FormerLDS Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: First there is not really a set LDS "theology." Second there is no Church doctrine which says eternal life can only be obtained after the final judgment. Third, Eternal life is to know Christ, the Tree of Life or at least the root thereof, since eternal life grows from Him. As with many people who leave the Church, you are making a mountain out of a molehill or nothing in particular. Every member of the Church who is repentant can know through their companion, the Holy Spirit, that they have Eternal Life. You just want to say it is not guaranteed, which it is not. They can fall. They can't decide to become a murderous pillager and break their covenants and still have life. Let's just not go to those silly arguments.... "First there is not really a set LDS "theology."" How is there "not really" a set of LDS doctrines? LDS theology is a very unique and specific set of doctrines that have been documented and approved by latter-day prophets and Apostles. Would concepts like the priesthood, restoration, eternal marriage, temple work, spirit world and exaltation "not really" be a set of those doctrines either? "Second there is no Church doctrine which says eternal life can only be obtained after the final judgment." Perhaps you should look it up some time? Of course it's always possible you were absent that day in Gospel Principles class? "Third, Eternal life is to know Christ, the Tree of Life or at least the root thereof, since eternal life grows from Him." No offense to anyone, but are you a special spirit or something? I'm not trying to tell you what you personally beleive, but seriously, you're way off when it comes to LDS theology. You need to look up what LDS DOCTRINE teaches about "eternal life". "As with many people who leave the Church, you are making a mountain out of a molehill or nothing in particular. Every member of the Church who is repentant can know through their companion, the Holy Spirit, that they have Eternal Life. You just want to say it is not guaranteed, which it is not. They can fall. They can't decide to become a murderous pillager and break their covenants and still have life. Let's just not go to those silly arguments...." The doctrine of "eternal life" is the single MOST important doctrine in ANY religion. Hardly think anyone would equate their eternal life with a "mole hill"...
RevTestament Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 1 minute ago, FormerLDS said: "First there is not really a set LDS "theology."" How is there "not really" a set of LDS doctrines? LDS theology is a very unique and specific set of doctrines that have been documented and approved by latter-day prophets and Apostles. Would concepts like the priesthood, restoration, eternal marriage, temple work, spirit world and exaltation "not really" be a set of those doctrines either? Doctrines are not theology. Theology are studies done by a class of scholars and such. What you are apparently calling "theology" are doctrines promulgated by GAs or our scriptures. Again, scriptures are not theology. Priesthood and restoration are not theology either. Quote "Second there is no Church doctrine which says eternal life can only be obtained after the final judgment." Perhaps you should look it up some time? Of course it's always possible you were absent that day in Gospel Principles class? This burden is on you since you say we have a doctrine limiting eternal life to after the final judgment. I have already said there is none. Prove me wrong. CFR. Quote "Third, Eternal life is to know Christ, the Tree of Life or at least the root thereof, since eternal life grows from Him." No offense to anyone, but are you a special spirit or something? I'm not trying to tell you what you personally beleive, but seriously, you're way off when it comes to LDS theology. You need to look up what LDS DOCTRINE teaches about "eternal life". "As with many people who leave the Church, you are making a mountain out of a molehill or nothing in particular. Every member of the Church who is repentant can know through their companion, the Holy Spirit, that they have Eternal Life. You just want to say it is not guaranteed, which it is not. They can fall. They can't decide to become a murderous pillager and break their covenants and still have life. Let's just not go to those silly arguments...." The doctrine of "eternal life" is the single MOST important doctrine in ANY religion. Hardly think anyone would equate their eternal life with a "mole hill"... Again Doctrine is not theology. We have no scripture or specific teaching limiting eternal life to after the last judgement. You are just interpreting some statement in a lesson manual or something. Lesson manuals might be considered theological to the extent they interpret scripture, but they are not a critical analysis of scripture or doctrine. I sometimes don't agree with everything a lesson manual or teacher says either. Se la vie. I agree that we don't teach the false doctrine of OSAS, and we don't hang doctrine on a few different sentences written by Paul. LDS doctrine attempts to interpret scripture as a whole. Therefore, we don't errantly believe that one inherits eternal life before they die. We have life in Christ as we pursue our daily lives, but recognize that the gift of eternal life is subject to being true to Christ, and not falling or turning to the world. So long as we are true to Christ, yes, we have the promise of eternal life. OSAS is errant Calvinist teaching which ignores a great deal of scripture on point - much of which has been pointed out to you in this thread. God doesn't have to keep His promises if we don't keep ours. You are just reading scripture like a Greek Gentile. Read the whole and you will see that those who believe in Christ don't just believe with their mouth but follow. No follow = no belief = no promise = no eternal life. It is really that simple. Christ is the way - not the lip utterance.
