Honest question for my evangelical friends

[canterdogs]

@ Stargazer:

1. You are effectively equating paradise with the "spirit prison" Peter talks of. There is absolutely no evidence that it is the same place as what Jesus called paradise. Further, the word paradise here is associated with Christ's kingdom, which was the term the thief used. Additionally, the notion that this thief may have been baptized is matter of pure speculation. The notion that this possibly would have entered Jesus' thoughts at the time is simply spurious.

2. On the so-called "spirit prison" and the passage 1 Peter, there is a great commentary here: http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=1pe&chapter=003\

I don't really have more to add than this. There is no valid scriptural basis for the LDS interpretation.

3. The baptism for the dead doctrine has absolutely no basis in that passage of scripture. Paul makes a passing comment about another that was practising baptism for the dead. He was not establishing this doctrine. This is clear from the context. It is amazing that you would take an ambiguous comment like this and turn it into a doctrine of salvation whilst rejecting Pauls repeated and abundant teachings on salvation by grace. I agree that certain evangelicals have cheapened grace. But this does not diminish from the fact that Paul taught a true salvation by grace and that he condemned very strongly those who would add works to salvation. The passage in James is not in contradiction with the abundant writings of Paul on grace. Remember that right before the "faith without works is dead" passage, James says that "Mercy triumphs over judgment!". Again context is key. Again LDS chose to ignore context. But just as scripture says that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established", so the LDS expect us to judge one passage from James against dozens from Paul. Even if you want to create a false contradiction between Paul and James, the weight of scriptural evidence is with Paul.

4. I think we're talking past each other in relation to baptism. I have clearly made my statements on baptism. I believe in the ordinance. I also believe that what the LDS have turned the doctrine into is wrong. They have turned baptism into a legalistic requirement, which is contrary to the spirit of baptism.

5. Which brings me to the rich young ruler. Clearly he lacked something that his obedience to the law could not attain. You point the finger at the Catholic system of indulgences. However, the long list of requirements LDS set before would-be believers is just as spurious - any reading of the NT testifies to this. Martin Luther was indeed disgusted by Catholic doctrine. He would have been equally disgusted with LDS doctrine and the myriad of works that have been added to what Christ has done for us.

[canterdogs]

Additionally, Stargazer, the fact that you call charity, baptism etc "requirements" is testiment to your flawed view of scripture. John tells us that when we have faith in Jesus, keeping His commands is "not burdensome". Jeremiah prophisies of the new covenant where God's laws would be put in our minds and written on our hearts. We do what God commands out of love for Him and our fellow man - NOT because we think that by doing these things will appease God or make us righteous or any other motive... we follow Jesus and do what he commands because we love him. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in Mormonism as to the nature of obedience. Religion is grace and obedience is gratitude. This is the clear picture we see in the Old Testiment and in the New.

[UpperDarby]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=9773fc3157a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Joseph Fielding Smith has summarized the relationship between grace and works as follows:

[cdowis]

A couple of quick responses:

1. It is truly amazing that LDS can make the argument that it is not certain whether the thief was baptized or not. Seriously, the guy was in the process of being crucified. It is really reasonable to expect him to have been baptized? (perhaps you are referring to a posthumous LDS baptism?) And when Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise it means that this sinner was saved. Remember the thief asked Christ to remember him in the Kingdom. Jesus obliged and promised him paradise.

You are assuming, asserting with a sure knowledge, that he was not baptized, and I am asking for a CFR.

That is a formal request, and you are required to respond according to the rules of this forum. The thief appears to be familiar with Christ and his basic teachings. Why do you find it "amazing"/impossible to think that he was a disciple of John? I await your CFR.

2. I've been asked to show scriptures showing that faith in Jesus is our justification. Again this is a truly amazing request. Please read Paul's epistles to the Romans and the Galatians for starts.

I am asking for the teachings of Christ, not Paul.

You might consider this warning from Peter:

2Pe 3 [15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Clearly there are some things in Paul which are hard to understand, and twisted by the spiritually ignorant. If I have to choose between the teachings of Christ, and your interpretation of Paul, I choose the former.

Are you willing to follow the teachings of Christ? I am.

On a technical point - no where in scripture is Peter referred to as a prophet. He is an apostle. These terms are different. On Ananias and Sapphira I agree, if one willfully disobeys God and does not repent, then you bring judgment upon yourself.

So, we can throw out the espistles of Peter. We can ignore his teachings in the NT.

Now I find THAT amazing, especially considering that Christ Himself said that the Father revealed things to Peter.

