Getting Eternal Life

[canard78]

You also need to accept the fulness of his gospel, which means joining his only true Church: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.” Don't listen to anybody who says you don't need to; the don't know what they are talking about!

I guess you're aiming that, in part, at me.

Oddly, your quoted scripture does not say that he has to join the only true church.

Sometimes absolutist teachings are needed to drive behaviour. And sometimes they're not. Given there is more than one church claiming absolutism, they can't all be right. But their adherents all believe they are right (otherwise they'd probably go somewhere else). And that's fine, because it's all leading to being.

(I'll answer your questions on the other 'doubt' thread shortly)

[mathonihah]

At the heart of Mormon theology is that this mortal life is not the only chance to qualify for eternal life. People who have lived heading in the right direction on the path but with a very slow vehicle will be given the help in the next to get further up the path. Even people who may have been heading merrily in the wrong direction will also be given this chance.

If you have had the chance to accept the gospel in this life, and rejected it, it is unlikely that you will get a second chance. Of the terrestrial kingdom the Lord has said: “... these are they who ... received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.” (D&C 76:72–74)

Edited April 9, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I guess you're aiming that, in part, at me.

Not really. I hadn't read through the thread very carefully, and your posts I mostly skipped.

Oddly, your quoted scripture does not say that he has to join the only true church.

I think that it does. That is what “he that believeth and is baptized ...” means.

Sometimes absolutist teachings ...

I don't know what “absolutist teachings” is. Teachings are teachings. They can be correct teachings or incorrect teachings. But there is no absolutist teachings.

Edited April 9, 2013 by mathonihah

[Stourme]

Without reading every post on this thread... lets not beat around the bush. Jesus gave explicit instructions for attaining exaltation.

1. Have faith in Jesus Chirst.

2. Repent of all your sins.

3. Be baptized by proper authority and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands.

4. Keep His commandments.

5. Be married for all time and eternity in the Temple.

6. Endure to the end.

Obviously this is the overview, but these are the instructions given to the latter-day prophets by Jesus Himself.

"Works" plays a very important part of our salvation. We will be judged by our works.

Salvation itself is by the grace of Jesus Christ alone, but He requires us to qualify for His grace.

[Maidservant]

But since I was asking about the LDS doctrine of eternal life, I was thinking of their definition, which according to various articles on lds.org, is basically exaltation, the best God has to offer and the highest kingdom of glory.

Right, I meant what is the conception of exaltation? And what does baptism and other priesthood covenants have to do with this (LDS) concept of exaltation?

To elaborate on that.

Any church or religion (doesn't have to be Christian) has a paradigm sort of like this (and I may be wrong, because I'm speaking for others, so I'm likely to get it wrong, but this is what I see so far):

Do THIS LIST OF THINGS and ALL OF CHRIST'S GRACE (OR GOD'S MERCY FOR NON CHRISTIAN) = A HAPPY LIFE WITH GOD after you die.

Now, that list of things could be pretty short (i.e. confess the name of Jesus) or longer (i.e. the five pillars of Islam).

So if we are thinking in that paradigm, we COULD insert the Mormon list:

Do THIS LIST OF THINGS, MORMON VERSION = A HAPPY LIFE WITH GOD after you die, MORMON VERSION.

Except, as I understand things, this ENTIRE PARADIGM cannot work with the ideas of baptism and covenant and priesthood.

It's hard to explain, but my covenants are active inside of me. They change me. They are like seeds planted, and I nurture them, and then I become. Exaltation is not really about "getting" a nice big present of an "after"life either through actions, sacraments and/or grace. Exaltation is about who you will BE. And it isn't just about being a good, clean person although that is part of it. It is about being a Being of Love--someone who sacrifices, who GIVES not gets, someone who relieves suffering. We will be like Christ and our Father in heaven. We will go on to participate in bringing other people through an earth life (because this earth life process has happened before and will happen again; this is not the first nor the only earth).

