LDS Atonement

[ἀλήθεια]

As to my questions to you: given you did answer initially, the fact you do not do so now is odd.

If you knew me you would not think it odd. I am easily distracted and when I realize that a thread has gone off topic, I try to get it back on topic.

Is that the plan: avoid real discussion and simply make bald assertions? If not, then again, my posts await your reply.

I started this thread because Watchmen asked me to. I had no plan other than finding out whether all LDS at this forum agree or disagree with what I know about the LDS atonement. If the OP contains erroneous information please tell me what information in the OP is erroneous and give me some verification.

I don't believe you have ever asked me this question. If you did, when was this? To your question: "Do Mormons only baptize sinless people?" The answer is no. The morally culpable are baptized and it is through baptism one can receive a remission of sins.

I assume that when a person quotes a question I ask, he or she will want to answer that question. You quoted me in post #173. The question was originally addressed to Clear. Thank you for answering.

Do the "morally culpable" need to repent before they can be baptized?

This is what I found online:

Faith in Jesus Christ and repentance prepare you for baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ taught by example that everyone must be baptized of water and of the Spirit (the Holy Ghost) for the remission, or forgiveness, of sins. Through baptism by one who holds priesthood authority and through receiving the Holy Ghost, you can be spiritually reborn.

When you have repented, and are baptized and confirmed by one with the priesthood authority given by God, you receive a remission of your sins(Acts 2:38).

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-commandments/baptism-and-confirmation#d

So a person must repent before he is baptized.

And what is the LDS definition of repentance?

Doctrine and Covenants 58
42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

 

[Clear]

Post ONE of THREE

1) PRIOR CONTEXT

"Alethia, you are allowed the same access to the wonderful atonement which is full of Grace and mercy that Jesus Christ offers to all mankind. However, , you must repent of your sins Alethia. If you do NOT repent of your sins, you cannot expect that Jesus will save you if you willingly choose evil; if you willingly choose to deceive; to willingly harm and hurt others. You must repent Alethia. There is no way around this principle as you seek the charity and mercy of Jesus."

Alethia’s reply :

Alethia, in post #137 "It is no longer mercy if one is required to keep all the commandments in order to obtain that mercy."
Alethia, in post #140 "The person who has been saved already has the assurance of eternal life. Not only does he have the assurance, he also has the desire to serve the Lord. He is being sanctified. It is God who does the work in a Christian's heart."
Alethia in post #154 “If a person stops committing five sins of disobedience to God's laws, he is still guilty. If repentance means to stop sinning altogether, who has acheived that in every thought he has towards others twenty-four hours a day and in not ever desiring a material possession? Who is perfect?”
Alethia, in post #154 “I have no problem at all with obedience to Christ. But only by having faith in Christ can a person receive salvation, and that is not because we obeyed all the commandments or seven or eight of them. He saved(past tense) us according to his mercy and He works in the ones He saves that He might redeem a people zealous of good works. Being zealous of good works does not save a person! Faith in the blood of Christ is what saves. The horse is salvation, the works are the cart.” “

"I think your personal definition of the process repentance needs more context in order to make it more reasonable. For example, As you correctly pointed out in your post #140 when you said “This does not mean that a person is instantly changed into the person he/she will eventually become; there is a process”. I very much agree with this observation you made. Repentance is also a process that may take considerable time, perhaps several thousand years (who knows...), but other than adding this context of time (which I think you believe in but simply didn’t state in this case...), I very much agree with these thoughts as far as I am able to understand them. And I am glad to see you making comments rather than simply posting a list of scriptures without comment. It improves my understanding of what you are trying to say. Thank you.

We’ve used up six posts so far and we are still, very MUCH in agreement on all these specific sentences you offered and I continue to agree with the scriptures you quoted.

Alethia’s response :

“We are not in agreement.

Now you and I have used up EIGHT posts regarding my claim that you must repent in order to fully access the atonement of Jesus Christ, despite your responses, we continue to be right where we started before any posturing or defensive lines were drawn up on either side. I claim that you must repent of your sins and you continue to posture against the principle that Alethia (as well as all others), must repent of their sins. The underlying truth has not changed in during this delay and stalling and avoidance of the principle of repentance. Alethia, you still must repent of your sins to access the atonement. You still cannot expect Jesus will save you if you willingly choose evil. You still cannot disobey Jesus and expect he will save you. You still have no way around the principle of repentance. None of us do.





