Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[thatjimguy]

You guys are kinda both missing the point. That point being the Holy Spirit.

Much like tithing, repentance is between the sinner and God. We all know inside if we are falling short or not in our repentance. We also know if we are ok. We also know, just like tithing, that we can give the minimum, but know could have done better. Works the same way in your example. Trying to lawyer-ize God's judgement into small concrete boxes isn't going to work since each person's experience and viewpoint in life is different. Just like children, some need to be spanked before they learn and when some get talked to, they immediately put on sad faces and realize what they did and apologize.

My take anyway.

[USU78]

I think I'll go ahead and shock you: the answer is (A). Anyone who has done (A) has fully repented.

Wow.

Never figured RB for an "easy grace" kind of guy.

Go figure.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

I don't think you understand my position.

Wow.

Never figured RB for an "easy grace" kind of guy.

Go figure.

[Vance]

I can easily prove this with regard to a variation on choice (E). I have sinned against God. The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God.

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead? Is He eternally separated from God? If He is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God?

In order to "repent" of my sin against God, must I willingly "pay my debt to God" by being eternally separated from God?

Does Christ suffer this punishment for you?

Does Christ repay the banker?

[Vance]

Wow.

Never figured RB for an "easy grace" kind of guy.

Go figure.

So, continuing to inflict loss and suffering upon others by keeping the money is not part of repentance (turning to God). In this case sin really is profitable.

Under the bus goes,

Matt 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother (the banker) hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother (the banker), and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary (the banker) quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time (the end) the adversary deliver thee to the judge (Christ), and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison (hell).

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

And,

Matt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:

If someone stole money from you would you want it returned? Would leaving your victim with cause to have accusation against you on judgment day be part of repentance? Does Christ pay the banker back? If not, then who needs to?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Please answer my question first, and then I will answer yours.

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead? Is He eternally separated from God? If He is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God?

Does Christ suffer this punishment for you?

Does Christ repay the banker?

[Vance]

In order to "repent" of my sin against God, must I willingly "pay my debt to God" by being eternally separated from God?

Your question is based on a false premise. Where does God claim that your "debt to God" is to be "eternally separated from" Him?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Let's forget about my belief for the moment. According to what you believe, will everyone live forever in the presence of God the Father? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?

Your question is based on a false premise. Where does God claim that your "debt to God" is to be "eternally separated from" Him?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

Let's forget about my belief for the moment. According to what you believe, will everyone live forever in the presence of God the Father? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?

Agency.

[Bernard Gui]

The contrast between the view I espouse as an evangelical and the dominant LDS view should be clear enough. The dominant LDS view says that we are saved by grace into the celestial kingdom if and only if we have put forth our best effort and done all that we can do. The evangelical view says that we are saved by grace to live in the only eternal, heavenly kingdom despite the fact that we have not put forth our best effort and have failed to do all we can do. The dominant LDS view makes some measure of good works a condition of salvation to the celestial kingdom; the evangelical view denies that good works are in any way a condition of salvation to the eternal kingdom. In fact, although I recognize a minority, alternative approach to the interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 within LDS circles, as far as I can tell all LDS leaders and teachers agree that good works are in some fashion a precondition for exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I don't see any ambiguity on that point.

No offense intended, but this is old hat. You haven't come up with something new here.

Do you agree that you quoted Elder Simmons out of context?

Bernard

.

[Vance]

Vance,

Let's forget about my belief for the moment.

Now, why should we do that? Don't you like defending holes in your theology?

According to what you believe, will everyone live forever in the presence of God the Father? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?

Unlike you, we believe that all who have lived, excepting the "sons of perdition", will dwell in the presences of either (God) the Holy Ghost, (God, the Son) Jesus Christ, or God, the Father. The difference between them is the acceptance of and obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, now back to the holes in your theology.

Where does God claim that your "debt to God" is to be "eternally separated from" Him

(or should I say "Them")?