In fact, I already am living in my eternal life. Nothing hugely different is going to happen after I die, except that I hope I keep learning, becoming more loving, and become reunited with family and friends. My eternal life has already begun (even before I was born on this planet) and will continue forever.

So knowing this paradigm about what exaltation is, helps answer the rest of your questions (I hope).

Then what's the point of being a Mormon in this life? Many LDS sources are very clear this mortal life is a test for us, and without the test, we could not progress to exaltation/eternal life. So which is it? Are you saying we can basically ignore God's plan of a test in this life and the make-up test in the next life will be good enough?

If exaltation is about BEING not GETTING (which you are right, we become who we are or will through how we meet our TESTS), then why would I want to ignore anything I believed about God? Why would I want to be that type of person? I begin NOW with as much as I know--for me, that includes baptism. For you, it may not, but I am sure you are starting with what YOU know. If you do anything good--you ARE "being a Mormon". If you love your wife, that is "Mormon". If you are honest, that is "Mormon". etc etc etc Again, I hate using the term Mormon, because it is meaningless in a discussion like this. I would rather call it the gospel of Jesus Christ, wherever it can be found.

The point of being a Mormon is having the privilege of DOING all those baptisms for the rest of our brothers and sisters, so that no one is lost. Do you want to help us out with that? Ha ha .

By the way, I never said that a person can enjoy heaven with ONLY a baptism. You can't just use baptism like a coin, token or ticket. You had already discussed all the laws of God you are living--and that is the main part of baptism anyway! the LIVING of the covenant! I only meant that the part of the actual baptismal ceremony will be done for everyone. So all good people will have already done the major portion of that covenant by living the laws they already know, and if by some means they had not had the ceremony yet, it will never keep them out of further progression because one of their brothers and sisters would have it ready by proxy.

So in the sense of whether or not someone has had a baptism ceremony, those will all be done, so in that sense everyone will be Mormon.

In the sense of whether or not someone has lived a good life--loved their family, been honest, clean, etc etc--not everyone will be Mormon in that sense, so they will have to continue to learn and repent on that front, in the spirit world. But you are already "Mormon" in that sense--in every law you keep. Again, better said as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[pogi]

If someone claims to have faith, but acts like they have an unchanged heart, what do you tell them? Preaching about laws and enduring to the end won't help, it might even further warp his idea of what a living faith looks like.

First of all, I would not doubt their faith. We all fall short in different ways, it is not my place to judge his heart. Only God looks on the heart of man.

I think you have a misunderstanding of our approach to the plan of salvation and the atonement of Christ. We do not use the law to judge the faith of others, nor as a tool of shame or belittlement for imperfection, nor as a tool of boasting for obedience. We do not view it as a burden or something to be endured. What is to be endured is sin, temptation, persecution of the world, the adversary, not the law. We simply invite and encourage people to experience the joy, peace, and love that comes from obedience to the law. Faith is strengthened through obedience, and in turn, obedience is strengthened through faith.

Perhaps you should stop looking at the law as a stumbling block for the sinner and view it as a building block. Through Christ, It frees us from suffering and the chains of the adversary, it is liberating. God promises that we shall abide in his love if we keep His commandments (John 15:10). We invite others to free themselves from the bonds of sin and suffering through obedience. We do not shame people for disobedience. We do not judge people for imperfection. We view the mighty change of heart as a process more than a singular event. In your example, we would applaud and encourage them in their faith to continue in prayer, fasting, reading the scriptures, and doing their best to give their heart to God. We would encourage them to take an inventory of themselves before God and apply the atonement through repentance and renewal of spirit to let Him heal their life a little further.

I want to address your other issues but I feel like we are speaking past each other. ​So I can better understand where you are coming from, how do you view the commandments? What are their purposes?

Secondly, how do you view repentance?

Edited April 9, 2013 by pogi

[mathonihah]

You also have to take the whole verse into account, not just the term 'believe.' John is saying 'If you believe in Christ, can know now you have eternal life.' The greek word for 'know' in the verse means to know now. If my eternal life was dependent on whether or not I obeyed and endured to the end, then I couldn't know now I have eternal life.

