Earning Salvation

[cdowis]

I understand these LDS authorities to mean that while resurrection to immortality is a free gift for which we can do nothing, salvation is a matter of degrees, with the level of salvation dependent on and determined by our works. We get salvation for free, but the salvation we get is the salvation we earn. Or to put it another way, as some have put it here: We are saved by grace, but judged (to determine which kingdom we receive) on the basis of our works.

Having discussed the LDS definition of "earning salvation", I think you statement here is correct.

[Zeta-Flux]

Getting this thread back on track....

The origin of this thread on earning salvation was my response to several Mormons arguing in other threads that LDS doctrine simply doesn't affirm the idea of earning one's salvation.

This claim is both true and false, depending on how one is using the words "earn" and "salvation." As many, many posters have explained, these words are not used uniformly. Sometimes, for example, "salvation" encompasses "exaltation" which does require living in the way Christ lives (by the very definition of exaltation). Do you understand these points? If so, do you agree with them?

Consider 2 Nephi 23:25, which reads "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." Clearly, we believe (and will not deny!) that part of salvation is reconciling ourselves to God. We may even use the terminology "earning" salvation for this process. What we do deny is the claim that this reconciliation, or "earning", is done without God. Do you understand this claim? Do you agree that those quotes you provided are consistent with this claim?

Lightbearer had written:

[Nathair/|\]

I don't think you're view of the process is very accurate at all. You make it sound like there is going to be a spreadsheet that is gone over and the points tallied up.

Someone once told me that, when you point the finger at someone else, there's 3 fingers pointing back at you. It looks to me like, once again, that you have colored LDS teachings with your own theology.

If you have the concept something like that you'll get to the gate of heaven and someone's going to be standing there with a check sheet saying something like, "faith, check, confesses belief in Jesus, check, said the sinner's prayer, check, o.k. go ahead and boogie on in", well...you're going to be very surprised.

Don't forget, you also have to renounce the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yours under the completing oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mercyngrace]

Alas, this does not conform to the straw man image of "Mormon doctrine" that Mr. Bowman is paid to beat up.

Regards,

Pahoran

How about this verse?

Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

The same Nephi who used the phrase "after all we can do", wrote these words.

* Interesting note: When you search the word "merit" in LDS scriptures, you get 8 hits. All but one refer to salvation through the merits of Christ alone. The exception is when King Benjamin self-deprecatingly refers to his own merits as king being a reflection of God's praisworthiness.

** The word "earn" doesn't even show up once in the LDS standard works according to lds.org word search.

[Zeta-Flux]

Rob Bowman,

I just went through the list of quotations you provided more thoroughly. It seems to me that a good portion of them come from obscure authorities, a few of them do not explicitly talk about earning salvation, and they almost uniformly use the word "earn" to mean "receive a gift, after laboring after it". In that sense, I see no contradiction with what our authorities said and what Stephen Robinson wrote.

We believe we must labor if we want to be like Christ, and being like Christ is what exaltation is all about. We don't deny it. Laboring is part of coming "unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ".

We don't believe we must labor after salvation so that we merit on our own what God will eventually judge us as worthy of in His graciousness.

In other words, I dislike your use of "earn" because I know it will be misconstrued to imply lack of reliance on God. I don't object to you conveying the idea that I believe good works are a part of being disciples of Jesus, or that my reward will be a reflection of my faithfulness to God.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

P.S. Do you object to the idea that God rewards people? Do people "earn" their reward from God in your view? If not, why not? Is it true that those who are rewarded served God, and that those who are not rewarded did not serve God?

Or do you object to the idea that these rewards are the "salvation" which is spoken of in the quotations? Or do you just dislike the use of the word "earn" for some reason?

[Bernard Gui]

P.S. Do you object to the idea that God rewards people? Do people "earn" their reward from God in your view? If not, why not? Is it true that those who are rewarded served God, and that those who are not rewarded did not serve God?

Or do you object to the idea that these rewards are the "salvation" which is spoken of in the quotations? Or do you just dislike the use of the word "earn" for some reason?

