What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[altersteve]

Today you will be with me in Paradise. The thief was in the presence of God.

If the Thief was in fellowship with Jesus, as clearly he was, "you will be with me", indicates fellowship, then his sins were forgiven.

1 Jn. 1:3 and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

⁴ And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

⁵ This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

⁶ If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

So, just as all his sins are forgiven, so too are all of ours, if we are believers.

We believe he was with Jesus in paradise because He was there preaching the gospel to those in spirit prison. He preached also to the thief, who accepted Jesus' message of salvation and all the saving ordinances.

It comes after, it doesn't save us. It's apart of our growth or sanctification process.

I agree, works do not save us. But works are still necessary if we want to be saved. Yes, there's a difference, and no, it's not trivial.

[Zakuska]

Please tell me where exactly in the NT this list is found: "Believing that Christ has declared that one must 1-have faith in Him, 2-repent of their sins, 3-be baptized, 4-receive the Holy Ghost, and 5-keep having faith and keep repenting for one's entire life in order to be saved..."

Your claim is that this list is from the NT.

It is from the NT... The author of Hebrews patronizes his audiance with these words...

Heb 5

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 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.

Then... he lists the list... as the 1st Prinicples of the Gospel (ie Doctrines of Christ)... reminding his audience of the "milk" of the Gospel. Evangelicals fall into the group Paul is speaking to who need to be reminded and lead back to their Mamas to suckle...

Heb 6

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3 And this will we do, if God permit.

Did you notice what the foundation of a believer is:

verse 1 - FAITH nd REPENTANCE?

Verse 2 - BAPTISMS (Plural) as well as the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy Ghost. The rebirth.

There is only two churchs on the face of the Planet that teaches these 4 priniciples...

The Church in the NT, and the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Articles of Faith

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Remember, Paul taught "Obedience to the Gospel" was necessary for Salvation.

Romans 10:16

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Infact, If one reads Romans without their Evangelical blinders on one will notice that the Context of each Chapter of Pauls discourse follow this same list.

Chapter 1-2 speaks of this sins of Man

Chapter 3-4 speaks of Repentance for the rest of ones life. (See Psalm 32 which Paul quotes)

Chapter 5-6 speaks of Baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost

eg.

Romans 6:3

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

The rest of Romans is dedicated to how a beleiver in Christ should live their lives.

And has set only one requirement to access his saving grace. Belief.

Nice to know that Demons are saved... and have received Gods grace.

James 2:19

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Zakuska

[Anakin7]

As Craig Blomberg so said in How Wide The Divide - Salvation is absolutley Free but it will cost us our very lives.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin 7

[danielwoods]

We believe he was with Jesus in paradise because He was there preaching the gospel to those in spirit prison. He preached also to the thief, who accepted Jesus' message of salvation and all the saving ordinances.

I agree, works do not save us. But works are still necessary if we want to be saved. Yes, there's a difference, and no, it's not trivial.

So now you agree with me that the Thief was saved? (there's nothing in the passage to indicate that the Thief needed to be preached to, nor anything that indicates he accepted the "saving ordinances" as defined by the LDS.

"Works" don't save us, but are necessary if we want to be saved? Unfortunately this isn't what the NT says rather, "Works" are an evidence or a fruit of the salvation that we are given freely. They aren't a necessity of any kind, as if God needs them to determine whose a believer and who isn't.

I agree it's not trivial, that's why the divide between the LDS and others is so large.

A while ago, you wrote:

Please stop implying that we believe we can earn our own salvation, or receive it based on our efforts. We do not, as this statement on the official LDS Newsroom clearly explains.

Your link states:

We do not believe that we can either overcome the flesh or gain eternal reward through our own unaided efforts. We must work to our limit and then rely upon the merits, mercy and grace of the Holy One of Israel to see us through the struggles of life and into life eternal (2 Nephi 31:19; Moroni 6:4). We believe that while human works are necessary— including exercising faith in Christ, repenting of our sins, receiving the sacraments or ordinances of salvation and rendering Christian service to our neighbors — they are not sufficient for salvation (2 Nephi 25:23; Moroni 10:32). We believe that our discipleship ought to be evident in the way we live our lives.

Right. So unless I'm reading it wrong. It states plainly that LDS believe they are saved through their aided efforts. Aided by Christ. Works plus the grace of Christ. Is this correct?

