Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Paul Ray]

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

I think you may be operating under the premise that all Evangelical Christians are in total agreement on that issue, and I do not agree with that premise.

I have heard that idea from some Evangelical Christians, though, and I can agree with that from a certain perspective.

My faith also comes from God, but I believe I had to do something to get God to give me my faith, or in other words, God's assurance. I didn't start believing what I now believe because I just up and decided to start believing it. I first asked God if something was right, and then God assured me that it was.

I think that's pretty much what someone is saying when they say something like that.

[BCSpace]

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

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

Interestingly, Strongs and Thayers seems to have 'work' in these verses as 'one of the works (plural) required and approved of by God'. A lesser possibility is that this is God's business, to rouse (entice) us to belief.

Both are far from any sort of EV interpretation.

[stn9]

Wow. I'm sure this can't be on the original point still, but I'll never read 21 pages of posts so I guess I'll never know. Sorry to add to the ridiculous number of posts, but thought I'd point it out. I really wish people would take in-depth related and tangent lines of discussion into their own topic.

[Dale]

An article entitled Why Baptize? by Robert Bobbitt deals with a lot of the scriptures that came up in the discussion, so far.

http://www.restored.org/evangelical/whybaptz.htm

His comments in regards to Acts 2:37-41 from page 2 has interested me.

"It is the contention of many in the Christian community that rebirth and the gift of the Holy Spirit always occur at the point of initial belief and that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. However, in this specific instance, it is clear that the people already believed but had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Verse 37 makes it clear that the people already believed, yet in verse 38, Peter said you shall [future tense] receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." In this instance belief occured prior to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

A second myth that is commonly perpetuated by otherwise well-intentioned Christians is that the word "for" , in verse 38, means "because of", and therefore remission of sins had already occured prior to water baptism. But if remission of sins and the baptism of the Holy Spirit had already occured, why did Peter think they had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit? The word "for" was used to indicate that they were baptized in order to receive a remission of sins. This is consistent with 1 Peter 3:21.

A third misconception about this passage is that church membership was based on belief, not baptism. But verse 41 tells us how church membership was determined: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls." Membership was clearly determined by baptism."

[Bob Betts]

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

Yes, if the declaration is sincere.

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?

Absolutely not. This is the exact opposite of what James taught in chapter 2:14ff. James said he would demonstrate his faith BY his works (18). He said, (14) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him"? It is absolutely necessary for a true believer to manifest change in his life...he has the Holy Ghost dwelling in him (Eph. 2:22). His faith will be entirely alive because he is saved. Baptism and good works are definitely expected.

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?

Yes, that's what James was talking about.

[BCSpace]

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?

Absolutely not. This is the exact opposite of what James taught in chapter 2:14ff. James said he would demonstrate his faith BY his works (18). He said, (14) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him"?

And of course the answer is no, faith alone cannot save him. As per James 2:24 works are also 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?

Yes, that's what James was talking about.

LDS doctrine. Of course we don't confuse grace with salvation like the EVs do.

[Dale]

An Evangelical commentary on James i found in a CARM article. I have seen other Evangelical commentary on James 2:24, and other scriptures mentioned in the article. Its good to be aware of the arguments by those who read certain scriptures differently.

http://www.C***.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

[Paul Ray]

You know, one of the funnier aspects of the Apostasy is that we are actually in agreement, at least on many issues, while thinking that there is no way that we can agree.

I think many people apostasized, and continue to apostasize, because they simply misunderstood what someone meant when he and/or she said something.

A lot of this is really a result of misunderstandings.

... and a refusal to admit that someone was actually sharing a lot of truth when he and/or she said something, kinda like:

There is no way those early apostles can be right, and/or those "LDS" apostles can be right

I think many people will actually laugh at themselves once they see their folly and then repent and then know they have been forgiven.

[owl]

QUOTE"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.

Not entirely false. Anyone who has tried to repent of something difficult, something that you know is unacceptable behavior, but something for which you have not entirely laid to rest the 'former' man of sin, knows that repentance requires not just willpower, but the aid (grace) of God to finally get past the barrier and acheive the sought for rebirth.

This is not to say that when one has passed such a barrier there will not be other faults or failings to overcome, but that even in the more minor areaas of repentance we should give more credit to the grace of God which makes available both the power to repent and the subsequent forgiveness that comes by having witnessed our acceptance of Christ through baptism in his name.

[Dale]

With regards to James 2:24 Evangelicals feel when read properly it does not contradict grace alone. I am hesitant to just cite it as proof of my belief. Instead i think a far better response would be to pick out some Evangelical responses to LDS and write a response to the response. It demonstrates familiarity with the Evangelical scriptural apologetic.

