Aaron Shafovaloff and 2 Nephi 25:23

[Vance]

Correct me if you believe me to be in error, but doesn't this mean salvation is utterly and completely arbitrary as far as our beliefs, thoughts, and actions are concerned?

It seems to me that those who believe this, also believe that they just happen to be among the arbitrarily chosen saved.

Strange that.

[Vance]

One needn't get so offended by a differing viewpoint.

Try telling that to Shafovaloff.

As Walker and I have discussed before, arguing is usually when thinking stops and our own preconceived notions and beliefs take full harness and our minds close.

Arguing is all Shafovaloff does.

Friendly dialogue is the only way we're going to get anywhere, folks.

Shafavaloff doesn't do "friendly dialogue".

He doesn't want to understand.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Vance so well said...

Try telling that to Shafovaloff.

Ditto

Arguing is all Shafovaloff does.

Ditto

Shafavaloff doesn't do "friendly dialogue".

Ditto

He doesn't want to understand.

Double ditto...

[Brad]

Correct me if you believe me to be in error, but doesn't this mean salvation is utterly and completely arbitrary as far as our beliefs, thoughts, and actions are concerned?

This is a fantastic point, and one that Paul actually anticipated after writing what is now known as Romans 5.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:1-4)

Here is one of the primary texts that supports the idea of regeneration. Paul anticipated the natural response of, "OK, if it's all grace, doesn't that mean we can then do whatever we want?" If Paul was teaching that grace had conditions in Romans 5, why on earth would he anticipate this type of response? No one would make the assertion that grace would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Paul, however, anticipated that people would, and then asserts, "How can we who died to sin still live in it?" This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin. Not in the manner that they will never sin again, but that their life will in turn be one full of repentance and a striving to love and serve the God that first loved them.

[Theo]

Sorry but my understanding is that salvation is something we hope for, not something we are given.

After all, we will be judged by our works. That alone implies there is a possibility of "falling from Grace" which in turn implies that something will have to be done in order to qualify for God's Grace once again.

It's pretty clear to me. Not sure why others have such trouble with it!

Theo

[Bill Hamblin]

This is a fantastic point, and one that Paul actually anticipated after writing what is now known as Romans 5.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:1-4)

Here is one of the primary texts that supports the idea of regeneration. Paul anticipated the natural response of, "OK, if it's all grace, doesn't that mean we can then do whatever we want?" If Paul was teaching that grace had conditions in Romans 5, why on earth would he anticipate this type of response? No one would make the assertion that grace would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Paul, however, anticipated that people would, and then asserts, "How can we who died to sin still live in it?" This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin. Not in the manner that they will never sin again, but that their life will in turn be one full of repentance and a striving to love and serve the God that first loved them.

The nice thing about this doctrine is that I can say that God has arbitrarily decided to save me despite my belief in Joseph Smith and the BOM. How can they possible object to that? So how can they possibly say I'm not a Christian?

So if a saved Christian commits murder, that's okay, because he's saved. But if a saved Christian mistakenly believes the BOM is true, that's not okay, so he can't be saved. Really? I thought God got to arbitrarily decide this.

[maklelan]

This is a fantastic point, and one that Paul actually anticipated after writing what is now known as Romans 5.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:1-4)

Here is one of the primary texts that supports the idea of regeneration. Paul anticipated the natural response of, "OK, if it's all grace, doesn't that mean we can then do whatever we want?" If Paul was teaching that grace had conditions in Romans 5, why on earth would he anticipate this type of response? No one would make the assertion that grace would allow them to do whatever they wanted. Paul, however, anticipated that people would, and then asserts, "How can we who died to sin still live in it?" This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin. Not in the manner that they will never sin again, but that their life will in turn be one full of repentance and a striving to love and serve the God that first loved them.

First, Paul is talking about people who are already saved. I'm talking about people who are not yet saved. Second, if we want to speak about post-"saved," Paul is fundamentally saying that we have conditions on our salvation. Either we have to work to hold on to our salvation ("strive to love and serve God"), or being saved means God compels us to righteousness independent of our will and desires. The former is to earn salvation, and the latter means it's utterly arbitrary.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sorry but my understanding is that salvation is something we hope for, not something we are given.

After all, we will be judged by our works. That alone implies there is a possibility of "falling from Grace" which in turn implies that something will have to be done in order to qualify for God's Grace once again.

It's pretty clear to me. Not sure why others have such trouble with it!

Theo

Sounds like you understand it well.

[Brad]

So if a saved Christian commits murder, that's okay, because he's saved. But if a saved Christian mistakenly believes the BOM is true, that's not okay, so he can't be saved. Really? I thought God got to arbitrarily decide this.

