What must I do to be saved?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Yeah, it does feel pretty good, I guess that's why you guys do it so much!

Mike, this isn't fair, nor is it very nice. I personally don't like to be treated this way so I can't blame Hoops for crying foul.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Only your not honest enough to admit to that!

That is an lds spin that is at best illogical and at worst a lie.

And both of you stop accusing each other of lying.

[Hoops22]

Well I was going to congradulate you for your honesty here, as opposed to Dls coping out by just saying that he didn't believe that I was ever saved in the first place, but I see by your other post that you decided to take the low road with him. I guess like clings to like!

Mike

I can't speak for DL, but I think his point is, and I know mine is, that while you may be saved, you are now removed from True doctrine.

[Hoops22]

Maybe so, but then that's why I said I'm trying to clarify them. But I do think that it is inconsistent for you to be always acting like we don't like the Bible, when we take it more literally then most of you do!

Interestingly, there is a brand new thread to the board that tells us, yet again, that the Bible is somehow suspicious.

But even if we actualy were to say thay we don't believe in large parts of the Bible and only used the parts that we wanted, would that be any worse then you guys always saying "Sola Scriptura" but then turn around and explain away over half of what it says, by saying that,"that part doesn't apply to us"! I call that inconsistent!

Actually, I've seen very few non-lds on this board who propose a dispensationalist view. So "you guys" is not quite right. I think you mean "hoops".

Nvertheless, you want to claim that you take the Bible more literally, yet, it is you that wants to:

1) impose upon the church pre-atonement, pre-resurrection doctrine. When that is clearly not justified

2) declare that when Peter, et al. is writing to a jewish audience, he is really writing to everyone.

If anything, I am the literalist, not you.

So theology saves us? While it's true that Mormonism is not consistent with traditional, orthodox, Christion theology. So what! Most theology is just stuff that a lot of Greek influenced Philosophers made up to try to make Christianity more palatable to the more Greek educated elete. Talk about adding to and/or subtracting from! The definition of the Trinity comes to mind!

Same ol', same ol'

Or maybe yours has always been!

Could be. but if it is, that raises some interesting questions about who God is. And, you're contention lies with the trustworthiness of one man.

Are you saying that Jesus is not historical? But aside from that, this should give you an idea of what we believe about Him.

Of course not. I am saying that when lds refute the non-lds argument that you worship a different Jesus with "we believe in Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in Bethlehem (or Jerusalem), etc, etc., etc.,

Contradicting your theology is not just expansive, it's downright uplifting!

I can, and do, say the same. I'm enjoying being truly free.

[sleepyhead]

I suppose that you left out having faith in Christ, as an oversight? Or as a given?

Apart from that then, in your view, we must (aside from having faith in Christ.) Learn Gods commandments, keep them, and endure to the end. Am I reading you right?

No arguement with you there!

Mike

Hello mrmendosa,

Sorry for the late response. Since I'm neither EV nor LDS I'll just give you a quick answer here and then sit back, enjoy my popcorn and let you two groups fight it out.

I believe in reincarnation and that life is a learning experience. You and the EV's believe you come here once and that life is a primarily a test. From that perspective you understand "faith in Christ" as sort of an ace in the hole in the sense that on judgement day an individual would be better of if he believed/believes in Jesus than if he doesn't. Approaching the cross from the perspective of reincarnation, and that life is a learnign experience, then did Jesus accomplish anything during his time on earth? I believe he did. What did he accomplish? How can I benefit from what he did?

As an analogy, you don't need to know about the pioneers of the auto industry in order to drive a car. It won't even make you a better driver. Instead you have to take certain steps which will enable you to benefit from what these pioneers did.

[Vance]

One part of that is that you will remain loyal to essential christian doctrine.

That is very clear that you have to DO something to be saved. If you don't remain loyal then no salvation. If you do remain loyal then you get salvation.

Also you are implicitly admitting that salvation occurs AFTER you remain loyal to the end. Because any time before that, you could fall from loyalty. Right?

So you are basically saying.

1) You must learn "essential christian doctrine", so you can remain loyal to it.

2) You must "remain loyal" to it to the end, so you are enduring to the end.

3) You must "endure to the end", to receive salvation.

And THEN, you are saved and NOT before.

So then (at least subconsciously) you are admitting that EFFORT on your part is NECESSARY BEFORE salvation is received.

[mrmendoza]

And both of you stop accusing each other of lying.

