The "works-BASED soteriology" nonsense

[nrajeff]

that may be the way YOU see it jeff, and if so, then you don't believe in works-based salvation,

And I also don't believe that the LDS church is a works-BASED religion. It's a CHRIST-based religion, where OBEDIENCE to what we believe to be Christ's commandments often takes the form of SERVICE to others. Our priesthood is focused on service to others, to the point that we are cautioned to use it to bless the lives of others and not ourselves.

but your church teaches that you have to keep the commandments and continue to do everything you can to get Jesus to "give you his hand and pull you up"

Not accurate the way I see it. Jesus and His Father constantly offer their help, and when a person finally admits that he needs that help and asks in faith for it, the help is given and never stops for as long as the person keeps seeking it. The initial rescue from drowning is not the ONLY time a person can be in danger, since once the person has been pulled up onto the boat, he is free to be an idiot and jump back into the ocean at any time up to the point where the boat has safely arrived at the harbor.

The LDS teach that salvation is CONTINGENT upon your efforts, not just your belief.

That seems like a fair statement, but I thought we just agreed that in the analogy, MORE than mere belief was required of the drowning person (see # 4).

[Cow Poke]

And I also don't believe that the LDS church is a works-BASED religion.

Because you are being pedantic about the phrase "works based". You force it to mean something that I (since it appears that I'm the one who started this ) never implied.

It's a CHRIST-based religion

... that adds works as a "qualification" for salvation - hence, "works based" as opposed to "free grace".

where OBEDIENCE to what we believe to be Christ's commandments often takes the form of SERVICE to others. Our priesthood is focused on service to others, to the point that we are cautioned to use it to bless the lives of others and not ourselves.

<Sarcasm>

Yes, I see you blessing others all the time.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[Cerebrum123]

Not necesarily. It's more like the LDS teach that there is the MAIN boat (Celestial Kingdom), the lifeboats (Telestial Kingdom), and handles on the side of the hull(Terrestrial Kingdom). Jesus only "saves" you in that He put the handles on the side of the boat. You have to work yourself up to the lifeboat and then the main boat, and only those who have worked hard enough actually make it onto the main deck.

Yeah, I guess that might be a better analogy.

[Cerebrum123]

And I also don't believe that the LDS church is a works-BASED religion. It's a CHRIST-based religion, where OBEDIENCE to what we believe to be Christ's commandments often takes the form of SERVICE to others. Our priesthood is focused on service to others, to the point that we are cautioned to use it to bless the lives of others and not ourselves.


Not accurate the way I see it. Jesus and His Father constantly offer their help, and when a person finally admits that he needs that help and asks in faith for it, the help is given and never stops for as long as the person keeps seeking it. The initial rescue from drowning is not the ONLY time a person can be in danger, since once the person has been pulled up onto the boat, he is free to be an idiot and jump back into the ocean at any time up to the point where the boat has safely arrived at the harbor.


That seems like a fair statement, but I thought we just agreed that in the analogy, MORE than mere belief was required of the drowning person (see # 4).

There is definitely hope for you Jeff, because what you just described is MUCH closer to what Christianity teaches, and not what LDS teaches. Also, the "jumping back in the water" would essentially equal apostasy, and not because someone didn't "do all they could do".

[nrajeff]

Because you are being pedantic about the phrase "works based".

I just don't want you mischaracterizing a church's soteriological system. You wouldn't want someone branding YOUR soteriology or your religion "nothing-based," right? Yet in a sense, nothing is the amount you contribute to your salvation, and nothing is what you believe would cause you to lose it. Should I start a trend of saying your religion is based on nothing? 'Cause I can do that if you really want to play that game, although I'd rather not.

You force it to mean something that I (since it appears that I'm the one who started this ) never implied.

Can you come up with a term that does mean what you implied? You're a smart guy, right?

... that adds works as a "qualification" for salvation - hence, "works based" as opposed to "free grace".