In John 17:11 we read: “And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, ...” does that mean that he is literally no more on the world? He said those things when he was still very much in the world!

Jesus wasn't giving a sermon on how we are saved. He was responding to some very specific issues He saw in the young ruler. Since His statements were directed at a specific individual, we need to be very careful when we try to apply them to everyone else. We can't just take them at face value and apply them to all believers.

Not true. The context implies that Jesus was making a general statement about what he (and anybody else) needed to do to be saved.

I'm not suggesting you judge my worthiness. I'm just asking if you believe it's possible to get eternal life without being a member of the LDS church.

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question is, Can anyone reject the LDS Church, and still obtain eternal life? The answer to that is No.

Why is a recommend needed at all? What if I serve people as much as I can without being a Mormon?

Because God has declared that you cannot obtain exaltation without accepting the fulness of his gospel, and at the moment Mormonism is the only place where that fulness can be found.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

You can't take into account the rest of scripture just by highlighting a few verse that seem to fit your point, especially with Paul's letters. His teachings are often long trains of thought that build on themselves. So we have to follow this train.

Rom 2: We will be judged according to our deeds and we will be justified IF we followed the law (v. 12-13).

Rom 3: But no one follows the law. No one is righteous. No human will ever be justified by works of the law (v 20). The righteousness of God will be manifested not by us following the law, which is impossible, but by us having faith apart from the law (v 27-28). If we're supposed to exercise our faith by follow God's law, why does Paul make a striking distinction, multiple times, between faith and works of the law?

Rom 4: Those who continue to focus on the law aren't becoming more righteous, they're just adding to their debt (v 4). Righteousness comes through belief and faith for those who do NOT try to gain righteousness through the law (v 5). Again, if we're supposed to follow the law to build our own righteousness, why does Paul say the faithful who do not work will be counted as righteousness?

Rom 5: Since we are justified by faith (apart from works), we have peace with God (v 1). How can we have peace with God if we constantly have to focus on the law and our own righteousness? Faith and grace are very closely linked (v 2), and since faith is apart from works, wouldn't the same be true of grace?

I think you are the one who is cherry picking the Bible. Your theology is based on a few (misconstrued) passages of Paul, while disregarding the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the Bible that salvation requires faith, repentance, and obedience to all the commandments of God.

[mathonihah]

So the motivation for following the commandments is loving God, not getting eternal life. Neither one says 'If you want eternal life, keep my commandments.'

It is both. We keep his commandments because we love him, as well as because we seek his promised blessings: “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (Romans 2:7)

[Avatar4321]

I don't believe there's a distinction between immortality and eternal life. I believe you're either saved/justified or you're not. I believe there's only one level of heaven and everyone there will be with God the Father.

But since I was asking about the LDS doctrine of eternal life, I was thinking of their definition, which according to various articles on lds.org, is basically exaltation, the best God has to offer and the highest kingdom of glory.

Everyone will be a Mormon? Then what's the point of being a Mormon in this life? Many LDS sources are very clear this mortal life is a test for us, and without the test, we could not progress to exaltation/eternal life. So which is it? Are you saying we can basically ignore God's plan of a test in this life and the make-up test in the next life will be good enough?

But there is a difference between Immortality and Eternal life. Immortality is easy to define. You live forever. Eternal Life was defined by Christ in the Great Intercessor prayer:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3

[Akboy]

If exaltation is about BEING not GETTING (which you are right, we become who we are or will through how we meet our TESTS), then why would I want to ignore anything I believed about God? . . . So all good people will have already done the major portion of that covenant by living the laws they already know, and if by some means they had not had the ceremony yet, it will never keep them out of further progression because one of their brothers and sisters would have it ready by proxy.

That's not what I meant when I was asking about the test. As I understand the Grand Council and the Premortal existence, the Father wanted us to progress, but we couldn't without some kind of test, some chance to make a choice. So He presented His plan, which includes having faith in God despite having no memories or tangible proof God exists and dealing with temptations.