Anakin7 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) Anakin7, LDS Sentinel,Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian {Former Fundamentalist Baptist here], I agree 100%, True Saint/Christian/Biblical Doctrine is not OSAS The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In The Blood of The Lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited May 18, 2017 by Anakin7
Anakin7 Posted May 17, 2017 Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) The LDS Evangelical in me - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kingdom.htm http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/believing.htm The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In The Blood Of The Lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited May 17, 2017 by Anakin7
FormerLDS Posted May 18, 2017 Posted May 18, 2017 22 hours ago, RevTestament said: This burden is on you since you say we have a doctrine limiting eternal life to after the final judgment. I have already said there is none. Prove me wrong. CFR. Ok sure why not. "If we use the word salvation to mean eternal life, none of us can say that we have been saved in mortality. That glorious gift can come only after the Final Judgment." True to the Faith, P153 This was actually a paraphrase from a May, 1988 Ensign article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled "Have you been saved?". The above has been officially endorsed by the FP in the preface - do you sustain the FP and quorum of the twelve apostles as general authorities?? "Eternal Life" IS the single most important doctrine in the church after all, so you'd think they have that one correct!
RevTestament Posted May 18, 2017 Posted May 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: Ok sure why not. "If we use the word salvation to mean eternal life, none of us can say that we have been saved in mortality. That glorious gift can come only after the Final Judgment." True to the Faith, P153 This was actually a paraphrase from a May, 1988 Ensign article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled "Have you been saved?". The above has been officially endorsed by the FP in the preface - do you sustain the FP and quorum of the twelve apostles as general authorities?? "Eternal Life" IS the single most important doctrine in the church after all, so you'd think they have that one correct! I sustain the FP, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them. So here we go. If I were to say that Moses had eternal life when he met Yeshua on the mount of transfiguration, my guess is Elder Oaks may agree with that. If I were to say that Moroni had eternal life when he appeared to JS, I also suspect Elder Oaks may agree with that. If I were to say that a 5 year old child who died has eternal life, Elder Oaks may also agree with that. Maybe not, but I contend this statement is not Church theology or even doctrine. If I were to ask where this teaching comes from that eternal life can only come after Final Judgment, my guess is there may be a bunch of scriptures cited, but none will say that. It's an interpretation with which I disagree. The closest I could find of those listed was Mosiah 5: 15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. Because it is in an Ensign article, does that make it Church doctrine? No. There are many things in the Ensign which are not doctrine. They are meant to edify and inform, but have not necessarily been accepted by the body of the Church as doctrine, and therefore cannot be rightly be called "Church doctrine." But I am glad you are not just pulling stuff out of the air. I contend that some have already been resurrected and are in heaven, and my guess is Elder Oaks would also have to agree with that. Once one has been resurrected, one is no longer in the spirit world. I contend others will live and reign with Jesus Christ in the Millennium, and Elder Oaks will also have to agree with that, so limiting eternal life to a point after the final judgment is not scriptural or doctrinal in my view, but yes, some will have to wait till that point.
