verse does not disacociate baptism from the gospel. In fact in, v.14 tells us that Paul baptized two of them himself. It merely says that Paul's primary work was to focus on preaching rather than baptizing."

I like that kind of apologetic because he has made himself aware of the Evangelical argument. To me his response it invalidated the argument Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine were making. 1 Corinthians 1:17 doesn't clearly say anything about baptism not being needed for salvation. He went through all the other key arguments and proof-texts he ran into, and provided other responses.

[William the Conqueror]

Bob,

If there's nothing we can do for our own salvation, how then can baptism save us? That IS, indeed, a work.

PacMan

May I chime in? Well I will.

â??he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal lifeâ?, Titus 3:5-7

The washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit is the only baptism that saves us. Water baptism is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace. So you can see I don't agree with you or the Campbellites!

[William the Conqueror]

Acts 10:47- Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

You see Cornelius and his household received the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.

[Dale]

I happen to believe my use of Mark 16:16 still stands. So Titus 3:5-7 would include works that if we failed to do them could damn us. Unbelief damns. The refusual to be baptized may be the point of guilt God could hold an unbeliever all guilty for. (James 2:10) No unbeliever will be held guilty on anything, but commandments of God they refused to do.

Acts 10 was a unique situation. God was trying to show Gentiles could get baptized. In other situations like Acts 2 person's had to be baptized before getting the Holy Spirit. I hate to take a unique situation, and say it mean's they didn't have to get baptized also on pain of damnation if they didn't.

[Hammer]

Acts 10:47- Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

You see Cornelius and his household received the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.

Yet they were commanded to be baptised. It was essential whatever the order.

[Zemah]

The washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit is the only baptism that saves us. Water baptism is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace. So you can see I don't agree with you or the Campbellites!

Here they go again; trampling the ordinances of salvation.

Both baptisms are required.

To say, â??I am full of the Holy Ghostâ? and not be driven by obedience to a water baptism unto repentance is evidence of a false spirit inside you.

The story of Cornelius is proof that the true Spirit will lead you to seeking the authority of the true Church. And that the true authority of His Church will administer the second baptism; not say, â??Look he is full of the Spirit, he needs no water baptism.â?

Can you see the apostasy of that â??outward visible signâ? invention of man?

Christ himself was baptized for our sake; He didnâ??t need it but we do. For Christâ??s sake please be baptized.

Zemah

[owl]

I was busy for several days. and now that I have a few hours, I have been trying to catch up on this thread before posting again, but it is extremely hard. The posts are so long and repetitive.

I am going to post an answer to this one statement by Bob on the off chance that it got skipped by the other posters.

The BoM doesn't even mention an apostasy around 100 A.D. Nor did Christ or any of His Apostles mention that an apostasy of authority and priesthood keys, was imminent after their deaths.

Here are a couple quotes.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

2 Thes. 2:3,4 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Bob,

If you are still here, would you agree that we can differ on the extent of the apostacy that was to occur after Christ's earthly ministry ended, but not on the fact that there would be a falling away?

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

If there's nothing we can do for our own salvation, how then can baptism save us? That IS, indeed, a work.

PacMan

Just a quick response before going back to the regular order of responses (I'm still back on page 31).

"Repent, and be baptized," is used by Peter, in Acts 2:38

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Note the comma after repent. It's not saying, "do both things for salvation." It's saying do the one, and then do the other. Unless Peter was intentionally changing doctrinal course on Jesus, which I don't believe he was, of course, then baptism is neither a work for, nor a condition of, salvation; but an ordinance after 'repentance for salvation.' John the Baptist never used the combo, "repent and be baptized" to be saved, in his preaching. He only ever said, "repent."

Jesus did one time in all His preaching, use the combination:

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Here there is no comma, as we would expect, if baptism is not a work/condition of salvation. But, the mere fact that, in the second half of the verse, Jesus did NOT say, "but he that belieth not and is not baptized shall be damned," is significant. What did Jesus say was the condition of being damned? Not believing. If He had intended for baptism to be inextricably linked to salvation, Jesus should have said, "but he that belieth not and is not baptized shall be damned." He didn't. Nor did He, at any other time, consistently preach baptism at the time of repentence, for salvation.

In fact, when asked by the Jews, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God"? Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (John 6:28-29)." If the "work" of baptism (or any other work) is inextricably linked to salvation, and if ever there was a moment when Jesus could have driven that point home, it was that moment. When they asked Him about the required works of God which they should do, Christ should have made 'em the LDS list. Yet, He ONLY told them to believe in Him.