As it states, "We must work to our limit and then rely on Christ."

Edited August 16, 2012 by danielwoods

[altersteve]

So now you agree with me that the Thief was saved?

It would seem that the thief was saved. I wasn't disagreeing with that. I was disagreeing that the passage itself explicitly says he was.

(there's nothing in the passage to indicate that the Thief needed to be preached to, nor anything that indicates he accepted the "saving ordinances" as defined by the LDS.

Which is exactly why we need further revelation to clarify this.

"Works" don't save us, but are necessary if we want to be saved? Unfortunately this isn't what the NT says rather, "Works" are an evidence or a fruit of the salvation that we are given freely. They aren't a necessity of any kind, as if God needs them to determine whose a believer and who isn't.

I agree it's not trivial, that's why the divide between the LDS and others is so large.

They are necessary. It's like having a broken arm. A cast on a broken arm is necessary for that arm to be healed, but the cast itself doesn't heal the arm. Make sense? Same with this.

Right. So unless I'm reading it wrong. It states plainly that LDS believe they are saved through their aided efforts. Aided by Christ. Works plus the grace of Christ. Is this correct?

As it states, "We must work to our limit and then rely on Christ."

We believe we are saved by the grace of Christ, after all we can do. We believe that Christ's grace is conditional upon how we choose to serve Him and whether or not we try to keep His commandments in faith and sincerity. This does NOT mean, however, that works by themselves save us. They don't. Christ's grace saves us, period. But His grace has no effect on us if we don't choose to be His disciple, and that involves action.

Edited August 16, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

CFR, Yes I'd like a specific reference supporting your statement claiming that Jesus went to Heaven without the thief on the cross.

Do you really want to do this?

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Yes, it means EXACTLY what is says.

1) Notice the timing as being that very day,

2) Notice the location is "paradise", not heaven.

Three days later Jesus said this,

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

1) Notice that Jesus had "not yet ascended to (His) Father.

2) Notice that it is Jesus ONLY that is going to ascend, no thief involved.

And where is His Father? Do I really need to post some of the NUMEROUS verses that show that the Father is in heaven?

And, as far as your CFR is concerned,

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

No thief there.

So, No, the thief did NOT get to heaven. Sorry, but your whole theological premise is based upon a falsehood.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

First, please support your claim that the Thief didn't go to Paradise, and then to Heaven?

Been there, done that.

Second, it appears that the LDS idea of salvation is different than the one derived from the NT alone.

Only to the blind. The NT is permeated with the LDS idea of salvation.

[Storm Rider]

Daniel, I think that Vance's response above in #881 was rather complete. Two things:

1) Can you understand by scripture why LDS would believe what has been stated by Vance?

2) How do you interpret these scriptures to mean something else?

You may want to let go of the snarky comments from this point forward. What is evident, as in crystal clear, is that your interpretation of scripture is no better than anyone else's interpretation. It may be time for just a little bit of respect for LDS as a people and as Christians.

[Zakuska]

Do you really want to do this?

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Yes, it means EXACTLY what is says.

1) Notice the timing as being that very day,

2) Notice the location is "paradise", not heaven.

Three days later Jesus said this,

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

1) Notice that Jesus had "not yet ascended to (His) Father.

2) Notice that it is Jesus ONLY that is going to ascend, no thief involved.

And where is His Father? Do I really need to post some of the NUMEROUS verses that show that the Father is in heaven?

And, as far as your CFR is concerned,

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

No thief there.

So, No, the thief did NOT get to heaven. Sorry, but your whole theological premise is based upon a falsehood.

Excellent post.

But lets not forget these...

Where is "Paradise", where Jesus spent the 3 days teaching the spirits in prison with the theif?

Eph 4

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

He first descended into hell, then he ascended on high. The theif is still down their wating the ressurection.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Zakuska

[Vance]

Excellent post.

But lets not forget these...

Where is "Paradise", where Jesus spent the 3 days teaching the spirits in prison with the theif?

Eph 4

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

He first descended into hell, then he ascended on high. The theif is still down their wating the ressurection.

Peter agrees,

Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

[djholmess]

Because you keep saying all you need to do to be born again is believe.

So saying Jesus is the Christ means you are born again? You sure you want to stick with that?

"4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.

5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.

6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not."

As you can plainly see, this unclean spirit worshipped Christ, and stated He is the Son of the most high God...Must be born again.

