Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Vance]

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.

Well, it is one thing for him to misrepresent our doctrine over on IRR, but something totally different for him to come here and try it.

Personally, I think it gnaws at him that his theology is so weak compared to ours. By looking for any possible way to fabricate some "flaw" in our theology, he can distract himself from the giant obvious flaws in his own.

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

Nice to see you as well.

You asked:

Is baptism essential for salvation in your theology?

No, not in the sense of being a prerequisite for salvation. However, anyone who claimed to be a Christian and yet refused to get baptized would be giving evidence that their claim to faith was likely not sincere.

The question is moot, given that Mormonism does not consider anyone baptized outside the LDS religion to be validly baptized.

I wrote:

"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."

You replied:

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)

In other words, you do advocate avoiding or wresting biblical texts if they disagree with your "living prophets."

Have you even read Paul's epistles? He quotes the Jewish Scriptures "to prove a point" all the time. When he became a Christian, he did not abandon the Pharisees' belief in the trustworthiness of Scripture; he abandoned their rejection of Jesus as the Messiah promised in Scripture.

You wrote:

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.

There is a resurrection of the wicked, distinct from the resurrection of the righteous. The resurrection of the wicked is merely the prelude to their being consigned to eternal punishment (Matt. 25:41, 46; Rev. 20:11-15). It is not a resurrection to immortality.

You wrote:

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.

No, I am not trying to be clever. There is no need to be clever when one is simply stating facts; cleverness is needed only when one is trying to obscure the facts. When I was baptized, no one asked me if I accepted Peter and Paul as apostles or prophets. Our churches' hymnbooks have no hymns extolling the apostle Paul or singing the praises of Martin Luther. When someone is baptized in the LDS Church, he must affirm faith in Joseph Smith as the prophet of God and in the LDS Church's living Prophet. I have misstated nothing.

I wrote: 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. You replied:

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

I understand that is the LDS position. If they will not be able to live in the presence of the Father, then they have not been reconciled to the Father. Faith in Jesus Christ, love of neighbor, baptism and other good works, are not enough, according to Mormonism, to be reconciled to the Father. That's the LDS position, Charles. Why not just admit it?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You start out insisting that I misrepresented the LDS view of the atonement and yet you ended up agreeing with the very point I was making: the atonement is necessary for salvation but not sufficient for it. Thus, the atonement does not save people, but rather the atonement makes it possible for people to be saved by their "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

You wrote:

The debtor went from having a debt that was IMPOSSIBLE for him to pay, to one that "will be possible". Is that not a change in "the debt"?

Let's say you're interpreting Packer's analogy correctly. Then the debt was not eliminated, just reduced. Is that right?

[yesucan2]

Here's the rub as I see it. The difference is in between believing in one heaven and one hell. All Christians outside the Mormon Church do not think in that manner. I heard a brilliant Christian man by the name of Brent Walters, who is a professor and reportedly has the world's largest private collection of early Christian literature, explain one evening on the Praise the Lord program on the Trinity Broadcasting Network that the concept of one heaven and one hell is not biblical and went on to explain how that was. As long as Christians see salvation in the context of one heaven one hell, then salvation is going remain for them a concept of one thing that exists the same for everyone who makes it over the line.

[Vance]

One of the problems with the so called "the New Testament gospel of grace" is it totally ignores what Jesus (and the Apostles) taught about salvation.

The false assumption is that "grace" isn't "grace" if something is required.

If one just looks at the use of the word "reward" used in the NT a different picture appears.

For example,

Matt 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

1 Cor. 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Col. 3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

And what about "the law of the harvest" that Jesus taught?

I also find it very interesting that the only NT use of the word grace attributed to Jesus (that I can find) is this,

2 Cor. 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Why did Jesus not teach "grace" as our "evangelical" friends say that the NT (meaning their misinterpretation of Paul's writings) teaches?