I was going to say "she/he started it!" but I guess I was the first, this time! Sorry about that! My bad!

Mike

[mrmendoza]

Interestingly, there is a brand new thread to the board that tells us, yet again, that the Bible is somehow suspicious.

Oh? which one is that?

Actually, I've seen very few non-lds on this board who propose a dispensationalist view. So "you guys" is not quite right. I think you mean "hoops".

Ok, I was going to just say "You" but something that I read that Dl wrote made me think that he might be in agreement with you on that, but for future reference, most of the time when I use the word "you" or "you say" I'm useing it in it's broadest sense, or as a generality, not nescessarily you personaly, but more like, "most of you" or "many of you". When I say "your argument has no merit" , or "you said" or "you have said" then I'm refering to you personally. Of course there are always exceptions, and sometimes you just have to look at the overall context of whether I'm only talking to you or just spouting off to a general audiance!

You said that many non-LDS share your view. I'd like to hear what they think of them. After all, since "true Doctrine" is so important to you, I would think it would behoove you to discuss it with them as much as us!

Nvertheless, you want to claim that you take the Bible more literally, yet, it is you that wants to:

1) impose upon the church pre-atonement, pre-resurrection doctrine. When that is clearly not justified

2) declare that when Peter, et al. is writing to a jewish audience, he is really writing to everyone.

1) Yes we have pre-atonement, pre-resurrection doctrine. But we also have other scources then just the Bible, and we're not shy about using them! Since, in your opinion, the Bible doesn't say enough about these important subjects, we declare that through the "restoration" of knowledge from before the foundation of the earth, that we can know about these things!

2)This is one of those things you need to talk to some of the other EVs about. It has been my experence that most of the EVs that I have talked to personally think that Peter was talking to a general Christian audience when he said

1 Peter 2:9

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

They use this as a way to justify the concept of "the priesthood of the believer". We believe that he was talking to those who actually held the Priesthood!

But at any rate he was not just adressing a Jewish audience.

Could be. but if it is, that raises some interesting questions about who God is. And, you're contention lies with the trustworthiness of one man.

But would it not be better to trust the words of a true prophet of God, then to have to rely on the multitudeness multitude of theologions, and psudo-scholars constently analizing, argueing, theorizing, even killing each other down through the ages, trying to hammer out a coherent unified doctrine? Which doctrine is still not accepted by the majority of Christians, as can be shown by the number of different denominations of churches, many of which are in complete dissagreement with each other?

Of course not. I am saying that when lds refute the non-lds argument that you worship a different Jesus with "we believe in Jesus of Nazareth, who was born in Bethlehem (or Jerusalem), etc, etc., etc.,

Well, I'll give you some points here. On another post I mentioned someone whom I knew as a child. As a child I idolized that person, but as I grew older I began to see that that person was not the same as I'd thought. Yet it was still the same person, it was my perspective that had changed! Even so it's the same with The Lord, my/our perception of what He's done and will do for us through his great atoneing sacrifice, is different from yours. So while He's the same person/God He's different to us! President Hinckley, said as much in general conference once. (I'm not sure which one it was ,but I do remember it. Maybe someone can find it for me!) Of course our critics played that up big with an "Ah ha! They're finally admiting it!"

But that's alright with me, I just think that our different perspective, shouldn't disqualify us from being Christians. And I have heard some say that we don't believe in Jesus at all, and only after we tell them that we do believe in Jesus, they qualify their statement by saying that we believe in a "different Jesus" rather then we believe different things about Him!

Mike

[Vance]

Nvertheless, you want to claim that you take the Bible more literally, yet, it is you that wants to:

1) impose upon the church pre-atonement, pre-resurrection doctrine. When that is clearly not justified

2) declare that when Peter, et al. is writing to a jewish audience, he is really writing to everyone.

And YOU want to claim that you take the Bible more literally, yet, it is you that wants to:

1) declare that there are two gospels, one pre-atonement, pre-resurrection, and one post-atonement, post-resurrection. When that is clearly NOT justified nor supported by scripture.

2) declare that when Peter, et al. is writing to a members of the church, he is NOT really writing to members of the church of Jewish descent.

[jimg]

Oh? which one is that?

But that's alright with me, I just think that our different perspective, shouldn't disqualify us from being Christians. And I have heard some say that we don't believe in Jesus at all, and only after we tell them that we do believe in Jesus, they qualify their statement by saying that we believe in a "different Jesus" rather then we believe different things about Him!