Beleif is just a part, 1John5 verses 2 and 3 have something interesting to say....KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.

I think this is the third time I have said this so let me try and be very very clear. Being born again is not a result of faith (as you seem to think I am saying). Being born again precedes faith. This is what 1 John 5:1 is saying. Let me translate it in a way that makes the tenses of the two words clear. Everyone who currently believes that Jesus is the Christ has in the past been born of God. As I said ‘believes’ is in the present tense, ‘born’ is in the perfect tense. If you don’t understand the difference it is easy to google.

What I mean by a "witness of the Spirit" is that the Holy Spirit testifies to you of the truth of something. This is different than being born again. I did say that a witness of the Spirit can accompany being born again but it is not the only time the Spirit bears witness.

I have asked you a couple of times now what you actually think being born again is – what happens to the person. As yet you haven’t answered so let me.

Jesus said to Nicodemus:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. ⁶ That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit..... Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” ¹⁰ Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?

As a teacher of Israel Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what he was talking about – why do you think this is? Maybe because what Jesus was talking about was promised?

Ezekiel 36

²⁵I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. ²⁶ And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules

Notice how water and Spirit bookend the description of the radical change God promised he would do in the future? Also notice the nature of the change; new heart, old heart removed, new spirit, Spirit of God put within the person, radical isn’t it, almost sounds like being born again right? If there is another place where water and Spirit are so clearly linked in the OT in the context of such a change I certainly don’t know of it.

This is what Jesus was talking about and it is necessary for someone to be born again. Paul makes it clear why in 1 Corinthians 2:12

¹² Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. ¹³ And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.^[d]

¹⁴ The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural person is not able to understand the spiritual truths taught by Paul. In order to understand and respond to the gospel in faith the natural person must first be born again; given a new heart and new spirit so that they can then understand and believe.

Justification happens when we are baptized for the remission of sin. That is when we are pardoned from all our sin we have committed up until that time. We are still responsible for our behavior and in keeping the commandments.

Where exactly justification through baptism in the NT?

Are you saying from your second sentence that someone can lose their justification if they fail to keep the commandments?

Paul would seem to disagree in Romans 8;

²⁹For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰ And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

All who are called are justified – no drops outs. All those who are justified are also glorified – no drop outs. With your LDS understanding of justification I don’t know how you can deal with such verses.

You are the one saying that faith before any actions, causes someone to be born again. This is not so because the faith you claim gets one born again is dead.

I hope you understand that I am saying the opposite of your first sentence above.

Regarding ‘dead faith’ you are mixing contexts between Paul in Romans and James in his letter as if they are the same author addressing the same subject. But even allowing you this just suppose for a second that the evangelical understanding that being justified is a onetime event that lasts forever.

What is wrong with God justifying someone immediately upon the moment they put their real living faith in Jesus? This living faith is a faith that is going to go on and do good works but has not had the chance to yet. Doesn’t God know if someone’s faith is genuine? Can’t he justify someone based on his knowledge that their faith is a faith that will produce good works? Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that he can’t when you have given no reason why he can’t.

Ofcourse this isn’t the only difference. As I have explained Christ’s perfect righteousness is counted to the believer the moment they put their faith in Jesus. The justification of the ungodly is not with respect to any good work the ungodly have done it is on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the true believer. The faith of this true believer then goes on to produce good works BUT these good works are not done in order to be justified – that has already happened.

Let me ask you: Can you murder someone, or commit adultery, as David did, and still be justified?

Yes of course they can. Don’t you believe adultery can be forgiven in Christ? Maybe you meant ‘can a justified person still commit adultery’

Once again I would say yes ofcourse they can. As John said ‘if anyone say he is without sin the truth is not in him’. However if someone was to commit adultery and be unrepentant then that would be a sign that his faith was never real living faith in the first place as living faith produces good works such as repentance.

Notice also what Nathan says to David when David acknowledges his sin (he hasn’t repented yet)

2 Samuel 12:13

David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,^[b] the child who is born to you shall die.”

David did have to live with the earthly consequences of his sin but God had already put away his sin.

Can you see the sharp distinction between us?

You are saying faithful works are part of the reason why someone is justified.

I am saying faithful works evidence the fact someone has already been justified because the righteousness of Christ was imputed to them.

