When should you resign your L D S membership?

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Where did I say the Book or Mormon didn't teach "that we must have faith in Jesus Christ to obtain eternal life"?

I could ask you the same questions...

Every post you claim we don't teach it 

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

You're confused on multiple levels.

We're talking about "ETERNAL LIFE" not general salvation.

Yes I've read the BoM

When you say "obey God to obtain eternal life", do you mean believe or do you mean obey the commandments?

I dont think I'm confused in the slightest.

What I the difference between being saved and having eternal life.

When I say obey God to obtain eternal life, I cant get much clearer. We need to do what He says. Otherwise we aren't trusting Him.

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

So you keep his commandments.

Have you ever noticed how those who claim works are required for eternal life are never actually doing what they claim is required for eternal life? 

 

So Jesus lied?

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

My whole point is that faithfulness [i.e. obedience to commandments] is not a requirement for the gift of eternal life.   

Again, so jesus lied?

[Five Solas]

On 12/6/2015 at 2:53 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

As I think you realise, the resident proselytizing anti-Mormon started this thread in order to promote leaving the Church.

...

So says the board's resident psychic who can read minds, discern the human heart, etc.  And even when he's shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be utterly & completely wrong about his quarry--he doesn't slow down one moment. 

;0)

For what it's worth, I started it because I was interested in what people on the board think about the question, Russell.  And I'm enjoying catching up & reading replies--although it I were to do it again, I'd make it multi-select (I think the new update enables that) and word the third option a little differently. 

--Erik

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Yes, faith that is in Christ is given as a free gift and is the only faith that saves.  Think about James 2:1 " My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

And in Galatians 2 " Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Our faith - sinful man's faith - is our selfish, worthless works and cannot save.

This is obvious in James 2:21 where Abraham was justified before man by his works (offering Isaac), but he was not justified before God by his works.  Romans 4:2 " For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." 

LDS theology teaches that man's faith can save him by his own worthy behavior, but LDS theology can and HAS NEVER given one single person eternal life.

How do you claim to have read the Book of Mormon and claim that we teach our worthy behavior saves us? 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Looks like this thread is devolving into a save by faith and grace approach to a saved by faith and works approach.

 

How fun!  

Yep.  Been there done that so many times. What it really boils down to is how the OSAS crowd chooses to interpret Paul. Because the doctrine clearly doesn't come from Christ's teachings.

I believe the OSAS position essentially comes from a linear analysis of the scriptures.

The Hebrews just didn't interpret the scriptures nor the words of Christ this way.

In other words the Greek or linear thinking looks at salvation as a linear concept in which we are not saved until we confess Christ, and then we enter a new stage along the chronological line of the gospel in which we become "saved" never to look back.

The Hebrew way of thinking is that we believe in Christ if we choose to follow Him and do His will. As long as we are doing that we are abiding in Him and a partakers of the heavenly gift. No one can pluck us away out of His hand, etc. But we can choose to do wrong, and to fall from that grace.

Lucifer was a son of the morning, a morning star, yet he fell from the grace of heaven - so it can happen - contrary to the OSAS interpretation. Satan is proof. The out of the OSAS is that if someone were to murder, then they weren't really true converts in the first place, but imposters..... the rationalizing goes on and on.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

How do you differentiate these?

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life".

One has the Son and one doesn't.  Period.

But what does that mean?

What does it mean to have the Son?  What blessings?  What privileges?  I'm asking this question (in as many ways as i can think of) because i think your issue here is one largely of semantics.  LDS maybe not describe our saved state as having eternal life in the hear and now, but when we do talk about being saved, it seems that we mean exactly the same thing you do when you talk about it.

 

[FormerLDS]

14 hours ago, halconero said:

I most certainly have access to a copy of the ancient manuscripts, can read Koine Greek, and recently finished a degree in Early Christian Writings from the Religion Department at the University of Toronto.

True meaning of the word and contextual debates are extremely vital in establishing doctrine. Even in your plain reading of the King James Version of the Bible is informed by 20th/21st century English rather than the 17th century English in which it was written, the meaning of words like faith and belief radically changed even in that era in the next 200 years afterwards.

Right, you don't have a copy of the original manuscripts.  All you and the other doubters really have is the biased opinions of the authors whom you choose to read and accept as fact.   Truth is they don't have the answers, but they want you to think they do.    

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Those who have eternal life can still sin.  It doesn't mean you no longer have that life or never had life in the first place.

By "very serious sin", do you believe there is a "not very serious sin"?  Makes no sense.  All sin is very serious sin and equally sinful. 

Of course, but isn't a given that when someone becomes a 'new creature in Christ' that there are certain sins they won't commit while in that state?  Otherwise, they aren't any different, inside, than a person who isn't saved, right?