TO THE FORUM

2) REGARDING THE INABILITY TO ALLOW NEITHER DISAGREEMENT NOR AGREEMENT

I claim to agree with specific statements, Alethia made. She claims that I do not agree with these specific statements. Alethia's refusal to even admit that I agree with something she says, places our discussion into a different category. It becomes argument for arguments sake alone. It represents obstinance rather than a desire to communicate and understand. Obstinance, in the face of better data is not a religious phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon. Obstinance, and a desire to argue for arguments sake is not a sign of faith, it is simply a sign of obstinance. Nor is obstinance helpful for any discussion.



3) SOMETHING TO LEARN FROM THE PHENOMENON OF OBSTINANCE

Since obstinance is not a religious phenomenon, but rather it is a psychological phenomenon, one cannot learn much about authentic Christianity from obstinance, but one CAN learn how a personal psychological characteristic affects their religious theory and interpretation of scripture and even which scriptures they choose to use and how they interpret them to justify, or make just, their personal religious theories. The study of obstinance demonstrates that it is inconsistent with the humility underlying authentic Christianity (since the earliest Christian texts always taught AGAINST the obstinance that refuses repentance.)

I do not really know the underlying psychological motive for the development of the doctrine that “Grace renders repentance obsolete”. I have wondered if, for Alethians, the theory of “Grace renders repentance obsolete” is a phenomenon of moral laziness and / or a lack of context (since the doctrine cannot survive if Grace remains connected to the principles of Repentance and obedience. (see the discussion below). It is a theory of simply “opening the can of righteousness by faith”. No preparation nor work is involved since the righteousness is already prepared and cooked and the meal doesn’t even need to be warmed. You you simply open the can by faith and open your mouth, while you are spoon-fed salvation.




4) ALL CHRISTIANITIES HAVE SCRIPTURAL BIAS
Even casual students of christianity notice that, differing Christianities teach Many, MANY, conflicting doctrines using the same scriptures by the simple mechanism of varying WHICH particular scriptures they quote and by varying the interpretations of the same scriptures (which they endlessly argue about). Alethia and I for example, agree on every scripture she has quoted. However, we do not interpret them the same way, nor use them in the same way.

post two of three follows this one

 

[Clear]

Post Two of three

5) ANCIENT, MORE ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY AND THEIR PARTICULAR SCRIPTURAL BIAS
The earliest Christians did this SAME thing in teaching the original Gospel. Jesus taught the apostles “authentic christianity”. The Apostles taught their own “disciples” “authentic christianity”. And the disciples of the Apostles taught a gospel that was, (at least in the beginning), a “relatively pure and authentic” version of the Gospel. For example, Clements writings describes what he was taught by Barnabas, and by the Apostle Peter as Clement converts to Christianity. Clement became Peter’s fellow-laborer and eventually is made a Bishop over the Church in Rome. All this happens while Peter is yet alive and teaching the ancient and authentic version of Christianity.

Thus, Clements doctrines, (having being taught by the Apostle Peter), is immeasurably valuable in determining what “authentic and ancient Christian” doctrine really was. It shows us which scriptures the early Christians used and how THEY interpreted them. I Clement (1 cl), was a letter to the Corinthians and was included in early New Testaments. It represents a profound authentic version of what an ordained Bishop (Chosen by the Apostle Peter) taught for doctrine. II Clement (2 cl) is the earliest complete Christian sermon we have. It represents what the “non-apostle” Christians taught as their earliest post-apostolic doctrine, having gained their understanding from earlier apostolic teaching.

Modern Christians may argue that the authorized Bishop, chosen by Peter was wrong; or that Peter’s doctrines were wrong, or that Jesus’ doctrines were wrong and that modern theories are correct. Still, such writings represent what principles the earliest Christianity taught; what scriptures they quoted; and how they interpreted those scriptures according to the earliest and most pure Christian Bias.

I believe that if one compares the ancient saints and which scriptures they used in their sermons and how they applied them, one may compare the differences between it and their later usage (such as Alethia’s usage). I believe the ancient Saints were aware of the principle of grace which underlies the atonement. They were also very aware of the principle of repentance which also underlies the atonement. However, it is their balance and interaction of the synergistic principles of grace and repentance and obedience in early Christian writings which is so very different to the Alethian type of Christianities where one avoids repentance and emphasizes grace at the expense of other principles such as obedience and conduct.



6) ALETHIAN VS LATTER DAY SAINTS VS ORIGINAL CHRISTIANITY : A SAMPLING OF PRINCIPLES :
The LDS claim that they represent ancient Christian Principles restored by God to the Earth; They claim authority given them of God to teach what they teach and they claim the ancient principle of Prophetic revelation is again active upon the earth. Their version of Christianity seem to include a principle where “Grace includes Repentance” as part of man’s responsibility to be obedient to Jesus as a balanced part of accessing the Atonement of Jesus. They quote scriptures to support this bias.