Your ‘justification’ is based partly on your own works

The Biblical presentation of justification is based solely on someone else’s righteousness being imputed to the believer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, No, the thief did NOT get to heaven. Sorry, but your whole theological premise is based upon a falsehood.

Well that sums that up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First, please support your claim that the Thief didn't go to Paradise, and then to Heaven?

See vance's post. It deals with it accurately.

Second, it appears that the LDS idea of salvation is different than the one derived from the NT alone.

Oh youmean that we have to do things per Matthew 25.

Why were the goats damned and the sheep saved? Please quote the relevant portions. It is very specific.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Vance]

I think this is the third time I have said this so let me try and be very very clear.

And for the third time, your argument is very weak. Check out the other translations I posted earlier.

[bluebell]

Please tell me where exactly in the NT this list is found: "Believing that Christ has declared that one must 1-have faith in Him, 2-repent of their sins, 3-be baptized, 4-receive the Holy Ghost, and 5-keep having faith and keep repenting for one's entire life in order to be saved..."

Your claim is that this list is from the NT.

The list i was speaking of was the list concerning the need for baptism.

"Today you will be with me in Paradise." Means what it says. The thief was saved at that very moment.

Well, it doesn't say the thief was saved at that very moment, so if it says what it means, then it doesn't mean that.

What Jesus did or didn't do following that day doesn't change the spiritual state of the thief who was forgiven all his sins. The scripture is clear.

Of course it does. Jesus said the thief would be with Him, so understanding where He was absolutely impacts the interpretation of that verse.

Using the BoM to make your point only supports my point that we disagree not based on the NT alone, but because of extra-biblical influences.

I used the Book of Mormon to show that we believe the same thing about salvation being free and it only coming through Jesus Christ. Can you point out anything in the verses i quoted that you disagree with?

And has set only one requirement to access his saving grace. Belief. Yielding our life to his.

Um, that's two things. 1-Belief. 2-Yielding our lives to His.

As for belief being able to save us-

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

If the NT has set only one requirement to access His saving grace, 'belief' is definitely not it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes of course they can. Don’t you believe adultery can be forgiven in Christ? Maybe you meant ‘can a justified person still commit adultery’

Once again I would say yes ofcourse they can.

This is starting to sound like Eternal Security. I reject it. No, a person cannot be justified (Past tense) will committing adultery.

One must repent of his sins to become justified again.

[Vance]

Notice also what Nathan says to David when David acknowledges his sin (he hasn’t repented yet)

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

David did have to live with the earthly consequences of his sin but God had already put away his sin.

God did put away David's sin ONLY in that he would spare David's life for the time being. David had murdered Uriah and was worthy of the Death penalty. But the Lord would not require him to die for his murder. But David is still in hell.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: . . .

1 Jn 3:15 . . . and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

Oh, please. Abraham's faith was not in Romans 4:5. Abraham's faith was demonstrated by his works of righteousness that preceded his being counted righteous. What you are failing to grasp is that the "works" to which Paul is referring as NOT needed (or not being done by Abraham) is the works of the law of Moses, which Abraham, most assuredly did NOT do. (see Rom 3:20,21,28, Acts 13:39)

Vance, your dismissal of Romans 4:1-11 is aptly summarised by your statement above. Yet this is entirely based on the false assumptions that the works Paul talks about in Romans 4:5 are 'works of the law of Moses' and that the faithful works of Abraham were different than what was stipulated in the Law of Moses'

Your first assumption is false because as everybody knows the Law of Moses was given hundreds of years after Abraham died. Nobody thinks or has said that Abraham was justified by obeying the commandments of Moses – to say this is what Paul was combating is absurd.

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.” 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 as righteousness,

Pauls entire argument is based on the contrast between being justified ‘by works’ and being justified ‘by belief.’ If all Paul meant by ‘by works’ was ‘by the Law of Moses which Abraham knew nothing about’ then Paul’s argument falls flat on his face.

It would be like me saying ‘because Noah wasn’t saved from the flood by a Nuclear Submarine it means he must have been saved by a Ark.’ Such reasoning is absurd and for you to have to interpret Paul to be saying something like this shows the weakness of your interpretation.

As is clear from the context Paul is contrasting being justified by faith with being justified on the basis of any other works a person can perform; not just works in obedience to the Law of Moses but also works done without the Law of Moses such as in the example of Abraham who did not have this law.