I would never argue this. Honestly, believing in the Book of Mormon is not what causes me to see such a difference in worldview between LDS and Evangelicalism, rather I see your doctrine of exaltation (which isn't in the BoM, granted) to be the primary difference. To an evangelical worldview, this idea is so foreign that it causes many people to cringe upon hearing it. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

[Brad]

First, Paul is talking about people who are already saved. I'm talking about people who are not yet saved.

I thought we were talking about people who were "saved"? My argument is that there are no conditions placed upon the "saved". They have already received grace and are eternally secure.

Second, if we want to speak about post-"saved," Paul is fundamentally saying that we have conditions on our salvation.

I respectfully disagree. Why would he anticipate a response of "We can do whatever we want then" if this was the case? Who would argue that they could continue in sin and still remain in grace if there were conditions placed upon salvation? No one, IMHO.

[maklelan]

I thought we were talking about people who were "saved"? My argument is that there are no conditions placed upon the "saved". They have already received grace and are eternally secure.

But this thread is about becoming saved, and my point was that the event of salvation (I understand it is an event in Protestantism and not a process) is either earned or it is utterly arbitrary.

On the other hand, if those who are saved are eternally secure, they can still do whatever they want without fear of consequence. Either God will not let them sin, and their salvation is, again, arbitrary (since it was arbitrarily received), or God will let them sin, and then it is dependent upon their actions (in other words, it's something they earn).

I respectfully disagree. Why would he anticipate a response of "We can do whatever we want then" if this was the case?

Why do you assume he's anticipating the response? What leads you to conclude he's not simply responding to objections that have already been leveled against his position. Surely Romans isn't the first time that belief had ever been expressed by Paul to anyone.

Who would argue that they could continue in sin and still remain in grace if there were conditions placed upon salvation? No one, IMHO.

Someone who is offering an objection to the notion that there were no conditions placed on salvation. Paul's comments are an exhortation, not a simple declaration. He is urging Christians not to sin and abandon the salvation they've received (vv. 11-19). There is no need for epistles or scriptures if it all happens independently of our thoughts, beliefs, or actions. The mere existence of pastoral epistles shows that Christians can do right or they can do wrong, and they need someone to tell them not to do wrong, but to do right.

[Brad]

Why do you assume he's anticipating the response? What leads you to conclude he's not simply responding to objections that have already been leveled against his position. Surely Romans isn't the first time that belief had ever been expressed by Paul to anyone.

Read it in the context of Romans 5:20: "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Any Biblical scholar will tell you that Paul was addressing any possible misunderstandings in the beginning of chapter six. To paraphrase, yes, when they sin, grace is extended to those who have been baptized into Christ Jesus to cover their sin. But no, if their life is void of repentance and they show no desire to follow Christ, then all that is proving is that they were never "Baptized into Christ Jesus" to begin with. For if they truly were, they would be "dead to sin".

Paul's comments are an exhortation, not a simple declaration. He is urging Christians not to sin and abandon the salvation they've received (vv. 11-19).

I totally agree with you here. Paul is in fact giving an exhortation to fellow followers in Christ. He is reminding them that if they have been baptized into Christ Jesus, their old self is in fact dead and their life will be characterized by that of repentance and love. I would never go as far as to say that the choices one makes in their Christian walk are not important. One must choose to obey Christ. However, when that old heart of stone is replaced with a new heart, it becomes all the more easier to follow Christ. It becomes part of our nature. We have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, who helps us and intercedes for us.

Allow me to give an illustration, and perhaps it will convey my position more clearly. Imagine the unregenerate life to be like that of a pig, who loves to eat and wallow in slop (i.e., sin). When one is regenerated, they are miraculously transformed into a man (or woman), and that slop no longer appears to be so appetizing. Our new nature calls for something better. Remnants of our old life will remain, and occasionally that slop might tempt us, but as we increase in sanctification and are conformed more and more to the image of Christ, the more of our old self will no longer remain.

Anyways, that is my belief and conviction upon reading the Scriptures. I hope I did a good enough job in explaining myself

[maklelan]

Read it in the context of Romans 5:20: "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Any Biblical scholar will tell you that Paul was addressing any possible misunderstandings in the beginning of chapter six. To paraphrase, yes, when they sin, grace is extended to those who have been baptized into Christ Jesus to cover their sin. But no, if their life is void of repentance and they show no desire to follow Christ, then all that is proving is that they were never "Baptized into Christ Jesus" to begin with. For if they truly were, they would be "dead to sin".

Putting aside the uniquely Protestant reading of Paul (and James), what you seem to me to be saying is that repentance and the desire to follow Christ are the conditions for salvation. If this is not the case, then are you saying that repentance and a desire to follow Christ are things that the Christian does not do, but is compelled to do independent of their will and desire?

