Mormon Definitions of Salvation Useful for Compare and Contrast Debate

[JDave]

So what are the main mischaracterizations that are seen?

I've noted a tendency for some LDS people to treat other Christian's ideas of salvation as being limited to salvation in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms, even though they believe in a salvation in the presence of God -- which would be the Celestial Kingdom. LDS theology gets attacked for emphasizing works, which might be better understood according to your divisions. But since I perhaps am not as involved or experienced in such interfaith debates discussions, I am wondering what are the main misconceptions that come from talking past each other in this area.

I would also slightly change my summarization of the 'minimals' as you called them, since the process of sanctification would start from the very bottom of the Telestial until one can be comfortable in the presence of the Son (Terrestrial) all the way until one is comfortable in the presence of God the Father (Celestial).

Salvation from Sin and Legally Required Separation from God - the Telestial Kingdom

Salvation from Impure Heart - Sanctification to some place within the Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial Kingdom

[coolrok7]

JDave, in regards to the thread OP, I agree that this takes place often. Usually due to the misunderstanding that comes from the ignorance of what is actually meant by the terms used (the cause of this is not of my doing):

So often in inter-faith dialogue, apples are compared to oranges - but often this is done ignorantly. Why? Because Mormons used 'Saved' in so many ways. . . . For example, non-LDS Christians often compare their view of Salvation and its conditions, with our view of Exaltation, and its conditions. Why? Because in LDS parlance, we do use the term 'Saved' to refer to the exalted condition, often use the term "Saved in the Celestial Kingdom" as shorthand for the more accurate "Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom".

Also your last post stated:

I've noted a tendency for some LDS people to treat other Christian's ideas of salvation as being limited to salvation in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms, even though they believe in a salvation in the presence of God -- which would be the Celestial Kingdom. LDS theology gets attacked for emphasizing works, which might be better understood according to your divisions. But since I perhaps am not as involved or experienced in such interfaith discussions, I am wondering what are the main misconceptions that come from talking past each other in this area.

For me the main thing is that I

[Ceeboo]

I'm much happier with a discussion that ends with someone who correctly understands my view and disagrees with it than with one where they disagree with something they clearly don't understand.

I think the world would be a lot better off if more people understood our doctrinal position (members included) accurately. I am a big advocate of understanding. I can't convert anyone, but I can clearly and calmly, and without being demeaning and insulting, articulate with clarity my beliefs.

I've had many a conversation which ended with the individual acknowledging they now understood us a bit better, had been incorrect with some assumptions, but still disagreed. I considered that discussion a success.

The goal shouldn't be, "Prove That I'm Right', it should be, "Help to more accurately understand our position." - that's when fruitful discussion can begin.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

For me the main thing is that I

[coolrok7]

Good points to make nack. Justification/Sanstification is where we differ and are the crux of the arguement.

I started my studies with Mormons back in 1979 with the director of a Mormon Institute of Religion across from Golden West Junior college in Huntington Beach, Ca..

This in order to understand what it is they teach themselves so as to balance the views of those who are identified as critics by Mormons identified as such by Dr. Peterson (

[David T]

Word of advice if you are desiring to explore further? Using phrases such as "attack true Biblical doctrine with their own peculiar variations" is not very helpful, as many Mormons would feel comfortable saying post-Nicene Christians do the same thing. Such rhetoric and polemics are not a part of civilized discussion intended to develop further mutual understanding. - This is acknowledging full well that there have been public sermons by LDS General Authorities who have utilized similar rhetoric. Not even going with some well-intentioned but (imho) terribly misguided 'defenders of the faith' here on this board.

Just as both sides may equally justifiable reasons to think the other is doing such, neither would think of themselves as doing such. It becomes a barb, a cheap shot, and tends to shut down rather than fasciliate discussion.

[Vance]

There

[coolrok7]

As I look back on the post you responded to (my #30 in your post # 31), I can see my cut and paste was not exactly the way I intended for it to be the way it ended up. This is the way it appeared:

I

[David T]

The focal point for me then would be the distinction between Justification and Sanctification.

Perfect.

Justification is all what Jesus did for us in the atonement in which we contribute nothing to the finished work of Jesus as the Christ.

Which I feel is in agreement with this aspect of what I said above:

Mormons recognize that Justification is the pardoning of all sin through the grace of Christ...In this, we believe we recieve the promise that as long as we desire to remain in this covenant relationship and recognize the relationship as one who has been purchased of the Lord, He will open the gate to His Kingdom to us, and will invite us in. Nothing apart from this process of accepting Christ earns the opening of the Gate. It will not be more open by anything more we do. Our past sins are gone through the Atonement, and when it comes to admittence to God's presence, we are judged by Christ's merits - not our own.