[Vance]

You start out insisting that I misrepresented the LDS view of the atonement and yet you ended up agreeing with the very point I was making: the atonement is necessary for salvation but not sufficient for it.

If that was your point then I would have agreed with you but it wasn't.

Thus, the atonement does not save people, . . .

False!!! You are really not getting it.

Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel isn't what saves us. It is what Jesus requires of us BEFORE He, through His atonement, extends His grace and saves us.

but rather the atonement makes it possible for people to be saved by their "obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Only in the sense that Jesus has promised that IF we do this, THEN HE will save us. Jesus still does the saving, we don't save ourselves.

Let's say you're interpreting Packer's analogy correctly. Then the debt was not eliminated, just reduced. Is that right?

"[T]he debt" as the analogy calls it, was changed by the new Creditor.

[cdowis]

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.

We are fortunate to have modern revelation to clarify this issue. What you call "biblical gospel" is the interpretation of the Bible by scholars and theologians.

Denominations differ among themselves what constitutes the Biblical teaching of salvation and has been discussed over the centuries with no definitive answer.

Even among Christians, there are those who disagree with you on faith vs works. Why do you pretend to have a monopoly on that teaching?

[Vance]

We are fortunate to have modern revelation to clarify this issue. What you call "biblical gospel" is the interpretation of the Bible by scholars and theologians and not inspired, authorized men of God.

If I may.

[David T]

Thus, the atonement does not save people, . .

Not against their will, it doesn't, in the sense of Exaltation.

By Rob's logic, the remote control doesn't turn on the TV, because I have to choose to activate it to make it work and it doesn't do so on its own. Christ provided the Atonement. Obedience to the Gospel is how we choose to activate it in our own lives.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If that was your point then I would have agreed with you but it wasn't.

False!!! You are really not getting it.

Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel isn't what saves us. It is what Jesus requires of us BEFORE He, through His atonement, extends His grace and saves us.

Only in the sense that Jesus has promised that IF we do this, THEN HE will save us. Jesus still does the saving, we don't save ourselves.

"[T]he debt" as the analogy calls it, was changed by the new Creditor.

I think we are missing a critical piece in Packer's analogy. That is that Christ prevented the person from going to prison. Which if Christ had not inteviened, the debtor would have gone to prison. Thus the debt did indeed change. Christ paid the debt so that the debtor would not go to prison (hell) and if the person accpeted Christ and did what he asked then would Christ's atonement take place.

Rob, in your theology is something required for grace to take hold?

[Rob Bowman]

yesucan2,

Hello. You wrote:

Here's the rub as I see it. The difference is in between believing in one heaven and one hell. All Christians outside the Mormon Church do not think in that manner. I heard a brilliant Christian man by the name of Brent Walters, who is a professor and reportedly has the world's largest private collection of early Christian literature, explain one evening on the Praise the Lord program on the Trinity Broadcasting Network that the concept of one heaven and one hell is not biblical and went on to explain how that was. As long as Christians see salvation in the context of one heaven one hell, then salvation is going remain for them a concept of one thing that exists the same for everyone who makes it over the line.

Although exceptions can occur, someone appearing on the PTL program on TBN ought to be a warning sign; it certainly is no endorsement. I did some checking on Mr. Walters; he has a Master's degree and is a lecturer at San Jose State University, and has written one obscure book on the Didache (probably his Master's thesis) and that's about it.

Unfortunately, you don't mention any of the specific evidence he supposedly gave that the concept of one heaven and one hell is unbiblical, which makes it difficult to respond on substance.

For a biblical defense of the traditional view, I hope you don't mind if I mention my book Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell (Zondervan, 2007).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written:

"You start out insisting that I misrepresented the LDS view of the atonement and yet you ended up agreeing with the very point I was making: the atonement is necessary for salvation but not sufficient for it."

You replied:

If that was your point then I would have agreed with you but it wasn't.

Actually, it was. Here is what I said:

"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."