Secondly, the dichotomy you make between Abrahams works and the Law of Moses is a false assumption. Firstly many of the things you have already listed as good works Abraham did that showed his faith are things also commanded in the Law of Moses. E.g Tithing; Leviticus 27:30-32

Secondly as Paul teaches that although Gentiles were not given the Law of Moses they have always had the work of the law written on their hearts, Romans 2:

⁴ For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts,

So even though Abraham was not around when the Law of Moses was given the work of this law – the basic moral knowledge of human conscience was written on his heart. For your dichotomy to be true you would have to insist that Abraham ignored his conscience breaking the work of the law on his heart and only obeyed the specific commands God gave him to be justified.

Thirdly Paul clearly demonstrates that the Law of Moses was a law of faith. The commandments given through Moses were to be obeyed by faith, just like Abraham was to obey by faith and just like Christians are to obey by faith – there is no difference in this regard.

³⁰ What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹ but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness^[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. ³² Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

You see the mistake the Jews they thought the law of Moses was to be perused if was based on works. This is the exact assumption you are making when you seek to say Abraham’s works were a different kind of works to those of the Law of Moses – the Law of Moses was meant to be perused by faith too. Incidentally notice also which gentiles attain righteousness – not those who pursue it bit those who have a righteousness that is by faith.

Fourthly, the promise of the New Covenant does not do away with the Law of Moses in order to return to something more akin to the faith of Abraham, the New Covenant promise was specifically a promise to write the law upon the hearts of Gods people:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, ³² not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. ³³ For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Therefore when you try to make a distinction between the works Paul is saying do not justify being the works of the Law of Moses and the works of Abraham you say did justify him your assumption that the Law of Moses and the works of Abraham are two totally different things is false. You cannot get around Romans 4 like this.

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.” 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 as righteousness

If Abraham was justified by works then his justification would not be counted as a gift but as his due. What works could Abraham possibly have done? Well, clearly not the works in obedience to the Law of Moses as it had not been given yet. Possibly it could have been works in relation to obedience to his conscience or as you have said his works were his ‘leaving his home,’ ‘tithing’ or ‘offering Isaac.’

Either way it does not matter because Paul expressly says Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness and explains this belief as something that does not work but believes in God to justify the ungodly.

Any other LDS who are reading this, if you wonder why evangelicals accuse you of believing in being saved because of your own works this is the reason. The Biblical gospel is that a person is justified by faith apart from works – any works. So when LDS say any kind of works, even ‘faithful works,’ are necessary for justification or part of the reason why someone is justified then we believe you are trusting in a false gospel and are not justified and so do not have peace with God. From a evangelical perspective the LDS church is a ‘mission field’ in need of the true gospel as much as Muslims or Buddhist or any other religion. I can’t speak for anyone else but when I stand up for Biblical truth and say LDS are not Christians it is not out of hate or a desire to exclude you it is out of a desire to see you know and believe in the real gospel.

Vance, we have been going round and round on this so I don’t see that there is any more fruit to come from discussing this specific topic. If God hasn’t given you ears to hear and eyes to see the truth of Romans 4 then our going back and forth won’t get anymore productive.

[altersteve]

I think this is the third time I have said this so let me try and be very very clear. Being born again is not a result of faith (as you seem to think I am saying). Being born again precedes faith. This is what 1 John 5:1 is saying. Let me translate it in a way that makes the tenses of the two words clear. Everyone who currently believes that Jesus is the Christ has in the past been born of God. As I said ‘believes’ is in the present tense, ‘born’ is in the perfect tense. If you don’t understand the difference it is easy to google.

As has been pointed out before in this thread, only some modern translations (such as the New Living Translation, the English Standard Version, the International Standard Version, and the God's Word Translation) render 1 John 5:1 as "has been" born of God. Since we use the King James Version and believe God's hand was involved in its translation process, we choose to believe what it says, which is that whoever believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God -- not has been.

Faith precedes being spiritually reborn. The other way around doesn't even make sense. How can we be born again if we don't have faith in Christ? And for what it's worth, 1 John 4:7 tells us that he who loves is born of God too, giving us yet another requirement for being born again. Isn't "love" a verb, i.e., an action? Something you do? A work?

I have asked you a couple of times now what you actually think being born again is – what happens to the person. As yet you haven’t answered so let me.