Alethian-type of theories do not claim to represent any restoration of an original gospel, but instead, maintain their usage and interpretation of scriptures is the correct one among the multitudes of similar claims to have “correct interpretation” of scriptures. They do not claim special ordination to teach what they teach. They do not claim prophetic authority from God. It seems that they believe that “Grace excludes obedience” (I assume this due to my inability to evoke a simple admission, but rather see the reluctance from Alethia to admit that she, also, must repent). They also quote scriptures to support this bias.




7) THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL COMPARISON TO THE EARLIEST RECORDED CHRISTIANITY

What happens when one compares both the Alethian type of principles with the LDS type of principles with examples of the earliest Christian history (rather than simply throwing scriptures back and forth at each other...) Both of these Christianities have scriptural support for their position, but the support depends heavily on interpretation of scriptures used.How do these parties compare to the Principles taught in Ancient Christianity; the scriptures used by the ancient Saints; and the interpretations applied by the Ancient Saints? This is easily done.

For example, Clement, the convert and companion of Peter the Apostle, (who relates much of Peter’s history in “ recognitions” text), becomes a powerful leader and Bishop in Rome, carrying on the authentic christian tradition he learned from the mouth of Peter, the Apostle. The text of I Clement is a letter to the Corinthians, written about the time John is writing Revelations on the Isle of Patmos. I Clement was included in the earliest New Testament and much of this I Clement deals with the will of God. This text, taught to the earliest Christianity demonstrates the balance between grace and repentance as it was originally taught in the earliest Christianity we have record of.






AUTHORITY IN ANCIENT CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS

The text refers repeatedly to the a defined pattern of ecclesiastical authority as the Apostles themselves appointed Bishops originally. This pattern, Clement explained, is the ancient and eternal pattern for delegation of religious authority : The pattern applies to ALL, the ancient Saints were taught that

“The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ was sent from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ...Having therefore received their orders...” (Cl 42:1-2)

Just as Jesus did not take it upon himself to be appointed as the savior, the earliest Christians understood that Jesus was “sent” by his Father and apostles were “sent” by Jesus and others were “sent” by the Apostles. Clement reminds the Corinthians that the same applies to their own Bishop since “you were partisans of highly reputed apostles and of a man approved by them” (cl 47:4).

”This was no new thing they did...thus says the Scripture: ‘I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith’ (in the LXX only) (cl 42:5)

The pattern of giving authority underlies eternal principles. Just as “the Father of truth..sent forth to us the Savior and Founder of immortality” (cl 20:5) (who was HIS first fruit), “they [the apostles] appointed THEIR firstfruits...to be bishops and deacons (Cl 42:4). And upon what principle were the bishops deemed to be their firstfruits? It was obedience to Gods commandments. Ignatius describes a bishop as being “..attuned to the commandments as a harp to it’s strings” (ig phil 1:2). In ancient Christianity, there was a very tangible and concrete “cascade of authority”. Ignatius taught

“...as the Lord did nothing without the father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with them), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters” (ig mag 7:1).

The LDS may do their own comparisons to these principles (which are obvious and striking), but In Alethian Christianities; there is no separate and distinct manner of being given authority to preach the Gospel. Theirs is a confusing milieu where conflicting and competing Christians are of equal authority until finally shown to be unauthentic. In this way, Alethia theories of “intangible” passing of authority contributes to significant confusion of schismatic and fragmented Christianities.


AN ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY BALANCE OF GRACE AND REPENTANCE
The earliest texts show that Ancient Christians were very aware that the doctrine of grace that underlie all other doctrines of atonement. They understood that “without love, nothing is pleasing to God” (I cl 49:5), yet they knew that “if we disobey his commandments, then nothing will save us” (2 cl 6:7). Since perfect obedience wasn’t possible, repentance was the balancing factor. Thus their daily doctrinal diet, was heavy on repentance (though a different kind than described by Alethia) and a profound movement in the direction of obedience. Grace was accessed through repentance.