3. On baptism for the dead - this is not Paul teaching. Here is the relevant passage (my emphasis added):

²⁹Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

³⁰And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Paul makes a clear distinction between them and us. He was rebuking those in the church who were doubting the doctrine of the resurrection. In doing so he was pointing to a group that were baptizing for the dead. You see, even those other people believe in the resurrection, how much more should the true church believe in it? That was his point. He wasn't teaching them to be baptized for the dead. It's a clear case of taking scripture out of context and twisting it.

I did not say he was teaching this doctrine, only acknowledging that they were performing this ordinance. He said that they, the disciples of Christ, were performing this ordinance.

Please give us a reference where Paul rebuked them for this practice, that it was NOT performed by the disciples in general. Surely he would not pass this subject in silence, after mentioning it, if it were a false teaching.

My point is that he likely taught them this doctrine verbally, and acknowledged that they were performing it. No need to repeat the teaching it here. It is clear that from his comment that this was an acceptable practice.

4. Show in me scripture where it says baptism is part of the law. The law refers to either the OT ceremonial law that was done away with on the Cross or the moral law (the ten commandments) handed down to Moses by God Himself on Mt. Sinai.

I will show you that the Lawgiver gave this as a commandment:

Mark 16: 15-16, John 3:5

5. I never said that baptism should be ignored. I encourage all believers in Christ to be baptized. What I don't do, and neither did the early apostles, is made baptism a requirement for salvation. When the NT talks of salvation, it talks of God's grace - not of baptism. Here's one of several statements Paul makes on salvation:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

Why would we add to this?

Because Christ taught otherwise, and those who twist the words of Paul are doomed.

6. Finally, on the rich young ruler: Notice the irony. Christ told him to keep the commandments. BUT he still LACKED. Commandment keeping didn't save this young man. By his own admission he had kept them all. But he still lacked. You can think of this young man as a good LDS or Baptist man who appears righteous. He attends church and pays tithe etc. But this passage shows us that all his righteous acts weren't good enough for salvation. Why did this young man feel he lacked even tho he was keeping the law by the book? What was it he lacked? I'll let you guys figure it out. I suggest you read Romans where it discusses law and grace to find out.

I strongly suggest that you give up your denial of Peter as a prophet, and that you read and carefully consider his warning. I strongly urge that you follow what Christ taught, rather than the theologians and Bible scholars.

Otherwise you will suffer the fate that Peter warned about.

[LeSellers]

It is truly amazing that LDS can make the argument that it is not certain whether the thief was baptized or not. Seriously, the guy was in the process of being crucified. It is really reasonable to expect him to have been baptized?

Yes, it is reasonable. Baptism does not make a person perfect, nor does faith. You do recall that Ananias and Sapphira were both members of the Church in good standing until they died for lying to God (through Peter, His appointed representative).

However, that is not the primary thrust of our rebuttal of your assertion that he was not baptized and yet saved. You cannot argue from silence (and the Bible is silent as to whether this thief was baptized or not).

More to follow.

(perhaps you are referring to a posthumous LDS baptism?)

No, not at all (although it is possible that, if he was not baptized before his crucifixion, someone did his baptism back in the early church, as Paul recognized the practice).

And when Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise it means that this sinner was saved.

Only if you falsely equate "Paradise" with "sakvation". The two are not the same thing.

Remember the thief asked Christ to remember him in the Kingdom. Jesus obliged and promised him paradise.

Not what He said.

Look at the scripture:

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Jesus did not say that the "thief" (the scripture doesn't call him a thief, but a "malefactor", btw). He told him that he'd be "with [Him] in paradise" that day. We know that both Jesus and the malefactor died that day, and they went somewhere. Jesus tells us through talking to the malefactor) that that "somewhere" was paradise. So, all one need do is ascertain where Jesus went that day, and we will know where paradise is.

Jesus told Mary that He had not, as of the morning of the Resurrection, ascended to be with His Father and His God and our Father and our God. Now, ostensibly, where God is is where "[His] kingdom" is.

Now there have been people who wishfully claim that He didn't mean what He said that morning. However, Peter is more explicit.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which [that is, in His spirit] also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison

Jesus, according to the Bible, did not go to "heaven" (His kingdom) while He was dead (in the spirit), but He went to the spirits in prison and taught them His Gospel. Why? Peter tells us this, aslo.

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

That's why we follow the same program that Paul recognized by baptizing proxies for those who have died, so they can meet the requirement of baptism for entry into the Kingdom of God. They, just as we, must demonstrate faith in Jesus Christ, repent of their sins, and accept (vicarious) baptism and receive (by vicarious ordinance) the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

so it really isn't 100% grace in LDS...

So if you have to have faith is it still 100% grace that saves you?

And round and round the merry go round we go.

That seems to be what you are saying.

If we are sayign that you must have faith and faith with out works is dead, and you need those 2 things to access grace, how does that take away that it is grace that saves you.