Note the following additional phenomenon in Acts 10:44

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

1) As Peter preached, the Holy Ghost fell upon his audience which heard the word, and was poured out as a gift, evidenced by their speaking in tongues, without any laying on of hands. 2) They were baptized in water, after being baptized in the HG.

In both cases, God didn't follow the LDS protocol.

Now, let me ask you a question about LDS belief and practice. If an investigator told the missionaries, "I prayed about it and I know that JS, the BoM and the LDS church are true. Schedule me for baptism," but the next regularly scheduled baptisms were not for a few days or weeks to come, and the new "believer" died before they were baptised, would they still be saved without having been baptized?

[Bob Betts]

PacMan: The idea of baptism, as Iâ??ve said, isnâ??t self-existing: itâ??s offered by Christ, and is complete grace.

Then why is it required work for salvation, in Mormonism. You brought up the idea, using the NT, that "repent and be baptized" meant that work is required for salvation.

Being baptized doesnâ??t â??earnâ? us anything.

If salvation isn't freely given, unless the work of baptism is done, then sure it's earned.

Itâ??s like a child learning to eatâ?¦the parent works for money, to buy the food, prepares it, breaks it up, puts it on the spoonâ?¦and all the child has to do is open his mouth. And to you thatâ??s â??earningâ?? his food?

1) It's YOUR religion that requires the work of baptism for salvation. 2) Are you equating the work of baptism for salvation (according to your belief), with a baby opening it's mouth to receive a spoon of food? Doesn't baptism require getting ready to go to the temple, going to the temple, changing clothes, climbing into the baptismal, getting baptized, climbing back out of the baptismal, drying off, changing clothes, and going back home?

What's minimalistic about "after all you can do"? What's minimalistic about "total effort on the part of the recipient"? What's minimalistic about having to "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you"?

Hereâ??s the problem; Christ wants us to accept him and follow himâ?¦to be obedient and exercise faith, right?

No, HERE'S the problem: "after all you can do," "total effort on the part of the recipient," "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you," are not "minimalistic" requirements for salvation. I'm sure you'd like to blow right past these facts of your religion's scripture requirements for salvation, which are extreme demands that no one could, or should have to live up to. Thank God that Christ didn't make those requirements. No one would be save. No one can deny themselves of all ungodliness. No one could ever come close to doing enough, no matter how long or how hard they tried.

Perhaps you havenâ??t seen this:

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

(New Testament | Romans 10:16)

If you donâ??t obey, then you donâ??t believe. And only those that obey can be saved:

If you don't believe, you won't obey. If you aren't saved, you can't obey. If you want to continue to put the cart before the horse, that's your agency. But, it's not biblical. Salvation must first be granted to a person before they can and will do the good works of God. Until then, they don't even have the power to become children of God, let alone obedient children.

John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

So, no one even has the power to become a child of God. God must grant the power to become a child of God, to anyone who believes. Spiritual rebirth happens how? The last two words: "of God." How does spiritual rebirth NOT occur? "not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man (Rom. 9:16), not of ourselves (Eph. 2:, not of works (Eph. 2:9; 2 Tim. 1:9)."

It's all God, and not at all, us.

God even grants repentance:

2 Tim. 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

[BCSpace]

PacMan: The idea of baptism, as Iâ??ve said, isnâ??t self-existing: itâ??s offered by Christ, and is complete grace.

Then why is it required work for salvation, in Mormonism. You brought up the idea, using the NT, that "repent and be baptized" meant that work is required for salvation.

The Atonement of Christ makes baptism (and all other of the Biblically required works) effectual as a requirement.

Being baptized doesnâ??t â??earnâ? us anything.

If salvation isn't freely given, unless the work of baptism is done, then sure it's earned.

Of course. The Bible teaches salvation by merit. I notice you have confused grace with salvation as most EVs are wont to do.

1) It's YOUR religion that requires the work of baptism for salvation.

Amen! We are THE body of Christ. No other church qualifies. John 3:5, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.

2) Are you equating the work of baptism for salvation (according to your belief), with a baby opening it's mouth to receive a spoon of food?

Doesn't baptism require getting ready to go to the temple, going to the temple, changing clothes, climbing into the baptismal, getting baptized, climbing back out of the baptismal, drying off, changing clothes, and going back home?

Only baptism for the dead.

No, HERE'S the problem: "after all you can do," "total effort on the part of the recipient," "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you," are not "minimalistic" requirements for salvation. I'm sure you'd like to blow right past these facts of your religion's scripture requirements for salvation, which are extreme demands that no one could, or should have to live up to. Thank God that Christ didn't make those requirements. No one would be save. No one can deny themselves of all ungodliness. No one could ever come close to doing enough, no matter how long or how hard they tried.

