Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Zakuska]

Lehi,

You wrote:

Your own quotations prove I am correct. They all make it clear that you must sincerely, genuinely trust in Jesus Christ, not merely SAY that you believe in him. Go back and read your quotes and you'll see what I mean.

Is that why Lewis Sperry Chafer had this to say?

[JDave]

As long as that is read as a total committment, and a humble willingness to sacrifice. I just worry that some in and out of the church read it as falling short in any way could jeopardize one's salvation. It is turning away from God and choosing explicitly not to repent that harm our relationship with God. If someone is committed to Christ and consistently repenting, that is doing "all they can do".

[JDave]

The bottom line is that you fell into the trap

if that was the only purpose of this thread then I guess you are done.

of accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting LDS teaching when in fact I did no such thing. Everything I said was taken straight from recognized LDS authorities.

Is it possible to pull phrases out of the teachings of well-known Evangelicals and use those phrases to misrepresent an Evangelical position? I think you would agree this is possible. You admit that you made a trap. Would the construction of this trap have including looking through quotes referencing 2 Ne. 25:23, and then selecting out any phrase that emphasized works and personal effort, a well-known discussion point between Evangelicals and Mormons? Would the construction of your trap also involve specifically excluding any phrase that didn't work to that agenda? I know it involved picking out phrases that sounded good even if it misrepresented what the author meant -- I pointed out two such instances already, which you simply ignored. That may have been simply a lack of due diligence on your part, but it displays your intent as well as a disinterest in truly coming to understand what the authors were trying to convey.

A number of quotes that you could have used have already been posted in this thread. Did you simply not come across them in your search? Did you honestly not skew your selection of quotes toward a specific angle?

Was it a complete, comprehensive statement of LDS doctrine? No single paragraph could be, so that is an unfair standard of criticism--as well as a new criticism that implicitly acknowledges that your original criticism was erroneous.

You described it as "the LDS understanding". My original point by point critique was against what I viewed as an Evangelical describing "the LDS understanding". The lack of needed elements of a true LDS understanding led me to believe that you didn't think those elements truly belonged. And explicitly excluding those elements is a lot different than reading a quote with those elements as an assumed part of the soteriology.

Was my original criticism erroneous? Perhaps. I still would prefer to use different wordings than some others would. Most of my criticism was based on using each cherry-picked phrase as context for the other phrases, which were also picked to provide the same skew.

[volgadon]

You admit that you made a trap.

With all due respect, he did no such thing. You had to chop a sentence in half to make it sound like he did.

[wenglund]

May I also respectfully suggest that we let Rob speak for evangelicals, and he let us speak for ourselves?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

Rob, this is not true. Just Google "saved by faith" and one finds hundreds of evangelicals teaching this.

I have been in Evangelical meetings where people say the sinners prayer and the pastor declares them saved.

It would appear that Evangelicals have as much problem defining this doctrine as you say Mormons do.

Bernard

[Vance]

With all due respect, he did no such thing. You had to chop a sentence in half to make it sound like he did.

I think you missed something.

I was curious to know if my explanation would be criticized as a misunderstanding, or even as a deliberate misrepresentation, even if I was careful to use only the exact words of LDS sources. Sure enough, some of the LDS on this list fell right into the trap.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Please notice that by your own account the evangelicals that said this to you agreed that something more was needed than merely SAYING that one believes. The person's faith must be genuine ("in your heart").

But Rob the main point is taht all I needed was some lip service to God and a belief in my heart. (there was no qualier ever given on what that belief meant) and that from that point on a man was saved regardless of what he did after words. That to me entails that even if they were sincere at first they could stop being sincere later and that would not matter as they were saved. I was frequented with this concept of "Eternal Security" too.

They never once said I needed a genuine belief. What is the differnce between genuine belief and just belief.

1)I believe taht "x" is true.

2)I genuinely believe that "x" is true.

What is the difference between these 2 examples? The only difference is that one uses the word genuine, doesn't mean by default that it is any truer then statement one or that statement one is not genuine. People on my mission seemed to be so fearful that anytime you mention works that that was an abomination of the gospel (my words). THat is the impression I got. Funny thing about the verse in Romans is that if I have to confess with my mouth that Jesus is the Christ and beleive in my heart that he had risen from the grave, how was the confession by my mouth not a work?

Like I said you don't seem to be preaching this same gospel.

Thanks for you reply.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

May I also respectfully suggest that we let Rob speak for evangelicals, and he let us speak for ourselves?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was about to say the same thing. Also I think we have derailed this thread a tad. I suggest taht we get it back on tract to what the OP was about.

[Vance]

Let me see if I can understand this.

I have said, and Rob has agreed, that according to Evangelical doctrine, there is absolutely NOTHING I can DO (actions) to affect my salvation.

Rob,

Is this true?