I totally agree with you here. Paul is in fact giving an exhortation to fellow followers in Christ. He is reminding them that if they have been baptized into Christ Jesus, their old self is in fact dead and their life will be characterized by that of repentance and love. I would never go as far as to say that the choices one makes in their Christian walk are not important. One must choose to obey Christ.

This, then, is a condition for salvation.

However, when that old heart of stone is replaced with a new heart, it becomes all the more easier to follow Christ. It becomes part of our nature. We have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, who helps us and intercedes for us.

The condition may be easier, but it's still a work that we must effect to earn our salvation, is it not?

Allow me to give an illustration, and perhaps it will convey my position more clearly. Imagine the unregenerate life to be like that of a pig, who loves to eat and wallow in slop (i.e., sin). When one is regenerated, they are miraculously transformed into a man (or woman), and that slop no longer appears to be so appetizing. Our new nature calls for something better. Remnants of our old life will remain, and occasionally that slop might tempt us, but as we increase in sanctification and are conformed more and more to the image of Christ, the more of our old self will no longer remain.

But if we revert to the old ways (for whatever reason) then we have violated the terms of salvation, have we not? We still must satisfy a condition. My primary concern is whether we are responsible for satisfying that condition, or if God satisfies it for us independent of our will and desire. If the former, then it is a condition for salvation, and we earn our salvation. If the latter then it does not matter in the least what we think, believe, or do. Within your soteriology, if we do evil then we were never saved in the first place and there's nothing we can do to change that. If we are saved, then doing whatever we think, believe, or do will conflict with God anyway. My real question though, is the person who is not yet saved. What is evangelism all about if salvation will come to a person or will not come to a person no matter what they think, believe, or do? Is it arbitrary, or is it contingent upon our works?

Anyways, that is my belief and conviction upon reading the Scriptures. I hope I did a good enough job in explaining myself

I think you've explained it just fine. I'm well aware of the concepts you're describing. My issue is that I don't believe the implications of this belief have been carried through to their inevitable conclusion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would never argue this. Honestly, believing in the Book of Mormon is not what causes me to see such a difference in worldview between LDS and Evangelicalism, rather I see your doctrine of exaltation (which isn't in the BoM, granted) to be the primary difference. To an evangelical worldview, this idea is so foreign that it causes many people to cringe upon hearing it. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

IT is true that it is really not in the BoM however it is every were in the bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would have hoped to have seen actual intelligent discussion and rebuttal against Aaron's article here.

I would suggest a search. Perhaps some of the old dialogue is still on this board. We have already given an "intelligent discussion and rebuttal against Aaron's" thoughts.

That is the point, we have been down this road before. However I will point out that most of us are still happy to continue on in the dialogue.

[frankenstein]

Brad: "This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin."

so what must one do to be saved.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Brad: "This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin."

so what must one do to be saved.

IOW, there are conditions to salvation, what are they?

[WalkerW]

And Walker - I doubt you would have the low opinion of Aaron as you currently do if you weren't in fact Mormon. Put yourself in his shoes. He is merely just doing apologetic work in the same fashion as many people on this board do, because Mormonism contradicts his own beliefs. One needn't get so offended by a differing viewpoint.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But just because I'm Mormon doesn't mean I'm incapable of discerning bigotry.

It is not his differing viewpoint. It isn't even his criticisms. It is his approach. I've dealt with him in the past, I've seen others I know deal with him, I've seen his methods. It has nothing to do with "love for Mormons." It has to do with stroking one's ego. And as Maklelan pointed out, Aaron isn't interested in "getting it." He is interested in catching "orthodox" (as he defines it) Mormons who aren't as well versed as they should be with obscure historical moments or quotes in hopes of making their faith waver. If you offer a rebuttal, it is defined as "Mormon spin" (as your friend Rob Sivulka loves to label it) or "neo-orthodox." It is tiresome and it is worthless.

[Brad]

Putting aside the uniquely Protestant reading of Paul (and James), what you seem to me to be saying is that repentance and the desire to follow Christ are the conditions for salvation.

No, I would say that the only condition for salvation is faith, in which God uses as an agent to credit Christ's perfect life unto the believer. This is what "justifies" him or her before God. Any attempts at righteousness of our own do not contribute to our right standing with the Father.

This, then, is a condition for salvation.

No, I'm saying that a true Christian - one who has been baptized into Christ Jesus - will make these decisions because "God disciplines the ones that He loves" (Hebrews 12) for "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10) It's the same principle as a father and son; the father is going to do everything he can to compel his son to be obedient and to grow up to be a man of character; it's not an infringement on that child's free will to influence his thinking. He's a child and needs to be shown the right path to walk on.