FormerLDS Posted May 18, 2017 Posted May 18, 2017 14 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I sustain the FP, but that doesn't mean I always agree with them. So here we go. If I were to say that Moses had eternal life when he met Yeshua on the mount of transfiguration, my guess is Elder Oaks may agree with that. If I were to say that Moroni had eternal life when he appeared to JS, I also suspect Elder Oaks may agree with that. If I were to say that a 5 year old child who died has eternal life, Elder Oaks may also agree with that. Maybe not, but I contend this statement is not Church theology or even doctrine. If I were to ask where this teaching comes from that eternal life can only come after Final Judgment, my guess is there may be a bunch of scriptures cited, but none will say that. It's an interpretation with which I disagree. The closest I could find of those listed was Mosiah 5: 15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen. Because it is in an Ensign article, does that make it Church doctrine? No. There are many things in the Ensign which are not doctrine. They are meant to edify and inform, but have not necessarily been accepted by the body of the Church as doctrine, and therefore cannot be rightly be called "Church doctrine." But I am glad you are not just pulling stuff out of the air. I contend that some have already been resurrected and are in heaven, and my guess is Elder Oaks would also have to agree with that. Once one has been resurrected, one is no longer in the spirit world. I contend others will live and reign with Jesus Christ in the Millennium, and Elder Oaks will also have to agree with that, so limiting eternal life to a point after the final judgment is not scriptural or doctrinal in my view, but yes, some will have to wait till that point. So you disagree with your church on the doctrine of eternal life - perhaps the single most important doctrine. I encourage you to look even closer at the disparity between the plain teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible and LDS theology (doctrine), and you will see even more disparity. Christ will show you the truth and open your eyes friends. I'm living proof!
RevTestament Posted May 18, 2017 Posted May 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: So you disagree with your church on the doctrine of eternal life - perhaps the single most important doctrine. No, I disagree with a solitary statement from a church magazine. I often do that. Elder Oaks is not the Church. Nor does he form Church Doctrine. He has never even been in the Presidency. "I encourage you to look even closer at the disparity between the plain teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible and LDS theology (doctrine), and you will see even more disparity. Christ will show you the truth and open your eyes friend." I have been aware of my disagreement with various teachings of various GAs for some time now. All that means is I don't believe them to have the gift of prophecy or revelation at that time - not that the Church is untrue. I feel this may have been your sticky-wick. All i can say is I accept that they are fallible men doing their best to lead the Church. The reason I am in this Church is because I did see the disparity between the plain teachings of Jesus Christ and the other churches. There are also many disparities between the teachings of the apostles in the NT and other churches. The list gets quite long. I also prayed about the false prophet of Revelation and know who he was, and that makes Protestant churches the errant daughters. In some ways they are better than mom, and in some ways they are worse, but almost all accept the falsehoods of the doctrine of the trinity.
RevTestament Posted May 19, 2017 Posted May 19, 2017 Lest readers feel I am giving a "cop-out" above, let me say that not everything an apostle says or writes is considered doctrine of the Church. Bruce McKonkie was an apostle, and he wrote Mormon Doctrine. However, the First Presidency flatly refused to acknowledge it as a statement of Church doctrine. In the office notes of President David O. McKay, dated January 8, 1960, we find the following comment about Bruce McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine: We [the First Presidency of the church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition. (as cited by Erich Robert Paul, Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology [Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1992], 179) There is actually not a ton of stuff recognized as Church Doctrine. However, examples would be the interpretation of Paul concerning baptism for the dead. The Church does have a doctrine of baptism for the dead. The Church has a good number of doctrines regarding the restoration of the gospel, as well as a doctrine on salvation which is the subject brought up by FormerLDS. However, simply quoting a statement of a Church magazine or an apostle, does not mean one is citing Church doctrine as the above shows. That is just a cautionary note about critics trying to interpret "LDS doctrine." I am not trying to fault you FormerLDS, but am compelled to point that out. It can be a tricky matter as I don't believe there is a single statement of all Church doctrines one can look up. It can be a somewhat amorphous concept, and I believe there is room within the Church for disagreement on points of doctrine.