The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God.

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead? Is He eternally separated from God? If He is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God at all, let alone eternally?

Does Christ repay the banker?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You missed the point, I'm afraid. Their agency gets in the way only if they use it to commit sin. Only then are they unable to spend eternity in the presence of the heavenly Father, according to LDS doctrine. That's why they need grace, right?

Agency.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I wrote:

"Let's forget about my belief for the moment."

Ignoring that qualification, you replied:

Now, why should we do that? Don't you like defending holes in your theology?

Vance, I'm tired of your juvenile responses. It isn't worth my while to continue discussions with you when you constantly make such inane criticisms.

[Vance]

Vance,

I wrote:

"Let's forget about my belief for the moment."

Ignoring that qualification, you replied:

Vance, I'm tired of your juvenile responses. It isn't worth my while to continue discussions with you when you constantly make such inane criticisms.

So, you didn't really mean "for the moment" after all, but now have scoured my comments for an excuse to avoid this topic. Which appears to have been your intention all along. No surprise really.

You don't have answers to these giant holes in your theology and so want to avoid them like the plague. The old "head in the sand" approach.

Your refusal to address these issues will be an implicit admission on your part that you can't address them.

May I chalk this up as another topic that you have run away from?

Edited to add,

"inane criticisms" is more aptly applied to your anti-Mormon work as pointed out in post #224.

[JDave]

Rob, Thanks for your reply. I am still working on my post - but it is in the works.

Vance, you are pouncing a bit. EDIT: Mostly I just don't want the thread closed, so let's keep it back on topic.

[Vance]

Vance, you are pouncing a bit.

Yeah, your are right. We stumbled on to this GIANT HOLE in Rob's theology, and I pounced, and apparently trounced.

Rob loves to "pounce" on what he perceives to be weakness in our theology but runs for the tall grass when, in this process, GIANT HOLES in his own theology are exposed.

Mostly I just want to make it clear that Rob doesn't have answers to these questions.

EDIT: Mostly I just don't want the thread closed, so let's keep it back on topic.

Neither do I. We were discussing repentance which is a subset of "all we can do".

It was Rob, in his effort to restrict the meaning of repentance, who diverted into punishment/"debt" with his post #174.

The diversion didn't work out well for him.

[zerinus]

To bring forth fruits meet for repentance means to do things that show that one's professed repentance is genuine.

Agreed.

But I agree that the truly repentant person will act like it.

Agreed also (which means he stops doing what he was doing wrong, and starts doing right).

My point is that doing good things that demonstrate one's sincerity is not the same thing as repentance itself.

Now that doesn

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

I has asked you if you had stopped sinning. You answered:

Yes.

Please don't take this personally, but, I doubt it. My basis for doubting it is twofold: (1) I have never met a person who had successfully stopped sinning, and (2) the Bible says such a claim is a self-deception:

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8 ).

Again, I mean no offense.

[Lightbearer]

Zerinus,

I has asked you if you had stopped sinning. You answered:

Please don't take this personally, but, I doubt it. My basis for doubting it is twofold: (1) I have never met a person who had successfully stopped sinning, and (2) the Bible says such a claim is a self-deception:

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8 ).

Again, I mean no offense.

I know this is directed to Zerinus, but I would like to bring up a point about this oft repeated question which is intended to trap LDS... I would ask if YOU have stopped sinning? If not then I would also ask are you born again?

Now to spring my "trap" what does the following mean?

(1 John 5:1-5,18-19) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?... We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

So I ask you do you sin? Or do you think it possible that we can be born again by degree? Or is salvation a process of perfecting our lives through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ as LDS claim it is?

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I has asked you if you had stopped sinning. You answered:

Please don't take this personally, but, I doubt it. My basis for doubting it is twofold: (1) I have never met a person who had successfully stopped sinning, and (2) the Bible says such a claim is a self-deception:

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8 ).

