Imminent Death Of Evangelical Christianity?

[Alvino]

We deserve none of the glory, because we're just along for the ride.

I have a question, danielwoods. When you say we didn't deserve God's grace or glory, do you mean that we deserved to not have it or that God didn't have to give it to us? It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His glory because, well, He gave His grace or glory to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received). Yet it seems you do mean by saying that we deserved none of the glory or grace that we ought not receive it. How would you respond to this apparent problem?

[Anakin7]

From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.angelfire...ram3/faith.html

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/613-john-6-27-29-the-work-of-faith.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited March 5, 2013 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

Thanks for the link. There are so many things that I could respond to from that article, however I feel it would be in vain. Nothing in the article that I could find actually deals with salvation, but rather sanctification, though the writer thinks he's writing about salvation.

Duel application.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[danielwoods]

You have just demonstrated my point, that the historic Christian church has replaced the prophets and apostles with theologians and Bible scholars. This church has a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone and will continue until Christ will come to reign on the earth.

First you dismiss the doctrine of baptism, and now declare that prophets and apostles are unnecessary ==>> despite the clear teaching of the scriptures.

Christ Himself found it necessary to restore the Church and the Gospel in our day. The church has a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. This organization will continue until we "come into a unity of the faith".

What is interesting about your criticism is the more I think about it, it is leveled at all the historical christian churches (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.). Making the fundamental disagreement, not only a central authority based structure, but also the claim to have restored the church.

I would disagree that the church replaced apostles and prophets, and the scripture I quoted pointed out that we have all those roles in the church today (but of course they don't function exactly as you'd like them to). So, it's impossible to replace an apostle or prophet with a teacher, since they are different roles.

edited to add: And I didn't dismiss the doctrine of baptism, rather I have kept it in context. To dismiss something is to cast it aside. I have attempted to demonstrate that the verses used to make the claims that it's necessary for salvation actually don't support that idea or doctrine.

Edited March 5, 2013 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

I have a question, danielwoods. When you say we didn't deserve God's grace or glory, do you mean that we deserved to not have it or that God didn't have to give it to us? It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His glory because, well, He gave His grace or glory to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received). Yet it seems you do mean by saying that we deserved none of the glory or grace that we ought not receive it. How would you respond to this apparent problem?

At first I was confused by your question. Then I read what you quoted:

danielwoods, on 28 February 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

We deserve none of the glory, because we're just along for the ride.

My statement is referring to works. We deserve none of the glory for our salvation, because Christ did it all. Paid the whole price. By the word "glory" I am referring to praise or payment or reward, as it was used in the Romans passage I think I was quoting in that post. Similar to saying, I built this house, therefore I deserve the "credit" or "recognition" etc.. So, what I'm saying is that we deserve none of the "credit" or recognition or "glory" for our salvation, because Christ already paid the full price for it.

It appears that you are using the word glory to refer to a heavenly state or something of this nature?

[cdowis]

What is interesting about your criticism is the more I think about it, it is leveled at all the historical christian churches (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, etc.). Making the fundamental disagreement, not only a central authority based structure, but also the claim to have restored the church.

Brilliant!

I would disagree that the church replaced apostles and prophets, and the scripture I quoted pointed out that we have all those roles in the church today (but of course they don't function exactly as you'd like them to). So, it's impossible to replace an apostle or prophet with a teacher, since they are different roles.

Of course we disagree. But that's ok.

edited to add: And I didn't dismiss the doctrine of baptism, rather I have kept it in context. To dismiss something is to cast it aside. I have attempted to demonstrate that the verses used to make the claims that it's necessary for salvation actually don't support that idea or doctrine.

You dismiss the doctrine that baptism is necessary for salvation. That is the "context" of our discussion.

Edited March 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Alvino]

My statement is referring to works. We deserve none of the glory for our salvation, because Christ did it all. Paid the whole price. By the word "glory" I am referring to praise or payment or reward, as it was used in the Romans passage I think I was quoting in that post. Similar to saying, I built this house, therefore I deserve the "credit" or "recognition" etc.. So, what I'm saying is that we deserve none of the "credit" or recognition or "glory" for our salvation, because Christ already paid the full price for it.

It appears that you are using the word glory to refer to a heavenly state or something of this nature?

Sorry for the word mix-up.

I was trying to refer to what is given to us from God that we don't deserve because of our sins. I think you call that grace?