[Vance]

Somebody is teaching what Rob denies is being taught.

"O you teachers, you are responsible for what you have been teaching for years. Explore your heart during your quiet time and see what you have done to the scriptures. Look for your motivation and if it is not Godly then look for your destiny in the bible. It will not be difficult for you to find your destiny in the scriptures. One of them is here: Revelation 22:18-19

You teach people that

[Zakuska]

You could always google "sinners prayer"...

This was intresting...

Password

The sinners prayer functions as a password to get into heaven. Other religions also have paswords to get into heaven such as the Mormons, who learn the secret password into heaven during the endowment ceremony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner's_prayer

[zerinus]

Mola,

Please notice that by your own account the evangelicals that said this to you agreed that something more was needed than merely SAYING that one believes. The person's faith must be genuine ("in your heart").

Vance,

Not the same thing at all. One must actually, genuinely trust in Jesus, not merely SAY that you trust in Jesus. Even your restatement is not the evangelical view: believing that you are trusting in Jesus is not the same thing as trusting in Jesus.

Lehi,

Your own quotations prove I am correct. They all make it clear that you must sincerely, genuinely trust in Jesus Christ, not merely SAY that you believe in him. Go back and read your quotes and you'll see what I mean.

Okay, so do you think it is possible for someone to

[JDave]

Zerinus, you should probably repost as a new thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Allow me to anticipate your answer, since your posts are a

[Zakuska]

If no one was teaching it as Rob claimed.... then why so many sermons against it?

"Today, in the ranks of our Independent Baptist churches, we are overcome by the super salesmen

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

Your claim that I tend to "'flee the scene' when the going gets tough" is an offensive remark. I have been fighting pain and lack of sleep since Thursday night. I am sitting here attempting to review and respond to some of the posts on this forum despite a physically rather traumatic afternoon. I find your accusation especially obnoxious in light of the fact that so many of the posts demonstrate an absolute lack of willingness even to listen to what I say. How else am I to explain the numerous individuals here who claim, even after I have pointed out the difference, that affirming that we are saved through faith in Christ alone is the same thing as affirming that we are saved merely by SAYING that we have faith in Christ?

You are correct that my position is the standard evangelical view that those who genuinely have saving faith in Christ will show evidence of this fact by doing good works. You claim that this view does not account for several NT texts, which you then quote for us. Patently, without any question, several of these don't even talk about salvation. 1 Thessalonians 2:13-14 says we should not associate with those who reject Paul's instruction; this doesn't tell us whether the individual is saved or not. Hebrews 13:16 says that God is pleased by our sacrifices of doing good to others; where is doing good made a precondition of salvation here? It is not. James 4:17 says that if we know what to do and refuse to do it we are sinning. I agree; but does this tell us that the consequence of such sin is damnation? If so, are you claiming that you never fail to do what you know to be right? I doubt it. 1 Peter 3:11 also says nothing about salvation or condemnation.

The statements of Jesus in John that you quoted (John 14:15, 21; 15:10) tell us that those who love Christ will obey his commandments. Once again, I agree; I see no difference between my evangelical theology and these statements. Obedience to Christ is a sign or evidence that one truly loves him.

I have discussed Matthew 7:21-23 at some length in another thread. You are the first person to offer a serious defense of the claim that these people Jesus condemns must have had sincere faith in Christ. Your reasoning is that their faith must have been sincere or they could not have performed miracles in his name. Your argument has at least two holes in it. First, Jesus nowhere confirms that these persons actually performed the miracles they claimed. They asserted that they performed miracles in his name, but were they genuine miracles? The text does not say. Second, Jesus specifically warns us that false Messiahs and false prophets will perform miracles in an effort to deceive even the elect (Matt. 24:24). Indeed, in the context of Matthew 7, Jesus is likewise talking about false prophets (Matt. 7:15). So in some cases it is possible that supernatural manifestations are involved, even in the case of false prophets who claim to do them in Christ's name. This doesn't mean they have sincere, genuine faith in Christ. The two sets of those who are false prophets and those who have genuine faith in Jesus Christ are non-overlapping sets! Jesus contrasts, not people who have faith but no works, but rather people who point to supernatural works as evidence of their faith but who are false prophets leading people astray. Sorry, these are not genuine believers who really trust Jesus but (hypothetically yet absurdly) spurn doing good works.

Romans 2:6-7 in context is discussing hypothetically the standard for receiving eternal life based on one's own merits. Paul is saying that if you want to be saved by the Law, you must persist in doing good according to the standard of the Law. He is not contrasting those who have faith only with those who have faith plus works, but rather he is contrasting those who are merely "hearers" of the Law with those who "do" the Law. Only those who actually do the Law can be justified by Law (Rom. 2:13). Unfortunately, as he goes on to argue, the set of those who are justified by Law is a null set (except for Jesus Christ). By that standard, no one can be justified before God (Rom. 3:19-20).

