A Simple Question For Latter-Day Saint Friends

[Calm]

You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit of the spirit.

 

I have heard people claim this who don't appear to be at all attempting to follow the Lord in their external behaviour. And it is not just falling back into sin for a while if they die in that state is it?

 

I've seen those who have proclaimed they fully trust and at the time were living lives that I would say displayed the fruit of the Spirit and yet later have become atheists.  Were they lying?  I don't see why I should believe that rather than assume that was what they truly believed at the time.

 

How can you know that others "know" for sure if they aren't actually trusting in Christ's righteousness?

 

Personally I believe that I am completely trusting (I certainly don't believe there is any other way than through the Lord that I have eternal life) and I believe that I can point to the fruits of the Spirit in my life as blessings I have received from the Lord but I've been told by not a few others that I am not.

 

 If your eternal life hinges on "I'm trying to  . . .," then it's the same as saying Christ's righteousness isn't enough to get eternal life

 

.This is so strange to me.  We can't even try to exercise faith in Christ with this standard.

 

 It has powerful images of pursuing God 

 

How can a pursuit even exist without working at it?

Edited April 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

I don't see any reason to doubt him having eternal life. He certainly made mistakes, and we all make mistakes, but the Psalms make it pretty clear he yearned for and trusted in God. In fact, Psalm 119 is one of my favorite studies I've done. It has powerful images of pursuing God without relying on our own ability. Contrast the 'Taw' section (v.169) with the 'He' section (v.33).

So before I asked if if was possible for someone to be saved and then later turn doing evil things like rape a murder, I think I called it "old creature" activities. You said it was not possible.

So if murder isn't a "old creature" activity, then what is? Or can "new creatures" commit all kinds of evil acts (rape, murder, etc) and still maintain their eternal life?

[Akboy]

I have heard people claim this who don't appear to be at all attempting to follow the Lord in their external behaviour. And it is not just falling back into sin for a while if they die in that state is it?

 

I've seen those who have proclaimed they fully trust and at the time were living lives that I would say displayed the fruit of the Spirit and yet later have become atheists.  Were they lying?  I don't see why I should believe that rather than assume that was what they truly believed at the time.

 

How can you know that others "know" for sure if they aren't actually trusting in Christ's righteousness?

 

Personally I believe that I am completely trusting (I certainly don't believe there is any other way than through the Lord that I have eternal life) and I believe that I can point to the fruits of the Spirit in my life as blessings I have received from the Lord but I've been told by not a few others that I am not.

 

.This is so strange to me.  We can't even try to exercise faith in Christ with this standard.

 

How can a pursuit even exist without working at it?

Yes, people misinterpret and abuse scripture. They twist God's word to justify their decisions. What does that have to do with this discussion? If you met someone who twisted LDS scripture to justify their bad behavior, would you change your interpretations at all?

 

Ultimately, I can't know for sure whether a person is really trusting Christ or not. But it's a little hard to believe they are when the doctrine they talk about suggests they're trusting in Christ and their own efforts to get eternal life.

 

How do you define "completely trusting"?

 

How do you define "exercising faith in Christ"?

 

So before I asked if if was possible for someone to be saved and then later turn doing evil things like rape a murder, I think I called it "old creature" activities. You said it was not possible.

So if murder isn't a "old creature" activity, then what is? Or can "new creatures" commit all kinds of evil acts (rape, murder, etc) and still maintain their eternal life?

No, I said it's not possible for a new creation to consistently, over the long term turn back to old activities. A new creation will be troubled by their sin and turn away from it, even if that turning takes years. But someone who only claims to be a new creature will either ignore their sin when it's pointed out or they'll claim to repent, but not really change.

 

What do you believe about the old creation/new creation doctrine? Does a christian change back into the old every time they sin and back into the new when they repent? If so, then being a new creation would have more to do with our ability to follow the law than it would about Christ's righteousness.

Edited April 12, 2014 by Akboy

[JAHS]

I answered Yes because I assume that I am experiencing my eternal life right now. Whether or not in the end I obtain exaltation can only be a hope and a goal.

[Calm]

Ultimately, I can't know for sure whether a person is really trusting Christ or not. 

 

But how can a person know for themselves as you claim?

[Akboy]

But how can a person know for themselves as you claim?

You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit of the spirit. So with that complete trust, you can have the inheritance of eternal life now. You many of the benefits don't apply yet, but the inheritance is just as sure as an inheritance from your earthly parents written in stone. We have the assurance of inheritance through our adoption as sons of God (which brings up the question of why Paul used the term 'adoption' if we're by nature God's children). We cannot change that adoption or that inheritance.

