Once Saved Always Saved ?

[ERayR]

The error of many (not all) LDS is trusting that the prophet or the church somehow saves us.

 

I think you have a serious misunderstanding here.  I have never in over fifty years ever heard this.

[Sp0ckrates]

First, I don't want to mislead you, I'm not a believer in "once saved always saved."

Thanks for telling me, and sorry for misunderstanding.

As for "all you need to do to be saved..." Repentance is apart of "having faith" in my opinion. As I stated, one can't repent without faith, and one can't get close to God without feeling the need to repent. The closer one gets to Christ, the more we realize how sin hurts him.

Ephesians 2 is a complete summary of salvation. "By grace are you saved through faith"

I don't see the word repentance in Ephesians 2, yet you said it is required for salvation. Since the truth is that, "By grace you are saved, through faith [and repentance]" how is Ephesians 2 a complete explanation of salvation?

[danielwoods]

Thanks for telling me, and sorry for misunderstanding.

I don't see the word repentance in Ephesians 2, yet you said it is required for salvation. Since the truth is that, "By grace you are saved, through faith [and repentance]" how is Ephesians 2 a complete explanation of salvation?

 

I tried to explain it above. Let me say it in a different way. "By Grace are you saved..." Grace for what exactly? If not for our sins, then what could it be? By Grace are you saved through faith. So, the very mention of Grace is a reference to the need for repentance and forgiveness, which happens by grace. 

[danielwoods]

I think you have a serious misunderstanding here.  I have never in over fifty years ever heard this.

 

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?" 

 

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration? 

 

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants. 

[bluebell]

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?" 

 

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration? 

 

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants. 

 

That question is just an easy way to ask whether or not someone believes in the doctrines of the LDS church, namely the apostasy, the reality of the first vision, and the book of mormon.

 

It has nothing to do with believing that we are saved by JS or any other prophet.

[JLHPROF]

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?" 

 

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration? 

 

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants. 

 

No, actually it's the same question.

It is asking "Do you trust that Christ called Joseph Smith to be a prophet as he did so many before?"

and

"Do you believe the LDS Church to be the Church that Christ restored to the earth through his chosen prophet to lead you to salvation?

 

It is always about trusting Christ for salvation and those who are witnesses of him to lead you to him and his Church to provide the ordinances of salvation.

 

It is no different than trusting Peter, James, John or Paul who taught you about Christ through their writings.

Without Prophets and Apostles you would know absolutely nothing of Christ and could not be saved because we wouldn't know of his existence in order to exercise that trust/faith.

Edited June 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?" 

 

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration? 

 

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants.

Do you believe the Bible saves you? (no need to answer again if you've been asked and answered already).

[Five Solas]

Despite all the huffing & puffing against a common Evangelical theological position--LDS have their own flavor of eternal security.  You can read it in this now-locked thread over here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65488-joseph-smiths-promise-made-to-helen-mar-kimball/

 

If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation...

 

In my opinion, it would be a good deal more interesting thread if certain LDS posters took time for a little introspection.

 

--Erik

 

[ERayR]

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?" 

 

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration? 

 

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants. 

 

Having a testimony that Joseph Smith was/is a prophet or that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet is not synonymous with a belief that a belief in a prophet is what saves one.  One might just as well say the same about you for your belief in biblical prophets.  It is just plaine absurd.

[danielwoods]

That question is just an easy way to ask whether or not someone believes in the doctrines of the LDS church, namely the apostasy, the reality of the first vision, and the book of mormon.

 

It has nothing to do with believing that we are saved by JS or any other prophet.

 

Indeed. I agree it's an easy way to find out if they are LDS. For *some* (and notice I said some in my original statement as well) it indicates that they trust in the LDS church in addition to Christ, not Christ alone. 

 

No, actually it's the same question.

It is asking "Do you trust that Christ called Joseph Smith to be a prophet as he did so many before?"

and

"Do you believe the LDS Church to be the Church that Christ restored to the earth through his chosen prophet to lead you to salvation?

 

It is always about trusting Christ for salvation and those who are witnesses of him to lead you to him and his Church to provide the ordinances of salvation.

 

It is no different than trusting Peter, James, John or Paul who taught you about Christ through their writings.

Without Prophets and Apostles you would know absolutely nothing of Christ and could not be saved because we wouldn't know of his existence in order to exercise that trust/faith.

 

You say it's no different. If that were true, then how come we never hear or read about non-LDS asking about a "testimony" of Paul or Peter or the Bible or the Church? Only the LDS use this terminology. There is something quite different and unique about the LDS and their belief structure. 