FormerLDS Posted May 19, 2017 Posted May 19, 2017 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: simply quoting a statement of a Church magazine or an apostle, does not mean one is citing Church doctrine as the above shows. That is just a cautionary note about critics trying to interpret "LDS doctrine." You asked, and I provided the LDS doctrine from an official LDS source approved by the FP. If you choose not to believe LDS doctrine then I get it. Neither do I. Neither do a lot of former members who hear the truth and choose to believe what Jesus Christ plainly says.
pogi Posted May 19, 2017 Posted May 19, 2017 On 5/17/2017 at 10:30 AM, FormerLDS said: 1. The "eternal life" that Jesus Christ offers is given during mortality, not after mortality. John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." Yes, the promise of eternal life is for those who believe, but there is also an element of enduring as it says in 1 John 2:24,25 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." You see, it is not enough to simply believe, one must endure in belief or they lose eternal life. Judas believed, but he did not abide in that belief, he did not endure to the end and therefore lost his promise to eternal life. See how that works? And in 1 Tim 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. 6:12." On 5/17/2017 at 10:30 AM, FormerLDS said: 2. The "eternal life" that Jesus Christ gives changes a dead man into a new man during mortality, not after mortality. It is literally a resurrection from the dead, but during mortality. John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." No, there is no "literal resurrection from the dead" before death. But there is a rebirth unto life. He is saying that the righteous who have done good and believe "shall not come into condemnation", speaking of the final judgment and the promise of eternal life is theirs. Lets take this in context shall we. If you keep reading a few versus down it speaks of a final judgment after the resurrection of the dead. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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." John 5:28,29 3
RevTestament Posted May 19, 2017 Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, FormerLDS said: You asked, and I provided the LDS doctrine from an official LDS source approved by the FP. If you choose not to believe LDS doctrine then I get it. Neither do I. Neither do a lot of former members who hear the truth and choose to believe what Jesus Christ plainly says. Again, I don't accept that statement from the Ensign as "Church doctrine." However, laying aside the technicalities of interpretation, I will say that the Church does have a doctrine that one does not inherit eternal life before death. I would also add or before translation as in the case of Moses. That I agree with, and my guess is you don't. See Pogi's post. It is very good. There are other scriptures on point as well. I believe all the Church(or majority) would agree that those who believe in Christ receive the promise of eternal life before death, but they must live up to their baptismal promise to follow Christ. As Pogi said we are reborn unto life in Christ and receive a promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit. Again, you are really just making a mountain out of a molehill in a sense, but we do disagree with the interpretation of receiving eternal life before we die. It is subject to our obedience and following the way of Christ. This scripture you cited is a good one: Quote John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Here Jesus is teaching that those who hear him - have his promise of everlasting life, and will not come into condemnation (Hell), but will either await resurrection in Paradise or if they die before Him will be resurrected with him unto life. That I do believe which is my point of disagreement with Elder Oaks. Not everyone must wait until the Final Judgment to receive eternal life ie believers. They are resurrected into the Celestial kingdom and receive life. So I see some exceptions to his general statement. Edited May 19, 2017 by RevTestament
whirlingmerc Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 I note that in Colossians first chapter around 5,6 the fruitlessness pf the faith working in love of the Colossians went back to the day they understood the grace of God in truth.. Grace seen of root, works working in love as fruit.
Vance Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 On 5/17/2017 at 11:30 AM, FormerLDS said: Those who receive the "eternal life" that Jesus Christ gives receive His sinless perfection within their new, living man within, thus meeting 100% of heavenly Father's sinless perfection/obedience requirement. The "new man" is sinless just as if he obeyed all commandments perfectly. Nope! That is false doctrine. It is not taught in scripture anywhere. To get it, you MUST force this interpretation into scripture, thus wresting them.