See? There it is.

You wrote:

Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel isn't what saves us. It is what Jesus requires of us BEFORE He, through His atonement, extends His grace and saves us.

Normally, in English, when someone says that you may be saved "by" something, it is that something that saves. For example, if I say we are saved by Christ, I mean that Christ saves us. If I say that we are saved by grace, I mean that grace saves us.

The third Article of Faith saves that all mankind may be saved "by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Hence I conclude that it means that we are saved by our obedience. The atonement is a means to that end; it makes it possible for us to be saved by our obedience; but it is our obedience that saves us.

I asked you:

"Let's say you're interpreting Packer's analogy correctly. Then the debt was not eliminated, just reduced. Is that right?"

You replied:

"[T]he debt" as the analogy calls it, was changed by the new Creditor.

I'm sorry, I don't see an answer to my question.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Not against their will, it doesn't, in the sense of Exaltation.

By Rob's logic, the remote control doesn't turn on the TV, because I have to choose to activate it to make it work and it doesn't do so on its own. Christ provided the Atonement. Obedience to the Gospel is how we choose to activate it in our own lives.

Hey, I'm here, feel free to engage me in discussion.

Your characterization of my position is a caricature. It is also not faithful to the LDS doctrine. I have "chosen to activate" the atonement in my life by believing in Christ's atonement for my sins. I have obeyed the gospel by doing what it says: putting faith in Jesus Christ to save me. Yet LDS doctrine claims that I have not been reconciled to the Father; I still have no individual salvation. LDS doctrine requires far more than "activating" the atonement.

[David T]

Rob, would it be fair of me then to say that according to your logical presentation, that for you, the Atonement doesn't save you, but makes possible Salvation by the act of "believing in Christ's atonement for my sins"?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I think we are missing a critical piece in Packer's analogy. That is that Christ prevented the person from going to prison. Which if Christ had not inteviened, the debtor would have gone to prison. Thus the debt did indeed change. Christ paid the debt so that the debtor would not go to prison (hell) and if the person accpeted Christ and did what he asked then would Christ's atonement take place.

Rob, in your theology is something required for grace to take hold?

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes: Faith. But that is not separate from grace; it is the response that grace produces from the human side.

[David T]

Your characterization of my position is a caricature. It is also not faithful to the LDS doctrine.

Rob, that is how I feel about much of what you've said concerning what our doctrine teaches.

I have "chosen to activate" the atonement in my life by believing in Christ's atonement for my sins. I have obeyed the gospel by doing what it says: putting faith in Jesus Christ to save me. Yet LDS doctrine claims that I have not been reconciled to the Father; I still have no individual salvation. LDS doctrine requires far more than "activating" the atonement.

You are holding LDS Theology to Evangelical definitions. That doesn't work.

In LDS theology, part of expressing saving Faith is the principle of obedience, which becomes associated with Covenant. The terms for the debt are replaced with our entering into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ leads to evidence of this Faith by the act of repentance, which includes the obedience of entering into the Covenant. Compared with paying for our own sins (which in itself is impossible), obedience to the Covenant of Christ (which is the new terms established by Christ) is certainly an easy yoke, and yields greater benefits than simply paying off the debt on our own (an impossibility anyway) could ever have.The new terms don't just promise redemption from the fall, it promises surpassing the fallen state.

It is faithful obedience to the Covenant of Christ that activates the full effects of the Atonement in LDS understanding, not just a belief that Jesus Christ has saving power.

[bluebell]

I have "chosen to activate" the atonement in my life by believing in Christ's atonement for my sins. I have obeyed the gospel by doing what it says: putting faith in Jesus Christ to save me. Yet LDS doctrine claims that I have not been reconciled to the Father; I still have no individual salvation. LDS doctrine requires far more than "activating" the atonement.

Rob, do you believe that I, having put faith in Christ to save me, am reconciled to the Father, even though i am LDS?