How about "conditional salvation"? I wouldn't object to that term, it's accurate. Plus, it makes a nice contrast to your unconditional salvation theory, so the folks out there have a nice, clear distinction from which to choose the one they find the most Biblical and sensible.

[Sparko]

How about "conditional salvation"? I wouldn't object to that term, it's accurate. Plus, it makes a nice contrast to your unconditional salvation theory, so the folks out there have a nice, clear distinction from which to choose the one they find the most Biblical and sensible.

what's the condition?

[nrajeff]

There is definitely hope for you Jeff,

Of course there is, as long as I continue to place my hope and trust in Christ.

because what you just described is MUCH closer to what Christianity teaches, and not what LDS teaches.

As a lifelong LDS, my description is what I have learned, been taught, and come to believe. And it has never been challenged by any of my leaders, fellow missionaries, LDS friends, teachers, etc. I am willing to bet that OC completely agrees with it.
And most likely the other LDS here. I am willing to ask them if you are skeptical. And I question any implication, if any, that my description would be agreed to by a majority of the Evangelicals who post in anti-LDS forums. I don't have a good reading on the majority of Evangelicals in general, but the ones who post in anti-LDS forums have, from what I have seen, been of the OSAS/OBIS/unconditional salvation type.

Also, the "jumping back in the water" would essentially equal apostasy, and not because someone didn't "do all they could do".

I agree. I never meant otherwise. The reference to jumping back in was a response to the idea that the very first time a person realizes that his soul is in peril and that he needs to be saved, is the ONLY time his soul is in peril. The point there was that any of us has the potential to change sides and choose to betray Christ and start working against Him, at any time between our initial "Ask for help and get help" moment, and Judgment Day.

[Cow Poke]

I just don't want you mischaracterizing a church's soteriological system.

Between "free grace" and "works based", Jeff, your religion is most certainly in the "works based" category.

You wouldn't want someone branding YOUR soteriology or your religion "nothing-based," right?

You can brand it anything you want, Jeff, but the fact is that we preach very clearly that Salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works, just like Eph 2:8-10 says.

Yet in a sense, nothing is the amount you contribute to your salvation, and nothing is what you believe would cause you to lose it. Should I start a trend of saying your religion is based on nothing? 'Cause I can do that if you really want to play that game, although I'd rather not.

And it would further underscore what a drama queen you can be.

Can you come up with a term that does mean what you implied? You're a smart guy, right?

Already did, Jeff. Between "free grace" and "works based", your Church is definitely in the "works based" camp because it adds works to the qualifications for Salvation.

How about "conditional salvation"?

Technically, I believe that would apply to ANYBODY's view of Salvation. The "condition" that I believe is necessary is "acceptance". I just don't add "works" into the mix.

I wouldn't object to that term, it's accurate. Plus, it makes a nice contrast to your unconditional salvation theory

I don't have an unconditional salvation theory, Jeff, as I have clearly stated that we need to ACCEPT the free gift. God doesn't force it upon us. Nor do we have to "add works" to a "free gift".

so the folks out there have a nice, clear distinction from which to choose the one they find the most Biblical and sensible.

Yes, the one that does NOT add a non-Biblical "after all you can do" qualifier!

[nrajeff]

what's the condition?

Obedience to Christ, of course:

And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all those who obey Him

[Cow Poke]

what's the condition?

Acceptance?

Like me buying you a new eye patch because I think you're a swell pirate, and I hand it to you, and you actually receive it from me and mumble "thanks"?

As opposed, of course, to turning your back and refusing the free gift.

[Sparko]

Obedience to Christ, of course:

And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all those who obey Him

how much? 1%? 50%? 75%? If you screw up and are disobedient 51% of the time, do you not get saved?

and obey Christ in what? all of the Law? Just the 10 commandments? Just baptism? Or just in accepting his gift of salvation?

and please, when you answer, give me something official from the LDS church and not your opinion.

[nrajeff]

Between "free grace" and "works based", Jeff, your religion is most certainly in the "works based" category.

