Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[BCSpace]

True, but not to be saved. Why? Because, becoming a child of God (salvation) is "not of blood, not of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man (Rom. 9:16), not of ourselves (Eph. 2:8}, not of works (Eph. 2:9; 2 Tim. 1:9)."

Which simply says that grace is the operation that saves (LDS doctrine) and doesn't address the Biblical requirements for salvation (whcih EVs ignore).

If you donâ??t, then you obviously donâ??t really believe him.

If you choose to disobey Christ as soon as you are saved, than there's a definite problem, yes.

Not saved. Born again. Still looking for evidence that one is saved in this life, especially in light of Paul's testimony among other verses.

If a â??Christianâ? doesnâ??t do all that he can do to be obedient, he has but a lazy and ineffectual appreciation...and in reality, doesn't believe.

There are only two requirements of a true Christian: love God, and love your neighbor.

Amen. LDS doctrine again. However, if one loves God, one also keeps His commandments or one cannot be saved (1 John 2:4), which (among other things) include baptism, good works, marriage, etc.

But, Baptism is not a condition of salvation.

It's a requirement (John 3:5, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21)

Loving God is a condition of salvation.

As well as a condition before salvation as in being born again.

Thus, again, James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him"?

James 2:24 is the answer. Faith and works are equally required for salvation.

But, there's still this apparent gap in your theology, where no one is sure to be saved until the very end. There is this disregard, in your theology, for the fact that you and I can be saved now,

There is no gap in LDS theology. Being born again is to have the assurance of future salvation and is evidenced Lexiconally in that the verses which in english seem to say that we are saved now are actually a condition of looking forward for a future reward IF the conditions are met.

EV's have always been behind the curve when it comes to Biblical scholarship, but this has been around for so long it's inexcusable.

You disregard Christ's and Paul's gospel that salvation is now, not just later.

There are no such verses. You have disregarded those that say one must first endure to the end (Matthew 24:13, etc.), Paul's own testimony that he was not saved yet (Philippians 3:12-14) as well as picked up a nasty case of OSAS which contradicts verses such as 2 Peter 2:20.

You guys have a severe theological glich there that we need to talk about. Plus, the idea that salvation must be earned. That's so totally not what Christ and His Apostles taught.

I've yet to see you address Matthew 25:31-46 with other than a denial. But all EV's I've ever spoken with have ducked it. Why not you?

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.

Oh, you're not confused. You just can't afford to admit that you have no answer or explanation for half the verses in the Bible. LDS doctrine accounts for all of them, your doctrine takes a few and pretends the others don't exist. The CFR remains for you on every topic that has come up.

[BCSpace]

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.

You've actually left out part of the context...

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 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.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore, what was imputed to Abraham for righteousness was both faith and works else he did not really believe. This is exactly the same as Mark 16:16 showing that baptism is required for salvation. Don;t get caught up in which comes first as they both are wrought together. John 7:17 shows works comming before faith (faith growing from works) so your logic is inconsistent Biblically.

It would also be fun to see you wrestle with the lexiconal definition of 'justified' here, but as I said before, EV scholarship is behind the curve.

[Dale]

What about the thief on the cross?

I don't feel the Lord auto-matically damns because they lack baptism. His lack of baptism was not out of disobedience, but because of his situation. He had belief, and the Lord only damns when disobedience is the result of unbelief. So the Lord had no basis to judge him guilty on his lack of baptism. He had not been commanded to be baptized like the 3000 who had the opportunity in Acts. He broke no commandment as he was not given one regarding baptism at the time he gained belief.

He was kind of like the Gentiles in Acts 10, but without anybody able to baptize him. He certainly got the Holy Ghost, and that's more important than baptism.

I don't see an isolated example as somehow excusing everyone from having to be baptized. The 3000 in Acts had no excuse if they had refused out of unbelief.

[Dale]

Mosiah 2:31-46 actually doesn't contradict the idea of various inhabited places in the afterlife. It teaches heaven will remain occupied but doesn't deny the new earth will be occupied either. If you can have two places occupied i don't see anything that prevents other places with inhabitants. It's possible to have everlasting life wherever you are as long as you don't fail both judgements. So i don't see John 5:29, Daniel 12:2,3, Matthew 25:31-46 as contradicting D.&C. 76. Plenty of room in the new heaven and earth for various inhabited places. I am not sure Rev. 22 presents a problem for the idea of the kingdom's either.