Honest question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is yes: Faith. But that is not separate from grace; it is the response that grace produces from the human side.

Now were are getting some were. So faith is a product of grace? Is that what you are claiming?

[Vance]

From

"As grace vs. works comes up frequently, it is interesting to note that what evangelicals call works were in Christ's and Paul's day actually termed graces- hasadim. Judah Goldin explains hesed as a "word expressing the phenomenon of "loyalty", "devotion." It is, as A. Lods put it, "a very comprehensive word, which, for the want of an adequate equivalent, we are obliged to translate, now by piety, now by mercy, love or grace: it corresponds fairly closely to the Latin pietas..." Taken literally, the term gemilut hasadim is an action that represents a doing something in return, which doing is expressive of a loyalty- or less clumsily, gemilut hasadim is an act by means of which one demonstrates his response to someone, in obedience to him or out of loyalty to him. In short, it really is an act of piety. And strictly speaking, any action- it need have nothing to do with charity, sedakah, at all- any action which an individual carried out as a fulfillment of a divine command, was an act of gemilut hasadim."

Judah Goldin, "The Three Pillars of Simeon the Righteous." Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 27:43-58.

Rob, should we use an historical and grammatical approach to interpreting scriptures?

[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.

So then what we really have here is a situation where Rob is taking something that is universally believed in the Christian world and specifically applying it to "LDS doctrine" in such a way as to make it sound unchristian.

More accurately stated, "Christian doctrine" maintains that the atonement does not actually save anyone or eliminate the "debt" of their sins.

I am glad that we got that clarified.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

You wrote:

Rob, do you believe that I, having put faith in Christ to save me, am reconciled to the Father, even though i am LDS?

Honest question.

As I said in another post to this thread, the LDS view of salvation is one of several factors that leads me to conclude that Mormons have accepted a fatally distorted version of the gospel. I heartily wish this were not so, and I'd be happy to discover that God ends up saving millions of Mormons. Balancing that statement, it is my perception that some Mormons--I have no idea how many--really have accepted the genuine gospel and remain ignorant of the distortions in the LDS version. Those Mormons--and again, I have no idea how many there are, and I'm not competent to judge who they are--will be saved.

I will answer your question by first posing another question. The question is not about Mormons (anyone who claims it is will simply be ignoring my plain statement to the contrary). Suppose someone tells you he has put faith in Christ to save him, but he denies that Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Is he reconciled to the Father? My answer is No, sadly, he is not. I'm guessing your answer would be No as well. I'm grateful to know that Mormons agree with orthodox Christians that Jesus rose physically from the grave. This is an essential element of the gospel.

Now, all I want to establish with this extreme example--and although it's extreme, it's not merely hypothetical, because there are whole religious groups that take that position--is that what one believes about Christ matters. Merely affirming that I have faith in Christ to save me is not in and of itself determinative, not because we need something more than faith in Christ, but because that faith in Christ has to be consonant with the truth about Christ. Regretfully, I am of the opinion that those who believe the Mormon understanding of the gospel have a serious problem in that respect. That makes me concerned about your eternal welfare.

Let me now ask you another question. Do you believe, at the present time, that you are already, presently, reconciled to the Father? Is that an accomplished reality in your life, something about which you have some sort of assurance?

[Rob Bowman]

Rob, would it be fair of me then to say that according to your logical presentation, that for you, the Atonement doesn't save you, but makes possible Salvation by the act of "believing in Christ's atonement for my sins"?