I question the validity of that 2-extremes-only menu. Who says that every church, or every soteriology in existence, falls into either one extreme or the other? It seems arbitrary, like "your destiny is either extreme heaven or extreme hell--nothing in between."

You can brand it anything you want, Jeff,

Thanks! I will brand it with as much accuracy as you are willing to use to brand LDS soteriology. If you choose to go for shock value at the expense of honesty, then let your game-playing begin, since you will have made it obvious that all you want to do is play games.

but the fact is that we preach very clearly that Salvation is by grace through faith, and not of works, just like Eph 2:8-10 says.

But the devil is in the details, or in that context thing.

Already did, Jeff. Between "free grace" and "works based", your Church is definitely in the "works based" camp because it adds works to the qualifications for Salvation.

If Christ authors salvation to anyone who will OBEY Him, how is it possible to add obedience as a condition? Christ already has it among the conditions. What's really go on here, is you are SUBTRACTING obedience from the equation, leaving basically nothing. Since faith that is not accompanied by the conscious, deliberate choice to act on one's beliefs is a big zero, it's dead because it's alone. At least according to "God's Holy Word." LDS are just affirming what's already there in the Bible's recipe for salvation: You believe that Jesus can save you, you want Him to save you, you ACT on that belief and that desire by ASKING Him to save you, and you join the ranks of His disciples who are trying, by the way they behave and the things they do, to obey His commandments. Those are His conditions. Lip service doesn't impress Him much.

Technically, I believe that would apply to ANYBODY's view of Salvation.

Not to the many Evangelicals who claim that salvation is unconditional because if there were any conditions, any strings attached to being saved, it would undermine God's sovereignty, since we would play a part in whether we get saved or not. It would essentially be OUR decision whether God saved us or not. That is blasphemy in many Calvinistic circles.

The "condition" that I believe is necessary is "acceptance". I just don't add "works" into the mix.

Let me go tell the Evangelicals at CARM that "someone on another forum believes in conditional salvation--can he be a Christian?" and see what their response is.

I don't have an unconditional salvation theory, Jeff, as I have clearly stated that we need to ACCEPT the free gift. God doesn't force it upon us. Nor do we have to "add works" to a "free gift".

If you're drowning and someone throws a life preserver near you, and all you do is say "I accept that free gift" but take no ACTION to GRAB it, will you be saved?

Yes, the one that does NOT add a non-Biblical "after all you can do" qualifier!

What's your problem with Matthew 10:22?

Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)

22 And you will be hated by all on account of my name. But the one who endures to the end, this one will be saved.

Dang that Jesus, with His "endure to the end" qualifier! He has added works to the free gift!

[Bill the Cat]

Obedience to Christ, of course:

And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all those who obey Him

If I profess my faith in Christ, and never do a single thing again in my life, will I go to heaven or outer darkness in your view?

[Cow Poke]

I question the validity of that 2-extremes-only menu.

As I said elsewhere you are free to do. You're at odds, though, with an awful lot of Christianity. That's not an unusual position for you, of course.

Who says that every church, or every soteriology in existence, falls into either one extreme or the other? It seems arbitrary, like "your destiny is either extreme heaven or extreme hell--nothing in between."

Look up "free grace" and see what alternatives there are. When you add "works" to grace, you negate "free grace".

Thanks! I will brand it with as much accuracy as you are willing to use to brand LDS soteriology.

With the notable exception that I base my allegations on your Church's actual teachings, while you'd have to totally make stuff up.

If you choose to go for shock value at the expense of honesty

Drama! Is it "shocking" that your Church teaches "after all you can do", and LDS.org explains that works are REQUIRED for Salvation? And how is it dishonest for me to demonstrate that, Jeff?

then let your game-playing begin, since you will have made it obvious that all you want to do is play games.

No, Jeff... I have shown numerous times what LDS.org says about "after all you can do", and 1for1 seems to concur!

[Sparko]

I would like to know why Jeff can't produce any official LDS teachings that agree with what he says?