Obviously verses like Mattew 5:48 are meaningless to you, but you have forgetton repentance (also made effectual by grace) which makes us perfect. Also, you are once again confusing the law of Moses with the law of the Gospel.

If you don't believe, you won't obey.

True.

If you aren't saved, you can't obey.

False. Notwithstanding the Bible tells us we are NOT SAVED until after we have endured to the end, even from the EV perspective, this violates verses like John 7:17.

So, no one even has the power to become a child of God. God must grant the power to become a child of God, to anyone who believes.

Side note, we all, including the heathen, are the literal children of God anyway (Acts 17:20-22, etc.) But I realize you are speaking in the other 'adoptive' sense (the Church).

Spiritual rebirth happens how? The last two words: "of God." How does spiritual rebirth NOT occur? "not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man (Rom. 9:16), not of ourselves (Eph. 2:, not of works (Eph. 2:9; 2 Tim. 1:9)."

Now you are confusing being born again with salvation. Another typical EV mistake.

[owl]

"Repent, and be baptized," is used by Peter, in Acts 2:38 Note the comma after repent. It's not saying, "do both things for salvation."

Bob, I wouldn't base an argument on on punctuation. Wasn't punctuation added much later?

Jesus did one time in all His preaching, use the combination:Here there is no comma, as we would expect, if baptism is not a work/condition of salvation. But, the mere fact that, in the second half of the verse, Jesus did NOT say, "but he that belieth not and is not baptized shall be damned," is significant.

On the contrary, the mere fact that Jesus did NOT say in the second half of the verse, "but he that belieth not and is not baptized shall be damned," is NOT significant. No one would expect an unbeliever to request baptism or to have been baptized, so it was not necessary for Jesus to add the phrase to the second half of his statement. He didn't expect to be talking to the blind and deaf, but to those who have ears. I don't think you are really deaf or blind. (No derogatory comments from you semi-believers!)

In fact, when asked by the Jews, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God"? Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (John 6:28-29)." If the "work" of baptism (or any other work) is inextricably linked to salvation, and if ever there was a moment when Jesus could have driven that point home, it was that moment. When they asked Him about the required works of God which they should do, Christ should have made 'em the LDS list. Yet, He ONLY told them to believe in Him.

But elsewhere belief is amplified. John 4:31 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed... " where since we are to live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." to me this means that true belief implies keeping His commandments. What do you think belief means, Bob? Is belief words only?

Note the following additional phenomenon in Acts 10:44 1) As Peter preached, the Holy Ghost fell upon his audience which heard the word, and was poured out as a gift, evidenced by their speaking in tongues, without any laying on of hands. 2) They were baptized in water, after being baptized in the HG.

In both cases, God didn't follow the LDS protocol.

To my knowledge we LDS have always believed that the Holy Ghost should witness to investigators before they are baptized. However receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost is not the same as receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I would expect that these converts received the 'laying on of hands' after baptism.

Now, let me ask you a question about LDS belief and practice. If an investigator told the missionaries, "I prayed about it and I know that JS, the BoM and the LDS church are true. Schedule me for baptism," but the next regularly scheduled baptisms were not for a few days or weeks to come, and the new "believer" died before they were baptised, would they still be saved without having been baptized?

Bob, You know we would send his name to the temple for vicarious baptism.

[Dale]

Bob-The not being baptized would be an act of unbelief. The word "is" of Mark 16:16 links unbelief and failing to be baptized together. The writer knew that some might claim to believe, but who would refuse, or not want baptism. The writer made it very clear if you disobey the commandment you would be damned. The not getting baptized part was an act of unbelief, and the person would be damned. Who says we should expect a comma? The verse as written is very clear to me. I pondered the Evangelical arguments i ran into regarding the verse. Your argument is slightly new to me, but i am still not convinced by your argument.

You have not responded to something i said. James 2:10 makes it very clear unbelievers will be held guilty for specific broken commandments. Baptism is a commandment not just great advice. Are you saying baptism is a commandment with no penalty if the unbeliever fails to comply? If a penalty is attached for unbelief baptism for that person becomes a work/condition for salvation. So if the person were to start believing i would have to see them submit to a baptism as they would have to do right where they disobeyed God before.

[BCSpace]

Note the following additional phenomenon in Acts 10:44

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

1) As Peter preached, the Holy Ghost fell upon his audience which heard the word, and was poured out as a gift, evidenced by their speaking in tongues, without any laying on of hands. 2) They were baptized in water, after being baptized in the HG.

