What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[KevinG]

That is my question to you? The point here, is that D&C 132 commands it be "accepted" or one is damned, and the doctrine is exclusive to the LDS faith. Can you define what being "damned" entails?

Damned means losing the blessings associated with obeying a principle of the Gospel. Like a river being damned and having no more flow.

Since you answered my question with a question and obviously don't understand Section 132 in its entirety I will answer for you. Only when God commands us to practice polygamy are we under the covenant to practice polygamy. When he does not (See the Manifesto) we are not under the same obligation.

However I do think we are under obligation to accept that the Saints were commanded by God to practice it when called (about 3% of the Church population was called to do so in the 1800s) and not denigrate the practice or denigrate the practice as some Saints are doing in our time. They may come under condemnation to some degree for denying the divine origin of the commandment.

As far as the rest of D&C 132 we are under commandment to enter into eternal marriage with our spouses in the Holy Temple and honor those covenants. Failing to do so will condemn us to unhappiness and damnation.

[Tacenda]

Damned means losing the blessings associated with obeying a principle of the Gospel. Like a river being damned and having no more flow.

Since you answered my question with a question and obviously don't understand Section 132 in its entirety I will answer for you. Only when God commands us to practice polygamy are we under the covenant to practice polygamy. When he does not (See the Manifesto) we are not under the same obligation.

However I do think we are under obligation to accept that the Saints were commanded by God to practice it when called (about 3% of the Church population was called to do so in the 1800s) and not denigrate the practice or denigrate the practice as some Saints are doing in our time. They may come under condemnation to some degree for denying the divine origin of the commandment.

As far as the rest of D&C 132 we are under commandment to enter into eternal marriage with our spouses in the Holy Temple and honor those covenants. Failing to do so will condemn us to unhappiness and damnation.

I believe it was much higher...maybe your showing the percentage for the early 1800's but below is the percentage for the total 19th century.

How many Mormons were involved in polygamy?

Church historian Larry Logue's study indicated that in the 19th century, about 33% of Mormon households were polygamist. This included nearly all local and top church leaders and prominent Mormons in their communities.

[KevinG]

I believe it was much higher...maybe your showing the percentage for the early 1800's but below is the percentage for the total 19th century.

How many Mormons were involved in polygamy?

Church historian Larry Logue's study indicated that in the 19th century, about 33% of Mormon households were polygamist. This included nearly all local and top church leaders and prominent Mormons in their communities.

I can go with that number. Although households practicing and priesthood holders practicing are two different things.

It does not change my point:

Ploygamy was exceptional not common.

It was a calling (not entered into by ones own whim).

It is only required when God commends it be practiced.

We should be wary of criticizing those who were commanded to practice it.

Edited August 11, 2012 by KevinG

[Flyonthewall]

I am sorry but you are confusing two connected but different concepts. Living faith alone justifies, just because this living faith is never alone-it produces good works-doesn't mean that the justification comes as a result of those works. Look at Paul's usage of the term, it is always a one time event in the life of a believer e.g. Romans 5:1

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Believers have been justified, past tense, by faith. This justifying faith is a living faith and so will go on to produce good works demonstrating that the faith is living faith not dead faith. However these good works have nothing to do with Gods declarition of justification as it has already been done.

Go and look at the context of Paul in Romans 3-4 and James 2. They are talking about justification from two differ view points.

Paul is talking about someone being justified in the sight of GOD.

20 For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in HIS sight, since through the law comes knowledge sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.....

Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles, and how there is no difference between them in the Gospel. The Jews were prideful in that they had the Law of Moses, and the Gentiles did not. They thought they(Jews) were exclusive. Paul was telling them that the Law of Moses is not what will save them but the Law of Faith that replaced it.

Paul used the Jewish leaders as examples of people who put their faith in the rituals of the Law of Moses rather than faith in Christ. In Romans 1 he states: For the ^awrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, ^bwho ^chold the truth in ^dunrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest ^ain them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

From this scripture I see that the wrath of God is in store for the ungodly, not justification.