Jesus said to Nicodemus:

As a teacher of Israel Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand what he was talking about – why do you think this is? Maybe because what Jesus was talking about was promised?

Jesus is talking about baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. That's what being born of water and of the Spirit means in LDS doctrine.

Ezekiel 36

Notice how water and Spirit bookend the description of the radical change God promised he would do in the future? Also notice the nature of the change; new heart, old heart removed, new spirit, Spirit of God put within the person, radical isn’t it, almost sounds like being born again right? If there is another place where water and Spirit are so clearly linked in the OT in the context of such a change I certainly don’t know of it.

Are you admitting, then, that being born of water is necessary to be "born again"? What do you think being born of water means?

This is what Jesus was talking about and it is necessary for someone to be born again. Paul makes it clear why in 1 Corinthians 2:12

The natural person is not able to understand the spiritual truths taught by Paul. In order to understand and respond to the gospel in faith the natural person must first be born again; given a new heart and new spirit so that they can then understand and believe.

Agreed, the "natural person" (i.e., the unrepentant person) is unable to fully understand the gospel. Faith comes first, then repentance, followed by a commitment to follow Christ in faith; that commitment is made "official" by baptism, whereupon we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and enter into a formal covenant with God, a two-way contract where we promise to keep His commandments and He promises to keep His spirit with us on the condition that His commandments are kept faithfully (and the most wonderful thing is that since we take the name of Christ upon us at baptism, it is Jesus who signs our contract on our behalf, since we are severely unqualified to do so ourselves). This is how being "born again" occurs, as Jesus told Nicodemus.

I understand that you may not find that entirely clear by reading the New Testament alone, but this (once again) is exactly why we are in need of further revelation to clarify such issues. Apparently God didn't think the Old Testament was sufficient, so He gave us the New -- but why stop there? He always has something to tell us, and that includes both brand new revelations as well as additional information on revelations given previously. You don't seem to understand that since Latter-day Saints read the New Testament in light of these modern revelations, we will always disagree with you, no matter how many quotes from Paul you want to throw at us. We've read and we feel we firmly understand all those passages, because God Himself has shown us what they mean in these modern times, via personal revelation, additional scripture, and latter-day prophets.

Where exactly justification through baptism in the NT?

Are you saying from your second sentence that someone can lose their justification if they fail to keep the commandments?

Paul would seem to disagree in Romans 8;

All who are called are justified – no drops outs. All those who are justified are also glorified – no drop outs. With your LDS understanding of justification I don’t know how you can deal with such verses.

So you're expressing the belief that one cannot fall from grace (lose his or her salvation)? The Bible seems to tell me otherwise. To quote Jeff Lindsay:

Christians can fall from grace! That is why we must endure to the end to be saved' date=' as Christ says in Matthew 10:22, 24:13, and Mark 13:13. That's why the Lord in Rev. 2:10 said "be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." That's why Paul says there are people professing faith who deny God through their sins, their disobedience, and lack of good works (Titus 1:16). There are numerous other passages in the New Testament in which members of Christian congregations are warned of the sins that can keep them out of heaven (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 5:3-7; 1 Thess. 4:1-7; Col. 3:5-25; Jude 1:14-25, and others). They are told that they must be cautious and diligent and not fall. Heb. 12:15 urges us to "look diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God." Heb. 3: 12-14 is especially clear:

...

Can anyone read that and still believe in the abominable doctrine of "once saved, always saved" or in instant, guaranteed salvation? Rather, Christ taught that "in your patience, possess [preserve, win mastery over'] ye your souls" (Luke 21:19; see also Matt. 24:13). A related passage is Matt. 16:24-27, which teaches that Christ wants us to take up his cross, to live our lives for him and to be ready to sacrifice our lives for him, and in so doing, we will find our lives (eternal life) when Christ comes to "reward every man according to his works." Therefore, we should not be surprised that Christ counsels us to "take heed" to avoid sin and temptation and to maintain our worthiness (Luke 21:34-36; Luke 22:31,32,40,46; see also 1 Tim. 4:16). In other words, we must strive to enter into and stay on the straight and narrow path that leads to life (Luke 13:23-28), which is what Christ taught in response to being asked if only few should be saved.

http://www.jefflinds...aith_works.html

Doesn’t God know if someone’s faith is genuine?