My question was, when Evangelicals talk about grace not being deserved, do they mean that we deserved to not receive it or just that we were not entitled to it?

Edited March 5, 2013 by Alvino

[danielwoods]

Sorry for the word mix-up.

I was trying to refer to what is given to us from God that we don't deserve because of our sins. I think you call that grace?

My question was, when Evangelicals talk about grace not being deserved, do they mean that we deserved to not receive it or just that we were not entitled to it?

Both.

We deserve the wrath of God because of our sin (wages of sin is death), but we don't get that, instead we get his mercy (no punishment) and grace (unmerited favor), which is not earned by us any way shape or form, so we aren't entitled to it, rather it is a gift based on Jesus taking our punishment on himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says,“For our sake he made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

[Anakin7]

From My LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.angelfire...ram3/faith.html

http://www.christian...rk-of-faith.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Repost in case this was missed.

[Alvino]

Both.

We deserve the wrath of God because of our sin (wages of sin is death), but we don't get that, instead we get his mercy (no punishment) and grace (unmerited favor), which is not earned by us any way shape or form, so we aren't entitled to it, rather it is a gift based on Jesus taking our punishment on himself.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says,“For our sake he made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

The two options I offered were pretty different; I don't think you can say "both". Both options I offered imply that we were not entitled to God's mercy and grace, yet you seem to think that saying we are not entitled to God's mercy and grace answers the question.

This is where I see a problem, daniel. I don't think you've answered the issue but just pushed it one question further:

(I'll modify slightly my previous question according to the words you use) When you say we don't deserve God's grace and mercy, do you mean that we deserved to not have them or that God doesn't have to give them to us? It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His grace or mercy because, well, He gave His grace and mercy to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received).

To say that we deserve to not have his grace and mercy seems to me to mean that it would be wrong to give us his grace and mercy, not that "God didn't have to give them to us but He just chose to."

How do you resolve this apparent problem?

Edited March 6, 2013 by Alvino

[Pahoran]

Marlin K. Jensen indicated about a year ago that members of our own church are leaving en mass.

source: http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Number-of-faithful-Mormons-rapidly-declining/rvih3gOKxEm5om9IYJYnRA.cspx

There was also another article in Salon about a month ago that discusses this trend.

source: http://www.salon.com...e_the_internet/

Actually that's not what he said. And what he did say certainly does not support the headline claim that the "Number of faithful Mormons [is] rapidly declining."

Because, just so you know, it isn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[danielwoods]

The two options I offered were pretty different; I don't think you can say "both". Both options I offered imply that we were not entitled to God's mercy and grace, yet you seem to think that saying we are not entitled to God's mercy and grace answers the question.

This is where I see a problem, daniel. I don't think you've answered the issue but just pushed it one question further:

(I'll modify slightly my previous question according to the words you use) When you say we don't deserve God's grace and mercy, do you mean that we deserved to not have them or that God doesn't have to give them to us? It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His grace or mercy because, well, He gave His grace and mercy to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received).

To say that we deserve to not have his grace and mercy seems to me to mean that it would be wrong to give us his grace and mercy, not that "God didn't have to give them to us but He just chose to."

How do you resolve this apparent problem?

You asked,

1) "When you say we don't deserve God's grace and mercy, do you mean that we deserved to not have them..."

Right. The wording "Deserved to not have them..." Is a little cumbersome for me, but yes this is correct.

2) "or that God doesn't have to give them to us?"

Right again. God is under no obligation to give us anything. We deserve his wrath.

3) "It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His grace or mercy because, well, He gave His grace and mercy to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received).

I would say that he gave everyone the same opportunity to receive his grace and mercy is extended to all equally. So, I wouldn't agree that it's unjust what God has done.

4) "To say that we deserve to not have his grace and mercy seems to me to mean that it would be wrong to give us his grace and mercy, not that "God didn't have to give them to us but He just chose to."

How do you resolve this apparent problem?

I don't see a problem with God's plan of salvation, saving those who seek him. As it says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..."

[Anakin7]

You asked,

1) "When you say we don't deserve God's grace and mercy, do you mean that we deserved to not have them..."

Right. The wording "Deserved to not have them..." Is a little cumbersome for me, but yes this is correct.

2) "or that God doesn't have to give them to us?"

Right again. God is under no obligation to give us anything. We deserve his wrath.

3) "It seems you couldn't say we deserved to not receive His grace or mercy because, well, He gave His grace and mercy to some and this would mean He did something that was unjust or that shouldn't have happened (that is, give someone a grace they ought not have received).