James is talking about knowing is someone if justified in the sight on MAN.

18"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show ME your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works"

James is talking about Faith, the law of faith if you will, and how men are justified by God, not the sight of MAN. He goes into detail to inform the listener that faith without works is dead. Works do not follow faith, they are an integral part of faith. You cannot separate faith from works. The works James talks about are not the same works that Paul is talking to the Romans about.

James tells his audience what they should be doing as part of their faith...in James 1:27 - '27 Pure ^areligion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To ^bvisit the ^cfatherless and ^dwidows in their ^eaffliction, and to keep himself ^funspotted from ^gthe ^hworld.'

Keeping ourselves unspotted from the world is something we have to DO, and we DO that in keeping the commandments of Christ.

I would ask you if only godly men can be justified then who can ever be justified in light of Romans 3:9-18?

9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

13 “Their throat is an open grave;

they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips....

Those that have been born again of the Spirit as outlined in John 3 and have become spiritual, and keep themselves unspotted from the world.

If this is a translational issue can you then point me to even 1 Greek NT manuscript where the Greek word 'not' is found in Romans 4:5? Any English translation you would care to mention, the KJV or the ESV or whatever are all translations based on the (now 5500+) Greek manuscripts we have today. If this was lost in translation then you must be able to find it in the untranslated Greek manuscripts right?

The translation process is not simply doing a word for word translation, but to actually convey the message accurately. To think that God would justify the ungodly, the natrual man, who is an enemy of God is simply in direct contradiction with the Gospel of Christ.

[Calm]

I believe it was much higher...maybe your showing the percentage for the early 1800's but below is the percentage for the total 19th century.

How many Mormons were involved in polygamy?

Church historian Larry Logue's study indicated that in the 19th century, about 33% of Mormon households were polygamist. This included nearly all local and top church leaders and prominent Mormons in their communities.

A majority of the Latter-day Saints never lived the principle. The number of families involved varied by community; for example, 30 percent in St. George in 1870 and 40 percent in 1880 practiced polygamy, while only 5 percent in South Weber practiced the principle in 1880. Rather than the harems often suggested in non-Mormon sources, most Mormon husbands married only two wives. The wives usually lived in separate homes and had direct responsibility for their children. Where the wives lived near each other, the husbands usually visited each wife on a daily or weekly basis. While there were the expected troubles between wives and families, polygamy was usually not the only cause, although it certainly could cause greater tension. Since polygamy was openly practiced for only a short time by Mormons, there were no established rules about how family members should relate to each other. Instead, each family adapted to their particular circumstances.

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/p/POLYGAMY.html

The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20 to 25 of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. At its height, plural marriage probably involved only a third of the women reaching marriageable age-though among Church leadership plural marriage was the norm for a time. Public opposition to polygamy led to the first law against the practice in 1862, and, by the 1880s, laws were increasingly punitive.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Plural_Marriage%20?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

Most men who entered polygamy” had only two wives, and a large majority (>80%) had no more than three. Even these would probably not think of their participation as “cursory,” since a majority of men never practiced plural marriage at all. Probably 15 to 20 percent of Latter-day Saint families were polygamous, “with variations from place to place and from decade to decade.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Prevalence_of_in_Utah#endnote_fn175

Logue's numbers are from 1984 and uses an unusual method, Daynes' are the more recent and very precise but I can't access her book for the actual numbers so are referring to FAIR as her book was a source for this article.

Edited August 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Gervin]

Damned means losing the blessings associated with obeying a principle of the Gospel. Like a river being damned and having no more flow.

this was meant to be a joke, right?

[KevinG]

this was meant to be a joke, right?

Only my spelling.

Edited August 12, 2012 by KevinG

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

This is exactly why evangelicals do not accept that Mormons who believe as you do about this issue are truly justified followers of Christ. Your view, coming from JS or your Church or wherever it specifically comes from about the nature of faith and justification is read back into the text of the NT-you will not find it there.