Of course He does! But He also wants (not just expects) us to put forth some effort. He's our Father. He wants all of us' date=' His children, who He loves and misses so very much, to learn and grow, and that requires doing something. It requires trial and error, hope and love, faith and works. He wants us to become something greater. In my opinion, that's a far more loving Father than the one you profess to believe in: the one who sends His children to hell, where they'll scream and cry and burn and suffer for the rest of eternity, simply for having an incorrect understanding of who He is. Sorry, but that's not a father, that's a monster. The LDS concepts of God and salvation much more accurately demonstrate the qualities of a good father, and the qualities that every father wants his kids to have: compassion, encouragement, patience, virtue, protectiveness, and unconditional love.

You're free to believe as you wish, but that's the Heavenly Father I choose to believe in. And I hope to give Him a great, big hug when I see Him again someday.

Don’t you believe adultery can be forgiven in Christ? Maybe you meant ‘can a justified person still commit adultery’

Once again I would say yes ofcourse they can.

They can if they humble themselves, work to rekindle their faith in Christ, and repent, then yes. They may even need to be baptized again, because something as severe as adultery would cause that covenant I mentioned earlier (as well as other covenants) to be completely broken and in dire need of repairing. It would take a lot of time, faith, and sincere effort to gain Heavenly Father's trust back after doing something that serious.

Edited August 16, 2012 by altersteve

[djholmess]

And for the third time, your argument is very weak. Check out the other translations I posted earlier.

None of your translations invalidated what I was saying - they all show it, you just have to understand the english language the 'believe' is always in the present tense - it isn't 'believed' and the 'born of God' is in the perfect tense, not the present. Go and look at the Greek words (the greek language does a better job of distinguishing the tenses of words - its not always clear in english) they are in the tenses I'm talking about.

[Zakuska]

All who are called are justified – no drops outs. All those who are justified are also glorified – no drop outs. With your LDS understanding of justification I don’t know how you can deal with such verses.

Yes folks... DJHolmess is peddling the snake oil of eternal security.

I wonder how he deals with people being "washed on the inside" by the "spirit", people who have been given a "new heart", who "believe" as he puts it, who fall away?

Luke 8

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

In this parable what is the only difference between the rocky ground, thorny ground, wayside and the Good Ground?

The Good Ground brought forth "fruits meet for repentance" (aka works). I wonder how DJHolmess deals with that?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

None of your translations invalidated what I was saying - they all show it, you just have to understand the english language the 'believe' is always in the present tense - it isn't 'believed' and the 'born of God' is in the perfect tense, not the present.

This is incorrect.

The New International Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Version, American KJV, Aramaic Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, Darby Bible Translation, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Weymouth New Testament, World English Bible, Young's Literal Translation, and no doubt several others all render "born of God" in the present tense.

See for yourself: http://bible.cc/1_john/5-1.htm

Edited August 16, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

None of your translations invalidated what I was saying - they all show it, you just have to understand the english language the 'believe' is always in the present tense - it isn't 'believed' and the 'born of God' is in the perfect tense, not the present. Go and look at the Greek words (the greek language does a better job of distinguishing the tenses of words - its not always clear in english) they are in the tenses I'm talking about.

What part of "IS born of God" don't you understand?

[Vance]

Just because it has been skipped over.

Ah, yes, that Evangelical NIV again. Shall we look at some of the other translations?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Everyone who believes that Yeshua is The Messiah is born from God, and everyone who loves him who begot, loves also the one who is begotten of him.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.

American King James Version

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.

American Standard Version

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him.

Darby Bible Translation

Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loves him that has begotten loves also him that is begotten of him.

English Revised Version

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Webster's Bible Translation

Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten by him.

Weymouth New Testament

Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God; and every one who loves the Father loves also Him who is the Father's Child.

World English Bible

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of him.

New Jerusalem Bible

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and whoever loves the father loves the son.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

Yes folks... DJHolmess is peddling the snake oil of eternal security.

I wonder how he deals with people being "washed on the inside" by the "spirit", people who have been given a "new heart", who "believe" as he puts it, who fall away?

Luke 8

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

In this parable what is the only difference between the rocky ground, thorny ground, wayside and the Good Ground?

The Good Ground brought forth "fruits meet for repentance" (aka works). I wonder how DJHolmess deals with that?

Those are only the words of Jesus. They don't count. Only the words of Paul (that can be construed to agree with 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical Calvinists) count.

Just so you know.