Yet as you point out, a person can't enjoy heaven with ONLY a baptism. So will there be other tests of faith and temptation in the after life if, for whatever reason, I don't pass them in this life? If this mortal test was required for progression, then how could I progress without meeting the test?

Or do other religions qualify for the test? My religion does teach us about having faith in God and dealing with temptations, which just define the terms differently than Mormons. So if I have the faith and temptation parts covered, and I would have the baptism by proxy, then would I progress just as much as any Mormon?

First of all, I would not doubt their faith. We all fall short in different ways, it is not my place to judge his heart. Only God looks on the heart of man.

I was just responding to what you said, "Faith alone is like living in spite of, or disregard toward the law (demonstrating an unchanged heart)," which I generally agree with. What do you think Paul is talking about when He says "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching? (2 Tim 4:2)" I'm not saying you should chastise someone or question their faith every time they mess up. But if you see a good friend falling into a sinful lifestyle, you wouldn't say anything? If you won't exhort him, who will?

Perhaps you should stop looking at the law as a stumbling block for the sinner and view it as a building block.

Where does the Bible say anything like the law is a building block? Paul says a lot of important things about the law in Galatians 3. I don't want to cherry pick verses, so we'll have to follow his train of thought again.

¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” ¹¹ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” ¹² But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— ¹⁴ so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

So the necessity to follow the law was a curse, but Christ's death gives us the chance to be free from the curse. Paul isn't just making a distinction between law and faith, he's making a sharp contrast between them. Can faith really save someone from the curse of the law if that faith includes another law, another curse of necessity?

¹⁵ To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. ¹⁶ Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. ¹⁷ This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

A lot of stuff there. The promise of 'righteousness through faith' came to Abraham, then 430 years later, the law came. If the law is such an important part of faith, why did God wait so long? If having the law was so important to our test and progression to exaltation, why didn't God give the law to Adam?

Why does Paul say the law does not annul the covenant of faith? If he had been teaching that the law was an important part of faith, a building block, then why does he have to make it clear the law doesn't void the promise of faith?

¹⁹ Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. ²⁰ Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. ²¹ Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. ²² But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The law wasn't added as building blocks. It was added because we sin.

²³ Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. ²⁴ So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, ²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave^[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Even if the law was a building block, why does it matter since we are no longer under the law? If you still use the law like a building block, you're only building your own debt (Rom. 4:4, which you still haven't responded to).

I want to address your other issues but I feel like we are speaking past each other. ​So I can better understand where you are coming from, how do you view the commandments? What are their purposes?

Secondly, how do you view repentance?

I was recently a leader at a winter youth group retreat. Our speaker for the event was Pastor David Choi, [media=]

That's a short taste on what he spoke about. For 4 days, he dug into the idea that our righteousness comes from Christ and only Christ, and various ways that impacts our daily life.

On the last day, we had a Q&A time where students and leaders could ask him whatever they wanted. I raised my hand and explained I've talked to people who think Christianity is all about following rules and I wanted to know how he balanced between that extreme and the idea that we get "saved" and can do whatever we want. Part of his answer was the fact that "We obey because it creates greater joy and happiness for us. Sin and disobedience brings death." Many sins, like lust, feel like they would bring us happiness, but lust destroys relationships and makes it harder to form healthy relationships. The commandments are still important because they help us focus on God and avoid destroying ourselves.

What about repentance?

Edited April 10, 2013 by Akboy

[volgadon]

Akboy, you seem to be conflating law in general with the Law of Moses in particular.

[Akboy]

Akboy, you seem to be conflating law in general with the Law of Moses in particular.

Why wouldn't I? Does the Bible ever make a distinction between "law in general" and the Law of Moses?

Does the Bible ever say we are still under a law? Yes, Paul mentions the law of faith in Rom 3, but then he goes on to warn about mixing works in with faith. The word 'law,' can be used in a variety of ways, such as describing something as an inescapable reality whether you acknowledge it or not. The law of gravity isn't a list of rules, but ignoring it can get you killed. The law of faith isn't a list of rules, but there is a fate worse than death for anyone who doesn't embrace it.