I would say the key definition of Justification is similar if not identical. What I think comes under scrutiny is how one recieves/accepts Justification. I am pretty sure that both of us agree that Justification is not simply and immediately granted to all those who are born, at that moment. I think we could agree that one needs to respond to, and accept it. A key departure comes from what is considered 'accepting' or 'recieving', and how that relates to our own volition, or choice, and how that is manifest.

Sanctification (which follows Justification in which one is already in a

[David T]

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2:8-15)

LDS would very much agree that the commandments associated with the Law of Moses were rendered moot in the New Covenant of Christ. It is, in very deed, a new covenant, a new Master, with new terms. A different yoke (Matt 11:29-30), one centered on the principle of grace, was established with the New Covenant.

[coolrok7]

Just to let you know nack, I was at work when I started responding so my time there is limited.

I'm now home and have more time (although my wife and I have dance lessons later tonight) I wanted to let you know that I appreciate having this dialogue and take this seriously as a time to reflect on how to express what I actually believe in contrast to what Mormons have stated is their belief (where the conflict is between us in our different faith traditions). Thanks.

I'll try to outline and express my beliefs and what they're based on before I interact with what you've stated so far. I can agree so far with certain points with some reservations on some of your comments as we have similar understanding at least on the Justification part.

Feel free to interject as you see fit.

[coolrok7]

(edit note: I'm presently rewriting this a little to clean it up- now finished 10/24/25/10)

The background for belief in my Savior, Jesus Christ (as a Christian of the Lutheran, Missouri Synod tribe in the Body of Christ), as God (Son of God) who came to die in my place accomplished by the sacrifice His biological life in the flesh for my sin and give to me and all believers, eternal life as a gift of grace (not by works):

Jesus said to him,

[coolrok7]

from your post # 34:

And I think with this section, we come to the part where things need to be defined and explained, and perhaps 'translated', to make sure we all understand each other.

Please correct any of the statements that are incorrect in accordance with your belief. I want to make sure I accurately understand your view before I present the contrast/equivalent in LDS thought. I want to make sure I'm not comparing against a strawman:

Sanctification is not the process of the removal of the sinful nature, but is a one-time occurrence of one's new vocation in service to God.

Christians are made holy by nature of this 'setting apart' to a vocation of service to God, although this may or may not have anything to do with their actual ability to repel sinful behavior.

One who is sanctified will still sin, but this will not have an effect on their ability to dwell in God's presence

Nack, after my basic definitions given in the previous post.

We still have a sinful nature, even after one comes to faith and is Justified. The

[David T]

It is the new man which needs to win out which is in the Sanctification part of the process after Justification takes place which is the individual being confronted with Jesus dying on the cross paying for one's sin which is included in the sins of the world (a one-time event). After one is justified the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing (which is not a license to sin but is the remedy for the guilt of sin post Justification):

So I guess my question is, what occurs at death, when the 'new man' hasn't fully won out? Is the rest of the cleansing work immediately and swiftly brought to its conclusion? Does the struggle continue? Even though the physical body dies, do the sinful desires in the person themself remain? Is the individual's will immediately altered? Is there still a period of cleansing going on? Is one made perfect before entering into God's presence, or does that occur afterwards?

[coolrok7]

So I guess my question is, what occurs at death, when the 'new man' hasn't fully won out? Is the rest of the cleansing work immediately and swiftly brought to its conclusion? Does the struggle continue? Even though the physical body dies, do the sinful desires in the person themself remain? Is the individual's will immediately altered? Is there still a period of cleansing going on? Is one made perfect before entering into God's presence, or does that occur afterwards?

At physical death (one is spiritually dead until regeneration by the Holy Spirit) the earthly life is over and one

[David T]

At physical death (one is spiritually dead until regeneration by the Holy Spirit) the earthly life is over and one

[coolrok7]

Be glad to clear it up as that is the purpose of this conversation. The confusion takes place until what is meant by the terms used is understood. We have some of the same terms with different meanings at key places.

(coolrok7) One is already made perfect in Christ at Justification. I was dealing with the Sanctification part of the equation (the assumption being the one who endures until the end, not all who think they are Justified are, these would be the ones who are not truly Sanctified). You can

[Mudcat]

<snip>

Evangelical Salvation is not the equivalent of Exaltation - Non-exalted Salvation in the Celestial Kingdom, however, is.