Even you believe that there are conditions for salvation. Do those conditions take away from Grace?

Oh and Peter seems to think that " Even baptism doth also now save us".

[LeSellers]

I've been asked to show scriptures showing that faith in Jesus is our justification. Again this is a truly amazing request.

Why?

No one of us has ever claimed that faith is not a requisite for salvation. What we're saying is that it is not the sole requirement, as you posit.

You will recall that the Romans and Galatians were already members of the Church, and thus had already received their baptisms. That being a given, one wonders why Paul (and the other Apostles) spent so much time telling (nagging) the Saints to continue to obey the commandments.

no where in scripture is Peter referred to as a prophet. He is an apostle. These terms are different.

Yet Paul tells the Ephesians that the Church of Jesus Christ is build on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Moreover, while we usually emphasize the prophet leading the church, do not forget that the prophet is an Apostle.

Finally, on this point, why then are there so many prophets noted in the New Testament after Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension.

On Ananias and Sapphira I agree, if one willfully disobeys God and does not repent, then you bring judgment upon yourself.

So, the question is "Were Ananias and Sapphira saved?" If not, they sure seemed to have fooled the Apostles and the others in the Church. If they were, then they must have fallen. Oh, well. That's a question for the OSAS crowd, not us Saints.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

On baptism for the dead - this is not Paul teaching. Here is the relevant passage (my emphasis added):

²⁹Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

³⁰And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Why, one wonders, did you choose to emphasize a word ("they") that does not even appear in the text? Here's what Paul wrote:

29 ?????? ??? ??????????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ???? ???????, ??? ???? ??????? ???? ????????????? ??? ???? ???????????? ?????? ???? ???????? 30 ??? ???? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ?????

Please show us the word "they" in this text. It is not there. Here's a literal translation:

29 What shall do the baptized-for-the-dead, if the dead not rise at all? why also are-baptized [they] for the dead? 30 Also why are-in-jeopardy [we] all hours?

There is no distinction between "they" and "we" as you hypothesize.

Paul makes a clear distinction between them and us. He was rebuking those in the church who were doubting the doctrine of the resurrection. In doing so he was pointing to a group that were baptizing for the dead.

Now you're accusing Paul of being inconsistent, of using a false doctrine (from your position) to make a positive point about a true concept. That's wholly illogical.

You see, even those other people believe in the resurrection, how much more should the true church believe in it? That was his point. He wasn't teaching them to be baptized for the dead.

No one claims he was teaching baptism for the dead.

It's a clear case of taking scripture out of context and twisting it.

Indeed, your position is a clear and illogical distortion of the scripture. Paul was a much better logician than you give him credit for.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

on the rich young ruler: Notice the irony. Christ told him to keep the commandments. BUT he still LACKED.

Yes, he lacked something, but what was it that Jesus commanded him to do?

It was do something else, in addition to following the Ten Commandments, which he was already following. He did not say, "believe in me, and thou shalt be saved."

Commandment keeping didn't save this young man. By his own admission he had kept them all. But he still lacked.

And again, we note that it was not "faith" that Jesus said he lacked (although we do not doubt he was lacking that, too), but humility. Don't forget the follow-on:

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

The rich young ruler also refused (by his acts) to follow Him. One of the requirements of following Him was (and is) to be baptized.

You can think of this young man as a good LDS or Baptist man who appears righteous. He attends church and pays tithe etc. But this passage shows us that all his righteous acts weren't good enough for salvation.

Why bother bringing this up? No Saint has ever claimed that that "righteous acts" are "good enough for salvation." We don't know where your words have been, so you might forgive us if we object to your putting them in our mouths.

Why did this young man feel he lacked even tho he was keeping the law by the book? What was it he lacked? I'll let you guys figure it out. I suggest you read Romans where it discusses law and grace to find out.

You seem to be missing a large and obvious point: This rich young ruler was very proud, vain. What he was doing was fishing for an attaboy. He wanted Jesus to tell him, "you're doing alright. Just keep on doing what you've been doing." But Jesus didn't pat him on the back. He said, in effect, "There's always room for improvement. Now that you've mastered the basics, go on to "perfection", and here's how you do it."

Lehi

[Vance]

canterdogs,

We have had the "Grace vs. Works" false dichotomy discussion here before. I suggest this thread and post as some back ground.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/45259-what-say-you/page__view__findpost__p__1208718442

I have some questions for you.

From Deu 18:15

[Rob Bowman]

LeSellers,

If I may interject, you asked:

Why, one wonders, did you choose to emphasize a word ("they") that does not even appear in the text? . . . Please show us the word "they" in this text. It is not there. Here's a literal translation:

29 What shall do the baptized-for-the-dead, if the dead not rise at all? why also are-baptized [they] for the dead? 30 Also why are-in-jeopardy [we] all hours?