[Calm]

You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit of the spirit

 

How?  What is the foolproof way to know and not fool yourself about it?

[Brian 2.0]

What do you believe about the old creation/new creation doctrine? Does a christian change back into the old every time they sin and back into the new when they repent? If so, then being a new creation would have more to do with our ability to follow the law than it would about Christ's righteousness.

I'm the wrong person to ask seeing that my personal beliefs are more atheistic than Christian. I'm just trying to understand your theology on this.

Take the following scenarios:

Christian ABC has true faith and has accepted Christ. Later in his life he makes some serious sins, he murders someone in order to sleep with their wife, maybe a different time he drank too much and ended up raping someone, in another moment of weakness he molested his granddaughter. Christian ABC feels bad about these things, "his spirit is willing, but his flesh is weak" sometimes. He still maintains his true faith in Christ, asking for forginess.

Non-Chrisitan XYZ has not accepted Christ as his savior, either because he's never been taught the gospel, or because Christianity simply never resonated with him. He leads a good moral life. Never cheats on his spouse. Involves himself with multiple charities. He's not perfect, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hates this guy.

Do you believe the following of these people after death and judgement?

Chrisitan ABC will reside in heaven for eternity with eternal life.

And

Non-Chrisitan XYZ will reside in hell for eternity with Eternal Death.

Correct?

[Akboy]

How?  What is the foolproof way to know and not fool yourself about it?

If there was a foolproof way to know anything about God, it wouldn't really be faith. Plus, if knowledge of God was that foolproof, it would probably take away some of our free will. Have you heard of J. Warner Wallace? He's and a cold case homicide detective and was an atheist until he started investigating the "eyewitnesses" in the 4 gospels and found them surprisingly reliable. He's still a detective, but he also has a ministry as an apologist. He recently wrote a book called Cold Case Christianity and has a podcast where he addresses issues like why God's existence is logical, but not foolproof.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/

 

As for theology, try to take yourself out of it as much as possible. Take a serious look at the historical, textual and linguistic context of the passages in question, including the original greek. In all the LDS interpretations I've read, I very rarely see mention of what certain words meant in the original language. If your theology ignores the greek, then it's certainly fool-prone.

 

Plus, don't rely on something subjective like praying about "another testament" and expecting a positive result. That's opening yourself to a placebo effect. If a sugar pill can fight cancer and give patients related negative side effects simply because they expect a result, then couldn't praying while expecting a result also produce an effect? That is far from a foolproof way to evaluate the truth or validity of anything.

 

I'm the wrong person to ask seeing that my personal beliefs are more atheistic than Christian. I'm just trying to understand your theology on this.

Take the following scenarios:

Christian ABC has true faith and has accepted Christ. Later in his life he makes some serious sins, he murders someone in order to sleep with their wife, maybe a different time he drank too much and ended up raping someone, in another moment of weakness he molested his granddaughter. Christian ABC feels bad about these things, "his spirit is willing, but his flesh is weak" sometimes. He still maintains his true faith in Christ, asking for forginess.

Non-Chrisitan XYZ has not accepted Christ as his savior, either because he's never been taught the gospel, or because Christianity simply never resonated with him. He leads a good moral life. Never cheats on his spouse. Involves himself with multiple charities. He's not perfect, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hates this guy.

Do you believe the following of these people after death and judgement?

Chrisitan ABC will reside in heaven for eternity with eternal life.

And

Non-Chrisitan XYZ will reside in hell for eternity with Eternal Death.

Correct?

Firstly, since you're an atheist, I strongly suggest you also look into Cold Case Christianity. The author puts together a very good case supporting the eyewitnesses who saw Christ preaching He's the Son of God, dying and coming back to life.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/

 

I don't really have enough info about ABC. Was he showing fruit in other areas of his life? How did he feel about his sins and sin in general? I guess it's possible he would be saved, but it's really not our role to know.

 

XYZ may think he leads a good moral life, but it's not possible. The Bible makes it clear no man is righteous and all have sinned and fall short of God. Not cheating doesn't mean he hasn't lusted after other women, which Christ said is almost the same as cheating. He may work with those charities to try to make up for those small mistakes, but then he would be trying to save himself which is impossible and a sin against God because he's saying he doesn't need God.