And if a person who is saved isn't any different on the inside than a person who isn't saved, then what's the point of being saved?  How does it help the person in mortality?

 

 

[FormerLDS]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry, I didn't realize you were a Calvinist. 

No, not at all Calvinist.  How can mankind be deprived when he has a free gift of eternal life available every single day of his life?  

[FormerLDS]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Every post you claim we don't teach it 

Have you even read the Book of Mormon?

[FormerLDS]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I dont think I'm confused in the slightest.

What I the difference between being saved and having eternal life.

When I say obey God to obtain eternal life, I cant get much clearer. We need to do what He says. Otherwise we aren't trusting Him.

Perhaps you should look it up.

Again, why is it those who claim you have to do something in order to have eternal life are never actually doing that which they claim?

The answer my dear LDS Christian friends is a plain as the nose on your face.

You do not have eternal life.  Period.  And according to what the Bible plainly says, those who do not have eternal life DO NOT have Jesus Christ.

What better reason to resign your LDS membership than over the very words of Jesus Christ?

[FormerLDS]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Again, so jesus lied?

Satan lied.  In any religion you look at his "gift" of "eternal life" is only available through a lifetime of worthy behavior coupled with faith in Christ.

Listen, if the rejected of the savior in Matthew 7 didn't make it, neither will you.  They cast out demons in the name of Jesus Christ.  They prophesied in the name of Jesus Christ and performed miracles in the name of Jesus Christ.  But the did not have eternal life.  They weren't DOING the will of the Father which is BELIEVE. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

No, not at all Calvinist.  How can mankind be deprived when he has a free gift of eternal life available every single day of his life?  

I must have misunderstood you then.

How does a person receive the faith of Jesus Christ?

[Zakuska]

19 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Yadi, Yada

You do not have eternal life.  Period.  And according to what the Bible plainly says, those who do not have eternal life DO NOT have Jesus Christ.

Yadi, Yada

They weren't DOING the will of the Father which is BELIEVE

1 John 3

 20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 
 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

 1 John 5

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

You don't "BELEIVE" in Jesus unless you keep ALL of his commandments.

If you don't keep Gods commandments you don't know/love Jesus or God the Father. Nor do you have Etneral Life.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Zakuska

[FormerLDS]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course, but isn't a given that when someone becomes a 'new creature in Christ' that there are certain sins they won't commit while in that state?  Otherwise, they aren't any different, inside, than a person who isn't saved, right?

And if a person who is saved isn't any different on the inside than a person who isn't saved, then what's the point of being saved?  How does it help the person in mortality?

 

 

 Again, having eternal life doesn't mean you no longer have a sinful body of flesh.  Eternal life means your soul has life - Jesus Christ lives within now by a new birth through the faith of Jesus Christ alone.  While the fleshly body is still sinful, the soul is free of sin and cleansed.

The apostle Paul described it best in Romans 7: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Right, you don't have a copy of the original manuscripts. 

Are you saying the Bible as we have it is not inerrant? 

Edited December 8, 2015 by Calm

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

 Again, having eternal life doesn't mean you no longer have a sinful body of flesh.  Eternal life means your soul has life - Jesus Christ lives within now by a new birth through the faith of Jesus Christ alone.  While the fleshly body is still sinful, the soul is free of sin and cleansed.

The apostle Paul described it best in Romans 7: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

So a person who is saved has Christ living with him even while he molests a child and then kills him or her?  That's your belief?  They can do horrible things, but their soul has Jesus Christ.  Is that right?

[halconero]

40 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Right, you don't have a copy of the original manuscripts.  All you and the other doubters really have is the biased opinions of the authors whom you choose to read and accept as fact.   Truth is they don't have the answers, but they want you to think they do.    

Oh, I don't have any doubts. In fact, having access to the copy of the oldest manuscripts has strengthened my belief in Christ and the Father.

I mean...I just had a read through of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant copy of Paul's epistles. I'm not talking about Bart Ehrman or N.T. Wright's rendition of that manuscript...but like...the actual manuscript.

So, if you want to think that the writer of the epistle was biased, you're welcome to do so, but let me ask you this? Which copy is likely to be more reflective of the authorial intent: the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament in their original language on the parchment on which they were written, or a 17th century translation of newer manuscripts.

The reality is that there really is no disputation on the significance of pious faith or belief, the Greek notion of grace, or the atoning act of agape. So far you haven't really been able to respond to me regarding those except to accuse me of googling my answers, lying about having read the originals, or just relying on other author's interpretations. I would have hoped for a more substantial discussion than that, because breaking the author's intent down, discussing the meaning of Christ's atonement as it was communicated in the author's original language and culture, and trying to come together in conversation over it would have enriched us both. Instead you've chosen to accuse me of lying and doubt when my testimony of Christ is strong, and the past four years of my life have been spent learning a dead language and going directly to the source so that I could avoid the very bias of which you accuse me.