There is no distinction between "they" and "we" as you hypothesize.

Your own literal translation includes the word "they" in brackets. Here is the NASB translation:

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

The word translated "are they baptized" (baptizontai) is a third-person indicative verb and is properly translated with the English word "they."

[Rob Bowman]

Blooit,

I am an evangelical Christian and would be happy to answer your questions.

1) I've explained how Mormons justify many of Paul's references to grace. How do evangelicals explain passages like James 2?

The evangelical doctrine is that God saves us by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, but that this saving grace will evidence itself in good works as the fruit of God's grace. James 2 is warning professing Christians who merely claim to have faith that if their faith is without works, it is not the kind of faith through which God saves people.

I would be happy to discuss the reasons for this explanation in more detail if you are interested.

2) My friend cited John 6:65 several times but I really couldn't get how this related to saved by grace? Is it that grace comes from the Father? Please help.

You'd have to ask him what relevance he thinks it has to be sure. My guess is that he is citing this text in support of the Reformed (Calvinist) doctrine that saving grace is associated with the Father choosing to draw specific individuals to Christ. I agree with this doctrine, by the way, but it is a somewhat different issue than the issue of salvation by grace.

3) Leaving out your doubts about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and everything else about my faith, from a purely biblical perspective (and coming form someone who reads the Bible each day), isn't the Mormon explanation just as reasonable as the evangelical position? Don't say no just because of tradition or what your pastor said, I mean really, just looking at The Word, doesn't it have as much validity? I mean is avoiding the works passages any less "wresting" than modern revelation and biblical errancy seem to be to you?

First of all, I don't advocate avoiding or "wresting" any biblical texts. We should think through the meaning of each passage of the Bible carefully, using sound methods of interpretation, and work out a systematic theology that takes all of the Bible's teachings into account.

Second, the disparity between the evangelical understanding of salvation by grace and the LDS understanding cannot be understood properly unless we broaden the theological scope of the discussion somewhat. The problem begins with the fact that LDS theology distinguishes general or universal salvation from individual salvation. Virtually everyone in LDS theology will be "saved" in the general sense, not only whether they have good works or not, but whether they have faith or not. You can be a perverted, murderous, unrepentant atheist and be "saved" in the general sense. No works required; no faith required. As long as you're not one of the "sons of perdition," you're guaranteed immortal life in some heavenly realm that is far more glorious than where we all live now. On the other hand, to be "saved" in the individual sense (exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom), one must have both faith and works--and that isn't putting the matter strongly enough. The "faith" must be in Jesus Christ AND in Joseph Smith, the LDS scriptures, the living Prophet, etc.; and the "works" must include various items that are specific to LDS religion (baptism in the LDS Church, the Word of Wisdom, tithing to the LDS Church, participation in Temple covenant rituals, etc.). Someone who believes in Jesus Christ, loves his neighbor, is baptized in a traditional denominational church, and tithes to that church, but rejects the LDS Church, will not be "saved" in the individual sense.

Third, in the individual sense of salvation (meaning exaltation), LDS doctrine maintains that the atonement does not actually save anyone or eliminate the "debt" of their sins. What the atonement does is to make it possible for human beings to save themselves by developing their worthiness through hard work and great effort. Boyd Packer's illustration of the debtor whose debt is paid by a new creditor (quoted at length in chapter 12 of Gospel Principles) explains rather clearly that in LDS theology, Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor. In short, according to LDS doctrine, all human beings continue to owe the same debt as they did before the atonement. That is a radical redefinition of the historic Christian belief that Christ paid for our sins.

I'll stop for now, because I think I've answered your specific questions. No doubt the discussion will continue!

[Vance]

Third, in the individual sense of salvation (meaning exaltation), LDS doctrine maintains that the atonement does not actually save anyone or eliminate the "debt" of their sins.

Rob,

I am a bit surprised that you would utter something so completely and utterly false.

Article of Faith #3

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

If necessary I can provide several more scriptures that show the error of your statement.

What the atonement does is to make it possible for human beings to save themselves by developing their worthiness through hard work and great effort.

Another false statement.

Moroni 10:32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

Boyd Packer's illustration of the debtor whose debt is paid by a new creditor (quoted at length in chapter 12 of Gospel Principles) explains rather clearly that in LDS theology,

True, however your misuse and abuse of this illustration is unfortunate.

Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor.

The part in bold is true, however, for us the debt has been paid, in return, He only asks us to live His gospel. On balance, a small price to pay for such a tremendous blessing.

In short, according to LDS doctrine, all human beings continue to owe the same debt as they did before the atonement.

False!

That is where grace comes in. Through the grace of Christ, He eliminates our debt from the balance sheets.