clarkgoble Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Vance said: Nope! That is false doctrine. It is not taught in scripture anywhere. To get it, you MUST force this interpretation into scripture, thus wresting them. I think the distinction is justification vs. sanctification. The former is the promise of perfection while the latter is the achievement. While I think it fair to ask how much the particular Lutheran form of this distinction is actually present in the writings of Paul, I think one could defend within Mormon scripture the basic idea. My problem is that some protestants take the Lutheran notion and then twist it such that both sanctification and justification happen when pledges (often a mere assent in ones inner voice) oneself to Jesus. That seems far more problematic. Especially in the more extreme form you find in cheap grace. I should add that in contemporary Protestant discourse you don't find the justification/sanctification distinction much anymore. While I've not followed much of this thread, I suspect within a Protestant tradition what's being conflated are sanctification and justification. In a Mormon context Chauncey Riddle was a big proponent of this distinction as well. In Conference a few years back Elder Todd Christofferson talked about the distinction as well. The main distinction between Mormon and Evangelical conceptions is that Mormons tend to follow the more Catholic interpretation. For Catholics justification isn't a one time thing when you pledge yourself to Jesus. Rather it is a process of qualifying for the sacraments to be forgiven by the grace of God. In a Mormon context we'd say Grace is constantly offered but we must take it up to begin the God given process of sanctification. Riddle, with some good reason, sees justification as receiving the Holy Ghost. While we have the companionship of the Holy Ghost we are in that state of grace and in a process of sanctification. But of course we can from free action lose the companionship of the Holy Ghost at times. But what counts is becoming just in the sense of being righteous. So for Riddle sanctification makes us just. I'd quibble with Riddle a bit, even though I respect his views a great deal. I think the doctrine of the two ways in the Book of Mormon is perhaps more apt. The question is what, by faith, we are aiming at. While I tend to agree with Riddle that there's twin intertwined processes of justification and sanctification. I also think that when we are sealed by the holy spirit of promise the spirit tells us we are just even if we're not fully sanctified. So the main difference between Mormons and many Protestants is over whether it's a single event or a process. I should add that Biblical scholarship of Paul typically has moved on from the more Lutheran inspired readings. N. T. Wright in particular gives a reading of Paul very much in keeping with LDS theology. (Here ignoring the particular taking up with variation of justification/sanctification that Riddle and others do) Needless to say those adhering to a more Lutheran theology often disagree with Wright. A good example is The Future of Justification: A Response to N T Wright by John Piper. Wright then replied with his book Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. The ultimate point is that there doesn't appear to be a single way to read the texts like Romans. I think the Mormon exegesis is just as defensible as the more Lutheran inspired ones. Edited May 22, 2017 by clarkgoble
FormerLDS Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 On 5/19/2017 at 5:02 PM, pogi said: Yes, the promise of eternal life is for those who believe, but there is also an element of enduring as it says in 1 John 2:24,25 "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." You see, it is not enough to simply believe, one must endure in belief or they lose eternal life. Judas believed, but he did not abide in that belief, he did not endure to the end and therefore lost his promise to eternal life. See how that works? And in 1 Tim 6:12 "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, 1 Tim. 6:12." No, there is no "literal resurrection from the dead" before death. But there is a rebirth unto life. He is saying that the righteous who have done good and believe "shall not come into condemnation", speaking of the final judgment and the promise of eternal life is theirs. Lets take this in context shall we. If you keep reading a few versus down it speaks of a final judgment after the resurrection of the dead. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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." John 5:28,29 Your eternal destination will either be the gift of eternal life or the reward of worthy behavior. Isaiah 64:6 reveal what Heavenly Father really thinks about your "endure to the end" works and best efforts: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." Romans 4:5 says "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Works are in the opposite corner of belief when it comes to being justified before God. 1 John 5:11-12 tells us plainly there are those who do not have eternal life because they do not have Jesus Christ. For them, regardless of their religious preference, "eternal life" can only be a one-day/hope-so/maybe-so or only a "promise" one will receive moments after their life on this earth ends.
FormerLDS Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 On 5/19/2017 at 5:02 PM, pogi said: No, there is no "literal resurrection from the dead" before death. But there is a rebirth unto life. He is saying that the righteous who have done good and believe "shall not come into condemnation", speaking of the final judgment and the promise of eternal life is theirs. Lets take this in context shall we. If you keep reading a few versus down it speaks of a final judgment after the resurrection of the dead. "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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." John 5:28,29 Jesus Christ taught those who do not have His gift of eternal life are actually dead and lifeless. In John 11:25 the savior said "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." If there is no resurrection from the dead during mortality, then what death was Jesus referring to here? In John 6:53, Christ plainly says "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." If one has "no life", wouldn't that mean one is dead? Those who do not have eternal life are those who are dead on the inside. They have never received His life - His resurrection.