Again, I mean no offense.

That is a dodge. You have ignored all the rest of my post, and picked on something to provide you with an escape rout from the questions you were not able to answer. I am not going to help you out with your dodge by addressing your particular quibble in this post. You answer to all of my post properly, and I will address your quibble too.

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

I know this is directed to Zerinus, but I would like to bring up a point about this oft repeated question which is intended to trap LDS...

That is unfair. Zerinus offered his own definition. I simply asked him if he thought he had repented according to his own definition. He was free to qualify his definition or restate matters in any way. So far, he has not done so. I set no trap.

You wrote:

I would ask if YOU have stopped sinning?

Alas, no.

You wrote:

If not then I would also ask are you born again?

Yes.

You wrote:

Now to spring my "trap" what does the following mean?

(1 John 5:1-5,18-19) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?... We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

So I ask you do you sin? Or do you think it possible that we can be born again by degree? Or is salvation a process of perfecting our lives through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ as LDS claim it is?

Again, yes, I do commit sin. No, I don't think one can be born again by degree. One is either born or not; one is either born again or not. Yes, salvation is a process, one that begins with the new birth and culminates in our future glorification.

As to the meaning of 1 John 5:18, which is the key text you are citing here, in context it clearly does not mean that the person who is born of God never commits any sin. We know this from the immediate context, in which John says that if a brother commits a sin other than the "sin unto death" we should pray for God to forgive such a person (vv. 16-17). Earlier in the same epistle, as I have already pointed out, John says that we are deceiving ourselves if we claim not to have any sin (1:8 ). John wrote to encourage his readers not to sin, but immediately says that if anyone does commit sin they have Jesus Christ as their Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for their sins (2:1-2). These statements make it explicit that John is not teaching that those born of God never commit any act of sin. Therefore the statements in 3:6, 9 and 5:18 must be qualified in some way. They mean either that the one born of God does not live in (habitual) sin (a possible connotation of the present tense verb, i.e., "practices sin") or that the one born of God does not commit the "sin unto death," or some such similar qualification.

[Vance]

Vance,

Let's forget about my belief for the moment.

Has the moment passed yet?

Can we get back to the holes in your theology?

Where does God claim that your "debt to God" is to be "eternally separated from" Him

(or should I say "Them")?

The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God.

Does Christ suffer this punishment in your stead?

Is He (Christ) eternally separated from God?

If He (Christ) is not a separate being from God, the Father, how can He ever be separated from God at all, let alone eternally?

Does Christ repay the banker?

Please answer my question first, and then I will answer yours.

Rob, I addressed your question, are you going to keep your word and answer mine?

[JDave]

Rob, Strap in!

First I wanted to address the quotes you are including, followed by a look at some additional quotes from General Conference addresses. I apologize for not including the actual quotes in this particular post, but for brevity and readability I would refer others to Rob's previous post. It should be noted that the general topic of salvation via faith/grace/works is a more widely addressed topic, but I will be limiting myself to actual references to 2 Nephi 25:23. There are also some wonderful quotes outside of General Conference (GC) talks (see this post with a quote from Bruce R. McConkie), but General Conference addresses would be the most pertinent to the dominant view of the LDS church.

As an additional precursor to looking at the quotes, I want to clarify what it means to "do all we can do". I think we both agree that this phrase, if taken literally, is at best only achievable for short periods of time. As mortals we are doomed to fall short of perfection and are in constant need of repentance for not doing all we can do. If the phrase "do all we can do" is taken as an attitude to strive for perfection and to have a commitment to follow Christ, then at least it is feasible while still making sense as used in the LDS quotes. I mentioned this earlier in the thread and you pointed to where you stated something along the lines of "while none of us will be perfect". If you view the usage of the phrase "do all we can do" as being one of commitment and covenant, that will inherently include repeated repentance, then we are close to agreement. Great cause exists to further define "all we can do" as being the first principles of the gospel : Faith, Repentance, and Baptism. There are also, as you mentioned, other explanations of "all we can do" which include ideas from Robinson and Millet, and the idea that "all we can do" pertinent to salvation is simply to repent and become reconciled to Christ. The description in this paragraph is a rough outline, and probably needs some tweaking. Please tell me if you think I am off base on something here.

