Earning Salvation

[zerinus]

Zerius... I'd also like to submit the following verses for consideration...

1 Jn. 3: 22

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Do we not ask God for salvation? AND forgiveness? AND mercy?

Heb 5

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

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

Salvation for those who "Obey"?

Romans 2

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Notice those who recieve Eternal life are those that OBEY God and keep his commandments. Not those the give him lipservice.

2 Thess 1

3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;

4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please notice that abounding charity, good actions and enduring tribulations is what is making them "worthy" of the Kingdom of God. Why no mention of Jesus blood here and the emphasis on good actions? if good actions have no bearing what so ever on our eternal distination as Evangelicals claim?

Thank you Zak. Those are all good quotes. If you wanted to comb the scriptures for quotations to refute the Evangelical perversion of "faith alone"ism, you could find enough material to fill a book. The Evangelicals don't have a leg to stand on as far as biblical teachings are concerned.

[Vance]

If you were to post this to those outside the church, it would obviously not be understood as we understand this phrase.

I am convinced that that is his intention.

[Vance]

Zerinus,

You make some assertions to which I would like to respond, and I certainly would have no problem refuting your criticisms of my arguments, but I think, especially in view of your opening paragraph and your stubborn refusal to retract your rude "hit and run" criticism, that I will rather choose not to engage in further discussion with you. Perhaps I can do more for constructive, civil dialogue that way--by showing a clear preference for discussions with polite members of your religion, of which there are several here.

Rob,

You may not realize this, but that post comes across as a "hit and run" post.

You "hit" Zerinus with "your stubborn refusal" and "I certainly would have no problem refuting your criticisms".

And then you "run" with "I will rather choose not to engage in further discussion with you".

You may not have intended to convey that perception, but there it is.

[yesucan2]

Do Mormons believe they must earn their salvation? The answer to this question is: It depends on which Mormons you ask, and it depends on what you mean by salvation.

LDS Church doctrine distinguishes general salvation from individual salvation. General salvation means that everyone will be resurrected from the dead and given

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

Incorrect. I don't think everybody here except me is stupid.

Nice dodge. You must think that everybody here is stupid except you. You are wrong.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You and Zerinus are in the same situation as far as I am concerned. Neither one of you had the courtesy to apologize for your boorish comments directed at me. I reserve the right to ignore posts from those whose incivility overshadows whatever substance they might be presenting. I do appreciate your kind comments yesterday, however.

Rob,

You may not realize this, but that post comes across as a "hit and run" post.

You "hit" Zerinus with "your stubborn refusal" and "I certainly would have no problem refuting your criticisms".

And then you "run" with "I will rather choose not to engage in further discussion with you".

You may not have intended to convey that perception, but there it is.

[Rob Bowman]

yesucan,

I would prefer not to derail the thread from the subject of the opening post. However, I have addressed your question in great detail on other threads. For a short and simple answer to your question, see Acts 16:31.

Dear Mr. Rob,

What is it that you believe one must do to be saved?

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

What, the people who post on this forum who present themselves as LDS are not "actual Latter-day Saints"?

And by this transparent ploy, you justify quote mining in support of your polemical agenda, and trying to pass it off as "religious research."

As I recently had occasion to point out to one of your co-religionists: There is such a thing as civil interfaith dialogue, and it works like this:

You speak for your faith tradition, and not ours;

We speak for our faith tradition, and not yours.

That's the only way it can ever work.

Are you brave enough to engage in actual dialogue with actual Latter-day Saints, or are you too afraid to do that, so you have to try to control both sides of the conversation?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

So, you not only agree with the statement that one must earn one's individual salvation, but you defend it. Right?

This is THE key qualifier, and it is important to keep this qualifier in mind so as to correctly understand the consistency among salvific statements not only made by latter-day leaders, but early-day leaders as well.

For whatever reason, Rob neglected to include some of the statements from early-day church leaders that either imply or explicitly refer to "earning" or "meriting" some form or aspect of "salvation". For example, let's look at several statements from the ultimate LDS Church leader, even Jesus Christ.

I don't think it coincidental that, when explaining the gospel of salvation, many of Christ's parables and metaphores were in regards to prevelant occupations at the time--i.e. the way that men EARNED a living. There is the parable of the Sower, Shepherds and lost sheep, Faithful Servant, Fishermen and their nets, Builders, Stewards, and most particularly the Laborers in the Vinyard--who earned their "salvation" by way of their labors, Merchants--who sold all and PURCHASED the pearl of salvation, Rich Farmer--where salvation comes by EARNING or STORING UP riches unto God, and Husbandmen--where salvation is based on how we TREAT the servant and son of the vineyard owner and whether we give him his due FRUIT.

There are other parables in which Christ teaches the salvific principle of merit: Hidden Treasure--where a field is PURCHASED so as to obtain the treasure of salvation, Unjust Judge--where salvation is granted as a result of unrelenting petitions, Friend at Night--where salvation is granted not because the petitioner is a friend, but because of his impudence, Ten Virgins--where salvation was merited based on the lamps being filled with oil, Great Banquet--where salvation was merited based on people responding to the invitation and clothing themselves properly, Barren Fig Tree--where salvation is lost because of lack of salvific fruit, Talents--salvation is merited based on utilizing for good the talents that God has given us.