I have had the same reservations. Both Mormons and Evangelicals believe good works demonstrate

faith and salvation comes from grace. We may differ on how those works are achieved or maybe not, but I think we arrive at the same conclusion...those who are saved in the kingdom of God do good to their fellow men and serve God. They receive rewards according to their works. Why this is a bone of contention is beyond me.

Bernard

[Vance]

Why this is a bone of contention is beyond me.

Pahoran provided the answer.

Alas, this does not conform to the straw man image of "Mormon doctrine" that Mr. Bowman is paid to beat up.

Regards,

Pahoran

$ $ $ $ $ $ Cha-ching!!!!!

[cdowis]

Pahoran and Vance,

I have know Rob for several years, and he is a very honorable person.

He is here by PERSONAL INVITATION and we need such individuals to participate and give us the other side. In case you have not noticed, he has shown a remarkable understanding of our doctrine and I think eventually this will encourage dialog between ourselves and the Evangelists.

We need him here, so please STOP your personal, insulting remarks. Stay on topic, please.

[yesucan2]

Don't forget, you also have to renounce the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yours under the completing oaks,

Nathair /|\

Good Point. When I first found out about the Church, I was not really amenable to changing my lifestyle on the other hand there was this nagging thought of what if it were true and I rejected it. The other part of that thought was how I would feel standing in front of the Lord one day making an account of my life and then having to explain that one or that I avoided doing what I could to find out if it were really true after I had found out about it.

I think, if the membership was a bunch of wackos or what they were saying didn't make sense or have a ring of truth to it, it would have been easier to discount right off, but that wasn't the case. In fact, I was surprised when I first went to church because I saw that the people were good people who deeply believed but were actually quite normal.

[Vance]

Pahoran and Vance,

I have know Rob for several years, and he is a very honorable person.

He is here by PERSONAL INVITATION and we need such individuals to participate and give us the other side. In case you have not noticed, he has shown a remarkable understanding of our doctrine and I think eventually this will encourage dialog between ourselves and the Evangelists.

We need him here, so please STOP your personal, insulting remarks. Stay on topic, please.

Was what I said, specifically about Rob, inaccurate/untruthful?

Or was it just an unflattering way to express the truth?

[cdowis]

I mistakenly attempted to handle this myself. This matter has been referred to others for possible action.

The answer to your question should be forthcoming.

[mercyngrace]

Both Mormons and Evangelicals believe good works demonstrate faith and salvation comes from grace. We may differ on how those works are achieved or maybe not, but I think we arrive at the same conclusion...those who are saved in the kingdom of God do good to their fellow men and serve God. They receive rewards according to their works. Why this is a bone of contention is beyond me.

Bernard

I completely agree. The emphasis is on becoming godly through the mercy and grace of the Savior. LDS believe in transformative works - acts that draw us closer to God and change our nature. I love how Elder Oaks explains this concept:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke of how our works define

who we are. What we become through our works

constitutes the judgment we will receive:

[Hestia]

Pahoran and Vance,and anyone else so inclined, stop the personal insults and stick to facts. You can disagree without name-calling.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran and Vance,

I have know Rob for several years, and he is a very honorable person.

He is here by PERSONAL INVITATION and we need such individuals to participate and give us the other side. In case you have not noticed, he has shown a remarkable understanding of our doctrine and I think eventually this will encourage dialog between ourselves and the Evangelists.

We need him here, so please STOP your personal, insulting remarks. Stay on topic, please.

Charles,

I had no intention to either insult him or to impugn his honour. I am happy to hear "the other side," namely, what he as an EV Protestant has to say in behalf of EV Protestantism. What he has to say about the faith of the Latter-day Saints is not relevant, and if I think it is a straw man, I will continue to say so; unless Hestia or any other mod chooses to invite me out of the thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cdowis]

Charles,

I had no intention to either insult him or to impugn his honour.

I have a tendency to cross the line myself, so keep me honest as well. Sometimes our discussions get abit heated.

