Salvation and good works

[Eek!]

deleted

Edited May 9, 2018 by Eek!

[MormonMason]

10 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

"Calling and election made sure" is just a promise.  That's it.  Those who have that have nothing more than those who do not have it.  Satan promises everyone eternal life after mortality.  

I parted ways with the LDS because I did understand the LDS doctrine of eternal life: I didn't have it, and Jesus Christ said He's give it to me.

I had to choose who to believe. 

Only the true and living Jesus Christ GIVES eternal life to anyone who asks.

You're not reading the passage through completely.  God issues the calling.  God elects.  But we make both sure by doing things.  That is the point of what the author of 2 Peter wrote.  If we could do nothing to make either sure, then why tell us that we can and that we need to give diligence to do so? Nothing we could do in ourselves could accomplish it, if what the Reformers said about it was true.  And if our calling and election were already sure, how could we do anything to make it more so?

And how is it that those who have this hope in Jesus purify themselves? That is the teaching of the Greek of 1 Jn. 3:3.  If he does it all, then there is no way for us to purify ourselves, now is there? The Greek of the passage uses a reflexive pronoun with the verb, ala ἁγνίζει ἑαυτὸν.  That verb is not passive, as in having it done for us.  It is the present active form.  It is a process, and it is something we do ourselves, as is shown by the reflexive pronoun following the active verb.  If it were all being done exclusively by the Lord for us, it would have been a passive verb.

Even Paul writes of salvation as both event and process.  Neither excludes the other for Paul.  For example, Paul speaks of us as "those who are being saved," ala τοῖς σῳζομένοις, in 2 Cor. 2:15.  Present passive participle.  Not an aorist or perfect, indicating single, completed action.  Same with Eph. 2:8.  The proper, accurate translation rather should be "by grace ye are ones having been saved, " ala χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι.  This time a perfect passive participle.  Again, no aorist or perfect in the first example, which would indicate a single action already completed once.  The second example refers to an event that occurred once and was in a state of having already occurred with a present result.

But that still does not get rid of any passages that use word forms that indicate a process of ongoing action of salvation in those saved.  It's not a once-saved, all-is-done, proposition, as one might think, unless one takes the text of Eph. 2:8 in isolation (as many a Reformer did, starting with Luther).  Paul would have written otherwise, and never would have used such a participle like that if he did not intend it overall to be understood by his hearers as a process.  That is where the Reformers got it wrong.  They have ejected the process from the Bible and translated those texts teaching a process in such a manner as to hide the process from the reader, all while proof-texting texts referring to the salvation 'event.'  It is important to take both senses as a whole.  That is where Mormonism gets it right and the Reformers got it wrong.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason
Corrected massive typos and incomplete thoughts.

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

"Eternal life" is a specific place in LDS theology, and, even though proclaimed to be "the greatest of all gifts", it is 100% a reward of worthy behavior.  HUGE difference.  

"Eternal life" in LDS theology is not that which you describe.

Even with all we could do it still is a gift.  It is exactly as he described.  We never could achieve it on our own.  I believe that Hugh Nibley suggested something along the lines of "Work we must, but the lunch is free."  He could read the Greek New Testament just as I can.  That is exactly what the Greek teaches.  Why do you think it was that the old Christians believed in baptismal regeneration and other connected thoughts? They saw it in their Bibles.  English translations sometimes mask stuff like that.

Edited May 9, 2018 by MormonMason

[Meerkat]

18 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

When you backslide then aren't you DOING "what the Spirit tells you to do"?

To complicate your position even more (if that is even possible), specifically how does one determine when he or she is "backslide" vs "NOT backslide"?    

Hence why your "perfection" isn't anywhere near perfect and the perfection of Jesus Christ imputed to us is so essential.

You remind me of my old roommates.  When we were attending school in Seattle back in 1973,  I was not a religious man.  I hit a low point and cried out to God to save me.  Jesus Christ came quickly into my life and I knew there was a God in Heaven, and that Jesus Christ knew me personally and loved me.  My despair was replaced by joy and gratitude.

When I returned home late that afternoon, I told my roommates I had learned something that day.  God knew who I was, and Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for me were real.  I knew it and I wanted to share that knowledge with them.

All of of them told me "Of course that's true.  Didn't you know that?"

"No," I said.  "I've been looking for this my whole life.  We've lived in this house together for the past year.  You knew this?  My life has been miserable.  Why didn't you tell me?"

"Because it's deeply personal, and you need to find it for yourself."

"Okay," I said.  "But if you are all Christians, why are we living the way we are living and doing the things we are doing?"

"THAT," they said if effect, "is the beauty of it.  If you believe in Jesus Christ, your sins are forgiven.  That means as long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you can do what you want and you are saved."

"Oh," I responded.  "Well, you've been Christians longer than I have.  You seem to know what you're talking about.  I guess I'll follow your lead."

About a month went by.  More parties.  More sin and sorrow.  I knew something was wrong.  I moved out of there and started living right.  The joy of Christ came back into my life and has never left.  Christ has led me every step of the way, and I do my best to follow where He leads me.

FormerLDS, the doctrine you are preaching, especially in the question you asked me here, is that righteousness is impossible.  "Do what you want.  Only believe, and you are saved."

You are not only wrong on that point, you are dead wrong.  Do what you want with your life.  That is the great gift a loving Heavenly Father has given to you-- freedom to choose.  But if you really want to be a Christian, start acting like it.  Start living for it.  Start reading your scriptures and following what they teach. 

Start having a little charity for your fellow man.  Listen to their testimony of Christ.  Fellowship with them.  Stop mocking them at every opportunity.  Then you might begin to understand why they believe what they believe.  You may find something for yourself that will change your life for the better.  I wish you the best of luck.

Meerkat

Edited May 9, 2018 by Meerkat

[Anakin7]

    Remember to be worthy of Christ Jesus to access, accept, activate, grab hold of, obtain, receive, hold on to his awesome atoning blood sacrifice and True Grace on our behalf . We must give up all and follow him to be able to do this - Luke 14: 25-35, we must walk in the light of His True Grace [ Wash our Garments, Robes] To have His Blood cleanse us - 1 John 1 : 5-7 . http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/worthy-of-Jesus.pdf 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe in His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

Edited May 9, 2018 by Anakin7

[FormerLDS]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Backslide" = "return to transgressing the commandments of God."

"Not Backslide" = "abstaining from transgressing the commandments of God."

Again, the conundrum you face is how do you really know when you're are and when you are not? 

At what point can you really say that you are no longer "transgressing the commandments of God"?  And I'll bet you a quarter if we looked closely at all of His commandments, we'd find out the truth.

[FormerLDS]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak for others, but I do not claim to be "perfect."

So, "abstaining from transgressing the commandments of God" is equated with "backslide".

Is "Be ye therefore perfect" a commandment of God or not?

[smac97]

Just now, FormerLDS said:

Quote

"Backslide" = "return to transgressing the commandments of God."

"Not Backslide" = "abstaining from transgressing the commandments of God."

Again, the conundrum you face is how do you really know when you're are and when you are not? 

I don't claim to "know."  I have faith. 

"For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (1 Cor. 5:7)

Just now, FormerLDS said:

At what point can you really say that you are no longer "transgressing the commandments of God"? 

I think Paul put it well: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

I have an assurance of God's grace.  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  (AoF 1:3).  What I do not have, however, is an assurance that I will always choose - through my actions (obedience, covenant-keeping, repentance, etc.) - to retain that gift.  So I keep working at it.  I try to be obedient.  I periodically fail.  I (hopefully) repent.  

Just now, FormerLDS said:

And I'll bet you a quarter if we looked closely at all of His commandments, we'd find out the truth.

OSAS doesn't really care about "His commandments," though, nor obedience to them.  That's the problem I have with the concept.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Anakin7]

    The Evangelical LDS in me -for FormerLDS - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/destiny.htm 

The Atonement It Is the Central doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

So, "abstaining from transgressing the commandments of God" is equated with "backslide".

Nope.  "Abstaining from transgressing the commandments of God" is not backsliding.

55 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Is "Be ye therefore perfect" a commandment of God or not?

It is.

But becoming perfect is, in my view, a process.  

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  (Romans 3:23).

Thanks,

-Smac

[FormerLDS]

16 hours ago, MormonMason said:

You're not reading the passage through completely.  God issues the calling.  God elects.  But we make both sure by doing things.  That is the point of what the author of 2 Peter wrote.  If we could do nothing to make either sure, then why tell us that we can and that we need to give diligence to do so? Nothing we could do in ourselves could accomplish it, if what the Reformers said about it was true.  And if our calling and election were already sure, how could we do anything to make it more so?

And how is it that those who have this hope in Jesus purify themselves? That is the teaching of the Greek of 1 Jn. 3:3.  If he does it all, then there is no way for us to purify ourselves, now is there? The Greek of the passage uses a reflexive pronoun with the verb, ala ἁγνίζει ἑαυτὸν.  That verb is not passive, as in having it done for us.  It is the present active form.  It is a process, and it is something we do ourselves, as is shown by the reflexive pronoun following the active verb.  If it were all being done exclusively by the Lord for us, it would have been a passive verb.

Even Paul writes of salvation as both event and process.  Neither excludes the other for Paul.  For example, Paul speaks of us as "those who are being saved," ala τοῖς σῳζομένοις, in 2 Cor. 2:15.  Present passive participle.  Not an aorist or perfect, indicating single, completed action.  Same with Eph. 2:8.  The proper, accurate translation rather should be "by grace ye are ones having been saved, " ala χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι.  This time a perfect passive participle.  Again, no aorist or perfect in the first example, which would indicate a single action already completed once.  The second example refers to an event that occurred once and was in a state of having already occurred with a present result.

But that still does not get rid of any passages that use word forms that indicate a process of ongoing action of salvation in those saved.  It's not a once-saved, all-is-done, proposition, as one might think, unless one takes the text of Eph. 2:8 in isolation (as many a Reformer did, starting with Luther).  Paul would have written otherwise, and never would have used such a participle like that if he did not intend it overall to be understood by his hearers as a process.  That is where the Reformers got it wrong.  They have ejected the process from the Bible and translated those texts teaching a process in such a manner as to hide the process from the reader, all while proof-texting texts referring to the salvation 'event.'  It is important to take both senses as a whole.  That is where Mormonism gets it right and the Reformers got it wrong.

Regardless, the fact remains that, according to LDS theology, those who have their "calling and election made sure" still do not have eternal life.

Jesus Christ tells us plainly that anyone can have His gift of eternal life today.  

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by FormerLDS

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think Paul put it well: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

I have an assurance of God's grace.  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  (AoF 1:3).  What I do not have, however, is an assurance that I will always choose - through my actions (obedience, covenant-keeping, repentance, etc.) - to retain that gift.  So I keep working at it.  I try to be obedient.  I periodically fail.  I (hopefully) repent.  

Do you realize how utterly hopeless your gospel is?  You fail when you don't even realize you fail.

If you have to keep working at it, then is it a "gift"?  

I hear you, and I know what you're going through.  It's a ferris wheel of worthy behavior that never - a treadmill that never allows you to be worthy enough or do enough.

Do you not see that is why we need a savior?

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

OSAS doesn't really care about "His commandments," though, nor obedience to them.  That's the problem I have with the concept.

Not true!  I care about keeping His commandments and I believe in OSAS.  In fact, no one I know that also believes in OSAS "doesn't really care about His commandments".

I think those who deny OSAS would like to believe that because it seems to justify their position, but it's simply not true at all.

The difference, we obey the commandments because we live Him, not because we selfishly want eternal life from Him.

Only those who have eternal life already can truly claim they try to obey His commandments because they love Him.

[FormerLDS]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Is "Be ye therefore perfect" a commandment of God or not?

It is.

Have you ever noticed those who claim you have to do something for eternal life are never actually doing what they say is required for eternal life?

Seriously, look at any religion that makes that claim - they are never, ever actually doing what they claim is required and they have every reason in the world why it's ok.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Do you realize how utterly hopeless your gospel is? 

I have tremendous hope because of the Restored Gospel.  Browbeating me will not persuade me otherwise.

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

You fail when you don't even realize you fail.

I don't think so.

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

If you have to keep working at it, then is it a "gift"?  

Salvation is a gift.  Exaltation requires effort.

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I hear you, and I know what you're going through. 

No, I don't think you do.

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

It's a ferris wheel of worthy behavior that never - a treadmill that never allows you to be worthy enough or do enough.

I quite agree.  "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."  (AoF 1:3).

It is the Atonement of Christ that has salvific power.  I believe that.

2 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Do you not see that is why we need a savior?

Yes, I see that.

Again, OSAS has never sat well with me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, FormerLDS said:

Have you ever noticed those who claim you have to do something for eternal life are never actually doing what they say is required for eternal life?

Seriously, look at any religion that makes that claim - they are never, ever actually doing what they claim is required and they have every reason in the world why it's ok.

LDS teach that people must have faith in Christ, repent, be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and continue to have faith in Christ and repent for the rest of their lives to gain eternal life.  I think most members who believe that actually doing it.

You are always claiming that you know what LDS believe and teach but your arguments make it clear that you really don't get it. That's why they aren't convincing to other LDS members.  It's a superficial understanding of and argument against my religion so it's very easy to ignore.  

[FormerLDS]

14 hours ago, Meerkat said:

About a month went by.  More parties.  More sin and sorrow.  I knew something was wrong.  I moved out of there and started living right.  The joy of Christ came back into my life and has never left.  Christ has led me every step of the way, and I do my best to follow where He leads me.

FormerLDS, the doctrine you are preaching, especially in the question you asked me here, is that righteousness is impossible.  "Do what you want.  Only believe, and you are saved."

You are not only wrong on that point, you are dead wrong.  Do what you want with your life.  That is the great gift a loving Heavenly Father has given to you-- freedom to choose.  But if you really want to be a Christian, start acting like it.  Start living for it.  Start reading your scriptures and following what they teach. 

Start having a little charity for your fellow man.  Listen to their testimony of Christ.  Fellowship with them.  Stop mocking them at every opportunity.  Then you might begin to understand why they believe what they believe.  You may find something for yourself that will change your life for the better.  I wish you the best of luck.

Meerkat

How do you know that Jesus Christ isn't using this site to show you the truth about LDS theology?

I've been right where you are friend.  I know exactly what you have been taught and how it has impacted you.

There are those in every faith (LDS and my congregation included) who do not live the type of life that would be pleasing to Heavenly Father, but it's no excuse for not believing the truth.

Charity for fellow man is simply telling them the truth in love.

I've shown you that LDS theology teaches that you do not have eternal life.  That is truth.

I've shown in the scriptures Jesus Christ says He gives eternal life to anyone today.  That is truth.

You must choose who you will believe: LDS theology or Jesus Christ.

[FormerLDS]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Salvation is a gift.  Exaltation requires effort.

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

What does "the gift of God is eternal life" mean then? (Romans 6:23)

[FormerLDS]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

LDS teach that people must have faith in Christ, repent, be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and continue to have faith in Christ and repent for the rest of their lives to gain eternal life.  I think most members who believe that actually doing it.

You are always claiming that you know what LDS believe and teach but your arguments make it clear that you really don't get it. That's why they aren't convincing to other LDS members.  It's a superficial understanding of and argument against my religion so it's very easy to ignore.

Am I wrong in stating that LDS theology teaches that no one can have eternal life during mortality?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Quote

OSAS doesn't really care about "His commandments," though, nor obedience to them.  That's the problem I have with the concept.

Not true! 

Quite true.

3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I care about keeping His commandments and I believe in OSAS. 

The Bible mandates obedience to the commandments of God.  Mandates.  "I care about" is not enough for me.  I need to see obedience as a necessity.

"If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15) is a very big deal for me.  And for God too, I think.  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven"  (John 7:21).

I don't think you'll ever be able to persuade me that obedience to God is an only-obey-when-you-are-in-the-mood-and-otherwise-you-can-do-whatever-you-want-because-OSAS kind of thing.  That is the defect that, in my view, renders OSAS so unacceptable to me.  

3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

In fact, no one I know that also believes in OSAS "doesn't really care about His commandments".

I think those who deny OSAS would like to believe that because it seems to justify their position, but it's simply not true at all.

I disagree with OSAS on a fundamental level.  How it ultimately plays out in an individual's life is a secondary consideration.

But if you want an example of how OSAS can create problematic perspectives on behavior, here's "Exhibit A":

Quote

CHARLESTON, S.C. — The man she had married professed to be deeply religious. But after more than seven years with Robert L. Dear Jr., Barbara Micheau had come to see life with him as a kind of hell on earth.

By January 1993, she had had enough. In a sworn affidavit as part of her divorce case, Ms. Micheau described Mr. Dear as a serial philanderer and a problem gambler, a man who kicked her, beat her head against the floor and fathered two children with other women while they were together. He found excuses for his transgressions, she said, in his idiosyncratic views on Christian eschatology and the nature of salvation.

“He claims to be a Christian and is extremely evangelistic, but does not follow the Bible in his actions,” Ms. Micheau said in the court document. “He says that as long as he believes he will be saved, he can do whatever he pleases. He is obsessed with the world coming to an end.”

On Friday, according to officials, Mr. Dear entered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, killing three people and wounding nine others with a semiautomatic rifle. The attack, which ended with his surrender to the police after a harrowing nationally televised standoff in the snow-dusted Western city, was a brutally violent and very public chapter in a life story whose details are not fully known.

A pretty extreme example, to be sure.  But it illustrates, for me, what happens when obedience to God becomes a take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing.

Some further observations here (about the above article):

Quote

And herein lies my biggest problem with not only Robert Dear, but all persons who espouse some doctrine of unchecked Once Saved Always Saved. How are you going to tell me that a person can claim to be a follower of the crucified Messiah, claim to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and yet live a life that is in complete and utter contradiction with everything that God stands for?

How can you have, as the article contends, “a man of religious conviction who sinned openly, a man who craved solitude and near-constant female company, a man who successfully wooed women but, some of them say, also abused them. [A man who] frequented marijuana websites, then argued with other posters, often through heated religious screeds” who is also a Christian?

This kind of thing, where a man can live in complete contradiction to the character of the gospel and yet still believe himself to be a Christian, is only possible because of a doctrine that is downright false. There is absolutely no point in all of Scripture where mere confession of belief warrants a free ticket to heaven no matter what one does in this life. You can ask Jesus into your heart 8 million times, but if you live the kind of life described above, you need to know that you are not a Christian.

This is what I find so problematic about the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved. It throws the entire gospel under the bus of the human need for security, however false that security may be. It offers certitude where none should be offered. It allows us to live how we want to live without demanding any conformity to the image of Christ, any growth in holiness, any perseverance.

Go, Wesleyans!

3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

The difference, we obey the commandments because we live Him, not because we selfishly want eternal life from Him.

Meh.  The difference is that obedience is optional under OSAS, or even entirely unnecessary.  From the preceding article:

Quote

Clearly, I have taken an extreme example to point out what I believe to be an extreme problem with a faulty Christian doctrine. Once Saved Always Saved is a danger to the Christian faith because it offers all the greatness of the gospel without any of the discipline, sacrifice, holiness, perseverance or love required of those who claim to be disciples of Jesus. Mr. Dear may be an extreme example, but his arrogant assurance reveals an extreme problem.  This is why I’m Wesleyan (not that we are always consistent in our application of our theology). Because Wesleyan theology teaches that the pursuit of holiness is not an add-on to the gospel, but the very gospel, itself. There can be no gospel without holiness. There can be no salvation from sin in the next life without a desire for and a work toward being saved from sin in this life. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to do according to his good pleasure. When we assume we can have salvation without the fear and trembling, without the Word and without obedience to the will of God, we give ourselves false assurance that ultimately leads to our destruction, and, in the case of Robert Dear, the destruction of others around him. Robert Dear is not just a deranged individual (he is certainly that), but his is also the product of a half-gospel that demands no life-change, no genuine repentance, no social holiness and no personal holiness.

Go, Wesleyans, X2!

3 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Only those who have eternal life already can truly claim they try to obey His commandments because they love Him.

How do you account for Robert Dear?

And what are your thoughts about the critique of OSAS above?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Quote

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  Quote

Is "Be ye therefore perfect" a commandment of God or not?

It is.

Have you ever noticed those who claim you have to do something for eternal life are never actually doing what they say is required for eternal life?

I find this statement pretty odd.  "Actually doing what they say is requires for eternal life" is what Mormons are doing.  All.  The.  Time.  

We work on having faith.  We repent.  We receive baptism.  We obey, and repent when we mess up.  We share the Gospel.  We serve our fellow man.  We do temple work.  We focus on our families.  

26 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Seriously, look at any religion that makes that claim - they are never, ever actually doing what they claim is required and they have every reason in the world why it's ok.

The irony is rather stunning.  Advocacy of OSAS, by definition, includes separating sin from the consequences of sin.  Sinning is A-OK because . . . OSAS.

I simply cannot accept this concept.  I respect that it means something to you, but I reject it.  Utterly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Am I wrong in stating that LDS theology teaches that no one can have eternal life during mortality?

No, you're not wrong about that; you're wrong in trying to argue that it means anything significant.  Like the bible, LDS theology teaches that part of gaining eternal life is being resurrected.  If you're not resurrected yet, then you don't have eternal life yet because eternal life is being saved from physical death AND spiritual death.   You can't separate them.

Like the bible says, accepting Christ and covenanting with Him puts us on the path that leads to eternal life.  Being a Christian is a journey to become like Christ.  That is what the bible teaches and that is what LDS theology teaches.

Edited May 9, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Quote

Salvation is a gift.  Exaltation requires effort.

"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

What does "the gift of God is eternal life" mean then? (Romans 6:23)

It's also a gift.

I think Stephen Robinson's Parable of the Bicycle sums up my perspective on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

How do you know that Jesus Christ isn't using this site to show you the truth about LDS theology?

That would not be very sola scriptura of him. 

42 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I've shown you that LDS theology teaches that you do not have eternal life.  That is truth.

I am ok with that.  I have the promise of eternal life.  That is good enough for me. 

45 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I've shown in the scriptures Jesus Christ says He gives eternal life to anyone today.  That is truth.

No, you've shown your out of context, faulty interpretation of scripture.  That is the truth. 

46 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

You must choose who you will believe: LDS theology or Jesus Christ.

False dichotomy.  Jesus Christ is the author of true LDS doctrine. 

[MormonMason]

51 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Regardless, the fact remains that, according to LDS theology, those who have their "calling and election made sure" still do not have eternal life.

Jesus Christ tells us plainly that anyone can have His gift of eternal life today.  

 

Incorrect.  Those who have their callings and election made sure hear the voice of God tell them that they will be exalted.  Their salvation and exaltation is assured.  They have eternal life, and it is assured.  After judgment they will continue to have it as theirs after the redemption of their bodies.

But notice that even your list differs in a few places.  "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood."  That has reference to what one might refer to as the Lord's Supper, Eucharist, or Sacrament.  What about those who believe but then do not participate in eating the flesh and blood of Christ? Do they truly have eternal life and keep it? That is a work.  A thing for believers to do.  The converse meaning of the text is that those who don't eat the flesh and blood of Christ won't have eternal life.

Another also is the present active, indicating, once again, part of a process.  John 10:28 has Jesus say, "I am giving to them life eternal."  That is what the Greek there means.  He does not use the aorist or perfect to indicate a completed, single action.  It is the present active.  It is a process of something that started but then continues.  Your reference to 1 Jn. 5:12 is mistaken.  It is composed of parts of 1 Jn. 5:11-13.  In that case the key Greek verb is an aorist indicative active, representing something accomplished in past time.  However, this is followed by participles and verbs in the present tense, modifying the sense of the first verb in the text.

But believing or putting faith and trust in Christ (the 'event') does not get rid of the process that continues afterward.  That is where the Reformers got it wrong.  They have discarded the process in favor of the event and promise.  We also are told by Paul about the "earnest money" of eternal life that is the Spirit of God (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13-14).  That is roughly like a down payment or a pledge given that someone will complete a contract for purchase.  We are promised it on our acceptance of Christ but we still have to undergo the process that leads to the final result.  Just because one puts down a down payment or pledges payment does not mean one gets to keep or receive the deed to the home without some effort or without fulfilling the terms of the contract.  Right now the promise is but the pledge but the final result doesn't come until the redemption of the body.  That is what the Greek New Testament teaches as a whole.  We have the first installment but do not get the new house until the redemption of the body, which is yet future.  But Paul uses the contract metaphor because that is exactly what salvation and eternal life are.  They are part of a contract.  God has done his part but expects us to continue in the contract and to do what the contract requires.  As of now we get the first installment but do not get the final result until after the resurrection.

Just because something is set in the present tense does not necessarily mean anything overly significant as the Reformers erroneously had thought.  The author of Ephesians also uses the aorist (expressing past event) to write that we "were raised together" and "were made to sit in the heavenly places" (Eph. 2:6).  Have we been raised from the dead already? Are we sitting in the kingdom of Heaven right now? The answer to both questions is a solid 'no.'  You are making too much of the past and present tenses when the Bible teaches us that salvation and receipt of eternal life is past event, current process, and future fulfillment.  You are ignoring the multiple places where Paul and others use a future tense verb to describe being saved as well as the "process" present active participles.  How can they use verbs either indicating future tense or stressing a process, if it truly is a done deal no matter what, and we do nothing? Again, that is where the Reformers went wrong, where the Mormons went right, and where you now go wrong.