So are you embracing the law of faith? Or are you trying to exercise your faith by following some other law? Rom. 4:4-5

Edited April 10, 2013 by Akboy

[mathonihah]

That's not what I meant when I was asking about the test. As I understand the Grand Council and the Premortal existence, the Father wanted us to progress, but we couldn't without some kind of test, some chance to make a choice. So He presented His plan, which includes having faith in God despite having no memories or tangible proof God exists and dealing with temptations.

Yet as you point out, a person can't enjoy heaven with ONLY a baptism. So will there be other tests of faith and temptation in the after life if, for whatever reason, I don't pass them in this life? If this mortal test was required for progression, then how could I progress without meeting the test?

Or do other religions qualify for the test? My religion does teach us about having faith in God and dealing with temptations, which just define the terms differently than Mormons. So if I have the faith and temptation parts covered, and I would have the baptism by proxy, then would I progress just as much as any Mormon?

I was just responding to what you said, "Faith alone is like living in spite of, or disregard toward the law (demonstrating an unchanged heart)," which I generally agree with. What do you think Paul is talking about when He says "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching? (2 Tim 4:2)" I'm not saying you should chastise someone or question their faith every time they mess up. But if you see a good friend falling into a sinful lifestyle, you wouldn't say anything? If you won't exhort him, who will?

Where does the Bible say anything like the law is a building block? Paul says a lot of important things about the law in Galatians 3. I don't want to cherry pick verses, so we'll have to follow his train of thought again.

So the necessity to follow the law was a curse, but Christ's death gives us the chance to be free from the curse. Paul isn't just making a distinction between law and faith, he's making a sharp contrast between them. Can faith really save someone from the curse of the law if that faith includes another law, another curse of necessity?

A lot of stuff there. The promise of 'righteousness through faith' came to Abraham, then 430 years later, the law came. If the law is such an important part of faith, why did God wait so long? If having the law was so important to our test and progression to exaltation, why didn't God give the law to Adam?

Why does Paul say the law does not annul the covenant of faith? If he had been teaching that the law was an important part of faith, a building block, then why does he have to make it clear the law doesn't void the promise of faith?

The law wasn't added as building blocks. It was added because we sin.

Even if the law was a building block, why does it matter since we are no longer under the law? If you still use the law like a building block, you're only building your own debt (Rom. 4:4, which you still haven't responded to).

I was recently a leader at a winter youth group retreat. Our speaker for the event was Pastor David Choi,

That's a short taste on what he spoke about. For 4 days, he dug into the idea that our righteousness comes from Christ and only Christ, and various ways that impacts our daily life.

On the last day, we had a Q&A time where students and leaders could ask him whatever they wanted. I raised my hand and explained I've talked to people who think Christianity is all about following rules and I wanted to know how he balanced between that extreme and the idea that we get "saved" and can do whatever we want. Part of his answer was the fact that "We obey because it creates greater joy and happiness for us. Sin and disobedience brings death." Many sins, like lust, feel like they would bring us happiness, but lust destroys relationships and makes it harder to form healthy relationships. The commandments are still important because they help us focus on God and avoid destroying ourselves.

What about repentance?

And why are you so obsessed with Paul? Is the Bible condensed in Paul? Did Jesus have no other Apostles besides Paul?

Why can't you support your interpretation of Paul by what the other Apostles said? Why does James directly contradict Paul? Why does the Revelation of John contradict Paul? Why does Peter cast doubt on the teachings of Paul? Do you know of any prophet or Apostle whose teachings have been as controversial as Paul’s, even in his own time?

How do you know that you are not among the “unlearned and unstable” who “wrest” the teachings of Paul unto their own “destruction”?

Why can't you corroborate the teachings of Paul with anything that Jesus said? Who was greater, Jesus or Paul? Why does Jesus never teach the doctrines of Paul?