[BCSpace]

With regards to James 2:24 Evangelicals feel when read properly it does not contradict grace alone.

There is no way to read it like that and be consistent.

I am hesitant to just cite it as proof of my belief.

Also cite Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus says good works are required for salvation.

Instead i think a far better response would be to pick out some Evangelical responses to LDS and write a response to the response. It demonstrates familiarity with the Evangelical scriptural apologetic.

I do that also where a response is given.

[consiglieri]

Yes, if the declaration is sincere.

Absolutely not. This is the exact opposite of what James taught in chapter 2:14ff. James said he would demonstrate his faith BY his works (18). He said, (14) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him"? It is absolutely necessary for a true believer to manifest change in his life...he has the Holy Ghost dwelling in him (Eph. 2:22). His faith will be entirely alive because he is saved. Baptism and good works are definitely expected.

Yes, that's what James was talking about.

If this is Bob's position, then it is apparent he has decided to adopt the Mormon view of salvation after all.

And it only took a little over 800 posts.

Time well spent, I say.

Baptism services are Saturday at noon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paul Ray]

With regards to James 2:24 Evangelicals feel when read properly it does not contradict grace alone. I am hesitant to just cite it as proof of my belief. Instead i think a far better response would be to pick out some Evangelical responses to LDS and write a response to the response. It demonstrates familiarity with the Evangelical scriptural apologetic.

In essence, it really is only God's grace that can save us.

Our faith and good works simply indicate whether or not God's grace has taken effect in our lives, and to what extent it has taken effect.

It is not proper to state that our faith and good works are what qualify us for our salvation.

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, or God's grace.

[BCSpace]

In essence, it really is only God's grace that can save us.

LDS doctrine. Grace is the operation, faith and works activate that operation.

Our faith and good works simply indicate whether or not God's grace has taken effect in our lives, and to what extent it has taken effect.

Incorrect, we freely demonstrate as much faith and works to the degree we desire. To be born again, in a sense, is simply a recognition of God's enticement of us and a desire to go that direction.

It is not proper to state that our faith and good works are what qualify us for our salvation.

It is quite proper as our faith and works determine what degree of salvation we receive.

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation,

Salvation is earned meritoriously according to the Bible. There is indeed a zero condition (zero merit) in which your statement is true (the Telestial Kingdom). Minimum faith, minimum salvation. We all kept our first estate.

However, when the scriptures (such as the Bible) speak of requirements for salvation it is in the sense of eternal life, the highest degree.

or God's grace.

Since salvation is not grace, this is true.

[Paul Ray]

LDS doctrine. Grace is the operation, faith and works activate that operation.

Not quite, IMO. Faith from God and our good works do not "activate" God's grace in our lives.

Our faith and good works are simply indicators of how much grace we have received.

We simply work with what we have to work with.

...we freely demonstrate as much faith and works to the degree we desire.

Yes, in a sense, we do or at least can freely demonstrate how much faith and works we desire.

Someone's refusal to accept a prophet of God is an indication that person has no desire to know that person is a prophet of God, so they will not have that faith to work with in their life.

... and it's left up to us to determine how much of God's grace we truly desire, personally.

To be born again, in a sense, is simply a recognition of God's enticement of us and a desire to go that direction.

Yes. Being born again is the power of God at work in our life to the extent that we have God's power to work with.

... our faith and works determine what degree of salvation we receive.

Yes, in that sense it is true, but our faith and our works do not earn our salvation.

Without God's grace, our faith and good works would amount to practically nothing.

... kinda like contributing a penny to the purchase of the very best of bicycles.

... except that without God, we wouldn't even be able to earn a penny.

Salvation is earned meritoriously according to the Bible.

We are involved in God's determination of to what degree we are saved. I realize that.

But we do not earn our salvation.

God gives us the faith to work with, and the power to do all good works.

We, by ourselves, can do nothing to earn our salvation to any degree.

I think Evangelical Christians are spot on concerning that issue.

They just don't realize that we (LDS) are in agreement with them.

There is indeed a zero condition (zero merit) in which your statement is true (the Telestial Kingdom). Minimum faith, minimum salvation. We all kept our first estate.

Do you think that is what caused you to jump for joy? I think not.

... when the scriptures (such as the Bible) speak of requirements for salvation it is in the sense of eternal life, the highest degree.

I agree, but they also make it clear that we do not earn our salvation, in any sense.

We simply show what we have received, and what we have to work with.

I believe Evangelical Christians can benefit from what our Lord has given to us (LDS).

They simply want us to work with much less than we have, and I won't.

[Bob Betts]

Owl: 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?

Bob: Absolutely not. This is the exact opposite of what James taught in chapter 2:14ff. James said he would demonstrate his faith BY his works (18). He said, (14) "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him"?