[selek]

Was what I said, specifically about Rob, inaccurate/untruthful?

Or was it just an unflattering way to express the truth?

Given Chaos' recent fascination with me, this will probably get me re-suspended, but I have to respectfully disagree with both Chaos and Hestia.

If someone is intent on running down the quality and value of Ford automobiles, knowing that this individual works for Chevy (or the Obama administration) is critical to evaluating the merits of those arguments.

In the same token, if someone's efforts against the Mormon faith are his bread and butter- if he is paid to make them, and therefore has a vested financial interest in the outcome- such information is necessary in evaluating the merits of his argument.

The (false) charge that Daniel Peterson is a paid apologist of the Mormon Church is a favorite of Bowman's fellow travellers. Why then is the absolutely accurate charge that Bowman is a paid attacker of the Mormon Church irrelevant?

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Insults and slander are punishable under certain circumstances- so why then is the simple truth considered so inflammatory?

If Peterson's arguments are to be weighed upon the (false) charge that he was paid to make them, it is equally valid to weight Bowman's arguments upon the same measure- that he is paid to make them.

CDowis- We don't normally disagree (or perhaps I should say that I usually agree with you).

In this case, we are worlds apart.

There are plenty of people who come here "to give us the other side"- and they usually enjoy a certain moderators sheltering hand for an extended period.

As we are all amatuers here- none of us paid to do what we do- why then should we invite in a paid propopagandist?

Were Bowman to leave today, there would be a hundred, a thousand, a legion of shoe-fillers willing to step in in his stead.

Is there some prestige to having a professional misrepresent our beliefs when an amateur can do it just as well?

Why Bowman and not Paul Deregnowski (or however its spelled)? Why not Sandra Tanner?

They, too, make their living by selling half-truths and falsehoods against us.

So why he and not they?

I respect that he's here by invitation- and that the moderators have decided to honor that invitation.

I do not agree that the invitation was in any way necessary.

[Bernard Gui]

Why Bowman and not Paul Deregnowski (or however its spelled)? Why not Sandra Tanner?

Yes! That's the name I have been trying to remember!

What an interesting person! He booted me off his discussion board

for violating his rule: No Mormons may quote any scriptures in

the discussions.

What is Paul's last name? Anyone know?

Bernard

[Vance]

Given Chaos' recent fascination with me, this will probably get me re-suspended, but I have to respectfully disagree with both Chaos and Hestia.

If someone is intent on running down the quality and value of Ford automobiles, knowing that this individual works for Chevy (or the Obama administration) is critical to evaluating the merits of those arguments.

In the same token, if someone's efforts against the Mormon faith are his bread and butter- if he is paid to make them, and therefore has a vested financial interest in the outcome- such information is necessary in evaluating the merits of his argument.

The (false) charge that Daniel Peterson is a paid apologist of the Mormon Church is a favorite of Bowman's fellow travellers. Why then is the absolutely accurate charge that Bowman is a paid attacker of the Mormon Church irrelevant?

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

Insults and slander are punishable under certain circumstances- so why then is the simple truth considered so inflammatory?

If Peterson's arguments are to be weighed upon the (false) charge that he was paid to make them, it is equally valid to weight Bowman's arguments upon the same measure- that he is paid to make them.

CDowis- We don't normally disagree (or perhaps I should say that I usually agree with you).

In this case, we are worlds apart.

There are plenty of people who come here "to give us the other side"- and they usually enjoy a certain moderators sheltering hand for an extended period.

As we are all amatuers here- none of us paid to do what we do- why then should we invite in a paid propopagandist?

Were Bowman to leave today, there would be a hundred, a thousand, a legion of shoe-fillers willing to step in in his stead.

Is there some prestige to having a professional misrepresent our beliefs when an amateur can do it just as well?

Why Bowman and not Paul Deregnowski (or however its spelled)? Why not Sandra Tanner?

They, too, make their living by selling half-truths and falsehoods against us.

So why he and not they?