 

Here's a helpful analogy I've heard before on the subject: Why would God demand such a punishment for rebellion against Him? Let me give you an example: If I were to take a ride in a taxi, and during the ride, reach up and slap my cab driver in the face, what do you think my cab driver would do? Probably kick me out of the taxi...at least. What if I slapped my boss? I'd probably be fired. But what if I slapped a police officer, or a Judge, or the president of the United States? The point is, the offense of the crime depends on the sovereignty of the one offended. If I were to slap God in the face (which is basically what any act of rebellion against Him is); God who is infinitely Sovereign, infinitely Holy, and infinitely Just; my crime would be infinitely worthy of death.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Akboy

[Calm]

If there was a foolproof way to know anything about God, it wouldn't really be faith.

Then when you said the below what you really meant was not that "you know" but that "you can have faith you have eternal life"?

"You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit...."

[MiserereNobis]

I totally agree. In fact because the same people who bash us also bash Catholics I have become more interested in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It is kind of like the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". As far as joining Theological forces, that one is definitely a stretch in some ways, but we both agree in regards to a need for authority. Even though I think we Mormons still have a small amount of anti Catholicism in our cultural heritage (coming from a frontier Protestant Milieu) I find myself having much more sympathy with Catholic Theology then say Reformed Theology. Also, in reading works of Catholic writers as well as the early Church Fathers, I have a greater desire to know God then say when I read Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon. Finally, as you and Rory (aka 3dop) show, you can disagree while being agreeable, which I have observed in many Catholics I have met with. 

 

How about a debate between a Catholic, a Mormon, and a protestant?  The Catholic and Mormon team up when it comes to all the "sola" doctrines of the protestants and the protestant and the Mormon team up on the apostasy of Catholicism.  And then the Catholic stands alone declaring the co-redemptrix nature of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mormon stands alone declaring Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, and the protestant stands alone declaring... um... that the Bible put together by the Catholic Church proves the Catholic Church is wrong...?  that Mormons aren't Christians...?  that... um...?

 

ETA:  ok, I see that I'm being rather harsh towards protestants, but hey, it's the Irish in me.  Now I'll go grab me me a Guinness and some Jameson and make sure there is nothing orange in my house...

Edited April 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Akboy]

Then when you said the below what you really meant was not that "you know" but that "you can have faith you have eternal life"?

"You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit...."

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Calm]

You keep saying that a person can know they have eternal life.

I asked you how they could know for sure in a foolproof way and you responded you can never know in a foolproof way, you have to have faith.

So which is it and if it is one can know, then again I ask how can one know one has eternal life?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As I am an atypical LDS (I am a RLDS Restorationist) who believes in 3 Degrees of Glory- I would have to answer... I dunno   

If you had asked if I am "Saved" I would immediately answer "Yes."- as all are saved except those, present and future, sons of perdition.

Edited April 14, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Akboy]

You keep saying that a person can know they have eternal life.

I asked you how they could know for sure in a foolproof way and you responded you can never know in a foolproof way, you have to have faith.

So which is it and if it is one can know, then again I ask how can one know one has eternal life?

My answer would basically be a repeat of one of my last few responses to you. Why aren't those answers enough? What point are you trying to make? Do you believe LDS theology gives you a foolproof way to know you're following the right gospel?

Edited April 13, 2014 by Akboy

[Brian 2.0]

Firstly, since you're an atheist, I strongly suggest you also look into Cold Case Christianity. The author puts together a very good case supporting the eyewitnesses who saw Christ preaching He's the Son of God, dying and coming back to life.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/

I'll check it out.

Here's a helpful analogy I've heard before on the subject: Why would God demand such a punishment for rebellion against Him? Let me give you an example: If I were to take a ride in a taxi, and during the ride, reach up and slap my cab driver in the face, what do you think my cab driver would do? Probably kick me out of the taxi...at least. What if I slapped my boss? I'd probably be fired. But what if I slapped a police officer, or a Judge, or the president of the United States? The point is, the offense of the crime depends on the sovereignty of the one offended. If I were to slap God in the face (which is basically what any act of rebellion against Him is); God who is infinitely Sovereign, infinitely Holy, and infinitely Just; my crime would be infinitely worthy of death.

How does this apply to people that have never heard the gospel? Keeping with your analogies. Almost every driver has broken some traffic law. And the result is a mark on record... UNLESS you go to traffic school. This is great for people that know about, and go, to traffic school. Is it fair when the DMV comes and takes everyone's licenses away that didn't go to traffic school, even the people that didn't know it was an option?

And to a non-Chrisitan the whole scenario is a bit hard to believe sometimes because the traffic school itself is the one telling you that there are specific traffic laws, and there is a DMV that will take your right to drive away if you don't go to traffic school. The non-Chrisitan wouldn't say he's a perfect driver or anything, just that he's never seen good evidence that there is a DMV, so he doesn't feel compelled to go to a traffic school that someone has set up simply because they say they can save them from this supposed DMV.