From my perspective, it's a trust thing. *Some* LDS trust in the church and it's ordinances as much or more than they trust in Christ.

 

This is why when *Some* learn things about their Church history that they don't like, their spiritual world view falls apart and they leave the faith, completely. It demonstrates that they put their trust in the LDS Church, not Christ alone. 

 

Do you believe the Bible saves you? (no need to answer again if you've been asked and answered already).

 

Of course not. It leads me to Christ. I also don't claim to have a "testimony" that the bible is true. 

 

Having a testimony that Joseph Smith was/is a prophet or that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet is not synonymous with a belief that a belief in a prophet is what saves one.  One might just as well say the same about you for your belief in biblical prophets.  It is just plaine absurd.

 

"Having a testimony" is an LDS way of saying it. We never hear that from non-LDS people, why is that? 

[3DOP]

Having a testimony that Joseph Smith was/is a prophet or that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet is not synonymous with a belief that a belief in a prophet is what saves one.  One might just as well say the same about you for your belief in biblical prophets.  It is just plaine absurd.

Good point Eray. The mistake Protestants make is that they do not appreciate the profound unity of Christ and His Church. To God be the glory either way. Christ is glorified, the Father is glorified, and the Holy Ghost is glorified if we are saved. We cannot deny the church established by God for His glory and our salvation.

Obviously, you and I adhere to different churches. But we have this in common. We do not pose that God is jealous of His church, and we are not ashamed to acknowledge that our life, our souls, and the souls of our children are dependent on the ministry of a true priesthood. This is the way by which God has been pleased to administer His graces unto us. Saved by Christ? Yes. Saved by the Church? Ditto. May the good God be praised!

Rory

[Okrahomer]

Danielwoods said:

"Having a testimony" is an LDS way of saying it. We never hear that from non-LDS people, why is that?"

At the risk of repeating myself...well...Seriously?!!!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december/how-i-know-my-testimony-is-real.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-testimony.html

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Testimonies.php

http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/

http://truthsaves.org/christian-testimony/

http://christianity.about.com/od/testimonies/a/howtotestimony.htm

http://2praisegod.com/testimony/

http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2005/may/amazing-my-testimony.html

http://www.allaboutgod.com/christian-testimonies.htm

Edited June 14, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Five Solas]

Good point Eray. The mistake Protestants make is that they do not appreciate the profound unity of Christ and His Church. To God be the glory either way. Christ is glorified, the Father is glorified, and the Holy Ghost is glorified if we are saved. We cannot deny the church established by God for His glory and our salvation.

Obviously, you and I adhere to different churches. But we have this in common. *We do not pose that God is jealous of His church*, and we are not ashamed to acknowledge that our life, our souls, and the souls of our children are dependent on the ministry of a true priesthood. This is the way by which God has been pleased to administer His graces unto us. Saved by Christ? Yes. Saved by the Church? Ditto. May the good God be praised!

Rory

I would challenge you here, Rory.  We don't get very far into the Bible (Exodus 20:5 to be exact) when we discover Scripture reveals precisely that--"a jealous God."  And would you really want it any other way?  Would a wife prefer an indifferent husband or a jealous one?  So follows the Church (i.e., God's people, Christ's body).  Our God is a jealous God--jealous for his people, and I submit that's a good thing.

 

--Erik

[ERayR]

I would challenge you here, Rory.  We don't get very far into the Bible (Exodus 20:5 to be exact) when we discover Scripture reveals precisely that--"a jealous God."  And would you really want it any other way?  Would a wife prefer an indifferent husband or a jealous one?  So follows the Church (i.e., God's people, Christ's body).  Our God is a jealous God--jealous for his people, and I submit that's a good thing.

 

--Erik

 

Yes but what is God jealous of?  We don't get far before we realize it is the worship of false gods that bothers him.

 

I would think most wives would prefer an attentive, trusting husband.

Edited June 14, 2015 by ERayR

[Okrahomer]

I would challenge you here, Rory. We don't get very far into the Bible (Exodus 20:5 to be exact) when we discover Scripture reveals precisely that--"a jealous God." And would you really want it any other way? Would a wife prefer an indifferent husband or a jealous one? So follows the Church (i.e., God's people, Christ's body). Our God is a jealous God--jealous for his people, and I submit that's a good thing.

--Erik

Oops! I gave you a thumbs up by mistake...but I probably meant to give you one earlier, so we can call it even.