And of course the answer is no, faith alone cannot save him. As per James 2:24 works are also required.

You take 2:24 out of context, and both misquote and misrepresent James. He just got done saying in verse 22, that faith is perfected by works. Faith and works go hand in hand. But, one must be saved to have faith.

Observe verse 23, which is part of the context of verse 24:

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Abraham was not saved by works. It says he "believed God," and that belief was imputed to Abraham as righteousness.

James never said anything about "faith alone cannot save him" or that works are required for salvation. In fact, Paul informs us and confirms in Rom 3:28 that man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law. Which is just what Abraham had as described in James 2:23. And, Smith contradicted you in HIS rendition of Rom. 3:28, by adding the word "alone." 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law (JST)."

Grace is in contrast to debt in Rom. 4:4:

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Grace is also in contrast with works in Rom 11:6:

Rom. 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Grace is also in contrast with the law:

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Yes, you believe that faith alone cannot save a person, but your belief is not biblical. By your very LDS definition of grace, salvation must be earned, grace must be bought.

Owl: 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?

Bob: Yes, that's what James was talking about.

BCSpace: LDS doctrine. Of course we don't confuse grace with salvation like the EVs do.

I'M not confused. I perfectly understand that salvation cannot be earned, nor grace bought. I see very plainly, the LDS definition of grace, which defines grace as an earned commodity by "total effort on the part of the recipient," and I know that's biblically false. I know, biblically, that faith and works go hand in hand, but faith and works do not. Your church has taught that salvation must be earned. So, it's no secret.

[William the Conqueror]

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.

What about the thief on the cross?

[William the Conqueror]

The sacrament of communion is a commandment of Christ. Am I saved if I don't take communion?

How often would I have to take it to be saved? A continual work to maintain my salvation?

[Paul Ray]

The sacrament of communion is a commandment of Christ. Am I saved if I don't take communion?

If you are saved it won't be because you took the communion. If you are saved you will be saved by the grace of God, and God will consider your observance of the sacrament when determining whether or not he will save you.

How often would I have to take it to be saved? A continual work to maintain my salvation?

No matter how long you take the communion, you won't be saved simply because you took the communion. And even if you could keep every other commandment of God, that wouldn't save you, either.

You are saved, if you are saved, by the grace of God.

You might as well forget about being able to boast because you took the communion.

[Bernard Gui]

What about the thief on the cross?

Which version of that event are you thinking about?

Bernard

[Bob Betts]

21

[William the Conqueror]

If you are saved it won't be because you took the communion. If you are saved you will be saved by the grace of God, and God will consider your observance of the sacrament when determining whether or not he will save you.

No matter how long you take the communion, you won't be saved simply because you took the communion. And even if you could keep every other commandment of God, that wouldn't save you, either.

You are saved, if you are saved, by the grace of God.

You might as well forget about being able to boast because you took the communion.

If you are saved you will be saved by the grace of God, and God will consider your observance of the sacrament when determining whether or not he will save you.

Let's look at that statement in more detail.

1. 'If you are saved you will be saved by the grace of God'

2. 'God will consider your your observance of the sacrament when determining whether or not he will save you.'

I interpret 2. to mean that my observance of the sacrament or lack of is at least one factor in His decision to save me or not. Now my observance is a work, that is my work of obedience. So my work is a determining factor in my salvation. I see 2. as totally antithetical to 1.

Paul said if it is by works it is no longer of grace. The two are antithetical.

[William the Conqueror]

If this is Bob's position, then it is apparent he has decided to adopt the Mormon view of salvation after all.

And it only took a little over 800 posts.

Time well spent, I say.

Baptism services are Saturday at noon.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Do you dunk or sprinkle?

[Bernard Gui]

Was Paul aka Saul saved before or after his visit with

Ananias?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Then, why have I found so many quotes by LDS leaders, saying that salvation must be earned? You guys have three heavens (which isn't true to 1 Cor. 15), and you spend your life trying to earn your way to the highest one, by good works. That's nowhere taught in the NT. It's not even taught in the BoM.

2 Nephi 31:14-21 directly contradicts your claim that this doctrine is not taught in the Book of Mormon. You need to be more familiar with the book before you make such blanket statements. You have been caught in this error before, but you don't appear to have learned from the experience.

What do you mean by "good works?" To me, it means giving service to others, mourning with those who mourn, bearing the burdens the Lord places on my shoulders, administering to the sick, feeding the poor, sharing the gospel, lifting up the weak hands, being a good father and husband, ultimately, wasting away my life in the service of God and his children. Why would this give you heartburn?

If I wish to spend my life doing this, what is it to you? See Polycarp below.

Bernard