<snip>

Dialogue is far more interesting and useful than

, which has become the defacto standard on both sides of the issue.

Hi Nack,

I agree, as leery as I am to bring up the notion of semantics, this is an area at least where LDS and EV have completely different ideas on the notion of this word "salvation".

There is a certain ambiguity to being "saved" in LDS terminology. Salvation and Damnation can be used synonymously in some categorical senses. This isn't the case given an evangelical view. It's either an are or an aren't. Thus the confusion, as you have noted.

Bold mine. In a categorical sense, I suppose this might be the best LDS "in house" understanding of what an EV, like myself means by such a notion. However, I feel its far from complete... at least IMO.

There are a number of views amongst evangelicals and other non-LDS Christians as to what it is we are exactly saved to. On the part of nearly all, there is a bit of a pleasant mystery to the afterlife in some respects where LDS seem to have it all mapped out in comparison.

I think the best way to draw comparison is to discuss the differences and nuances of what one perceives their afterlife to be. I think LDS are a bit unique amongst other Christians because they have some extra compartments to stick people in.

But I think discussions on salvation are best had when we talk about where we are going, rather than where other people are going. I think that is where we actually find the basis for comparison and contrast.

Nack, you get an autorep on my part for a Monty Python reference in the OP.

Regards,

Mudcat

[beforHim]

Wow, this thread opens my eyes wide. I'm a "traditional" Christian, nd an apologist.

I had actually been thinking all this awhile back. That is, thinking, "All humans are saved except the truely heinous ones, thus when we Christians argue against Mormons saying they must perform good deeds (physical deeds) to get to Heaven, we're probably thinking of the Celestial". My thought process was something like that.

Now I come here and I see this same thought process- that is, that everyday "traditional" Christians, esp. your run-of-the-mill apologist (which is what I am, or was and am trying to escape) argue agaisnt good deeds saving one. Thus they against the CJCLDS, but really they are arguing against sanctification/exaltation and don't even realize it.

In fact, I totally agree that "having saving faith" is not a good deed as biblically defined and I am finding many more apologists are starting to recognize this mistake. Staunch calvinists aside, pretty much all Christianty accepts that saving faith is not a good deed, but they have a hard time wording it. Like you say, understanding is good.

I think I just rambled alot there, but hopefully my point was made.

[coolrok7]

From Post # 41 (to re-phrase as asked):

(coolrok7)From our perspective as a believer, post Justification, we don

[David T]

Be glad to clear it up as that is the purpose of this conversation. The confusion takes place until what is meant by the terms used is understood. We have some of the same terms with different meanings at key places.

The sower (Jesus or anyone speaking the word of God in truth) of the seed (the Word of God) (parable/analogy) of Jesus comes into play as to the condition of the soil (or the hearer of the message):

We agree. We also view that soil that is of one condition at one time can, through a period of preparation, become another. (IE, one who rejects the word at one time will recieve it with gladness and let it sink in at another time)

To be complete is the same as to be perfect in Biblical terminology in which one is Justified (i.e.- no longer estranged from God on the basis of sin). Sanctification is then entered post Justification where all that is required to be

[David T]

Also, I don't think you addressed this question I asked in the earlier post: I believe its recognized with this [ your view of sanctification] perspective that a person can never be free from sinning in this life. My question was, upon death, is it believed that the inclinations and thoughts and desires that lead one to sin even through their sanctified state continue with them, or will it be dramatically and once-and-for-all removed by God, or some other source?

Thanks again for your participation.

[coolrok7]

What does 'maturity in the faith' mean to you? . . .

So, based on how I read what you wrote, is it your position that no one can know, or declare with certainty, whether they are justified/saved while in this life? . . .

Also, I don't think you addressed this question I asked in the earlier post: I believe its recognized with this [your view of sanctification] perspective that a person can never be free from sinning in this life. My question was, upon death, is it believed that the inclinations and thoughts and desires that lead one to sin even through their sanctified state continue with them, or will it be dramatically and once-and-for-all removed by God, or some other source?

Thanks again for your participation.

Thanks for the thanks!