Finally with regard to your proof texts, Galatians 6:9 does not mean we will reap eternal life if we don't stop doing good works, but if we don't stop living in the Spirit through our faith in Christ. In context Paul contrasts "sowing to the flesh," by which he means seeking to be justified by the circumcision of the flesh, with "sowing to the Spirit," by which he means depending on the redeeming work that Christ does in our lives by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 6:7-15).

Now, you ridicule my position by caricaturing it to mean that "'works' will automatically flow from that faith whether they want it to or not." Of course, I never said anything of the sort. The good works come in response to God's commands in Scripture heard under the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the desire to show our love and gratitude to Christ.

Lastly, I put myself under no obligation to continue discussing anything with you unless and until you apologize for your ungracious and unjustifiable remark discussed above. There are some nice, civil people here with which I can have a discussion. I don't need to put up with verbal abuse.

Okay, so do you think it is possible for someone to

[Rob Bowman]

Thanks, Mola.

Don't do this to Rob, he is a busy guy and I think he does a fair job of trying to get back to people when you post a reply to something he has posted. I simply have not seen any evidence of Rob's "hit and run".

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

An evangelical is someone who affirms the historic evangelical understanding of salvation as taught by the Protestant Reformers and encapsulated in the classic Protestant evangelical confessions (whether Lutheran, Calvinist, Wesleyan, or Baptist). Anyone who professes to be an evangelical but rejects the historic evangelical view in favor of some "easy-believism" is not an evangelical. For what it's worth, most of these "soulwinners" to which Wilson refers do not call themselves evangelicals.

If no one was teaching it as Rob claimed.... then why so many sermons against it?

"Today, in the ranks of our Independent Baptist churches, we are overcome by the super salesmen

[Zakuska]

The statements of Jesus in John that you quoted (John 14:15, 21; 15:10) tell us that those who love Christ will obey his commandments. Once again, I agree; I see no difference between my evangelical theology and these statements. Obedience to Christ is a sign or evidence that one truly loves him.

Except for the fact that hebrews makes obedience a requisit and not a mere "sign".

Heb. 5: 9

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

An evangelical is someone who affirms the historic evangelical understanding of salvation as taught by the Protestant Reformers and encapsulated in the classic Protestant evangelical confessions (whether Lutheran, Calvinist, Wesleyan, or Baptist). Anyone who professes to be an evangelical but rejects the historic evangelical view in favor of some "easy-believism" is not an evangelical. For what it's worth, most of these "soulwinners" to which Wilson refers do not call themselves evangelicals.

Well with all due respect Rob... lets read this <snip> from my previous link...

Christopher Cagan and John Waldrip, after attending Billy Graham's San Diego crusade in 2003, presented a report which determined that "Graham's sermons are an outgrowth of the theology and methods of Charles G. Finney, the 19th Century evangelist who changed the meaning of salvation from Biblical

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Not surprisingly, Billy Graham has critics. Nor would I claim that he was a perfect evangelist. However, he did not teach "decisionism," nor did he teach that all one needs to do is SAY he believes in order to be saved (the assertion I said no evangelical would affirm). You are doing EXACTLY what you would condemn if an evangelical did it to Mormons--you are asserting that Billy Graham teaches something without offering any primary source evidence from Billy Graham to support your accusation!

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

So, did I successfully refute the use of all of those other biblical texts to prove that good works are prerequisites for salvation?

Except for the fact that hebrews makes obedience a requisit and not a mere "sign".

Heb. 5: 9

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[zerinus]

Lastly, I put myself under no obligation to continue discussing anything with you unless and until you apologize for your ungracious and unjustifiable remark discussed above. There are some nice, civil people here with which I can have a discussion. I don't need to put up with verbal abuse.

LOL! I have nothing to apologize for. What I said was true. You do tend to "flee when the going gets tough," and your posts are often a "hit and run affair". I have observed that in your interactions ever since you came here. When you find that you have no valid answer to a post, you just ignore it and move on to something else. And your threat not to "continue to discuss anything with me" is not a real threat either; because that is what you have been doing anyway when you have no answer to my posts. That was just your clever sleight of hand to continue what you have been doing before. But have no fear. I will continue to reply to your posts, and expose the fallacies of your arguments, even if you choose not to discuss them with me. That will only expose to others that you have no answers to give to them.

And by the way, I do find your "Rob and Jo's" Laurel and Hardy act on IRR quite entertaining and amusing. I look forward to the next episode.

[cdowis]

Zakuska,

Not surprisingly, Billy Graham has critics. Nor would I claim that he was a perfect evangelist. However, he did not teach "decisionism," nor did he teach that all one needs to do is SAY he believes in order to be saved (the assertion

Rom 10 [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.