Harold B. Lee -- Looking at some other GC addresses I would guess that the Lee quote is well understood and in context as you present it. Repeated uses of the verse in GC assert the need for us to do all we can do. Lee does, in GC talks in 1956 and 1970, describe "all we can do" as being associated with the first principles of the gospel (Faith, Repentance, Baptism). This would be a necessary point to include when understanding his teaching that we need to do all we can do.I initially took issue with the phrase "save ourselves" and I would still, for myself, prefer to say sanctify ourselves. Also, you are still misusing his "maximum of individual effort" phrase, which referred to spiritual certainty. Grace was described as being preceded by "personal striving". I pointed this out previously HERE.

Ezra Taft Benson -- There were only two GC talks where 2N 25:23 are cited, and they refer to being faithful and the primacy of being reconciled to Christ over works like being baptized into the church. I don't have the full passage from Benson you reference, but if "extending our best effort" is to be contrasted with "extending a half-hearted effort" then it makes a lot of sense. I don't know whether to understand best effort to be equivalent to being faithful or more in line with the Harold B. Lee quote. His other usage of the verse would indicate it is more likely to mean be faithful and committed to your covenants with God.

James E. Faust -- Your quote here is VERY easy to take out of context. Taken alone it more than implies that there is zero grace active in one's life until one pays the uttermost farthing. This is especially problematic when you leave out the last phrase "which purifies us and can perfect us", as you did in the OP. Reading the entire talk, he seems to be speaking of repentance and sanctification. The purifying and perfecting grace is what becomes active after we have "paid the uttermost farthing", which is a culmination of previous justification and many previous graces received. Another GC quote I refer to later, from Bruce C. Hafen, clearly indicates that grace is received throughout our lives. President Faust also lays out very plainly towards the end of this talk that we are always able to access the grace of Christ no matter how far we fall short of "all we can do". This makes the quote you used even more out of context by failing to address this aspect of his talk.

Dennis E. Simmons -- This quote is completely out of context regarding salvation. Simmons only uses the verse in a rhetorical way to point out that when we have challenges in life we can only do "all we can do". We should be comforted in knowing we've tried to resolve our challenge and then trust in God. There is no discussion of salvation at all and the quote should not be applied to the topic at hand.

Jorge F. Zeballos -- As I stated in my original posting of this quote : Here works are emphasized and we are even exhorted to "do all that is within our reach". Even within this context salvation is referred to as a gift, and the role of Christ and the Atonement is also emphasized. Out of the original five quotes I presented, which represent the five most recent GC references to 2N 25:23, two of the five emphasized works. The other three emphasized grace. You chose one of the five (Zeballos) to add to your list, and complimented yourself and having done so since you were trying to be inclusive of the quotes I presented you. But having excluded the three which emphasized grace, you seem a bit disingenuous here. You may not be, but this helped influence my previous tone. The other three don't materially differ from other quotes you presented, but they help provide the full context that is needed.

Some other quotes were used in the OP, but if they came from any GC talk then I will be discussing them later on.

[JDave]

2 Nephi 25:23 references the grace of God, the need to be reconciled to Christ, and the role of works (somewhat obliquely). I will label each GC address as emphasizing one or more of these three main themes. I tried to be as even-handed as I could, but I recognize I have some bias. So here follows a comprehensive list of General Conference addresses that reference 2 Nephi 25:23.

2009, Jorge F. Zeballos - Works

[quote name='Jorge F. Zeballos,

[JDave]

1995, Boyd K. Packer - Works

[quote name='Boyd K. Packer,