Saving faith, living faith, is not a work. Saving faith is a waiting on God for justification without doing any type of work. Notice the contrast Paul makes in Romans 4

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS COUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS God,” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES IN HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY HIS FAITH IS COUNTED A RIGHTEOUSNESS, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Connect the the statements I highlighted. Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness. What was the nature of this belief? It was a belief that cannot be classed as a work and it was a belief that looked to God to justify him even though he was ungodly.

So then what you are really telling us is that Paul was mistaken when he describes Abraham's "faith" at this point in his life in terms of not a mere "belief", but a belief accompanied by a work?

Romans 4

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Sarah laughed at God when he said she would become pregnant. Abraham on the other hand, had a living faith (belief + work) and went into the tent with all the strength of a a viral Bull and impregnated his barren wife. Abraham believed Gods promise and followed through with his end of the deal. Abraham's faith would have been dead if he had not the "work" to back it up.

Now I've noticed that when faith apart from works is brought up in this forum people are quick to say 'yes but those works are the works of the Mosaic Law not the commandments we follow as LDS'. This won't work, firstly in the run up to Romans 3:19-4:8 Paul has not been talking about the ceremonial law of scraficies he has been talking about the moral commands of God. And secondly here in Romans 4 we are talking about Abraham as the premier example of being justified by faith apart from works. The Mosaic Law wasn't given at the time of Abraham. The works that are contrasted with waiting faith isn't the works of the Mosaic Law, it is any work whereby men think they actually do their own righteousness.

Yes the Mosaic law was added as a schoolmaster four hundred years after the fact. (Gal 3) But now you bring up something interesting, "Moral commands" I thought commandment keeping had nothing to do with it?

Second, you seem to miss that we just established that Abraham's "faith" (or belief) was indeed accompanied by a work (4:19-21) otherwise it was dead, and really "unbelief".

This is where LDS miss the gospel. The good news is that God justifies the ungodly who have no good works to their name.

<snip>

Just as Abraham was counted or reckoned righteous apart from any works so too are those who's faith like Abrahams' trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly.

How does this work? Well notice what righteousness Paul is talking about in Romans;

And again your forget that Abraham impregnated his wife, not God. What is that but a WORK?

Anyone; Mormons, Roman Catholics or Evangelicals who have not yet recognized their own sinfulness before God (Romans 1:18-3:18) and looked to God for justification by faith apart from any effort on their part has not yet grasped and understood the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified to bring people to God.

Luckily, you won't find any Mormons around this board who fall into that category.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Zakuska

[Carborendum]

Damned means ...like a river being damned and having no more flow.

I always chafe when I hear this analogy. People state that some general authority said it. I have yet to hear who. One missionary told me she had read it in "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" that morning. But when I pressed, she was unable to find it.

Kevin,

You do realize that the two words have completely different roots, etymologies, and meanings, right?

"Damned" was simply a synonym for "Cursed". In a gospel sense, it simply means that you will not be given a great reward. Apart from the descriptions of hell and three degrees of glory we find in scriptures, we don't really know much. The bottom line is that salvation means we will be given a state of endless happiness. Being damned means we will be given a state of endless misery.

[Flyonthewall]

I always chafe when I hear this analogy. People state that some general authority said it. I have yet to hear who. One missionary told me she had read it in "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" that morning. But when I pressed, she was unable to find it.

Kevin,

You do realize that the two words have completely different roots, etymologies, and meanings, right?

"Damned" was simply a synonym for "Cursed". In a gospel sense, it simply means that you will not be given a great reward. Apart from the descriptions of hell and three degrees of glory we find in scriptures, we don't really know much. The bottom line is that salvation means we will be given a state of endless happiness. Being damned means we will be given a state of endless misery.

How about this:

"Satan does not have a body, and his eternal progress has been halted. Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body. Because of his rebellion, Lucifer has denied himself all of the mortal blessings and experiences made possible through a tabernacle of flesh and bones. He cannot learn the lessons that only an embodied spirit can learn. He cannot marry or enjoy the blessings of procreation and family life. He cannot abide the reality of a literal and universal resurrection of all mankind. One of the potent scriptural meanings of the word damned is illustrated in his inability to continue developing and becoming like our Heavenly Father."