[Akboy]

The non-Chrisitan wouldn't say he's a perfect driver or anything, just that he's never seen good evidence that there is a DMV, so he doesn't feel compelled to go to a traffic school that someone has set up simply because they say they can save them from this supposed DMV.

There's plenty of good historical and logistical evidence to support the claims of the 4 Gospels. There's plenty of evidence to support the idea of an intelligent designer behind nature. Wallace covers the issue of the Gospels in his book and talks about more general evidence for God in his podcasts at that site. You just have to be willing to accept the evidence.

 

Wallace also did the eyewitness test on the Book of Mormon and it doesn't hold up. There's not really any science supporting the claims in the BoM either. So if you want a faith that has some evidence supporting it, you should probably stay away from the LDS church.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Akboy

[Calm]

My answer would basically be a repeat of one of my last few responses to you. Why aren't those answers enough? What point are you trying to make?

Because you've told me nothing that would indicate to me that there is any actual way to really know one is saved. All rely on a feeling of security that apparently unsaved individuals can feel as well.

I am not trying to make a point or prove how LDS theology works. This is about your theology and if it can work as you claim it does. So far I have never seen an explanation that tells how an individual can in the very moment that the question "are you saved/do you have eternal life?" know for sure if he answers "yes" he is correct. Just saying the equivalent of "he can know" over and over isn't an answer to "how can he know". Just saying "if he completely trusts Jesus" isn't an answer because all that does is shift the "how" to "how does he know he completely trusts Jesus". Both can only be based on self evaluation and given that I've known plenty of individuals with doctrine that is condemned by those who ask this type of question that still state they know or completely trust Jesus sincerely and a few who had the right (according to you) doctrine and stated at one time they knew or completely trusted in Jesus and yet now state they do not know or trust, I don't see any evidence that self evaluation of one's own knowledge or trust works in the way you claim it does.

Claiming they weren't really sincere simply demonstrates the inability of the individual to know for sure.

If I am right, then you need something else to determine how one can be secure in believing one is saved with any reliability with your doctrine.

I have known a few evangelicals who talked the same doctrine as you, who claimed they knew in their soul they were saved and they appeared to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. If they were absolutely certain they were saved, does that qualify them to be saved?

If not, then how can anyone know for sure that they are saved and aren't fooling themselves as these people were…because these people I am thinking about are now professed atheists and they don't even believe in Christ any more so they don't know any more they are saved. At the very least they lost their sure knowledge. Even if they return later in life to their belief, at one time they lost knowledge of being saved when they were certain they were saved before…so either they were never saved in spite of supposedly knowing they were and therefore it demonstrates that it isn't possible to know for sure one is saved or one is saved even in unbelief and lack of knowledge of being saved…which means your "they know" is wrong again.

From your posts:

Again, the idea of a Christian who consistently refuses to pursue growth is an oxymoron. It's not possible. That person may claim Christ/faith, but that doesn't mean their faith is genuine. Paul says those in Christ are new creations, but he never says anything about being able to turn back into the old creation. He also says we are sealed with the Spirit when we're saved. That seal can only be opened by God, not us or anyone else. True Christians always have the Spirit and the Spirit will produce fruit even if the Christian slides back into sin for a while.

I'm not denying eternal life is conditional upon belief, but once we have true, genuine belief, Paul says we are transformed into new creations and sealed with the Spirit, a seal that can only be opened by God

You know if you're completely trusting in Christ's righteousness for eternal life and display the fruit of the spirit.

Only the last tells me anything about how to know for sure one is saved…because one knows for sure when one is saved, right?

And yet there are it seems to be plenty that know for sure they are saved who don't qualify according to you because they don't have the right doctrine or who violate your rules because later in life they don't know that they are saved at all.

Edited April 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[FormerLDS]

Friends,

 

Wanted to say thanks for sharing your opinions.  Each must address this question uniquely though the course of this life and decide for ourselves what works, makes sense and presents the best case that we can choose to believe.  

 

FLDS

[Tacenda]

I always thought LDS know they are saved, but are working to obtain exaltation. Which would also mean to live with God, therefore it is the crux and the difference.

[Brian 2.0]

Akboy,

Bump on this question. Don't know if I saw a response.

How does this apply to people that have never heard the gospel? Keeping with your analogies. Almost every driver has broken some traffic law. And the result is a mark on record... UNLESS you go to traffic school. This is great for people that know about, and go, to traffic school. Is it fair when the DMV comes and takes everyone's licenses away that didn't go to traffic school, even the people that didn't know it was an option?