Mike

I've been reading this thread for a while and have not yet posted, partly because I have not been sure how to do it. If this post does go, I want to comment of this topic of a "different Jesus". I have seen this charge made many times over the years and just want to comment on it here.

No, LDS do NOT believe in a "different" Jesus. They do, however, have more information about the life of Jesus than is found only in the bible, and therefore they have a greater understanding of His mission. This greater understanding comes through revelation.

Christ, during His time on Earth, declared that revelation ( communication between Heaven and earth) would be the rock that His church would be built on. Christ did not build His church on a mortal man (Peter), although Peter was chosen to lead the early church via the revelation from Heaven that he received.

Eventially, because of the greed for power among men, the murder of the early apostles, and other factors, this communication from Heaven ceased and man was left to his own ideas and methods of religion. Finally, hundreds of years later, the Lord would cause an environment to be set up (freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution) that would allow for a modern day version of Peter to be called. His name was Joseph Smith. His calling would be to receive revelation, re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ and restore lost information and instruction concerning it via revelation from Heaven.

I personally believe in the same Jesus that I believed in as an active Baptist for thirty-odd years. I just have a greater understanding of who He was/is, and a greater appreciation of the atonement he provided for all of us, regardless of where we are in our present understanding. Yes, He's the same Jesus. It's man's understanding of Him that has changed over the years.

Jim in Texas

[Vance]

Jim in Texas

Welcome aboard!!!!

[mrmendoza]

I've been reading this thread for a while and have not yet posted, partly because I have not been sure how to do it. If this post does go, I want to comment of this topic of a "different Jesus". I have seen this charge made many times over the years and just want to comment on it here.

No, LDS do NOT believe in a "different" Jesus. They do, however, have more information about the life of Jesus than is found only in the bible, and therefore they have a greater understanding of His mission. This greater understanding comes through revelation.

Christ, during His time on Earth, declared that revelation ( communication between Heaven and earth) would be the rock that His church would be built on. Christ did not build His church on a mortal man (Peter), although Peter was chosen to lead the early church via the revelation from Heaven that he received.

Eventially, because of the greed for power among men, the murder of the early apostles, and other factors, this communication from Heaven ceased and man was left to his own ideas and methods of religion. Finally, hundreds of years later, the Lord would cause an environment to be set up (freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution) that would allow for a modern day version of Peter to be called. His name was Joseph Smith. His calling would be to receive revelation, re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ and restore lost information and instruction concerning it via revelation from Heaven.

I personally believe in the same Jesus that I believed in as an active Baptist for thirty-odd years. I just have a greater understanding of who He was/is, and a greater appreciation of the atonement he provided for all of us, regardless of where we are in our present understanding. Yes, He's the same Jesus. It's man's understanding of Him that has changed over the years.

Jim in Texas

Well said!

Mike

[Hoops22]

And YOU want to claim that you take the Bible more literally, yet, it is you that wants to:

1) declare that there are two gospels, one pre-atonement, pre-resurrection, and one post-atonement, post-resurrection. When that is clearly NOT justified nor supported by scripture.

Yes, I do. And here's why: Did Jesus begin his ministry teaching about the church? No. Did He include gentiles in His early preaching? No. When did He begin to preach to gentiles? AFTER He declared that He would have to die and that He would rise again. That tells us that the church and gentiles are inextricably connected. One follows the other. And clearly indicates a change in program.

2) declare that when Peter, et al. is writing to a members of the church, he is NOT really writing to members of the church of Jewish descent.

Yet it is I that when Peter writes, "To the twelve tribes of Israel..." believes that Peter is writing to... uh.... the twelve tribes of Israel. That seems fairly literal and taking the text as it actually is. It makes me wonder why Peter didn't write something like, "To anyone who wants to belong to Christ." Or something.

[Hoops22]

I've been reading this thread for a while and have not yet posted, partly because I have not been sure how to do it. If this post does go, I want to comment of this topic of a "different Jesus". I have seen this charge made many times over the years and just want to comment on it here.

You'll get it. It won't be long that you will be making snotty comments,with all the bells and whistles, just like the rest of us.

No, LDS do NOT believe in a "different" Jesus. They do, however, have more information about the life of Jesus than is found only in the bible, and therefore they have a greater understanding of His mission. This greater understanding comes through revelation.

A) You can not get around the fact that your church denies the Trinitarian Jesus. That is a qualitative difference. Thus, a different Jesus.