Regarding Exodus 20:5: 3DOP stated that God is not jealous of His Church. I see a reference to idol worship here; but nothing that would indicate jealousy of His Church.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Okrahomer

[3DOP]

I would challenge you here, Rory.  We don't get very far into the Bible (Exodus 20:5 to be exact) when we discover Scripture reveals precisely that--"a jealous God."  And would you really want it any other way?  Would a wife prefer an indifferent husband or a jealous one?  So follows the Church (i.e., God's people, Christ's body).  Our God is a jealous God--jealous for his people, and I submit that's a good thing.

 

--Erik

Eric hey. God bless.

I do not deny that God expresses Himself as jealous...of false deities. But the Persons of the Blessed Trinity are neither jealous of each other, nor of the Church. The Church is so closely identified with Jesus that when He meets Saul on the Damascus Road, He does not inquire about why Saul has been persecuting the Church. He asks, "Why persecuted thou me?"

Best,

Rory/3DOP

[JLHPROF]

You say it's no different. If that were true, then how come we never hear or read about non-LDS asking about a "testimony" of Paul or Peter or the Bible or the Church? Only the LDS use this terminology. There is something quite different and unique about the LDS and their belief structure. 

From my perspective, it's a trust thing.

 

You are still missing the point.  You don't trust Christ anymore than any LDS person does.

You trust what Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James etc have TOLD YOU about Christ.

We trust what they have told us AND what modern prophets have clarified about Christ.

Your belief in Christ comes from the exact same type of source as ours - prophets, apostles, scripture, and a Church.

Quit pretending we trust in a prophet and Church and you trust directly in Christ, because it's an inaccurate claim.

 

 

*Some* LDS trust in the church and it's ordinances as much or more than they trust in Christ.

This is why when *Some* learn things about their Church history that they don't like, their spiritual world view falls apart and they leave the faith, completely. It demonstrates that they put their trust in the LDS Church, not Christ alone.

 

No argument here.  Although we trust in the Church and the ordinances BECAUSE Christ told us we should and we trust him.

[3DOP]

You are still missing the point.  You don't trust Christ anymore than any LDS person does.

You trust what Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James etc have TOLD YOU about Christ.

We trust what they have told us AND what modern prophets have clarified about Christ.

Your belief in Christ comes from the exact same type of source as ours - prophets, apostles, scripture, and a Church.

Quit pretending we trust in a prophet and Church and you trust directly in Christ, because it's an inaccurate claim.

 

 

No argument here.  Although we trust in the Church and the ordinances BECAUSE Christ told us we should and we trust him.

Now I remember why I hang around here!

[Bobbieaware]

"Do you have a testimony that the JS is a prophet and the Church is true?"

The above is a quote I have heard from many LDS. Why is that question so important? Why so much emphasis on the restoration?

It indicates where one puts their trust. Do you trust Christ alone for your salvation? If so, great! That's what Christ wants.

Could New Testament era Christians have rejected the leadership of Peter, James, John and Paul as Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ and still be considered to be true followers of Christ?

Your problem is that you are so far separated from the New Testament Church, and the way in which it was led and operated, that it is totally foreign to your own experience as a believer -- even though you can read all about it in the Bible. It's remarkable to me that even though you believe in the Bible you seem to be unable to even imagine what it was like to have been a Christian in the day when the saints were led by living Apostles and Prophets. If you were able to travel back in time to the days of the New Testament Church, you would encounter an ecclesiastical organization wholly outside the realm of your own experience. In those days the members of the Church couldn't say " we have no need of the foremost members of the body of Christ" and still be considered true believers and followers of the Lord.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

Danielwoods said:

"Having a testimony" is an LDS way of saying it. We never hear that from non-LDS people, why is that?"

At the risk of repeating myself...well...Seriously?!!!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/december/how-i-know-my-testimony-is-real.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-testimony.html

 

A quote from this second link should provide enough evidence to demonstrate the difference in usage between our two faiths. 

 

"Only a Christian can give a Christian testimony, and a Christian is one who has received forgiveness for sin by trusting alone in the person and work of Jesus Christ for that forgiveness.

A Christian testimony is given when Christians relate how we came to know the God of the Bible through the moving of the Holy Spirit in our hearts."

 

For the LDS - "A testimony is a spiritual witness given by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves His children; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is the prophet of God who was called to restore the gospel; that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior's true Church on the earth; and that the Church is led by a living prophet today. With this foundation, a testimony grows to include all principles of the gospel."

https://www.lds.org/topics/testimony?lang=eng

 

So, for the LDS having a testimony is to know that certain facts are true (JS is a prophet, the restoration, the LDS church, the Godhead, etc). 

 

For, the non-LDS Christian, a testimony is their personal story about how they came to know God personally. 

 

You honestly don't see a difference here?

 

You are still missing the point.  You don't trust Christ anymore than any LDS person does.

You trust what Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James etc have TOLD YOU about Christ.