Maturity in the faith is growing as a baby into a mature adult (part of Sanctification). Still a sinner with the old man but growing up into a mature follower of Jesus as a Christian starting from being a new man in Christ at the new birth (being born again):

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Galatians 6:15)

But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. (Ephesians 4:20-27)

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:13-14)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ(Romans 1:1-6))

The Bible teaches that one can know the following (the assumption being one is truly a believer in Jesus Christ as the Biblical savior, the Messiah of Israel of Old Testament revelation followed up in the New Testament, declared to be Son of God):

Jesus said to him,

[David T]

I had typed up a reply to this thread, but must have closed it out before I hit send. Sorry to leave you hangning

Maturity in the faith is growing as a baby into a mature adult (part of Sanctification). Still a sinner with the old man but growing up into a mature follower of Jesus as a Christian starting from being a new man in Christ at the new birth (being born again):

So the question is, from your point of view, does one's 'maturity' in the Gospel have anything to do with one's post-death saved condition? Does someone who dies a 'baby' immediately become a 'mature adult' upon death, or is there still a growing up process?

The Bible teaches that one can know the following (the assumption being one is truly a believer in Jesus Christ as the Biblical savior, the Messiah of Israel of Old Testament revelation followed up in the New Testament, declared to be Son of God):

I understand what the scriptural text says. My question is based on your assertion that many will truly believe they are justified and then learn at the last day that they are not. The question is, how does one know? For example, do you know that you have been Justified? If so, how did you come to this certain knowledge? Is it similar to what Mormons refer to as a Spiritual Witness, which includes seeing the fruits of conversion in one's own life?

Those thoughts and inclinations are present in the old man, still a part of us until our death which will cease to exist in us I believe at that point. The new man, as the result of being born again, is the part of us that goes on into eternity and will be eventually clothed in a resurrected body where the desire to sin will not exist any more.

Let me see if I understand your perspective. Again, I seek correction:

• The 'old man' is equal to our fallen physical bodies, and 'unregenerated' spirit
• The 'new man' means that our spirit within our bodies is instantly tranformed/regenerated to be holy upon Justification/Pronouncment of Sanctification
• The purified and holy 'New Man' is now struggling against the still impure flesh, which is never able to be truly overcome in this life
• Upon death, if one's spirit has been 'regenerated', because the wicked flesh is gone, the spirit is now pure and holy, and has no more struggle with sin

Paul states the following (I think he sums up our dilemma, and the answer to the dilemma, quite succinctly):

I think I understand the perspective, if my bullet points above are accurate.

To latter-day saints, the process would go more like this:

Upon acceptance of Christ and entering into a Covenant Relationship with Him, we are justified (forgiven of sins), and we are able to receive the Holy Ghost, which begins the process of Sanctification. Each day that we submit to the spirit of the lord, we become a new man, closer and closer to the completed New Creation we are called to be in Christ. When we sin, it is not just a fault of our flesh, but also due to habits that have been developed by our body/spirit combo. It is not just the flesh that sins, but our spirits participate as well. As we submit to the Lord and his commandments, our spirits are also being trained and empowered. When we die, we believe our desire to continue habits and other desires are not left behind with our physical body, but go with our spirits as well. While our culpability for our committed sins will have been removed through the Justification of Christ, our desires will remain as they were. They are not instantly removed.

When we submit to the spirit throughout our lives, it is our way of participating in the forming of the New Man. We look at Paul in his second letter to Timothy as one who has endured the sanctification process, and who now feels prepared to return to His God. "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith"

For some who did not have a full opportunity to finish the process in this life, there will be time in-between death and the resurrection to continue preparation. However, there will also be those who had the opportunity, but procrastinated or rebelled, and chose not to prepare. While they may choose to accept the covenant of Justification at the last day, right before the Judgement, they will not have allowed themselves the proper time to prepare to be sanctified. They will be allowed into God's Kingdom, but will be kept from His direct presence (what is termed the Celestial Kingdom) by their own sense of unworthiness. They will not be able to abide the Lord's presence, and choose to reside at a 'distance' from His Full Glory (hence, what are termed the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms).

In other words, our preparations is not to Justify ourselves, but rather to work with and submit to the Lord's will, that we may be properly sanctified, that we might enjoy the Lord's presence, and become an individual who feels comfortable and at home there.

[coolrok7]

I understand what the scriptural text says. My question is based on your assertion that many will truly believe they are justified and then learn at the last day that they are not. The question is, how does one know? For example, do you know that you have been Justified? If so, how did you come to this certain knowledge? Is it similar to what Mormons refer to as a Spiritual Witness, which includes seeing the fruits of conversion in one's own life? . . .

How one knows this (provided one is not deceived by the lies of Satan or by one