Why hasn't any respectable Christian scholar or theologian understood the teachings of Paul as you guys do, until Luther and Calvin came along? Why didn't the Early Church Fathers, who were closest to the time of the Apostles, understand Paul as you guys do? Why didn't any other renowned Catholic theologians, like St Thomas Aquinas, do? Why did only Luther and Calvin have the brains to see what millions of other Christians for 14 centuries never saw?

And of course, we now have the added light of modern revelation to put it all in proper perspective, and which you would do well to “seek unto”.

[mathonihah]

I was recently a leader at a winter youth group retreat. Our speaker for the event was Pastor David Choi, [media=]

That's a short taste on what he spoke about. For 4 days, he dug into the idea that our righteousness comes from Christ and only Christ, and various ways that impacts our daily life.

Not impressed. He is a false prophet teaching the false gospel of Protestantism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Evangelicalism. Here is a transcript of the essence of his message, given towards the end of the video:

“God ... doesn't tolerate you ... he delights and welcomes sinners, for God so loved the world ... it doesn't matter. Anyone today can come to the gospel. And as you come to Jesus as you really are ... and you taste the grace of Almighty God, guess what, you will see just how good the news is; and as you see how good the news is, you will be compelled to go and share that news.”

No mention of repentance anywhere! The scriptures, however, teach a different gospel. They teach a gospel of repentance, as well as faith in Jesus Christ. Try these:

Matt. 3:

2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

• • •

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

Matt. 4:

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

• • •

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 6:

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

• • •

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, ...

Luke 5:

32 I came not to call the righteous, but asinners to repentance.

Luke 13:

3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

• • •

5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Luke 15:

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 24:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Acts 2:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 17:

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Acts 26:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

It is a sign of a false prophet that teaches grace without repentance.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[Akboy]

And why are you so obsessed with Paul? Is the Bible condensed in Paul? Did Jesus have no other Apostles besides Paul?

Why can't you support your interpretation of Paul by what the other Apostles said? Why does James directly contradict Paul? Why does the Revelation of John contradict Paul? Why does Peter cast doubt on the teachings of Paul? Do you know of any prophet or Apostle whose teachings have been as controversial as Paul’s, even in his own time?

How do you know that you are not among the “unlearned and unstable” who “wrest” the teachings of Paul unto their own “destruction”?

James doesn't contradict Paul. He's saying a living faith will produce works and only a living faith will save us. If someone has a dead faith, all the preaching in the world about laws and enduring to the end won't do him any good. Adding works to a dead faith is pointless. The faith needs to be revived, then it will naturally produce works.

Notice what James didn't say. He doesn't say anything like we're under a law and he doesn't say we have to endure to the end. His examples, Abraham and Rahab, were of two specific moments in time where people demonstrated a faith which produced works. Why didn't James mention a life time of people exercising their faith by works?

Where does Revelation contradict Paul?

Could you be more specific about Peter and Paul? I know Paul calls out Peter in Gal. 2, but it sounds like Peter was caving to the peer pressure of the traditional Jews. It's clear in the Gospels that Peter often didn't think things through very well before acting, but that doesn't mean he disagreed with Paul on core doctrinal issues.

Why can't you corroborate the teachings of Paul with anything that Jesus said? Who was greater, Jesus or Paul? Why does Jesus never teach the doctrines of Paul?

There's John 3:16, which mentions belief, not exercising our faith with works or enduring to the end.

Luke 18:10-14: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men —robbers, evildoers, adulterers— or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God."

Why hasn't any respectable Christian scholar or theologian understood the teachings of Paul as you guys do, until Luther and Calvin came along? Why didn't the Early Church Fathers, who were closest to the time of the Apostles, understand Paul as you guys do? Why didn't any other renowned Catholic theologians, like St Thomas Aquinas, do? Why did only Luther and Calvin have the brains to see what millions of other Christians for 14 centuries never saw?

The Gospel according to the Church Fathers: http://thecripplegate.com/the-gospel-according-to-the-church-fathers/

I'm sure you could come up with your own list of church fathers who seem to agree with you, but that wouldn't prove much. The NT makes it very clear there were plenty of false teachers during that time. So just because you can find someone from that time who agrees with you, it doesn't mean they were representative of the true early church.