That is a radical redefinition of the historic Christian belief that Christ paid for our sins.

Meaning historic Protestant Christian belief. NOT "historic Christian" from the LDS or Catholic point of view.

I'll stop for now, because I think I've answered your specific questions. No doubt the discussion will continue!

It is nice of you to drop in. Long time no see.

But, in the future, please be more diligent in accurately representing LDS doctrine.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers

As with all here, I invite you to call me Lehi as my mother-in-law does, and as did Presidents Carter and Clinton. It's the name on my old mortgage, too.

Your own literal translation includes the word "they" in brackets.

"In brackets" is important because in English there is no way to translate that clause without it. English is a pronoun-heavy language, and in that, it is quite unlike Greek (or Spanish).

Here is the NASB translation:

"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

To render the passage in "good" English, the phrase "those ... who are baptized for the dead" is one of several ways to make the passage understandable. But it can easily be misleading, and you have been misled by your dogmatic rejection of all things LDS.

The word translated "are they baptized" (baptizontai) is a third-person indicative verb ...

The issue is not the verb, it's the noun.

... and is properly translated with the English word "they."

Not if there is a subject in the sentence, as there is here. The subject is ??? ????????????? ?????? ???? ??????? (the baptized on behalf of the dead). ??? ????????????? is the masculine (inclusive/common) plural nominative of a past participle.

Thus, my literal translation, while clumsy English, is accurate and does not lead to the bad understanding many have of this important passage.

Lehi

[cdowis]

Blooit,

I am an evangelical Christian and would be happy to answer your questions.

Howdy, Rob. Nice to see you again.

The evangelical doctrine is that God saves us by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, but that this saving grace will evidence itself in good works as the fruit of God's grace. James 2 is warning professing Christians who merely claim to have faith that if their faith is without works, it is not the kind of faith through which God saves people.

Is baptism essential for salvation in your theology?

snip

First of all, I don't advocate avoiding or "wresting" any biblical texts. We should think through the meaning of each passage of the Bible carefully, using sound methods of interpretation, and work out a systematic theology that takes all of the Bible's teachings into account.

OK, so you take the Saul approach, interpreting the Bible to prove a point, rather than Paul's approach, listening directly to revelation and to the living prophets. The historic Christian church has replaced the living prophets with theologians and scholars, similar to what happened with the scribes and Phareeses (of which Saul was a member)

Second, the disparity between the evangelical understanding of salvation by grace and the LDS understanding cannot be understood properly unless we broaden the theological scope of the discussion somewhat. The problem begins with the fact that LDS theology distinguishes general or universal salvation from individual salvation. Virtually everyone in LDS theology will be "saved" in the general sense, not only whether they have good works or not, but whether they have faith or not. You can be a perverted, murderous, unrepentant atheist and be "saved" in the general sense.

Do you have a problem with a universal resurrection. We are just talking about terms -- universal salvation is just the universal resurrection, that's all. Available to both Peter and Hitler. But I'm sure you already knew that. The resurrection is available to Cain, but that is little consolation for him.

No works required; no faith required. As long as you're not one of the "sons of perdition," you're guaranteed immortal life in some heavenly realm that is far more glorious than where we all live now.

I think you are confused about the sons of perdition, but no need to explore such details.

On the other hand, to be "saved" in the individual sense (exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom), one must have both faith and works--and that isn't putting the matter strongly enough. The "faith" must be in Jesus Christ AND in Joseph Smith,

We do not need to have "faith"in JS anymore than you have faith in Peter and Paul. You have a very odd way to describing our religion. You are trying to be clever, and you know better. You know exactly what we believe, but chose to misstate it.

the LDS scriptures, the living Prophet, etc.; and the "works" must include various items that are specific to LDS religion (baptism in the LDS Church, the Word of Wisdom, tithing to the LDS Church, participation in Temple covenant rituals, etc.). Someone who believes in Jesus Christ, loves his neighbor, is baptized in a traditional denominational church, and tithes to that church, but rejects the LDS Church, will not be "saved" in the individual sense.

They will live in "heaven", in the presence of Christ, but not in the presence of the Father.

Third, in the individual sense of salvation (meaning exaltation), LDS doctrine maintains that the atonement does not actually save anyone or eliminate the "debt" of their sins. What the atonement does is to make it possible for human beings to save themselves by developing their worthiness through hard work and great effort. Boyd Packer's illustration of the debtor whose debt is paid by a new creditor (quoted at length in chapter 12 of Gospel Principles) explains rather clearly that in LDS theology, Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor. In short, according to LDS doctrine, all human beings continue to owe the same debt as they did before the atonement. That is a radical redefinition of the historic Christian belief that Christ paid for our sins.