I recall some of these scriptures from memory, so am not sure i got chapters and verse right.

It allows person's who wern't taught certain things the opportunity for salvation. The only one's who would clearly be condemned would be those who died as unbelieving informed.

In regards to 1 Cor. 15:35-58 i don't use it as proof of the kingdoms. I suspect Joseph Smith borrowed Paul's analogy of the heavenly bodies to a different purpose from Paul. I think Paul showed the differences of bodies to merely show that the dead can rise with different glory. (vs. 41,42) Other scriptures are no so clear to me that we shall have two destinations only, so i don't need this as a proof text for the kingdom's myself.

I met the owner of the Saints in Shock website several years ago. I think she call's her website Mormons in Shock now. But she has a handout with 80 proof texts that go against D.&C. 76. So i had maybe since 1991 to ponder her list.

[BCSpace]

What about the thief on the cross?

Not to take away from what Dale said but the scriptures clearly show that the thief on the cross was not saved. Notice how in John 20:17, the resurrected Lord had not yet ascended to his Father. Therefore, the paradise where Jesus and the thief were was not the place of salvation because the Father was not there.

[owl]

Do you dunk or sprinkle?

In Greek baptise means to immerse. To fulfill all righteousness, Christ was baptised by John in the river Jordan, and John baptised where there was 'much water". It doesn't take much water to sprinkle.

It was only after the apostacy was complete that sprinkling became a method of baptism because a sickly emporer was not up to being dunked.

[Dale]

I recall Dr, Gleason Archer an Evangelical scholar teaching that the thief went to an infernal paradise. That when Jesus ascended to the Father he took the thief to heaven. It was in a book of his dealing with Bible difficulty's. I no longer have his book, but found something from the Christian Research Institute that commented on the problem of Luke 23:43 and John 20:17. http://afgen.com/cults.html

[BCSpace]

In regards to 1 Cor. 15:35-58 i don't use it as proof of the kingdoms.

The first Orthodox Christians did. For example (and there are many more).....

"And having said this, he ascends again to the heaven, saying, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon." For as in earthly bodies there is a difference, so also in the heavenly; and that difference no ordinary one, but reaching even to the uttermost: there being not only a difference betwen the sun and moon, and stars, but also between stars and stars. For what though they be all in the heaven? yet some have a larger, others a less share of glory. What do we learn from hence? That although they be all in God's kingdom, all shall not enjoy the same reward; and though all sinners be in hell, all shall not endure the same punishment." John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:4, in NPNF Series 1, 12:251

I suspect Joseph Smith borrowed Paul's analogy of the heavenly bodies to a different purpose from Paul.

EVs just gloss over this verse set assuming that Paul is simply referring to two states, before and after the resurrection. But the reality when one looks closer is that Paul speaks of these two states and then also mentions the the state of resurrection is divided into all these glories. John Chrysostom (above), noticed it and came to the same conclusion. JS is spot on as usual.

[BCSpace]

I recall Dr, Gleason Archer an Evangelical scholar teaching that the thief went to an infernal paradise. That when Jesus ascended to the Father he took the thief to heaven. It was in a book of his dealing with Bible difficulty's. I no longer have his book, but found something from the Christian Research Institute that commented on the problem of Luke 23:43 and John 20:17.

Well it certainly is a big problem for EVs.

1) Where is the evidence that Jesus took the thief to heaven after John 20:17? Not that such would change any LDS doctrine or anything I have said so far.

2) Jesus said today thou shalt be with me in paradise. Not tomorrow, not three days hence.

Therefore, if the thief was taken up to heaven after Jesus appeared to Mary, then the whole argument for EV's about sola fide and deathbed repentence in this case is ex nihilo.

[owl]

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.

1 Cor. 15 is the most LDS of all Paul's writings. The three degrees of Glory spoken of mean little to you who do not expect, as did the Apostles, to be resurrected to a celestial glory and to sit in the council of Gods.

For you as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive is sufficient. It is purely by grace that we will be made alive since the promise is to all, to the just and the unjust.