I see nothing in lds teaching that is new about Jesus' ministry. What I see is an appeal to a pre-atonement, pre-resurrection theology. That is your error.

Christ, during His time on Earth, declared that revelation ( communication between Heaven and earth) would be the rock that His church would be built on. Christ did not build His church on a mortal man (Peter), although Peter was chosen to lead the early church via the revelation from Heaven that he received.

Our RCC friends may quibble with you here, but I'll let them do that. Nonetheless, I agree that Christ built His CHURCH on revelation.

Eventially, because of the greed for power among men, the murder of the early apostles, and other factors, this communication from Heaven ceased and man was left to his own ideas and methods of religion. Finally, hundreds of years later, the Lord would cause an environment to be set up (freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution) that would allow for a modern day version of Peter to be called. His name was Joseph Smith. His calling would be to receive revelation, re-establish the Church of Jesus Christ and restore lost information and instruction concerning it via revelation from Heaven.

For this grand and sweeping proclamation, which is the reactionary position of lds, you will have to prove that a) national or docrinal revelation was removed that additional doctrinal revelation was even necessary c) that there was lost information. For information to have been lost, it must first exist.

I personally believe in the same Jesus that I believed in as an active Baptist for thirty-odd years. I just have a greater understanding of who He was/is, and a greater appreciation of the atonement he provided for all of us, regardless of where we are in our present understanding. Yes, He's the same Jesus. It's man's understanding of Him that has changed over the years.

Then that's on your baptist church, because they didn't teach you very well. That doesn't change the fact that baptist doctrine about Jesus and lds doctrine about Jesus are completely different. One can not be an expansion of the other, or a greater understanding, they are at complete and whole odds regarding the divinity of Jesus.

Jim in Texas

Welcome aboard, Jim in Texas.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, I do. And here's why: Did Jesus begin his ministry teaching about the church? No. Did He include gentiles in His early preaching? No. When did He begin to preach to gentiles?

Irrelevant. The apostles declared that all that are Israel are not of Israel. If you don't want to head Jesus words fine by me, but I am not bound by your interpretations.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You'll get it. It won't be long that you will be making snotty comments,with all the bells and whistles, just like the rest of us.

A) You can not get around the fact that your church denies the Trinitarian Jesus. That is a qualitative difference. Thus, a different Jesus.

As soon as tje bible uses the word "Trinitaian Jesus" I will beleive every word you say. But you Sola Scriptura people are not very consistant. The "trinity" is an addition to the bible and is extra biblical. That word isn't even found in to and neither is the concept. Therefor I can reject it upon those grounds. So me the verse were we are told that Jesus and the Father are one being?

[Vance]

Yes, I do. And here's why: Did Jesus begin his ministry teaching about the church?

Yes! References to "the kingdom of God" include the "church". Also Jesus specifically says that He will organize His Church (not Paul).

Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus said that well before the atonement.

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The Church was well established long before Paul's conversion (contrary to what you have been preaching).

Did He include gentiles in His early preaching? No.

Irrelevant.

When did He begin to preach to gentiles?

He didn't. Peter did AFTER receiving a revelation for the church.

AFTER He declared that He would have to die and that He would rise again.

His death and resurrection was taught long before. I have shown this to you before.

That tells us that the church and gentiles are inextricably connected.

Actually, it tells us no such thing.

One follows the other.

The church existed among the Jews some time before the Gentiles were invited in.

And clearly indicates a change in program.

No. It shows an expansion of the existing program.

Yet it is I that when Peter writes, "To the twelve tribes of Israel..." believes that Peter is writing to... uh.... the twelve tribes of Israel. That seems fairly literal and taking the text as it actually is. It makes me wonder why Peter didn't write something like, "To anyone who wants to belong to Christ." Or something.

Strange! I can't find were Peter ever mentions "the twelve tribes of Israel" in his writings. Can you provide a reference? (That is a CFR)

[Vance]

A) You can not get around the fact that your church denies the Trinitarian Jesus.

Ah, yes, but NOT the Biblical Jesus.

That is a qualitative difference.

Ah. Yes it IS.

Thus, a different Jesus.

Than what you believe, Yes. But from the Biblical Jesus. NO!!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ah, yes, but NOT the Biblical Jesus.

Ah. Yes it IS.

Than what you believe, Yes. But from the Biblical Jesus. NO!!!!