[Akboy]

No mention of repentance anywhere! The scriptures, however, teach a different gospel. They teach a gospel of repentance, as well as faith in Jesus Christ. . . .

It is a sign of a false prophet that teaches grace without repentance.

I wasn't try to give a summary of everything he talked about. I was just mentioning his response to a specific question. Yes, repentance was a big part of his messages. We were at the retreat 4 days, and on the second night, we had many, many students on their knees, some crying, praying for forgiveness for various issues. Leaders were either praying for their own issues or praying with students. We had an even bigger response on the third night.

We recorded all of his messages.

http://www.fkpcalaska.org/ Mouse over the "United '12" tab and click Media. "Manger Hearts" was the second night's message and it was really good. It's about not pretending we have everything together and openly confessing our sins to fellow Christians.

[mathonihah]

James doesn't contradict Paul. He's saying a living faith will produce works and only a living faith will save us. If someone has a dead faith, all the preaching in the world about laws and enduring to the end won't do him any good. Adding works to a dead faith is pointless. The faith needs to be revived, then it will naturally produce works.

Notice what James didn't say. He doesn't say anything like we're under a law and he doesn't say we have to endure to the end. His examples, Abraham and Rahab, were of two specific moments in time where people demonstrated a faith which produced works. Why didn't James mention a life time of people exercising their faith by works?

Where does Revelation contradict Paul?

Could you be more specific about Peter and Paul? I know Paul calls out Peter in Gal. 2, but it sounds like Peter was caving to the peer pressure of the traditional Jews. It's clear in the Gospels that Peter often didn't think things through very well before acting, but that doesn't mean he disagreed with Paul on core doctrinal issues.

The early Apostles were aware of the writings of Paul, and the potential problems that they could cause. Peter deals with it by giving the Saints this warning: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16) That was Peter's way of dealing with what he saw as the potential problem. James deals with it differently, by directly contradicting the language of Paul, without mentioning him by name: "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:20–26) James is doing the same thing that Peter was doing, but more discretely. The early Apostles were aware of the potential problems of the writings of Paul, and did what they could to alleviate it without coming out in outright condemnation. That seems to have worked for a long time, until the arch heretics Luther and Calvin came along, and ruined the gospel forever!

The book of Revelation doesn't contradict Paul. It contradicts your “faith alone without works” distortion of the writings of Paul. It does that by emphasising judgement based on the law of works.

There's John 3:16, which mentions belief, not exercising our faith with works or enduring to the end.

Luke 18:10-14: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men —robbers, evildoers, adulterers— or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God."

None of those endorse the kinds of teachings that you guys like to attribute to Paul.

The Gospel according to the Church Fathers: http://thecripplegat...church-fathers/

I'm sure you could come up with your own list of church fathers who seem to agree with you, but that wouldn't prove much. The NT makes it very clear there were plenty of false teachers during that time. So just because you can find someone from that time who agrees with you, it doesn't mean they were representative of the true early church.

That is right. ECFs don't teach Protestant doctrines, although it is possible to make out as if they do by picking a few selective quotes taken out of context.

Edited April 10, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I wasn't try to give a summary of everything he talked about. I was just mentioning his response to a specific question. Yes, repentance was a big part of his messages. We were at the retreat 4 days, and on the second night, we had many, many students on their knees, some crying, praying for forgiveness for various issues. Leaders were either praying for their own issues or praying with students. We had an even bigger response on the third night.

We recorded all of his messages.

http://www.fkpcalaska.org/ Mouse over the "United '12" tab and click Media. "Manger Hearts" was the second night's message and it was really good. It's about not pretending we have everything together and openly confessing our sins to fellow Christians.

I would have to read or listen to what he said more carefully before judging it, which I can't do right now. In the mean time have you had a chance to watch or listen to the LDS General Conference which was held last weekend? I recommend you to try it. You can read, watch, or listen to the talks by clicking the following link:

http://www.lds.org/g...013/04?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

I wasn't try to give a summary of everything he talked about. I was just mentioning his response to a specific question. Yes, repentance was a big part of his messages. We were at the retreat 4 days, and on the second night, we had many, many students on their knees, some crying, praying for forgiveness for various issues. Leaders were either praying for their own issues or praying with students. We had an even bigger response on the third night.