However, do you honestly believe that anyone who harbors the slightest degree of unresolved sin, pride selfishness, laziness, or whatever, can enter into the presence of God without having suffered Godly sorrow for his sins and demonstrated his change of heart through works of righteousness?

In claiming that repentance is necessary we, I at least and I think I speak for all all LDS who have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, do not for a moment think that repentance and redemption are possible except through the grace of Christ and of His and our Father.

Our leaders urge us to keep the commandments Because the Holy Ghost cannot dwell in an unclean tabernacle and we need the Holy Ghost if we are to be able, through the grace of God, to lay to rest our man of sin and to finally manifest though our life of righteousness that we are spiritually alive and are approximating the Christlike attributes we were told to seek as we strive to become perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect.

Bob, Even if you differ in some details with this description, don't you seek to perfect your life?

[Dale]

Well it certainly is a big problem for EVs.

1) Where is the evidence that Jesus took the thief to heaven after John 20:17? Not that such would change any LDS doctrine or anything I have said so far.

2) Jesus said today thou shalt be with me in paradise. Not tomorrow, not three days hence.

Therefore, if the thief was taken up to heaven after Jesus appeared to Mary, then the whole argument for EV's about sola fide and deathbed repentence in this case is ex nihilo.

Another perspective is that Jesus spirit already went to the Father. And that John 20:17 had only to do with his physical body part. That nothing in it prevents Jesus spirit from going to the Father. I found this article that explain's it better than i can. I found some of his points persuasive. He made some scriptural points that are worth considering. He seem's to answer points 1, and 2. http://www.ldolphin.org/kwellsx.html

[owl]

Finally, it would be well to understand that discussing the concept of an apostacy with someone with Bob's current mindset is doomed to failure, particularly when the discussion centers around "priesthood authority" as Bob tried to cast the argument. This is because Bob does not believe in "priesthood authority" in the same way we do or the Bible teaches. So, before you try to come to terms with Bob about whether or not there was an apostacy, you need to pin him down on what "priesthood authority" is. Good luck.

I am still catching up but could not resist mentioning that much earlier I suggested that to convince Bob of an apostacy it would be necessary to convince him of the need for ordinances such as baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost and then of the need for authority from God to perform ordinances that God would accept. I wanted us to go to a separate thread for that purpose and then return to this discussion after coming to an agreement on those issues if ever. I am happy that after 40 pages we are starting to work on the need for ordinances so that we like Christ can fulfill all righteousness after accepting Him as our Savior.

[Bob Betts]

Was Paul aka Saul saved before or after his visit with

Ananias?

Bernard

Yes. God was in the process of of saving Saul through these events. At some point, between his encounter with Christ and having his sight restored, he most likely had his epiphany, and did the only thing he could do: believe.

[Bob Betts]

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.

2 Nephi 31:14-21 does not address what I was referring to: three heavens, of which you spend your life trying to earn your way to the highest one, by good works.

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

Why would your good works give me heartburn? I don't understand the question.

Do you not yet understand that your good works will not save you? Do you not yet understand what James was talking about? Your works won't save you. There is not one verse in the NT that says your works will save you. I have provided a verse that DOES tell you that good works don't save anyone (Rom 11: 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.). What James said was that works demonstrate that a person already has a faith that will save him (2:18).

I can't help it if people won't pay attention to the biblical verses I present. All I can do is present them and explain them logically.

As far as what you do with your life and what it means to me: I'm not prying into your personal life. I'm have a biblical discussion with those who are like interested. What you do with you life is between you and God. I wouldn't even be at this site if people hadn't asked me to stay and answer their questions. If you think I'm somehow getting to personal with your life, feel free to avoid participation in the discussion.

[Sargon]

Your works won't save you. There is not one verse in the NT that says your works will save you.

Except for this one and about 40 others:

2 Peter 1:

5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Sargon

[Bob Betts]

Bob a poster has requested us to inform you that a Call For Reference has been made where you make the claim that LDS require works to gain salvation. Can you please answer this cfr asap.

Momus

Well, I've done so in several posts, quoting the official LDS definition of grace. But the latest post, where I quote LDS leaders, is post #775.

[Bob Betts]

Bob,

Please give us your ideas about grace/works/salvation in another thread that is focused on those issues.