No, that would not be accurate. God saves me by his grace enacted in the atonement; thus, the atonement is the core element of what God does in the complex act of saving me. I do nothing to receive salvation except to accept the gift of God's grace in Christ. "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Accepting the gift is not equivalent to working hard to merit the gift. I'm sorry, but Mormons constantly try this line of argument, but it's totally fallacious. Mormons are constantly trying to reason that if evangelicals agree we need to have faith in Christ to be saved, then we are agreeing that "we need to do something," and somehow, this opens the door to claiming that we also need to tithe, abstain from coffee, get married in a Mormon temple, do genealogical research and get baptized for our ancestors, etc., etc., etc. By this reasoning, having faith in Christ is just one of the many things on the checklist of requirements to merit individual salvation. And that's completely wrong. Faith in Christ entails relinquishing any claim to merit eternal life in God's presence, now or ever, even in part. If you think you will be saved by doing your 40% or 60% or what-have-you and Jesus' atonement will make up the difference, then you are not really trusting in Christ to save you; you are not accepting the gift.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Now were are getting some were. So faith is a product of grace? Is that what you are claiming?

See my reply to nackhadlow for some further perspective on the issue here. Yes, I do think faith is a product of grace. God graciously changes some people's hearts and turns them from unbelief to genuine faith. I don't want to get sidetracked on this question, though. The focus of my argument is that salvation is a gift of God that we accept in faith, not something where we do our best and then God covers our inadequacy, or where God refinances our debt and takes over as our creditor.

[coolrok7]

As I quoted earlier in this thread, Bruce R. McConkie at a BYU Devotional he gave in 1984 directly deals with the topic of this thread (faith/grace/works):

. . .This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins.

The underlined directly above is not what we teach and is a blatant disregard of what we actually teach.

The official Mormon Church view as expressed in an older proselytizing pamphlet (as contrasted with the above):

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place

[bluebell]

Bluebell,

You wrote:

As I said in another post to this thread, the LDS view of salvation is one of several factors that leads me to conclude that Mormons have accepted a fatally distorted version of the gospel. I heartily wish this were not so, and I'd be happy to discover that God ends up saving millions of Mormons. Balancing that statement, it is my perception that some Mormons--I have no idea how many--really have accepted the genuine gospel and remain ignorant of the distortions in the LDS version. Those Mormons--and again, I have no idea how many there are, and I'm not competent to judge who they are--will be saved.

Why is your faith in Christ enough to save you, but my faith in Christ isn't enough? What's the difference between our faith that will impact our salvation in different ways?

From what you've said so far, it comes across like there is more to being saved then just having faith in Christ, which is why it's confusing since your position is that nothing besides faith in Christ is needed.

Suppose someone tells you he has put faith in Christ to save him, but he denies that Jesus Christ rose from the grave. Is he reconciled to the Father? My answer is No, sadly, he is not.

It seems to me that it would all depend on whether or not faith in Christ as being the Son of God was truly all that was necessary to be saved. If a belief in Christ's power to return someone to God is really all that's needed, then yes, he would be. If believing in specific doctrines concerning Christ and the Atonement is needed, then no, he wouldn't be.

I'm guessing your answer would be No as well. I'm grateful to know that Mormons agree with orthodox Christians that Jesus rose physically from the grave. This is an essential element of the gospel.

I agree it's very essential. I don't know how God judges those who don't get it completely right though they sincerely believe Christ is the Son of God and Atoned for their sins though.

Now, all I want to establish with this extreme example--and although it's extreme, it's not merely hypothetical, because there are whole religious groups that take that position--is that what one believes about Christ matters. Merely affirming that I have faith in Christ to save me is not in and of itself determinative, not because we need something more than faith in Christ, but because that faith in Christ has to be consonant with the truth about Christ. Regretfully, I am of the opinion that those who believe the Mormon understanding of the gospel have a serious problem in that respect. That makes me concerned about your eternal welfare.

So, we don't need anything more than faith in Christ, but if we aren't 100% correct in our beliefs, faith in Him isn't enough? (trying to make sure i'm understanding you correctly).

Let me now ask you another question. Do you believe, at the present time, that you are already, presently, reconciled to the Father?

Yes.

Is that an accomplished reality in your life, something about which you have some sort of assurance?

Yes.