Thanks for telling us what we believe, however you are very mistaken. Are you truly so ignorant of our teachings that you actually believe what you are saying? You have been rubbing shoulders with the antiMormons too long, my friend.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Blooit,

I am an evangelical Christian and would be happy to answer your questions.

Welcome back Rob. Long time.

The evangelical doctrine is that God saves us by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, but that this saving grace will evidence itself in good works as the fruit of God's grace. James 2 is warning professing Christians who merely claim to have faith that if their faith is without works, it is not the kind of faith through which God saves people.

I would be happy to discuss the reasons for this explanation in more detail if you are interested..

Even you admit that if you have not works your faith is "not the kind of faith...which saves". I agree. It is a straw man to say that the LDS teach that we are saved by our works. We are saved no more by our works then we are saved by our faith. It is Grace that saves us. What are the conditions for grace? We ll we must have faith. Rob claims that if "if their faith is without works, it is not the kind of faith through which God saves people." That tells me that with my faith I must have works to be saved. WE agree Rob. Woot!

First of all, I don't advocate avoiding or "wresting" any biblical texts. We should think through the meaning of each passage of the Bible carefully, using sound methods of interpretation, and work out a systematic theology that takes all of the Bible's teachings into account.

I agree. I think Jesus teachings should be the most imprtant and we should try to reconcile all other scripture to his actual words.

Second, the disparity between the evangelical understanding of salvation by grace and the LDS understanding cannot be understood properly unless we broaden the theological scope of the discussion somewhat. The problem begins with the fact that LDS theology distinguishes general or universal salvation from individual salvation. Virtually everyone in LDS theology will be "saved" in the general sense, not only whether they have good works or not, but whether they have faith or not. You can be a perverted, murderous, unrepentant atheist and be "saved" in the general sense. No works required; no faith required. As long as you're not one of the "sons of perdition," you're guaranteed immortal life in some heavenly realm that is far more glorious than where we all live now. On the other hand, to be "saved" in the individual sense (exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom), one must have both faith and works--and that isn't putting the matter strongly enough. The "faith" must be in Jesus Christ AND in Joseph Smith, the LDS scriptures, the living Prophet, etc.; and the "works" must include various items that are specific to LDS religion (baptism in the LDS Church, the Word of Wisdom, tithing to the LDS Church, participation in Temple covenant rituals, etc.). Someone who believes in Jesus Christ, loves his neighbor, is baptized in a traditional denominational church, and tithes to that church, but rejects the LDS Church, will not be "saved" in the individual sense.

This is not correct. IT is true that most will recieve a degree of savlation. But recieving a degree of salvation is not the same as receiving salvation. IF you do not receive the highest form of salvation then you will be damned and your prgoression will have an end. Only the Sons of Perdtion will taste of the other end of the spectrum which is full damnation. Rob, even you claimed that if I didn't have works then it "isn't the right kind of faith that can save you". THis is exactly what the LDS teach.

Does a person need to believe and live what is taught in the bible to be saved?

Third, in the individual sense of salvation (meaning exaltation), LDS doctrine maintains that the atonement does not actually save anyone or eliminate the "debt" of their sins. What the atonement does is to make it possible for human beings to save themselves by developing their worthiness through hard work and great effort. Boyd Packer's illustration of the debtor whose debt is paid by a new creditor (quoted at length in chapter 12 of Gospel Principles) explains rather clearly that in LDS theology, Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor. In short, according to LDS doctrine, all human beings continue to owe the same debt as they did before the atonement. That is a radical redefinition of the historic Christian belief that Christ paid for our sins.

And this is false. The atonement is what allows us to be saved. With out it we would have no hope. And you totally botched Elder Packers anology. Christ eliminates our debt. The only thing he asks is that we follow him and the debt is gone. That sounds just like what is taught all over the NT.

What would be the point of the atonement if Christ did not elminiate our debt? WE could never pay him back if what you claimed is LDS doctrine. Which BTW it isnt.

I'll stop for now, because I think I've answered your specific questions. No doubt the discussion will continue!

I think you should continue on. It is nice to have you here.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance and Mola,

Vance wrote:

Rob, I am a bit surprised that you would utter something so completely and utterly false.

Oh, come on now, Vance. You expect ahead of time to find that whatever I say is utterly false.

To prove that what I said was false, you quoted the third Article of Faith:

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Vance, you'll need to pay closer attention to your own scriptures. I actually had the third Article in mind when I made my comment. The third Article does not say that the atonement saves anyone and actually makes it clear that it does not do so. It says that "through" the atonement all mankind "may" be saved. Those two words qualify the role of the atonement to a necessary condition of salvation, rather than something that actually effects or produces salvation. The atonement, according to Article 3, is a means that makes it possible for people to be saved; it does not actually save them. The atonement is a necessary condition of salvation but not a sufficient condition of salvation. For anyone to be saved, according to the above statement, they must obey "the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

I stand by my assertion.