FormerLDS Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 22 hours ago, Vance said: Nope! That is false doctrine. It is not taught in scripture anywhere. To get it, you MUST force this interpretation into scripture, thus wresting them. To reiterate, those who receive the "eternal life" that Jesus Christ gives receive His sinless perfection within their new, living man within, thus meeting 100% of heavenly Father's sinless perfection/obedience requirement. 1 John 3:9 best illustrates this sinless inner man concept "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." "Born of God" isn't a physical birth - it is a spiritual/inner birth, resurrection or eternal life! That new man within CANNOT SIN. This is a 100% washing of all sins past, present and future and meets the "Be ye therefore perfect (sinless)" requirement required of us in Matthew 5:48.
clarkgoble Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 52 minutes ago, FormerLDS said: To reiterate, those who receive the "eternal life" that Jesus Christ gives receive His sinless perfection within their new, living man within, thus meeting 100% of heavenly Father's sinless perfection/obedience requirement. 1 John 3:9 best illustrates this sinless inner man concept "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." "Born of God" isn't a physical birth - it is a spiritual/inner birth, resurrection or eternal life! That new man within CANNOT SIN. This is a 100% washing of all sins past, present and future and meets the "Be ye therefore perfect (sinless)" requirement required of us in Matthew 5:48. The question is whether it's permanent or not. That is can one choose to freely give up the hold of grace they've made. The Calvinists tend to say no whereas most everyone else says yes. There's not a clear scripture to that which is why it's a question that has raged the past few centuries. 1
pogi Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: Your eternal destination will either be the gift of eternal life or the reward of worthy behavior. The gift of eternal life is the reward for worthy behavior, and those who behave wickedly have their reward too. Not that we "earn" or "merit" his grace through works, but it is a conditional gift. Quote Isaiah 3: 10-11 "Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done." Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Matthew 25: 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Works can damn us or save us through grace. 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: Isaiah 64:6 reveal what Heavenly Father really thinks about your "endure to the end" works and best efforts: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." I see, so Isaiah was all for unrighteousness and wicked deeds because we are all unclean anyway? I think you misunderstand, no? 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: Romans 4:5 says "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Works are in the opposite corner of belief when it comes to being justified before God. See the Joseph Smith translation. 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: 1 John 5:11-12 tells us plainly there are those who do not have eternal life because they do not have Jesus Christ. For them, regardless of their religious preference, "eternal life" can only be a one-day/hope-so/maybe-so or only a "promise" one will receive moments after their life on this earth ends. And you are able to judge who hath the Son? Answer me this, does one have to love Jesus (a.k.a. do [work] as He commands) to "have Jesus Christ"? Must he also do the work to feed him, clothe him, give him to drink, take him in, visit him in prison, and minister unto him? Because it seems that if we do not this work we are promised "everlasting punishment". 2
pogi Posted May 22, 2017 Posted May 22, 2017 1 hour ago, FormerLDS said: That new man within CANNOT SIN. So did Judas Iscariot not sin in betraying our Lord? 2
Anakin7 Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 (edited) For FormerLDS http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/futuresins.htm The Atonement It is The Central Doctrine Washing My Garment/Robe In The Blood Of The Lamb In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited May 23, 2017 by Anakin7
FormerLDS Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 16 hours ago, pogi said: So did Judas Iscariot not sin in betraying our Lord? What did the savior plainly say? John 6:64 "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
FormerLDS Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 16 hours ago, pogi said: The gift of eternal life is the reward for worthy behavior, and those who behave wickedly have their reward too. Not that we "earn" or "merit" his grace through works, but it is a conditional gift. A reward can never be a gift; they are opposite. You will never find an Olympic medalist who considers his medal a free gift from the Olympic judges. The word "reward" appears 107 times in the KJV Bible and is always the result of work, service, labor or behavior. A "gift", on the other hand, appears 104 times in the KJV Bible and is always offered freely and without repayment.
FormerLDS Posted May 23, 2017 Posted May 23, 2017 17 hours ago, pogi said: I see, so Isaiah was all for unrighteousness and wicked deeds because we are all unclean anyway? I think you misunderstand, no? Isaiah is clarifying what Heavenly Father really thinks about all of those works people trust in to somehow assist in obtaining eternal life. They are "filthy rags" to God. If you do not receive the gift of eternal life during mortality, your worthy behavior won't do SQUAT for you after you die.
Recommended Posts