In both cases, God didn't follow the LDS protocol.

Actually, following 'LDS protocol' is the only way to be Biblically consistent here.

Notice back in Acts 2, the day of Penetecost that the Spirit fell on those people the same way it fell on those in Acts 10. Nevertheless, we see in Acts 2:38 that the actual gift of the Holy Ghost had yet to be given. Therefore, 'which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?' simply means that they had recieved the witness of the Spirit as well as the apostles, but not the gift.

[BCSpace]

On the contrary, the mere fact that Jesus did NOT say in the second half of the verse, "but he that belieth not and is not baptized shall be damned," is NOT significant.

Amen owl.

In fact, Bob has now accomplished a switch in which he takes the same grammatical construct and applies two different interpretations, In the first, he uses it to say that obedience can only follow belief. But to apply the same to Mark 16:16 would force him to admit that baptism is required for salvation. So instead he switches what that grammatical construct means.

[Paul Ray]

Oh, what to do.

It seems that some people are still intent on using this thread to discuss how we receive salvation, as well as using it to discuss apostasy from the true Church and true gospel.

Maybe we should just nail this other issue and get it over with.

I'll throw in a few words of my own.

I don't think anyone is arguing about who our Savior is, and/or how he is our Savior.

I think we're simply talking about what we need to do to receive salvation.

To receive personal salvation each person must do something to receive salvation.

Is that a fair assessment that everyone can agree with?

If not, please let us know which Church or group of people you represent so we will know how to distinguish you from the many other churches who claim to be the true church of Jesus Christ. We can figure out if you can be divided into more subdivisions of that group a little later.

I will now proceed with the understanding of someone who believes there is something each person needs to do to receive salvation... or in other words, to be saved.

... instead of the other (possible) view that there is nothing anyone needs to do to receive salvation, either now or ever, because God has already saved everyone in every way possible and everyone is going to receive the same form or degree of salvation as everyone else because God has already done everything that was necessary for everyone to be saved in every way that is possible for us to be saved.

So what is it that each person needs to do to receive salvation?

I'll first wait to see if everyone is in agreement with me in thinking that we need to do something to receive our salvation.

[owl]

Folks, regarding Bob's posts, particularly Nov 1 2007, 08:44 AM, remember Bob does not believe LDS scripture. Even when he quotes our scriptures, it is only to point out errors in our logic. Bob can correct me, but He accepts as truth some of the ideas of our scriptures but rejects the idea of modern revelation as their source.

Bob, would it be correct to say that you believe that Grace combined with a verbal declaration of belief is sufficient to save and that it is unneccessary for the believer to manifest any change of behavior after professing belief? His faith can be entirely dead and he will still be saved? No baptism, or charity is required?

Or would he be expected to do certain things as a result of the change that grace produced in him, and as evidence of the fact that his belief was sincere?

[T-Shirt]

I'll first wait to see if everyone is in agreement with me in thinking that we need to do something to receive our salvation.

Paul,

I am pretty sure that an Evangelical Christian would say that while me must believe in Christ in order to be saved, in reality, when we believe, it is God working in us that causes us to believe. In other words, it is not us who instigates the belief, therefore, we don't contribute one iota to our salvation.

I don't agree with this logic, but I am pretty sure it is the position of most EV's.

T-Shirt

[Paul Ray]

Bob, would it be correct to say that you believe that Grace combined with a verbal declaration of belief is sufficient to save and that it is unneccessary for the believer to manifest any change of behavior after professing belief? His faith can be entirely dead and he will still be saved? No baptism, or charity is required?

From what I know of Bob's beliefs, I think he would say that if a person doesn't produce good works it is a sign that he doesn't have true faith, because he believes true faith is manifest by good works, and he would also go on to say that the good works of that person are not what saves that person.

I would then agree with him, as far as that goes.

The problem would then be in coming to an agreement with what good works are and can be.

I consider my acceptance of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God as a good work that shows my true faith in God... the same God Bob believes he worships... and I consider Bob's denial of that idea to be a deficiency in Bob's faith, which God would add to Bob's faith if Bob sincerely wanted it.

Therefore, I see a difference between the level of Bob's faith, and my faith, and since I know that God will reward us according to our faith and good works I suspect that Bob and I will receive a different degree of salvation.

... unless Bob later gains the same faith from God that I have regarding the mission of Joseph Smith.

[Dale]

With regards to John 6:28,29 i found this interesting article.

http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=417&PN=1