We recorded all of his messages.

http://www.fkpcalaska.org/ Mouse over the "United '12" tab and click Media. "Manger Hearts" was the second night's message and it was really good. It's about not pretending we have everything together and openly confessing our sins to fellow Christians.

This made think of a Stake Conference meeting, the adult session, where one of the presidency gave a talk specifically about confessing our sins to one another. The following Fast Sunday a really awesome member stood up and bore his testimony that he needed to confess that he had a problem viewing porn. He mentioned the talk about confessing our sins to each other and so really took it to task. I'll never forget it and kept thinking he has to be talking about someone else. But nope someone else heard the same thing. So the leaders or this leader is on track with the minister. This leader has written some books about the Saviour and they're sold at Deseret Book. I personally love his talks and lessons!

Akboy, I love what this guy on the youtube is saying too! He is fun to listen to with a great message.

[Vance]

So the motivation for following the commandments is loving God, not getting eternal life. Neither one says 'If you want eternal life, keep my commandments.'

Humm,

But that is exactly what Jesus taught.

Matt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

I don't believe there's a distinction between immortality and eternal life.

Humm.

Well JESUS taught that there was.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Vance

[Anakin7]

We are saved by true grace [charis - of which one of it's meanings is unmerited favor] which is accessed,acticated, made alive in ones spiritual/temporal life by way of true faith [pistis - faithfulness,fidelity,loyalty,obedience,trust] to God The Father/God The Son Jesus Christ/God The Holy Ghost.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

James doesn't contradict Paul. He's saying a living faith will produce works and only a living faith will save us. If someone has a dead faith, all the preaching in the world about laws and enduring to the end won't do him any good. Adding works to a dead faith is pointless. The faith needs to be revived, then it will naturally produce works.

Notice what James didn't say. He doesn't say anything like we're under a law and he doesn't say we have to endure to the end. His examples, Abraham and Rahab, were of two specific moments in time where people demonstrated a faith which produced works. Why didn't James mention a life time of people exercising their faith by works?

Where does Revelation contradict Paul?

Could you be more specific about Peter and Paul? I know Paul calls out Peter in Gal. 2, but it sounds like Peter was caving to the peer pressure of the traditional Jews. It's clear in the Gospels that Peter often didn't think things through very well before acting, but that doesn't mean he disagreed with Paul on core doctrinal issues.

There's John 3:16, which mentions belief, not exercising our faith with works or enduring to the end.

Luke 18:10-14: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men —robbers, evildoers, adulterers— or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God."

The Gospel according to the Church Fathers: http://thecripplegat...church-fathers/

I'm sure you could come up with your own list of church fathers who seem to agree with you, but that wouldn't prove much. The NT makes it very clear there were plenty of false teachers during that time. So just because you can find someone from that time who agrees with you, it doesn't mean they were representative of the true early church.

Here is the List - http://matt16:18.freeyellow.com/fathers.html

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited April 10, 2013 by Anakin7

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

James doesn't contradict Paul. He's saying a living faith will produce works and only a living faith will save us. If someone has a dead faith, all the preaching in the world about laws and enduring to the end won't do him any good. Adding works to a dead faith is pointless. The faith needs to be revived, then it will naturally produce works.

That is nice and dandy. What is the difference between a living faith and a dead faith? I am quite sure as we delve into this we probably won't get much info in the way and the differnce between the 2.

Ill tell you first what it means then you can offer up your own theoligical point of view. The difference is that one faith has works with their belief. The other is just a mere beleif with no action. A living faith is a faith were you go and visit the sick and aflicted. The dead faith is the fatih were you claim "I believe in Jesus" and then sit on your duff and visit not the sick and afflicited. The person that does not visit the king in jail. You know the whole parable of the sheep and the goats.