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/06/things-as-they-really-are?lang=eng&query=damned

Now this is not the first time this has analogy has been used, because I have heard it decades ago.

Here is another instance:

"It is clear in the Lord’s announcement that righteous men and women will receive the due rewards of their deeds. They will not be damned in the commonly accepted terminology but will suffer many limitations and deprivations and fail to reach the highest kingdom, if they do not comply. They become ministering servants to those who complied with all laws and lived all commandments."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/08/first-presidency-message-temples-and-eternal-marriage?lang=eng&query=damned

[Flyonthewall]

Saving faith, living faith, is not a work. Saving faith is a waiting on God for justification without doing any type of work. Notice the contrast Paul makes in Romans 4

Connect the the statements I highlighted. Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness. What was the nature of this belief? It was a belief that cannot be classed as a work and it was a belief that looked to God to justify him even though he was ungodly.

Now I've noticed that when faith apart from works is brought up in this forum people are quick to say 'yes but those works are the works of the Mosaic Law not the commandments we follow as LDS'. This won't work, firstly in the run up to Romans 3:19-4:8 Paul has not been talking about the ceremonial law of scraficies he has been talking about the moral commands of God. And secondly here in Romans 4 we are talking about Abraham as the premier example of being justified by faith apart from works. The Mosaic Law wasn't given at the time of Abraham. The works that are contrasted with waiting faith isn't the works of the Mosaic Law, it is any work whereby men think they actually do their own righteousness.

This is where LDS miss the gospel. The good news is that God justifies the ungodly who have no good works to their name. Just as Abraham was counted or reckoned righteous apart from any works so too are those who's faith like Abrahams' trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly.

How does this work? Well notice what righteousness Paul is talking about in Romans;

1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

3:21-22

But now the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

The righteousness that is reckoned to Abraham was the righteousness of God-Christ's righteousness. That is why the ungodly can be declared righteous; they are clothed in Christ's righteousness. Just as a mans sin was laid on Jesus when he suffered the punishment of sin on the cross, Jesus righteousness is counted to the believer who trusts in God to justify the ungodly.

Having then "been justified by faith, we now have peace with God" (Romans 5:1) and by the Holy Spirits power believers then go on to do good works showing that their faith is a living faith. These good works cannot add to or enhance the declaration of 'righteous' because the righteousness the believer is clothed in is the perfect righteousness of Christ-it can't be enhanced.

Anyone; Mormons, Roman Catholics or Evangelicals who have not yet recognised their own sinfulness before God (Romans 1:18-3:18) and looked to God for justification by faith apart from any effort on their part has not yet grasped and understood the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified to bring people to God.

This is where you are wrong. The entirety of the first 4 chapters of Romans is dealing with Jews and Gentiles and why the Jews should not think the Law of Moses, which has separated the Jews from the Gentiles up to that time, is what saves them. He is most definately speaking of the works/rituals of the Law of Moses.

He used Abraham as an example for the very reason that Abraham was not subject to the Law of Moses as an illustration that it is NOT the Law of Moses that saves, but faith...a living faith.

Chapter 5 is where Paul starts talking about the atonement of Christ.

Chapter 6 he talks about Baptism

Chapter 7 he talks about how the law has been fulfilled

Chapter 8 he states that Jesus brought the Law of the Spirit of Life.

His whole sermon to the Romans was about how the Law of Moses was temporal, which does not save. The Law of the Spirit of Life of Jesus Christ is what saves and it is Spiritual.

Look at Romans 7

6 But now we are ^adelivered from the law, that being ^bdead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of ^cspirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Galatians 3 states that the Law of Moses was a schoolmaster. Well what exactly did the Law of Moses teach? It taught obedience by adhering to the letter of the law.