In contrast, the Savior also spoke to aspects of salvation that are not earned or merited: Parable of the Growing Seed, Two Debtors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

Once again I would like to dedicate my C.S. Lewis signature to Rob. I concur with Lewis and encourage Rob to cease his constant criticism of LDS and begin simply preaching Christ and Him crucified.

[Rob Bowman]

Sevenbak,

I don't see anything in the context you provided that would negate the point I made, which was that according to John Taylor, LDS seek to earn salvation.

Nevertheless, as the OP, to not provide the context only serves your purpose, and we know that that is.

I'll provide the context for the first one only, I suggest you do the same for the others, even if you only do it on your own enlightenment.

You snipped the following on #1. More likely you just cut and pasted it, and someone else snipped it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

No. The absence of "earning salvation" language in the LDS Standard Works is no impediment to this being the doctrine of the LDS Church from the late 1800s until at least recently. There is no problem here, just as there is no problem for Mormons believing in Heavenly Mother even though she isn't mentioned in any of the Standard Works, or believing that Jesus is the "only begotten" in the sense that he was literally begotten by the Father in the flesh despite the fact that this statement is also nowhere in the Standard Works. As a Mormon, you should know that your religion is not a "scripture-only" religion.

Thanks for answering that.

Now, don't you think that fact may tell you something about your one sided description being "representative" of official LDS doctrine?

[LifeOnaPlate]

As a Mormon, you should know that your religion is not a "scripture-only" religion.

Nor was (or is) the Christ's.

[Vance]

Vance,

No.

Really?

Well, for anti-Mormon agenda sakes, don't let LDS canon influence your take on LDS doctrine.

The absence of "earning salvation" language in the LDS Standard Works is no impediment to this being the doctrine of the LDS Church from the late 1800s until at least recently.

Well, actually it is, but hey, don't let that affect your agenda.

There is no problem here, just as there is no problem for Mormons believing in Heavenly Mother even though she isn't mentioned in any of the Standard Works,

Just as Mormons are free to not believe in a Heavenly Mother, because it isn't official doctrine.

or believing that Jesus is the "only begotten" in the sense that he was literally begotten by the Father in the flesh despite the fact that this statement is also nowhere in the Standard Works.

Neglecting, of course, all those verses that clearly and plainly state that Jesus is the Son of God and the Only Begotten Son. And all those verses where Jesus calls God "My Father".

I think you are confusing this official doctrine with differing beliefs of how the actual conception may have taken place.

As a Mormon, you should know that your religion is not a "scripture-only" religion.

I do know that, but you should also know that we are not obligated to believe anything that doesn't get canonized or anything that contradicts the correct understanding of scripture.

So unless it can be supported by scripture, we don't have to believe it or accept it. (That means it isn't official).

Of course, only using the correct understanding of LDS canon would severely cripple your agenda, so I understand why you don't want to go there.

But isn't that being deceptive?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

As a Mormon, you should know that your religion is not a "scripture-only" religion.

What religion is?

[Vance]

What religion is?

Good point.

Even the "sola scriptura" crowd believe lots of stuff that isn't in the Bible.

Take "the priesthood of all believers" doctrine for example.

Nowhere is it found in the Bible. Nor is it found in any ancient documents (by ancient I mean older than the reformation).

So, yes, that is a good point.

[yesucan2]

yesucan,

I would prefer not to derail the thread from the subject of the opening post. However, I have addressed your question in great detail on other threads. For a short and simple answer to your question, see Acts 16:31.

Acts 16:31 says:

³¹And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

So then you are saying that in order to be saved one must "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

[Rob Bowman]

yesucan,

That is what Paul says, isn't it?

Acts 16:31 says:

³¹And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

So then you are saying that in order to be saved one must "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote (among other things):

Of course, only using the correct understanding of LDS canon would severely cripple your agenda, so I understand why you don't want to go there. But isn't that being deceptive?

Such a remark disqualifies your post from deserving any response.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Evangelicals view Scripture (the Bible) as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. If a doctrine cannot be substantiated from Scripture, we say it should not be part of church doctrine.

What religion is?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

Evangelicals view Scripture (the Bible) as the only infallible rule of faith and practice. If a doctrine cannot be substantiated from Scripture, we say it should not be part of church doctrine.

Not that I want to get in a debate and derail your thread, but saying it is one thing.

And you know BY made a similar statement.

[cdowis]

Rob,

Have you responded to my posts on the LDS definition of "earning salvation". I may have missed it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nor was (or is) the Christ's.

I missed this earlier. This is a good point.

[wenglund]

Wade,

So, you not only agree with the statement that one must earn one's individual salvation, but you defend it. Right?

I agree with and defend what Christ and his chosen leaders have had to say on the matter (both in terms of "salvation" being "earned" and "not-earned"), as I interpret them.

Again, the key is in understand the various and valid connotations of the word "salvation" and aspects of "salvation". And, as others have pointed out, the same is true for the word "earn". (Since ours is not a systematic soteriology, we are allowed a reasonable and pragmatic level of fluidity in our terminolgy, which prevents us from illegitimately confining the eternal things of God to our own finite conceptual boxes, and enables us to engage less in counterproductive semantic debates about Christ's gospel and instead concentrate more on weighter matters like living Christ's gospel.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote (among other things):

Such a remark disqualifies your post from deserving any response.

And such a remark qualifies your post as a "hit and run".