I would say that he gave everyone the same opportunity to receive his grace and mercy is extended to all equally. So, I wouldn't agree that it's unjust what God has done.

4) "To say that we deserve to not have his grace and mercy seems to me to mean that it would be wrong to give us his grace and mercy, not that "God didn't have to give them to us but He just chose to."

How do you resolve this apparent problem?

I don't see a problem with God's plan of salvation, saving those who seek him. As it says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..."

Yes Believe [Present greek tense - a continued action - Be Believing !} Awesome !

And if you do not "Obey" The Son you do not have Eternal Life - John 3:36

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited March 7, 2013 by Anakin7

[Alvino]

Seems like I'm not being clear, daniel. If you assume we ought not get God's mercy or grace, then it is wrong for someone to gives us God's grace or mercy, including God.

[cdowis]

Here is the bottom line. It's really quite simple:

Works do not save us, but we cannot be saved without good works.

Mormoni 7

[6] For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.

[7] For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.

Good works alone cannot save. Why?

[10] Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift.

[11] For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

Edited March 7, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Seems like I'm not being clear, daniel. If you assume we ought not get God's mercy or grace, then it is wrong for someone to gives us God's grace or mercy, including God.

I'd say it this way (if I'm understanding your question), If we believe (the word "assume" carries with it a connotation I'm not comfortable with) that we only deserve the wrath of God (based on our own merits alone) then does that mean we "ought not get" his mercy and grace?

Your question entails the concept of "Ought or not" which implies a moral "oughtness" if you will. In essence a law or rule where one ought not violate said rules. Now, in this case there is no higher law than God's laws, and he hasn't stated that we "ought" not get mercy and grace, rather just the opposite, he wishes to extend such to every person.

If God had stated that we "ought not get God's mercy or grace" then I'd agree with you that he'd the have set up a situation where we'd be wondering if it's wrong for God to give us something he's stated we ought not get.

[Alvino]

I'd say it this way (if I'm understanding your question), If we believe (the word "assume" carries with it a connotation I'm not comfortable with) that we only deserve the wrath of God (based on our own merits alone) then does that mean we "ought not get" his mercy and grace?

Forget about the issue of merits. We agree we have zero merit in our salvation since Christ did everything. That isn't the issue.

Your question entails the concept of "Ought or not" which implies a moral "oughtness" if you will. In essence a law or rule where one ought not violate said rules. Now, in this case there is no higher law than God's laws, and he hasn't stated that we "ought" not get mercy and grace, rather just the opposite, he wishes to extend such to every person.

If this is what God wants (and God is the rule-maker) then it is false that we deserve to not have God's mercy since it is allowed for someone, God, to give us God's grace and mercy. How is it that it is OK for us to get God's mercy and grace yet we still deserve to not have God's mercy and grace? If justice is that we don't get God's mercy and grace, then it is unjust that we get God's mercy and grace.

If God had stated that we "ought not get God's mercy or grace" then I'd agree with you that he'd the have set up a situation where we'd be wondering if it's wrong for God to give us something he's stated we ought not get.

"ought" and "ought not" are different ways of describing the same problem.

[coolrok7]

"Forget about the issue of merits." is the crux of the issue between Christian Salvation and Mormon Exaltation.

Edited March 7, 2013 by coolrok7

[danielwoods]

Forget about the issue of merits. We agree we have zero merit in our salvation since Christ did everything. That isn't the issue.

If this is what God wants (and God is the rule-maker) then it is false that we deserve to not have God's mercy since it is allowed for someone, God, to give us God's grace and mercy. How is it that it is OK for us to get God's mercy and grace yet we still deserve to not have God's mercy and grace? If justice is that we don't get God's mercy and grace, then it is unjust that we get God's mercy and grace.

"ought" and "ought not" are different ways of describing the same problem.

If, "then it is false that we deserve to not have God's mercy since it is allowed for someone, God, to give us God's grace and mercy.

Then on basis are you claiming we deserve to have mercy and grace?

"How is it that it is OK for us to get God's mercy and grace yet we still deserve to not have God's mercy and grace?"

Because the very definition of mercy is not getting the punishment we deserve. How is it ok for God to provide a substitute who took our punishment? How does God do that exactly? I don't know. All I know is he said he did.

"If justice is that we don't get God's mercy and grace, then it is unjust that we get God's mercy and grace."