I had also written that according to LDS doctrine, "Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor" (Vance's emphasis). Vance replied:

The part in bold is true, however, for us the debt has been paid, in return, He only asks us to live His gospel. On balance, a small price to pay for such a tremendous blessing.

Likewise, Mola wrote:

And you totally botched Elder Packers anology. Christ eliminates our debt. The only thing he asks is that we follow him and the debt is gone.

Sigh. Can't you folks read your own texts any better than this? Here is the relevant portion, from Gospel Principles, chapter 12 (p. 65):

[Anijen]

The analogy is very easy to understand. We cannot pay our debt to the original creditor on the original terms. A friend offers to pay the debt for us on the condition that we accept him as our new creditor and agree to pay the debt to him on his terms instead of to the original creditor. New creditor, new terms, but the same debt.

in LDS terminology means to become perfect and perform many, many works in order to become worthy of the celestial kingdom. The chapter on exaltation in

Okay I understand this and I understand why you emphasized "many, many works." But what I cant seem to understand is you are putting a limit or numbered amount on works. On one hand "many, many" is well, too many but you imply some is needed. So I think you think your right because your interpretation of just a few works is sufficient for Grace for salvation but because LDS overdue it that in itself negates their salvation?

upside down if you ask me...

[cdowis]

The analogy is very easy to understand. We cannot pay our debt to the original creditor on the original terms. A friend offers to pay the debt for us on the condition that we accept him as our new creditor and agree to pay the debt to him on his terms instead of to the original creditor. New creditor, new terms, but the same debt.

We are all under sin debt to Christ. If we refuse to the terms that Christ gives us, or do not fulfill the "yoke is easy", then the debt fall back on us. Christ will not pay the debt unless we fulfill our side of the agreement.

I suppose that you would say that sin debt is paid forever, unconditional when we confess Christ. This is a false doctrine. But this has been discussed among Christians for over a millenium, so there is not point talking about it here. The point is that other Christians, equally knowledgeable of the Bible, disagree with you.

Both of you state the requirement in very misleading terms: "He only asks us to live His gospel" (Vance); "The only thing he asks is that we follow him" (Mola). I could agree to these statements from an evangelical context, but what this really means in LDS doctrine is a far different matter. To "live the gospel" or "follow Christ" in LDS terminology means to become perfect and perform many, many works in order to become worthy of the celestial kingdom. The chapter on exaltation in the current edition of Gospel Principles (p. 279) lists 15 responsibilities that Mormons must meet, in addition to faith in Christ, in order to attain to exaltation.

In order to live in the presence of the Father, you must make a covenant agreement, and keep that covenant. The covenants are created when we are baptized, partake of the sacrament, and go to the temple. These covenants are unnecessary to go to "heaven", live with Christ outside the presence of the Father.

You already know how to get to heaven, and we basically agree with your belief in that regard.

These responsibilities include not only biblically legitimate moral standards but also such requirements as participating in LDS temple rituals. Other LDS sources make it clear that tithing to the LDS Church and observing the LDS taboos against hot drinks are also requirements for "following Christ" or "living His gospel."

The Bible is unclear on the requirements for salvation, as evidenced by the disagreements among Christians on those requirements. Even something as basic as baptism is disputed among the denominations. The fullness of the Plan of Savation was revealed and restored in our day through modern prophets.

Finally, no individual can become perfect in this life -- exaltation is not an event but a journey, extending even beyond mortality. Christ commanded that we become perfect even as the Father is perfect.

[Vance]

Oh, come on now, Vance. You expect ahead of time to find that whatever I say is utterly false.

Actually, I expect you, as a supposed disciple of Christ and one who claims to know, to be more honest and accurate in your representation of Mormon belief.

To prove that what I said was false, you quoted the third Article of Faith:

Which is sufficient to show the falseness of your claim.

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

What part of through the Atonement of Christ do you not understand?

Vance, you'll need to pay closer attention to your own scriptures. I actually had the third Article in mind when I made my comment. The third Article does not say that the atonement saves anyone and actually makes it clear that it does not do so.

You obviously don't understand what it says.

How could it not be more clear,

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ . . ."

It says that "through" the atonement all mankind "may" be saved. Those two words qualify the role of the atonement to a necessary condition of salvation, rather than something that actually effects or produces salvation.

To be more accurate, the "role of the atonement IS NECESSARY for salvation".

The atonement, according to Article 3, is a THE means that makes it possible for people to be saved;

There, fixed it for you.