Obedience is critical for when the Law of the Spirit was come because there would no longer be a threat of physical death, but of spiritual death.

The letter of the law was to condition, to train. The spirit of the law is game time, so to speak, where we implement our training and conditioning.

[KevinG]

I didn't mean the words were the same. Bad spelling on my part.

We do lose the blessings contingent upon the laws we are asked to obey.

So the analogy still stands- just not the spelling of dammed.

But I appreciate the lesson. Awkward and confusing analogy noted.

[Carborendum]

Fly,

The quote from Bendar was close. But there was a lack of specificity that I was looking for. If you can back it up with another two quotes that said similar things (or one that is more specific) I can go for it.

The second quote didn't even come close. It even came close to contradicting such a point.

"They will not be damned in the commonly accepted terminology but will suffer many limitations". This essentially says "They aren't really damned. They're limited."

Edited August 12, 2012 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

Faith v. works:

The story of the loaves and fishes:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206&version=KJV

After the miracle, people decided they wanted to make (force) Jesus to be their king so he could fill their tummies. They were looking for a life of leisure. His miracles could provide it for them. This is essentially the evangelical argument against works toward salvation. Jesus can do it. Why should we bother with works. He's that powerful.

Yes, He can. Yes, He's that powerful.

LDS belief: We are not saved by grace alone. We are saved by grace after all we can do.

But if I were to simply ask "Are we saved by grace?" (no additional words or qualifiers allowed) what would the answer be? If you are truly a Christian, you'd have to say YES. And the simple fact is that LDS would also have to say YES. What we tend to argue about with our evengelical brethren is the focus. The fact is that I believe many put too much focus on works.

The issue I have is that we must remember that it really is just Christ doing the saving. All the rest is simply for our growth and development. If we depend on Christ, we will be saved. If we depend upon our own works, we will not. Here are a series of Q & A (at least my A) to consider .

Is baptism required for salvation? Yes, because it is a commandment.

Do we need baptism for salvation? No, we don't. We need only Christ's atonement to work on us.

Does work = faith? No.

Do you have a credible claim to faith without any works? No.

Does Christ have a checklist of stuff for us to accomplish in order to attain the Celestial Kingdom? I do not believe so. I have never envisioned the white throne judgment where He sits there with a clipboard and a file on each individual.

Will Christ look into our hearts and souls to see if we have grown and developed to a point that He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory? Yes.

It is these subtleties that are difficult to verbalize because it is such a slight difference. But it is this slight difference that makes evangelicals believe we are not Christians (as far as the works and grace thing is concerned). And because of the hate factor, they go even further to make it a HUGE difference.

[Flyonthewall]

Fly,

The quote from Bendar was close. But there was a lack of specificity that I was looking for. If you can back it up with another two quotes that said similar things (or one that is more specific) I can go for it.

The second quote didn't even come close. It even came close to contradicting such a point.

"They will not be damned in the commonly accepted terminology but will suffer many limitations". This essentially says "They aren't really damned. They're limited."

If you think about it, what happens when a river is dammed? It's flow is restricted, limited or even stopped. Similarly, when we are damned, our eternal progression is limited, restricted or stopped.

So whe Pres. Kimball states we won't be damned in the commonly accepted terminology, as in torment in a lake of fire and brimstone, that is true.

[Carborendum]

Fly,

Context. Context. He was talking about those who receive lesser degrees of glory (are not damned as those in outer darkness). He was contrasting, not comparing.

Here is where the Bednar comment was not quite as specific as what I was looking for. "...one of the potential scriptural meanings..." I hear this as saying that you can look at it that way. But there is a difference between "looking at it that way" to gain an understanding (an illustration) vs. giving a proper definition. It is ironic to me that such a subtlety is to be found in a speech entitled "Things as They Really Are".

Now, I've already said it is very close. So I don't want to spend time arguing such a point. I'd just like to hear it from a couple more authoritative sources before I give in on this point.

[Flyonthewall]

Then perhaps the Bible dictionary is what you are looking for?

