Can Only Latter-Day Saints Access God'S Grace

[zerinus]

No thanks--not on my account! As usual, this exchange has been like being trapped in an elevator with a flatulescent boor.

Just to let you know, I am not scared by your intimidatory tactics. If you teach erroneous doctrines as you have done here, you will have them corrected by me.

Edited September 9, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

If we do not have faith, we are damned.

If we are not doing good works, then we don't have faith.

correct - and the good works are a result of Grace's enabling power with us, so we can't even take credit for the the works our faith leads to. - lest we boast of course

That is entirely incorrect of course. It is perfectly possible to believe, or have faith, but not do the “works:” “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22–23). How could they have prophesied in His name, cast out devils, and performed miracles if they hadn’t had faith? But still they failed in the “works” department. Balaam is an example of someone who had faith, but failed in the works (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11; Revelation 2:14). Jonah is another example of someone who had plenty of faith, but tried to escape from doing the will of God.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have never heard of Jesus Christ, but do works that are pleasing in the sight of God, and can lead to their justification and sanctification, and eventual salvation:

Romans 2:

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

This comes from Paul, the darling of the evangelical false teachers and false prophets. And in the Epistle to the Romans, of all places!

Edited September 9, 2012 by zerinus

[CV75]

Notice too, that to be in compliance with obeying the gospel means to TRY and follow Christ. it is not perfect obedience to the commandments but obedience to the gospel, in this definiton they mean two different things. As you are to obey the gospel perfectly but you can obey the gospel perfectly while "trying" to follow Christ's teachings

I think that goes without saying: in the definition, the explanation of how "we must obey the gospel" includes "trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ...," which includes His commandments. I think "perfect" in the gospel means two things: 1) as perfect as you can be (striving or trying to be perfect in Christ) and 2) perfect in Christ (actually becoming perfect). I'd say both depend on His grace.

[CV75]

Just to let you know, I am not scared by your intimidatory tactics. If you teach erroneous doctrines as you have done here, you will have them corrected by me.

All you do is stink up an otherwise edifying milieu.

[zerinus]

All you do is stink up an otherwise edifying milieu.

Yea, and all you do is to try to bark people off, when you have lost the argument. That don't work with me. Go and find someone else to scare off.

[CV75]

Yea, and all you do is to try to bark people off, when you have lost the argument. That don't work with me. Go and find someone else to scare off.

LOL--intimidating? Barking? You can't even distinguish humor from intimidation, much less theology from doctrine.

And you lost (using your paradigm, as I never considered this a contest) because you failed to provide the example of "revealed theology" (whatever that is), in the same context in which I was discussing theology. So you have also failed in the vigilantism of your own misguided theology.

[zerinus]

LOL--intimidating? Barking? You can't even distinguish humor from intimidation, much less theology from doctrine.

And you lost (using your paradigm, as I never considered this a contest) because you failed to provide the example of "revealed theology" (whatever that is), in the same context in which I was discussing theology. So you have also failed in the vigilantism of your own misguided theology.

Okay, let’s start from the beginning. This is how our conversation started:

Obviously popular theology changes over time, but this doesn’t make any one particular theology the "one true and living" vehicle for grace or salvation.

Where religious beliefs and theory can by systematically developed by any one of us (consciously or not), there is potentially a different theology for each person. Looking at Gospel theology through the eyes of a few famous and highly regarded people, while not unhelpful, is still about as helpful to our salvation as any other science. It is the testimony of the living apostles, and not their theology, that actually delivers the message on a level that counts.

Theology is different than the “doctrine of Christ” as fairly well stated in LDS scripture. Where each LDS member has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, each can apply the doctrine of Christ so as to actually experience grace and salvation by living the Gospel in priority over formulating ideas and convictions about the theology.

I can't agree with that. Theology is not personal; it is revealed. We can get it right, or we can get it wrong; but in essence there is only one true theology, which is the revealed one that comes from God.

I will take that back and instead give a more detailed reply to your original post which started our conversation, as follows:

Obviously popular theology changes over time, but this doesn’t make any one particular theology the "one true and living" vehicle for grace or salvation.

Where religious beliefs and theory can by systematically developed by any one of us (consciously or not), there is potentially a different theology for each person. Looking at Gospel theology through the eyes of a few famous and highly regarded people, while not unhelpful, is still about as helpful to our salvation as any other science. It is the testimony of the living apostles, and not their theology, that actually delivers the message on a level that counts.

That is an erroneous statement. I don’t know what it is that you call “popular theology,” but there certainly is (or can be) one particular theology that is the vehicle of grace or salvation. No doubt you want me to tell you what that theology is. I will tell you on condition that you will give me an example of what you call “popular theology”. After you have given me an example of what you call “popular theology,” I will give you an example of the “one true theology” that I am talking about.

Theology is different than the “doctrine of Christ” as fairly well stated in LDS scripture.

Another false statement. I gave you a quote from the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith that the purpose of theology is in fact to articulate the “doctrine of Jesus Christ”.

Where each LDS member has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, each can apply the doctrine of Christ so as to actually experience grace and salvation by living the Gospel in priority over formulating ideas and convictions about the theology.

Okay, what does that mean exactly? Do you mean that theology as a discipline, a science, or whatever else you want to call it, is redundant, superfluous, unnecessary? Is that the idea, or have I misunderstood you? Would you mind clarifying?

Edited September 9, 2012 by zerinus

[Hestia]

Getting personal. Enough said.