I respect that he's here by invitation- and that the moderators have decided to honor that invitation.

I do not agree that the invitation was in any way necessary.

I have been accused, by Rob and others, of attacking Rob personally.

When Rob made that accusation I requested that he provide evidence, so I could deal with it appropriately. He couldn't do it. I will not opine here about his inability.

If I have attacked Rob personally or untruthfully, would someone PLEASE provide the evidence rather than just make the accusation.

I am ready, able, and willing to deal with it appropriately when shown.

[Pahoran]

Yes! That's the name I have been trying to remember!

What an interesting person! He booted me off his discussion board

for violating his rule: No Mormons may quote any scriptures in

the discussions.

What is Paul's last name? Anyone know?

Bernard

I believe Derengowski is correct. "Deranged" is probably even more accurate.

And yes, I fell foul of the same rule. When I see the gnashing and foaming about the moderation here that goes on in certain quarters, I have to smile, knowing that that shower have never actually had to deal with genuinely hostile moderation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

When I see the gnashing and foaming about the moderation here that goes on in certain quarters, I have to smile, knowing that that shower have never actually had to deal with genuinely hostile moderation.

Really? And how does the bathtub feel about it?

Actually, I have played in certain other venues where the moderation doesn't even try to maintain the same sort of balance.....so I do know the difference.

But just because our mods are trying for the proper note doesn't mean they always hit it.

Sometimes their tune falls just a little flat.....

I don't- not even for a moment- think I could do a better job, by the way.

That having been said, it's kinda nice to know that Chaos cares enough to follow me around with a large cudgel.

It gives meaning to my life to have a 6-foot-2 amazon with a large blunt object ready to whack me as needed.

[Pahoran]

Really? And how does the bathtub feel about it?

See definition 6.

Actually, I have played in certain other venues where the moderation doesn't even try to maintain the same sort of balance.....so I do know the difference.

That's good. It wasn't actually you I had in mind, though. There is a little corner of the web where they do nothing but whinge incessantly about how mean the mods are here, and how the only reason they got banned was because their arguments were just too powerful, or something.

But just because our mods are trying for the proper note doesn't mean they always hit it.

Sometimes their tune falls just a little flat.....

I don't- not even for a moment- think I could do a better job, by the way.

That having been said, it's kinda nice to know that Chaos cares enough to follow me around with a large cudgel.

It gives meaning to my life to have a 6-foot-2 amazon with a large blunt object ready to whack me as needed.

Dear me. Do you no longer want to go on living?

Or do you just enjoy being spanked?

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

See definition 6.

Huh.

Never heard that one before.

That's good. It wasn't actually you I had in mind, though. There is a little corner of the web where they do nothing but whinge incessantly about how mean the mods are here, and how the only reason they got banned was because their arguments were just too powerful, or something.

Oh.

THEM.

Dear me. Do you no longer want to go on living?

Actually, I'm hoping to meet Chaos in person at this years FAIR conference. I have a French silk pie made especially for her.

I can't attend the Conference itself because of work issues, but I hope to drop by around lunch time with a tray of delectables.

Or do you just enjoy being spanked?

Not on the first or second dates....the third, however.....

[Vance]

I have been accused, by Rob and others, of attacking Rob personally.

When Rob made that accusation I requested that he provide evidence, so I could deal with it appropriately. He couldn't do it. I will not opine here about his inability.

If I have attacked Rob personally or untruthfully, would someone PLEASE provide the evidence rather than just make the accusation.

I am ready, able, and willing to deal with it appropriately when shown.

24+ hours and still no takers?

[JDave]

24+ hours and still no takers?

Maybe you just express yourself so strongly that it seems like personal attacks... Either way you can be pretty quick to pounce, and do so with the restraint of Tigger.

[Vance]

Maybe you just express yourself so strongly that it seems like personal attacks...

Just earnestly contending for the faith.

Either way you can be pretty quick to pounce, . . .

. . . and do so with the restraint of Tigger.

And just as malicious.