Unless the payment was paid in full by someone else, as it was in this case.

Edited March 7, 2013 by danielwoods

[Alvino]

If, "then it is false that we deserve to not have God's mercy since it is allowed for someone, God, to give us God's grace and mercy.

Then on basis are you claiming we deserve to have mercy and grace?

Logically, no. We just go to the other of the two options I presented: saying we don't deserve God's mercy and grace just means that God doesn't have to give it to us, that we are not entitled to it but He can give them to us if He wants to.

Seems like the distinction between the two options isn't clear. Saying we deserve to not have mercy or that it is justice that we don't get mercy and grace means it is unjust for us to get mercy and grace. For example, if you are guilty of first degree murder and the judge and the evidence points this out, then it would be unjust and wrong for the judge to let you go out of compassion of sympathy for you. On the other hand, saying we aren't entitled to God's mercy and grace (the second meaning of "we don't deserve God's mercy and grace") doesn't imply that it would be wrong if someone gave us mercy and grace.

"How is it that it is OK for us to get God's mercy and grace yet we still deserve to not have God's mercy and grace?"

Because the very definition of mercy is not getting the punishment we deserve. How is it ok for God to provide a substitute who took our punishment? How does God do that exactly? I don't know. All I know is he said he did.

And what I'm saying is that this isn't a problem if you take the second of the two options I presented. However, saying God can give us mercy and grace is problematic with saying we deserve to not have God's mercy and grace.

"If justice is that we don't get God's mercy and grace, then it is unjust that we get God's mercy and grace."

Unless the payment was paid in full by someone else, as it was in this case.

In Christianity, no one pays for us to be offered mercy and grace. Christ pays for the price of our sins so God's justice is met as far as that, yet no one pays anything for Christ to give us His grace and mercy; these would be free gifts.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

"Forget about the issue of merits." is the crux of the issue between Christian Salvation and Mormon Exaltation.

I was talking about the specific discussion daniel and yours truly are having. may I also note that I don't see much of a difference between the mormon and the christian or protestant way.

[coolrok7]

I know that Mormons don't see the difference because they usually aren't seeing that there is a changing of the distinctives of the definitions used such as the meriting of "eternal life" in exaltation in Mormonism and eternal life as the gift of God in Christianity.

Salvation becomes only resurrection as the gift not eternal life being the gift. Big difference.

Edited March 7, 2013 by coolrok7

[Alvino]

I know that Mormons don't see the difference because they usually aren't seeing that there is a changing of the distinctives of the definitions used such as the meriting of "eternal life" in exaltation in Mormonism and eternal life as the gift of God in Christianity.

Salvation becomes only resurrection as the gift not eternal life being the gift. Big difference.

I'm not Mormon but don't focus on how Mormons and Christians call things; look at how the concepts work. For example, some Christians believe you still have to accept the gift of God to receive it and you will be trying to live His teachings for the rest of your days. Mormons still have to accept God's gifts and will strive, in this life or the next, to follow God's commands. If Christians could be baptized in the next life, as Mormons think LDS believers do (though by proxy), Christians would be baptized, also, because it is a symbol of the redemption of your sins. You still end up doing a bunch of things either in this life or the next in both religions. What each calls "salvation" or "exaltation" is not important. The fact is that Mormons also believe being able to resurrect, to get to the celestial kingdom, etc, are all possible thanks to Christ and this is the gift.

I just don't see many important differences between Protestant ideas and Mormon ones. There are a whole host of issues that I think support this assertion, another one being the fact that, if you believe in "once saved always saved" the world would look pretty much indistinguishable from being able to fall from grace. Maybe a topic for another thread, though.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Alvino

[cdowis]

In Christianity, no one pays for us to be offered mercy and grace. Christ pays for the price of our sins so God's justice is met as far as that, yet no one pays anything for Christ to give us His grace and mercy; these would be free gifts.

Question: is repentance for our sins a necessary requirement for salvation?

[Pahoran]

I know that Mormons don't see the difference because they usually aren't seeing that there is a changing of the distinctives of the definitions used such as the meriting of "eternal life" in exaltation in Mormonism and eternal life as the gift of God in Christianity.

Salvation becomes only resurrection as the gift not eternal life being the gift. Big difference.

Incidentally, Coolrok, there are two kinds of people who discuss Mormonism: the honest ones, who admit that Mormonism is Christians, and the, um, "others," who try to imply that it is not.

Regards,

Pahoran