"The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and his glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/damnation?lang=eng

It may not be a quote from a GA but it does give a definition.

[Carborendum]

OK. That'll do.

[djholmess]

Flyonthewall,

In repsonse to my question on Romans 3:9-18 and who can be justified you said;

Those that have been born again of the Spirit as outlined in John 3 and have become spiritual, and keep themselves unspotted from the world.

How is someone 'born again of the Spirit?'

Romans 4:5 says, "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

With regard to this you said this was not real meaning of the verse I then asked you:

If this is a translational issue can you then point me to even 1 Greek NT manuscript where the Greek word 'not' is found in Romans 4:5? Any English translation you would care to mention, the KJV or the ESV or whatever are all translations based on the (now 5500+) Greek manuscripts we have today. If this was lost in translation then you must be able to find it in the untranslated Greek manuscripts right?

You replied:

The translation process is not simply doing a word for word translation, but to actually convey the message accurately. To think that God would justify the ungodly, the natrual man, who is an enemy of God is simply in direct contradiction with the Gospel of Christ.

Can you show me any evidence from the Greek manuscripts that my above quote of Romans 4:5 does not accuratly convey the message? Or can you show me anyting within the context of Romans chapters 3-4 that in anyway contradicts the rendering of Romans 4:5 to mean 'God justifies the ungodly who have faith in him?

Just for the record I have never said God justifies the natural man, that's certainly not true, but I'm sure we mean very different things when we each use the tearm 'natural man'

[djholmess]

So then what you are really telling us is that Paul was mistaken when he describes Abraham's "faith" at this point in his life in terms of not a mere "belief", but a belief accompanied by a work?

Romans 4

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Sarah laughed at God when he said she would become pregnant. Abraham on the other hand, had a living faith (belief + work) and went into the tent with all the strength of a a viral Bull and impregnated his barren wife. Abraham believed Gods promise and followed through with his end of the deal. Abraham's faith would have been dead if he had not the "work" to back it up.

What exactly in the Romans 4:19-21 makes you think Paul was talking about Abraham actually impregnating his wife?

It seems clear to me that Paul is saying Abraham's faith was such that he was fully persuaded that what God had promised to do (give him a son) God was able to do. What makes this faith so great is that Abraham was old and near dead and that Sarah's womb was barren. That is why Paul says in verse 22 (immediately following on from verse 21), "That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”

Paul doesn't say, 'that is why his faith and action of impregnating Sarah was counted to his as righteousness' Where do you get this idea from - I don't see it anywhere in Romans 4.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

In repsonse to my question on Romans 3:9-18 and who can be justified you said;

How is someone 'born again of the Spirit?'

I could respond as Jesus did to Nicodemus... but I will show you what both John and Peter stated:

11 ^aI indeed ^bbaptize you with water unto ^crepentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not ^dworthy to bear: he shall ^ebaptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with ^ffire:

Then Peter ^asaid unto them, ^bRepent, and be ^cbaptized every one of you in the ^dname of Jesus Christ for the ^eremission of sins, and ye shall receive the ^fgift of the ^gHoly Ghost.

Romans 4:5 says, "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

With regard to this you said this was not real meaning of the verse I then asked you:

If this is a translational issue can you then point me to even 1 Greek NT manuscript where the Greek word 'not' is found in Romans 4:5? Any English translation you would care to mention, the KJV or the ESV or whatever are all translations based on the (now 5500+) Greek manuscripts we have today. If this was lost in translation then you must be able to find it in the untranslated Greek manuscripts right?

You replied:

Can you show me any evidence from the Greek manuscripts that my above quote of Romans 4:5 does not accuratly convey the message? Or can you show me anyting within the context of Romans chapters 3-4 that in anyway contradicts the rendering of Romans 4:5 to mean 'God justifies the ungodly who have faith in him?

Just for the record I have never said God justifies the natural man, that's certainly not true, but I'm sure we mean very different things when we each use the tearm 'natural man'

I am not a student of Greek so I cannot show you any Greek text of any kind. What I have done is show you that in the context of the Bible, God does NOT justify the ungodly but the ungodly will receive the wrath of God.