I would be insulted, but frankly I don't really have the time or the emotional inclination to be so. If you want to move past these accusations and actual begin a discussion of the original texts, I would be happy to engage once again. We might not even come to an agreement, but I can promise that it would be far more interesting, uplifting, and spiritually stimulating than your current response. If you concern is regarding the veracity of my background or credentials, I would be happy to provide you with my university degree, my honours thesis on the translation process of the word "Logos" in the Gospels of John and Thomas direct from their source, and others here would be happy to attest to my contributions on the board over the past few years regarding Early Christian Texts, some of which run counter to common Latter-day Saint narratives. 

I'm not trying to impress you or shout you down with my credentials, but merely trying to say that we could have a way more substantial discussion than "No, you lie, doubt, and are biased."

[HappyJackWagon]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you saying the Bible as we have it is not inerrant? 

This is a double negative. Of course the bible is NOT (in)errant. It's not perfect. Does anyone think it is perfect?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a double negative. Of course the bible is NOT (in)errant. It's not perfect. Does anyone think it is perfect?

Former LDS from what I remember of his previous posts used to believe the Bible is inerrant.  I am wondering if he has changed his belief and thus I phrased it that way.  Just interested in his response given his apparent rejection of the copies of the ancient manuscripts.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a double negative. Of course the bible is NOT (in)errant. It's not perfect. Does anyone think it is perfect?

The inerrancy of the bible is doctrine in most (if not all) protestant churches.  I think Cal is just asking if F-LDS believes that or not.

[Russell C McGregor]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

So says the board's resident psychic who can read minds, discern the human heart, etc.

Call for references that I have ever claimed to be able to read minds, discern the human heart, etc.

 

 

[FormerLDS]

7 hours ago, halconero said:

Oh, I don't have any doubts. In fact, having access to the copy of the oldest manuscripts has strengthened my belief in Christ and the Father.

I mean...I just had a read through of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant copy of Paul's epistles. I'm not talking about Bart Ehrman or N.T. Wright's rendition of that manuscript...but like...the actual manuscript.

So, if you want to think that the writer of the epistle was biased, you're welcome to do so, but let me ask you this? Which copy is likely to be more reflective of the authorial intent: the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament in their original language on the parchment on which they were written, or a 17th century translation of newer manuscripts.

The reality is that there really is no disputation on the significance of pious faith or belief, the Greek notion of grace, or the atoning act of agape. So far you haven't really been able to respond to me regarding those except to accuse me of googling my answers, lying about having read the originals, or just relying on other author's interpretations. I would have hoped for a more substantial discussion than that, because breaking the author's intent down, discussing the meaning of Christ's atonement as it was communicated in the author's original language and culture, and trying to come together in conversation over it would have enriched us both. Instead you've chosen to accuse me of lying and doubt when my testimony of Christ is strong, and the past four years of my life have been spent learning a dead language and going directly to the source so that I could avoid the very bias of which you accuse me.

I would be insulted, but frankly I don't really have the time or the emotional inclination to be so. If you want to move past these accusations and actual begin a discussion of the original texts, I would be happy to engage once again. We might not even come to an agreement, but I can promise that it would be far more interesting, uplifting, and spiritually stimulating than your current response. If you concern is regarding the veracity of my background or credentials, I would be happy to provide you with my university degree, my honours thesis on the translation process of the word "Logos" in the Gospels of John and Thomas direct from their source, and others here would be happy to attest to my contributions on the board over the past few years regarding Early Christian Texts, some of which run counter to common Latter-day Saint narratives. 

I'm not trying to impress you or shout you down with my credentials, but merely trying to say that we could have a way more substantial discussion than "No, you lie, doubt, and are biased."

Discussing copies of ancient manuscripts is completely worthless to me.  I'm sure you have a point and I'm sure whomever's books you've been meticulously absorbing have absolutely no bias with respect to their outcome.

If God created this world in seven days like he said he did, and if God could do all things miraculous within the scriptures like he said he did, then I chose to believe that he has enough power to preserve his written word from the time it was given to man until now like he said he did.

I'm sure the spherical-earth believers had the same lively discussions in their day with the flat-earth believers, but no avail because they had an opposing point-of-view on a fundamental level which completely negated taking the other side seriously (even though they were scholars of their time). 

So whatever Bart and Wright (and whomever else you're reading) cough up, I'm sure sounds great, but to me just sounds like a bunch of flat-earth nonsense.  I'm just not interested in why that crowd thinks the Bible is wrong, mistranslated, etc...