[high five]

[Vance]

[high five]

Back at ya!!

[DLClark]

All people throughout history are saved like Abraham was. All they need to do is to believe what god tells them at that time.

It is not strange that I use Abraham to prove my point Paul did the same thing in Romans. Abraham was not righteous until God declared him righteous. Abraham exhibited faith in what God said based on this declaration of faith Abraham obeyed God. God declared him righteous not because he obeyed but because he had faith in what God said. His faith led to obedience. Again James is not talking about judicial justification before. He is not telling us how to be saved. He telling us what the signs of a saved person should look like. With Isaac, Abraham was saved before he even went to the mountain. His faith led to action. We are all saved the very same way as Abraham was. Paul said this,

Rom 4:1-12

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,

AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

NASU

Now if Abraham was saved by works then Paul is in error here. But we know that Paul was speaking the truth and Abraham was not saved by works.

Concerning James 2:21, In Romans Paul was arguing for the priority of faith. James was arguing for the proof of faith. Paul declared that Abraham had faith, and was therefore justified, or declared righteous (Gen 15:6). This occurred prior to being circumcised (Gen 17:11; Romans 4:9). James explained that Abraham

[Hoops22]

Irrelevant. The apostles declared that all that are Israel are not of Israel. If you don't want to head Jesus words fine by me, but I am not bound by your interpretations.

Jesus' pointed and specific ministry is now irrelevant? To what, exactly?

[Hoops22]

As soon as tje bible uses the word "Trinitaian Jesus" I will beleive every word you say. But you Sola Scriptura people are not very consistant. The "trinity" is an addition to the bible and is extra biblical. That word isn't even found in to and neither is the concept. Therefor I can reject it upon those grounds. So me the verse were we are told that Jesus and the Father are one being?

Which, of course, is balogna or baloney (depending on your preference). It doesn't have to be and you know it. but, despite your blinders, the Trinity is clearly and unequivocably expressed in the bible.

[Hoops22]

Ah, yes, but NOT the Biblical Jesus.

Which, fortunately, is the same person.

Ah. Yes it IS.

Agreed.

Than what you believe, Yes. But from the Biblical Jesus. NO!!!!

The ONLY way you can arrive at your Jesus is through extra (and heretical) revelation. so your biblical jesus does not exist.

[Hoops22]

Yes! References to "the kingdom of God" include the "church". Also Jesus specifically says that He will organize His Church (not Paul).

evidence please.

Matt. 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus said that well before the atonement.

He most certainly did. And where was this church when he said it? Who belonged? What was the administration of said church? Or has all that been lost?

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The Church was well established long before Paul's conversion (contrary to what you have been preaching).

Church in this verse, as you well know, can be translated "assembly". And that is its meaning here. It is an assembly of jewish believers.

Look at acts 7 are you going to claim that that was a church as we know it today? Of course not.

And again at acts 19, where the same greek word is translated as assembly.

For this to be a church, the actual entity had to have been established. Who and where does this occur? With Paul. so this reference is merely a separated people, believing jews.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

He didn't. Peter did AFTER receiving a revelation for the church.

Really? And what did Peter do with this revelation? He went to israel and preached the kingdom.

His death and resurrection was taught long before. I have shown this to you before.

And was this understood to be the case? Of course not. Even the apostles didn't get it and they were standing right there with Him. Certainly, we can look back now and see the church in the OT, because they are prophetic books. But, notwithstanding, Jesus did not preach the church at any time.

Actually, it tells us no such thing.

The what does it tell us?

The church existed among the Jews some time before the Gentiles were invited in.

Again, this is a called out assembly of believing jews. Show me where, anywhere, there is a NT church at this time.

No. It shows an expansion of the existing program.

I could live with that phrasing. The program when Jesus ministry was the kingdom, the literal thousand year reign of christ. Near His death He began to lay the groundwork for the church, the mechanism by which He will bring gentiles to Himself. After His resurrection, Peter again preached the kingdom, while, somewhat concurrently Paul was receiving his revelation of the church. Which is why Peter called what Paul preached a mystery. Why would it be a mystery? Because to a believing jew, one fully endorsing kingdom theology, it didn't make sense.

Strange! I can't find were Peter ever mentions "the twelve tribes of Israel" in his writings. Can you provide a reference? (That is a CFR)

Retracted. I meant James. Peter, on the other hand, does make specific preaching to israel. I believe in acts he says "My brethren..." His brethren are jews.