The ungodly who repent, get baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost are no longer ungodly...it is they who are justified.

[djholmess]

Does Christ have a checklist of stuff for us to accomplish in order to attain the Celestial Kingdom? I do not believe so. I have never envisioned the white throne judgment where He sits there with a clipboard and a file on each individual.

Will Christ look into our hearts and souls to see if we have grown and developed to a point that He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory? Yes.

It is these subtleties that are difficult to verbalize because it is such a slight difference. But it is this slight difference that makes evangelicals believe we are not Christians (as far as the works and grace thing is concerned). And because of the hate factor, they go even further to make it a HUGE difference.

I appreciate your post. I don't speak for all evangelicals (only myself) but I do not act out of hate towards LDS and my issues with the LDS view of salvation are certainly not out of any hatred but out of a love for Gods truth and a desire to see it accuratly portayed. What makes you think evangelicals have a hate factor towards you?

I know you think that the differences are 'slight' but from our perpective they are HUGH. Just above you said 'He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory.' When LDS talk like this they sound like they are saying that Gods judgement is based on the actions & merits of the individual. Evangelicals believe that God has alerady judged believers righteous solely on the rightesouness of Christ reckoned to the believer through faith; their actions and merits have nothing to do with it.

There is a massive difference between these two positions or any position where mans own actions - even actions arising out of faith, affect the outcome of Gods judgement. I believe the NT presents Christ as a prefect saviour who saves his people totally. Nothing but the forgivness of sins and imputed righteousness that is in Christ is nessecary for being judged worthy of spending eternity with God in his presence.

When LDS speak of their growth or prepardness or anything that comes from themselves as being the object of God's approval then what you are saying to an evangelical is that Christ's rightesouness is not sufficient alone to allow somone into Gods Kingdom.

[djholmess]

I could respond as Jesus did to Nicodemus... but I will show you what both John and Peter stated:

11 ^aI indeed ^bbaptize you with water unto ^crepentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not ^dworthy to bear: he shall ^ebaptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with ^ffire:

Then Peter ^asaid unto them, ^bRepent, and be ^cbaptized every one of you in the ^dname of Jesus Christ for the ^eremission of sins, and ye shall receive the ^fgift of the ^gHoly Ghost.

This verse isn't talking about being born again, its talking about being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, there is a difference.

But lets imagine they are the same thing for a moment. You didn't answer my question. Paul says in Romans 3

None is righteous, no, not one;

¹¹ no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

Presumably repenting and being baptized are things someone must understand and are good things right? Yet Paul says no one understands and no one seeks for God and no one does good - not even one. So how does anyone repent and be baptized?

I am not a student of Greek so I cannot show you any Greek text of any kind. What I have done is show you that in the context of the Bible, God does NOT justify the ungodly but the ungodly will receive the wrath of God.

The ungodly who repent, get baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost are no longer ungodly...it is they who are justified.

I agree with your first sentence, God does not justify the ungodly, that is the message of the parts of the Bible you quoted earlier. However this is not what Paul is saying. Paul is saying God justifies the ungodly who trust in God to justify them. There is a vast difference between ungodly men and ungodly men who have recognised their ungodliness and look to God for salvation rather than anything they could do themselves to become godly.

But again assuming you are right, what level of godliness is required to be justified, I am unsure what the LDS teaching on this is?

Edited August 13, 2012 by djholmess

[KevinG]

When LDS speak of their growth or prepardness or anything that comes from themselves as being the object of God's approval then what you are saying to an evangelical is that Christ's rightesouness is not sufficient alone to allow somone into Gods Kingdom.

Especially those evangelicals who ignore what the LDS actually teach and continue to spread lies about their faith in Christ despite being taught better.

[thesometimesaint]

djholmess:

We are to eliminate all ungodliness, with Gods' help, from ourselves. To be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. To do less is to deny the Christ.

Edited August 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint