The "Free License to Sin" nonsense.

[Cow Poke]

In an apparent attempt to defend the "after all you can do" thing that Joseph Smith added to the "Eph 2:8-10" concept, OC seems to be on a new kick....

It's the those who think that the Atonement of Christ provides a free license to sin, that have attempted to "explain it away."

I have asked several times WHO of us has claimed this "license to sin", and it's obviously a distortion of the notion that we (Christians) are saved, and our sin is forgiven.

There IS, however, still a CONSEQUENCE of sin. I'll ask my "brothers in the Gospel" to weigh in on this, so I'm not just assuming this is their position as well.

When I was born into my earthly family, my family accepted me and nurtured me. I was a handful at times, but they never kicked me out. In my teen years, I went through a brief period of rebellion, and even moved out of the house in anger. (I was going to "SHOW THEM!!!"... I will pay my OWN rent, and my OWN utilities, and buy my OWN groceries, and gasoline, and car insurances...... Yeah, I SHOWED THEM!!!!")

During that period of time, I had no contact with my family for nearly a year. But I was still my Dad's son. He wasn't very proud of me, probably, but he never gave up on me. Our FELLOWSHIP suffered, but there was never a question about our RELATIONSHIP -- He was still my father, and I was still his son.

Fortunately, that rebellion was short lived, and I've grown up a little bit.

But, to me, it's like that when a Christian sins. It is damaging to our FELLOWSHIP, but it does not change the fact that the Heavenly Father is still our HEAVENLY FATHER, and we are still "joint heirs with Christ". We don't get "kicked out of the family".

In both cases, earthly families and "Heavenly families", there is a consequence to rebellion or disobedience --- "sin". In NEITHER case does it change who we "belong to", or what our RELATIONSHIP is to that person.

There is, therefore, no "free license to sin". Why on EARTH would I want to be out of fellowship with my Dad, and why in HEAVEN'S NAME would I want to be out of fellowship with my Lord?

[OtherCheek]

In an apparent attempt to defend the "after all you can do" thing that Joseph Smith added to the "Eph 2:8-10" concept, OC seems to be on a new kick....



I have asked several times WHO of us has claimed this "license to sin", and it's obviously a distortion of the notion that we (Christians) are saved, and our sin is forgiven.

There IS, however, still a CONSEQUENCE of sin. I'll ask my "brothers in the Gospel" to weigh in on this, so I'm not just assuming this is their position as well.

When I was born into my earthly family, my family accepted me and nurtured me. I was a handful at times, but they never kicked me out. In my teen years, I went through a brief period of rebellion, and even moved out of the house in anger. (I was going to "SHOW THEM!!!"... I will pay my OWN rent, and my OWN utilities, and buy my OWN groceries, and gasoline, and car insurances...... Yeah, I SHOWED THEM!!!!")

During that period of time, I had no contact with my family for nearly a year. But I was still my Dad's son. He wasn't very proud of me, probably, but he never gave up on me. Our FELLOWSHIP suffered, but there was never a question about our RELATIONSHIP -- He was still my father, and I was still his son.

Fortunately, that rebellion was short lived, and I've grown up a little bit.

But, to me, it's like that when a Christian sins. It is damaging to our FELLOWSHIP, but it does not change the fact that the Heavenly Father is still our HEAVENLY FATHER, and we are still "joint heirs with Christ". We don't get "kicked out of the family".

In both cases, earthly families and "Heavenly families", there is a consequence to rebellion or disobedience --- "sin". In NEITHER case does it change who we "belong to", or what our RELATIONSHIP is to that person.

There is, therefore, no "free license to sin". Why on EARTH would I want to be out of fellowship with my Dad, and why in HEAVEN'S NAME would I want to be out of fellowship with my Lord?

I think what you have said here is good, CP. Perhaps Sparko can weigh in with his own thoughts, rather than simply maligning the idea that God expects us to do all that is in our own power to turn away from sin, and prove our sincerity to him in deed as well as word.

[Cow Poke]

I think what you have said here is good, CP. Perhaps Sparko can weigh in with his own thoughts, rather than simply maligning the idea that God expects us to do all that is in our own power to turn away from sin, and prove our sincerity to him in deed as well as word.

I don't think that's what he was saying at all, OC. I think he was addressing sin in regard to keeping us out of Heaven after we're saved, but... yeah, we'll let him weigh in.

[Sparko]

CP is correct OC.

We do our best to not sin, but not as a REQUIREMENT of salvation, but as a consequence of it. In other words, we are grateful to God and we love him, and we have chosen to follow him, and we have respect for him and the sacrifice Jesus made for us. In return, God indwells us with the Holy Spirit and we become a new creation. This gives us new motivations, to serve God, instead of rebelling against him. But we are still human. At times we might drift away (like CP in his example with his family) and we might drop back into sins we left behind, or others we are tempted into, and we might even sin on purpose, and that damages our relationship with God, but NOT our salvation. We are still saved. God might not be happy with us, and he will do things to get us back on track. And we do repent and restore our fellowship with God. Once we are adopted into God's family, we are saved. It's that simple.

Under your idea, you have to sincerely repent of any "backsliding" or you are not saved. Your salvation comes and goes with your sins. What happens if you are in one of those backsliding periods where you are mad at God and sinning on purpose, and you are out drinking and carousing, and die on the way home in an accident before you can repent? According you your idea, you have lost your salvation. Granted "salvation" means something different to you, and it might only mean you get stuck in telestial heaven, but you have still lost your salvation.

If that happened to a Christian, they would still be saved.

[Cow Poke]

At times we might drift away (like CP in his example with his family) and we might drop back into sins we left behind, or others we are tempted into, and we might even sin on purpose, and that damages our relationship with God, but NOT our salvation.

The only "flaw" in my analogy, I think, is my use of the word "relationship".
I purposely use "fellowship", because I use "relationship" to refer to the "father / son relation" aspect.

Maybe I need to come up with better terminology, but as long as somebody understands (and I always try to make this clear by using the "father / son" example when I say "relationship") how I'm using the words.

The way YOU used the word "relationship" here obviously refers to the same thing I call "fellowship". And, when I'm not careful, I do the same thing, because we think of "relationship" not just in "who we're related to" but HOW we are getting along with that person at any given moment.

Bottom line --- sin after we are saved damages our fellowship (the way we "relate" to Christ - hence, Sparko uses "relationship" in THAT sense) but not our Salvation (the fact that we are still RELATED to God with Him still being our Father, and we being joint heirs with Christ).

[Sparko]

what CP said.

[OtherCheek]

CP is correct OC.

We do our best to not sin, but not as a REQUIREMENT of salvation, but as a consequence of it. In other words, we are grateful to God and we love him, and we have chosen to follow him, and we have respect for him and the sacrifice Jesus made for us. In return, God indwells us with the Holy Spirit and we become a new creation. This gives us new motivations, to serve God, instead of rebelling against him. But we are still human. At times we might drift away (like CP in his example with his family) and we might drop back into sins we left behind, or others we are tempted into, and we might even sin on purpose, and that damages our relationship with God, but NOT our salvation. We are still saved. God might not be happy with us, and he will do things to get us back on track. And we do repent and restore our fellowship with God. Once we are adopted into God's family, we are saved. It's that simple.

Under your idea, you have to sincerely repent of any "backsliding" or you are not saved. Your salvation comes and goes with your sins. What happens if you are in one of those backsliding periods where you are mad at God and sinning on purpose, and you are out drinking and carousing, and die on the way home in an accident before you can repent? According you your idea, you have lost your salvation. Granted "salvation" means something different to you, and it might only mean you get stuck in telestial heaven, but you have still lost your salvation.

If that happened to a Christian, they would still be saved.

This is a gross mis-representation of the LDS Faith, and of the principle of "repentance". You make it sound like there must be a repentance session dedicated to counter every sin--as if it were some type of balance scale with two sides that can never get out of balance or salvation is forever lost. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation you have tried to make, and I think you are smart enough to know that.

You still haven't dealt with the entire scripture (and probably won't).

Repentance for us is a serious matter. It is a daily walk. It is centered around Jesus Christ and his Infinite Atonement. It involves striving, stretching, growing, receiving chastening from the Lord. It involves being faithful in tribulation, showing brotherly kindness, and discipleSHIP. It involves covenant making and honoring those covenants. And after ALL OF THAT, it is only by grace that we are saved. Much like it is with your believing. You can believe all you want, but even after all your faith and believing and ALL OF THAT, it is still only by grace that YOU are saved.