This focus of this thread is centered on the issue of apostasy, and while all gospel truths can be considered to be related, I believe it wouild help to focus only on what apostasy was/is in this thread.

I hope you will agree on that idea, but if you don't, please humor me.

Thank you.

I think way too much grace/works/salvation discussion has occurred to turn back now. And I certainly don't want to start the discussion all over again, in another thread. Sorry.

[Tanyan]

As to the universal apostacy get out your local telephone book and turn to the "Churches" section.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Tanyan]

For Bob Betts - http://www.fairwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Neglect_grace

http://www.scriptures.lds.org/bdg/grace

[owl]

Bob

I looked back over the quotes in 775 and am impressed to ask a few questions.

Do you belive everyone's reward will be exactly the same whether they are 'saved' and then go on about their life as usual or they are 'saved' and turn to a life of service?

Do you believe that after you are saved you do not need to make choices for yourself because you have turned your life over to Christ and every act from then on is out of your control? You hook onto the train and the engine takes you where it will.

Are your answers your own thoughts, or do you just sit there and your fingers type without conscious thought on your part?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are your answers your own thoughts, or do you just sit there and your fingers type without conscious thought on your part?

Ill answer for Bob, Of course these are his own thoughts. I think he really thinks about each responce. At least give the man credit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok. If one is "saved". And he has faith, and faith with out works are dead, how then can you be saved with out showing forth good works? Please note I dont believe there are really any Christians that believe that thier works by themself save them, this includes the LDS.

The part bolded seems to be the heart of the matter for LDS. I havent heard really a response to this. Bob if you have already addressed this please induldge me.

[Bob Betts]

(Bob Betts @ Oct 22 2007, 12:55 PM) 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.

Lightbearer: 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."

Lightbearer: 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."

Lightbearer: 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: 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. Joseph Smith did the same, and we do not worship him as you know full well.

1) Show me where Paul refers to himself as a prophet, or where he is called a prophet.

2) To the Philippians and the Thessalonians, Paul clearly refers to himself as an ensample (example). To the Thessalonians, he talks about his behavior among them before admonishing them to follow his example. To the Philippians he admonishes them to walk in the manner of his example. To the Corinthians Paul spoke allegorically about being a father to them, having begotten them through the gospel. And, although there are thousands of instructors, he wants them to follow him like a father.

We're never instructed to follow prophets or Apostles in the LDS sense of the word "follow," as spelled out in The Fourteen Fundamental of Following the Prophets. Never and not even close. Not Moses, not anybody.

[Bob Betts]

For Bob Betts - http://www.fairwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Neglect_grace

http://www.scriptures.lds.org/bdg/grace

Thank you. I was well aware of the definition link, as I have referred to it dozens of times.

I found this quote interesting:

Finally, many recent conference talks address this doctrine specifically. (See below). For example, after describing the many ways in which the term 'saved' is used in LDS theology, Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught:

...all should answer: â??Yes, I have been saved. Glory to God for the gospel and gift and grace of His Son!â?[4]

In light of what BCSpace told me:

There is no gap in LDS theology. Being born again is to have the assurance of future salvation and is evidenced Lexiconally in that the verses which in english seem to say that we are saved now are actually a condition of looking forward for a future reward IF the conditions are met.

EV's have always been behind the curve when it comes to Biblical scholarship, but this has been around for so long it's inexcusable.

I wonder if BCSpace will "follow" the example of his apostle and answer, "Yes, I have been saved."

Based on the definition, though, we still have a major problem. It's that definition that spells out the fallaciousness of the LDS doctrine of grace.

[consiglieri]

Ok. If one is "saved". And he has faith, and faith with out works are dead, how then can you be saved with out showing forth good works? Please note I dont believe there are really any Christians that believe that thier works by themself save them, this includes the LDS.

The part bolded seems to be the heart of the matter for LDS. I havent heard really a response to this. Bob if you have already addressed this please induldge me.

The answer is that Bob Betts' doctrine appears identical to Mormon doctrine in this regard.

LDS teach that a person is saved through receiving Christ's atonement by faith, and that they thereafter show forth good works, on which they are judged.

Bob teaches that a person is saved through receiving Christ's atonement by faith, and that they thereafter show forth good works, on which they are judged.

Sound similar?

--Consiglieri