P.S. Love your "The Kramer" icon. I've always wanted an actual brush stroke copy of that for my office.

[Akboy]

Calmoriah, I've already pointed out Matt. 7 as one example of Christ saying some people would sincerely believe they're following Him, but they end up being wrong. But I also have to take into account 1 John 5 saying this:  ¹³ I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

 

He doesn't say 'believe and you'll be on the path to eternal life,' or 'believe, endure to the end and you'll have eternal life.' It's just 'believe and know you have eternal life.' Am I supposed to doubt I have eternal life? Am I supposed to assume I need something more than belief to get eternal life?

 

You didn't answer one of my earlier questions. If you knew someone who abused or misinterpreted LDS theology, would that change your interpretation? If not, then why should I change my interpretation of the Bible because some people claim to believe the same thing I do, but either abuse it or misunderstand it?

 

How old are those ex-evangelicals and professed atheists? Did they make that change when they were teenagers or young adults? This is a common issue discussed in churches I've gone to and I bet it comes up in LDS churches. Children grow up going to church and learning about Jesus, grace, belief, etc, but many stop going to church when they leave home. They were probably saying stuff like 'I'm saved by grace' because they're friends and family were saying the same thing. They could memorize a ton of verses and doctrine without really thinking about what they mean. So their shallow faith collapses when they leave home. But why does that matter? How many Mormons have you known who had a testimony that the church is true, but then walked away and denied it later? Does that make you doubt the validity of your testimony?

 

Do you believe LDS theology offers more assurance than evangelical theology? Do you believe you're closer to knowing for sure you're in the right faith than evangelicals?

 

Brian 2.0: That's a very common question people ask and there's quite a few sources online who address it better than I could. Here's a good one I found, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/becoming_a_christian/is_christ_the_only_way/what_about_those_who_have_never_heard.aspx

Edited April 14, 2014 by Akboy

[ERayR]

I always thought LDS know they are saved, but are working to obtain exaltation. Which would also mean to live with God, therefore it is the crux and the difference.

 

Unless your one of those members who consider saved = exaltation..

[Brian 2.0]

Brian 2.0: That's a very common question people ask and there's quite a few sources online who address it better than I could. Here's a good one I found, http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/becoming_a_christian/is_christ_the_only_way/what_about_those_who_have_never_heard.aspx

 

Thanks for the link.  A good read... and a lot of good points, but I still think it skirted the issue in the end.

 

It says the following:

When it comes to God's revelation, theologians divide these into God's special and general revelation. His special revelation includes the Bible and Christ. These are both direct and special means of God revealing Himself to us. General revelation, sometimes called natural revelation, consists of what God has revealed of Himself via the natural world and moral conscience.

 

"Those who have never heard" have heard something and they do have access to key information about God. They know that God exists, that there is a moral standard and that they have broken this standard.

 

 

 

Interesting concept.  I had not heard of "special" and "general" revelation.  So basically ALL people, whether they have heard of Christ or know of the Bible have received "general revelation."

 

Various missionary stories support the fact that often times those who have never heard who have responded to God's general revelation are later visited by Christian missionaries.

The Bible, for instance, records just such a story about a man named Cornelius. This man knew about God, but not about Christ. Because of his sincere desire to know God, Cornelius came in direct contact with the Apostle Peter who told Cornelius about Jesus

 

 

Cool.  But we agree that not all people have encountered "special revelation" like Cornelius did. 

 

Is belief in "general revelation" sufficient to be saved?  What happens to Cornelius' soul had he died the day before he came in contact with Apostle Peter?  

 

We know that God will deal fairly with those who have not received a direct presentation of the gospel, just as He will deal fairly with those who have.

 

 

I thought the answer to my question was going to come right after this sentence, but it never came.  The article was was great, but didn't really answer the question, it just redefined "those who have never heard".

 

So is belief in general revelation ("They know that God exists, that there is a moral standard and that they have broken this standard.) sufficient to be saved?  I assume the answer is no.  

[Brian 2.0]

In searching around from other sources I saw this:

 

This is a very commonly asked question. There are two possible responses. First, it could be that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to hell. Second, it could be that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel will be judged in a different way than those who have heard of Jesus.

 

http://C***.org/what-happens-those-who-have-never-heard-gospel

 

Do you believe in that second option?  Is this a common Christian belief?

 

Later in the article is seems even he doesn't think that 2nd option is a reality:

Because the Scripture does not specifically address this issue, we cannot make an absolute statement concerning it. However, since the Bible does state that salvation is only through Jesus and that a person must receive Christ, then logically we conclude that those who have not heard the gospel are lost.