We trust what they have told us AND what modern prophets have clarified about Christ.

Your belief in Christ comes from the exact same type of source as ours - prophets, apostles, scripture, and a Church.

Quit pretending we trust in a prophet and Church and you trust directly in Christ, because it's an inaccurate claim.

 

 

No argument here.  Although we trust in the Church and the ordinances BECAUSE Christ told us we should and we trust him.

 

The difference isn't our mutual trust in Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James. The difference is the additional things, what you call "modern" prophets who have "clarified" about Christ. The net effect of this "clarification" is not clarification at all, but major additions or changes which result in *Some* people trusting the church, not Christ alone.

 

The way I would say it, is the Bible and the Church should lead us to faith and trust in Christ alone.  

 

Could New Testament era Christians have rejected the leadership of Peter, James, John and Paul as Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ and still be considered to be true followers of Christ?

Your problem is that you are so far separated from the New Testament Church, and the way in which it was led and operated, that it is totally foreign to your own experience as a believer -- even though you can read all about it in the Bible. It's remarkable to me that even though you believe in the Bible you seem to be unable to even imagine what it was like to have been a Christian in the day when the saints were led by living Apostles and Prophets. If you were able to travel back in time to the days of the New Testament Church, you would encounter an ecclesiastical organization wholly outside the realm of your own experience. In those days the members of the Church couldn't say " we have no need of the foremost members of the body of Christ" and still be considered true believers and followers of the Lord.

I'm not sure how to respond to this conjecture. I haven't said that I have no need of the body of Christ, nor would I say that.

I would agree with part of what you are saying, there certainly isn't the top down, secretive, heavy handed organization described in the NT church, that we find in the LDS church. 

[Okrahomer]

deleted because it was too argumentative.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Sp0ckrates]

I tried to explain it above. Let me say it in a different way. "By Grace are you saved..." Grace for what exactly? If not for our sins, then what could it be? By Grace are you saved through faith. So, the very mention of Grace is a reference to the need for repentance and forgiveness, which happens by grace.

Daniel: I appreciate your answering my questions, and I know what it is like to carry on several conversations at once. When I do so, I sometimes don't carefully consider the questions or comments to which I reply.

Please let me ask you this: What is grace?

Edited June 14, 2015 by Sp0ckrates

[bluebell]

Indeed. I agree it's an easy way to find out if they are LDS. For *some* (and notice I said some in my original statement as well) it indicates that they trust in the LDS church in addition to Christ, not Christ alone. 

 

 

 

 

It's true that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church that He set up and is the head of.

 

But we see that as actually trusting Christ more, not less.  We trust that He gives us the church because it's necessary, and we trust that He can use the church to help us return to Him, and that the Kingdom of Heaven (which we believe the church to be a part of) plays a part in the plan of salvation because He has set it up that way.

[Bobbieaware]

It's true that most LDS do not separate Christ from the Church that He set up and is the head of.

 

But we see that as actually trusting Christ more, not less.  We trust that He gives us the church because it's necessary, and we trust that He can use the church to help us return to Him, and that the Kingdom of Heaven (which we believe the church to be a part of) plays a part in the plan of salvation because He has set it up that way.

Excellent insight. I wonder if many non-LDS Christians ever stop to think it is by the very means which you cite (Christ's earthly Church) that the New Testament was produced.

[JLHPROF]

 

 The difference isn't our mutual trust in Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and James. The difference is the additional things, what you call "modern" prophets who have "clarified" about Christ. The net effect of this "clarification" is not clarification at all, but major additions or changes which result in *Some* people trusting the church, not Christ alone.

 

The way I would say it, is the Bible and the Church should lead us to faith and trust in Christ alone.  

 

You could make the same argument about evangelical Christians.  Many trust the Bible and Paul more than Christ.  Some would say Catholics trust the Papacy more than Christ.  Some would say Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists etc trust the teachings of their founders on Christ and the Bible more than Christ.

The problem you describe is equally present in both traditional Christians and Mormonism.

Both religions teach faith and trust in Christ.

Both religions have members that place their trust in other areas.

 

In the end all knowledge either religion has of Christ comes from the teachings of those they revere as prophets and apostles, and their writings. 

You cannot have your trust and faith in Christ without being taught of him by someone mortal.  

We accept additional teachers to you, but the principle is the same.  Your "trust and faith in Christ" cannot be formed in a vacuum any more than ours can.

 

We accept additional information on Christ as revealed from heaven since God has always taught men more since the beginning of time.  I would argue we are able to have MORE faith and MORE trust in Christ because we know MORE about him than a limited closed canon.  I know you say "major additions or changes", but that is a different debate for a different thread.