The atonement is a necessary condition of salvation but not a sufficient condition of salvation.

True. Jesus made it perfectly clear that more was required, like faith, repentance, and baptism, being born of the Spirit and good works.

His words not mine.

For anyone to be saved, according to the above statement, they must obey "the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Yep, that is what JESUS taught.

I had also written that according to LDS doctrine, "Christ does not eliminate our debt; rather, he pays it and takes over as our new creditor" (Vance's emphasis).

YUP!

Sigh. Can't you folks read your own texts any better than this? Here is the relevant portion, from Gospel Principles, chapter 12 (p. 65):

[yesucan2]

I talked with an evangelical friend of mine ad nauseum about grace saving us and not works. He constantly said "I'm saved," I'm saved," I'm saved." As if there is nothing he could do to lose that salvation, all the while he'd be sipping his 24 oz coffee and smoking a cigarette. I debated with him many days, even once with the missionaries. He eventually gave me back my book of mormon after two weeks (he never took the time to read it once despite me pleading with him to do so). Most of the time he doesn't keep the 4th commandment (going to church on Sunday), because he tells me that Moses' law is now void because of Christ. He's so convinced he is saved that when I mentioned works be required he told me I was brainwashed by my mormon cult for thinking so (this really pissed me off). I then was very stern with him in telling him that the coffee and cigarettes needed to stop, for partaking of them breaks a commandment set by God (Word of Wisdom). Surely enough he scoffed at that too.

I still have this friend of mine over the house though, like just this past Saturday night when the Flyers were playing the Blackhawks. As soon as the conversation turns to religion he immediately talks with a false sense of glee how he is saved. I simply told him I don't want to debate with him and invited him to church, which he declined as always.

I've often wondered why, if "it was finished" in the way they take it at the crucifixion, do they use the old testament...or even the bible at all for that matter?

By the way, if they aren't a member of the Church, our standards don't mean anything to them. They are just being defensive. Hey, I think I just came up with the correct comeback for the "brainwashed by Mormon cult" charge-Mormons don't need to be brainwashed; our brains are already clean.

Also, remember, we are the ones who really believe in salvation by grace alone. We are the ones that believe that everyone will be resurrected to great glory through the resurrection of Christ despite anything they do except for those who commit the unpardonable sin. They are really the ones that believe that you have to do something to be saved. Listen to what they say--"All you have to do is _____." Fill in the blank- Have faith, believe, accept Christ, whatever. It is a free gift. What they don't seem to get is that saved is a starting point and not the end. When your concept is one heaven and one hell, it's very hard to distinguish the difference between being "saved" and "salvation".

[cdowis]

Rob asks: Other LDS sources make it clear that tithing to the LDS Church and observing the LDS taboos against hot drinks are also requirements for "following Christ" or "living His gospel."

Excellent question. Tithing is a part of the law of sacrifice. The early Christians lived this law as the common order, everything was turned over to the church, and Peter verified that they were fulfulling their duty. In one case they lied to the leader of the church, held back their money, and suffered death for lying. But I thought that they were already saved, the debt already paid for eternity.

Apparently not.

PS. Apparently you have me on ignore, but that's ok. I will still respond respectfully to your posts.

[Vance]

Despite Rob's distorted, contorted and tortuous misinterpretation and misunderstanding, the position of the Atonement in salvation in LDS doctrine and canon is clear.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Act 13:38

[cdowis]

Vance,

It is important for Rob, using clever words, and phrases to misstate our beliefs. We accept the atonement, but it is essential for the antiMormons to deny our basic Christianity. As I said before, he has been rubbing shoulders with the antiMormons too long. He held and apologetic position with an organization affiliated with the SBC, so this is just a day at the office for him.

Our concept of the Atonement makes sense, it is fair and just, incorporating both mercy and justice. He knows this so he has no choice but to distort and twist it.

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

Hi there. You wrote:

Okay I understand this and I understand why you emphasized "many, many works." But what I cant seem to understand is you are putting a limit or numbered amount on works. On one hand "many, many" is well, too many but you imply some is needed. So I think you think your right because your interpretation of just a few works is sufficient for Grace for salvation but because LDS overdue it that in itself negates their salvation?

upside down if you ask me...

The problem is the ambiguity or equivocation rampant in discussions like these about the "necessity" of good works. In what sense are good works "necessary"? Are they "necessary" as prerequisites for salvation? No, not according to the New Testament gospel of grace. Are they "necessary" as things that God commands his people to do? Yes, absolutely. If God says to do something, it's "necessary" in that sense.

I don't claim that Mormons are lost because they do too many good works! We should all do as much good as we can. I claim that their view of works, among several other problems in LDS religion, is a symptom of the fact that they have accepted a distorted version of the biblical gospel.