The condition may be easier, but it's still a work that we must effect to earn our salvation, is it not?

I sure hope not. If I have to earn my own salvation, I am in dire trouble. Salvation is not something to be earned, rather it is given to us even though we do not deserve it. Such is the meaning of grace. See Mosiah 2:21: "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But just because I'm Mormon doesn't mean I'm incapable of discerning bigotry.

It is not his differing viewpoint. It isn't even his criticisms. It is his approach. I've dealt with him in the past, I've seen others I know deal with him, I've seen his methods. It has nothing to do with "love for Mormons." It has to do with stroking one's ego. And as Maklelan pointed out, Aaron isn't interested in "getting it." He is interested in catching "orthodox" (as he defines it) Mormons who aren't as well versed as they should be with obscure historical moments or quotes in hopes of making their faith waver. If you offer a rebuttal, it is defined as "Mormon spin" (as your friend Rob Sivulka loves to label it) or "neo-orthodox." It is tiresome and it is worthless.

I echo these statements. I have delt with him and Rob on this very board years ago. LoaP and I went the rounds. I was really a total waste.

I cano only say that Brad clearly does not follow after the manner of Aaron, for that alone I am greatful.

I love the (Actually, I hate it) "mormon spin" part.

[Brad]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But just because I'm Mormon doesn't mean I'm incapable of discerning bigotry.

It is not his differing viewpoint. It isn't even his criticisms. It is his approach. I've dealt with him in the past, I've seen others I know deal with him, I've seen his methods. It has nothing to do with "love for Mormons." It has to do with stroking one's ego. And as Maklelan pointed out, Aaron isn't interested in "getting it." He is interested in catching "orthodox" (as he defines it) Mormons who aren't as well versed as they should be with obscure historical moments or quotes in hopes of making their faith waver. If you offer a rebuttal, it is defined as "Mormon spin" (as your friend Rob Sivulka loves to label it) or "neo-orthodox." It is tiresome and it is worthless.

Fair enough, I'm not here to defend Aaron or Rob. I know them personally, and in my own opinion I find them to be very kind, gracious people. Perhaps my opinion would be different if they were speaking out against my own beliefs. Anyways, again, not here to defend them, all I can do is speak for myself. As you and I have both come to realize, friendly discussion is usually the only way we can get anywhere

[Brad]

Brad: "This indicates that when someone is saved, they become dead to their sin."

so what must one do to be saved.

The most consistent answer that I can find in Scripture simply says to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31), or rather, exhibiting a faith in Jesus Christ, which, noted, is not merely believing that God exists or that there was a Jesus. Rather, that Jesus atoned for your sins and that through him you can be saved by Grace, even though you don't deserve it.

Knowing that I am a Protestant, many of you will then wonder about the "works" side of things. Simply put, if an apple tree is growing oranges, it's not an apple tree. If you profess to have faith in Jesus Christ, but you you exhibit no evidence of a changed life, then you do not really have faith in Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps

[WalkerW]

Fair enough, I'm not here to defend Aaron or Rob. I know them personally, and in my own opinion I find them to be very kind, gracious people. Perhaps my opinion would be different if they were speaking out against my own beliefs. Anyways, again, not here to defend them, all I can do is speak for myself. As you and I have both come to realize, friendly discussion is usually the only way we can get anywhere

They probably are. I'm sure they are loving husbands, fathers, and friends. But much of the way they treat Mormons, approach Mormons, and discuss Mormon theology is nothing short of bigotry. It isn't just toward Mormons though. Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims have also been at the receiving end. No attempt to understand. No attempt to provide a bridge to cross over.

But perhaps I should be more selective with my language since most people automatically assume "racist, sexist, evil person" whenever the word "bigot" is used.

Aaron is very intolerant of anything and everything Mormon. That should make my feelings a bit more clear.

[Vance]

Sorry Brad, but I think you need to reword these statement because there is an internal conflict.

It's the same principle as a father and son; the father is going to do everything he can to compel his son to be obedient and to grow up to be a man of character; it's not an infringement on that child's free will to influence his thinking.

. . .

In the same manner, God compels us and loves us into obeying him. "His kindness leads us to repentance" (Romans 2:4). I don't see this as an infringement on our free will.

Compulsion is the opposite to "free will". Either you freely chose to be obedient or the obedience was compelled. It can't be both.

[frankenstein]

The most consistent answer that I can find in Scripture simply says to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31), or rather, exhibiting a faith in Jesus Christ, which, noted, is not merely believing that God exists or that there was a Jesus. Rather, that Jesus atoned for your sins and that through him you can be saved by Grace, even though you don't deserve it.

Hope that helps

seems straight forward to me. thanks.