Finally, salvation is not lost for forgetting to repent of one or two sins. Salvation is lost for coming out in open rebellion against God, and this is ONLY possible for those who have been taught the gospel and have previously accepted it under covenant such as baptism.

Under your idea, if someone comes out in open rebellion against God, God will still save him as long as he at one time in the past uttered the words: "I believe".

[Sparko]

This is a gross mis-representation of the LDS Faith, and of the principle of "repentance". You make it sound like there must be a repentance session dedicated to counter every sin--as if it were some type of balance scale with two sides that can never get out of balance or salvation is forever lost. That is a ridiculous misrepresentation you have tried to make, and I think you are smart enough to know that.

You still haven't dealt with the entire scripture (and probably won't).

Repentance for us is a serious matter. It is a daily walk. It is centered around Jesus Christ and his Infinite Atonement. It involves striving, stretching, growing, receiving chastening from the Lord. It involves being faithful in tribulation, showing brotherly kindness, and discipleSHIP. It involves covenant making and honoring those covenants. And after ALL OF THAT, it is only by grace that we are saved. Much like it is with your believing. You can believe all you want, but even after all your faith and believing and ALL OF THAT, it is still only by grace that YOU are saved.

Finally, salvation is not lost for forgetting to repent of one or two sins. Salvation is lost for coming out in open rebellion against God, and this is ONLY possible for those who have been taught the gospel and have previously accepted it under covenant such as baptism.

Read Romans 4, OC. You are making baptism and such a requirement for salvation. Just like the Judaizers made circumcision a requirement. Paul tears that down forcefully in Romans 4.

and...


talk about misrepresentation! I never said "one or two sins" - I gave specific examples going through a period in your life where you are backsliding.

I cant have a conversation with you OC. You just twist everything into knots and then accuse others of "misrepresenting" you and simply repeat yourself. Or you accuse us of being antis and therefore not worthy of a serious response. You have your blinders on and refuse to take them off. You are basically willfully ignorant and want to remain that way. I personally think it is out of fear. You are afraid that what you believe is wrong and so you hold on that much harder because your entire life and family is tied up in it.

[OtherCheek]

Read Romans 4, OC. You are making baptism and such a requirement for salvation. Just like the Judaizers made circumcision a requirement. Paul tears that down forcefully in Romans 4.

Not at all. Baptism IS a requirement for salvation as per the words of Jesus himself. (He ranks higher than Paul btw)

What Paul is saying is that the gift of the Atonement (or grace) is not "payment" for works on our part, which is also affirmed in LDS scripture, if you would care to study it just a little before you try to criticize it.

[Sparko]

Not at all. Baptism IS a requirement for salvation as per the words of Jesus himself. (He ranks higher than Paul btw)

really? is that in one of your LDS "scriptures"? because I don't recall Jesus ever saying that baptism was required for salvation.

What Paul is saying is that the gift of the Atonement (or grace) is not "payment" for works on our part, which is also affirmed in LDS scripture, if you would care to study it just a little before you try to criticize it.

no that is not what paul was saying. and it is not affirmed by your lds scripture.

[Cerebrum123]

Not at all. Baptism IS a requirement for salvation as per the words of Jesus himself. (He ranks higher than Paul btw)

What Paul is saying is that the gift of the Atonement (or grace) is not "payment" for works on our part, which is also affirmed in LDS scripture, if you would care to study it just a little before you try to criticize it.

Can you give me the Bible quote where Jesus said that?

[OtherCheek]

Can you give me the Bible quote where Jesus said that?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

[OtherCheek]

no that is not what paul was saying. and it is not affirmed by your lds scripture.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what Paul is saying, and it IS affirmed in other LDS scripture.

[Cerebrum123]

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16)

You are making a VERY common error. Just because baptism is in the first part, doesn't mean that the second part applies. It doesn't say "he who is not baptized shall be damned".

[Sparko]

Yes. That is EXACTLY what Paul is saying, and it IS affirmed in other LDS scripture.

prove it, don't just say it.