For them Obedience was never separated from the principle and the process of repentance. Thus, obedience to the principle of repentance shielded them from Judgement: they taught that God's “many benefits turn[ed] into a Judgement upon all of us, as will happen if we fail to live worthily of him, and to do...those thing which are good and well pleasing in his sight.” (I cl 21:1).


post three of three follows this post

 

[Clear]

Post three of three

Alethia’s attempt to separate the process of repentance from obedience (as ancient saints and their theology would NEVER do), makes the principle of perfect obedience completely unreasonable. Obedience must be a relative demand where one “does the best that one can”. It is in THIS context that the ancient Christian saints are taught to “ unhesitatingly conform ourselves to his will, let us with all our strength do the work of righteousness” (1 cl 33:8) “that we may be saved while we render Obedience” (1 cl 60:4) Alethia is correct that men could never pay for their sins, but this did not keep the ancient Christians from asking : “What re-payment shall we give?” (2 cl 1:3) for their innumerable and incalculable blessings. Their answer was to “... pay him what is due.” And when Bishop clement asks the non-rhetorical question: “What is that?”, the answer is “Sincere, heart-felt repentance.” (2 cl 9:7-8)

When one reads what ancient Saints actually taught, I do not think they contemplated a “Grace renders repentance obsolete” of the modern Alethians, but they taught instead :

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father.’ This then is our reward, if we acknowledge him... But how do we acknowledge him? By doing what he says and not disobeying his commandments, and honoring him not only with our lips... Let us therefore, not just call him Lord, for this will not save us. For he says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will be saved, but only the one who does what is right.” (2 cl 3:3-4; 4:1-2)

This last doctrine represented a significant theme of early Christianity as it found itself contaminated by multiple theories and bias’. The early Christians deny and warn against the ultimate results of “grace renders repentance obsolete” theory in their observation of those who :

”abandoned the fear of God...neither walking according to the laws of His commandments nor living in accordance with his duty toward Christ”

It was partly this forgotten respect and abuse of the doctrine of “grace on steroids” that corrupted the early church and it’s doctrines. Though the ancient saints understood that the Christian church was an eternal principle, and that

“the Books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning “

(i.e. an eternal organization), they warn that though the church of the apostles is a mere copy of this eternal order, (that is, a copy of the sort of sociality and "church" that exists in heaven both before and after mortality)

“No one, therefore, who corrupts the copy will share in the original” (i.e. the eternally existing organization...) (2 cl14:3).

The consequences of the theory that “grace renders repentance obsolete” is important since those who hold heretical opinion about the grace of Jesus continued to develop other heresies and evil behaviors that resulted from disobedience (since “grace” rendered obedience less important to the heretics). Ignatius warns specifically:

“Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of god. They have no concern for love; none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner...none for the hungry or thirsty.” “They abstain from the Eucharist....Therefore those who deny the good gift of God perish in their contentiousness.” (Ig smyr 6:2)

Importantly, in their “over emphasis of Grace”, they lose an understanding of the value of ordinances, and since they no longer know the value of ordinances, they abandon them. This minimalist and narrow doctrine of exclusion had other symptoms of exclusion as well:; They would exclude all but their pet scriptures, and refused to accept the new testament as scripture. Some Philadephians said

:“If I do not find it in the archives, (the old testament) I do not believe it in the gospel”(i.e. the emerging New Testament texts) (ig phil 8:2).

Thus they narrowed what data they accepted through the smallest of funnels of their own making. Their motive was an ignorant obstinance meant to relieve them of additional commandments and responsibilities since many of the new texts made clear the very truths they wished to avoid.

Their consistent desire to argue led to the command to “lay aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue” (1 cl 57:2). As they abandoned the authentic gospel, they became like those described as “wrapped in darkness and our vision was filled with this thick mist”. These “mists of darkness” only served to increase the speed with which they changed the authentic Gospel to one of it’s many counterfeits. It was, after all was said and done, a refusal to repent which caused the loss of access to the mercy and grace of Jesus to them. Clement was prophetic in his warning to “Take care,...lest his many benefits turn into a judgement upon all of us if we fail to live worthily of him, and to do...those things which are good and well-pleasing in his sight.” (1 cl 21:1). They had been given the same logical warning as the other saints : “who will be our advocate, if we are not found to have holy and righteous works.. (2cl 6:9), (in this case, simple repentance). They had willingly left the sheepfold and had no advocate any longer. They were taught, “Follow the Saints, for those who follow them will be sanctified.” (1 cl 46:2), but they would not even consider it.


Clear
eiacx2tw65ou

I'm sitting in the airport at this moment and they are calling my plane, I'll get on line later and "repair" these posts..

 

[idea]

I claim to agree with specific statements, Alethia made. She claims that I do not agree with these specific statements. The inabiIity for Alethia to allow me to agree with her robs me of faith that a discussion can ever make progress if the purpose becomes simply to argue for arguments sake alone. It represents obstinance rather than a desire to communicate and understand. Obstinance, in the face of better data is not a religious phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon. Obstinance, and a desire to argue for arguments sake is not a sign of faith, it is simply a sign of obstinance. Nor is obstinance helpful for any discussion.

Thank you clear. I like your name, you are very clear I hope everyone takes the time to read and think about your posts.

I have posted this before, but will again.

Imagine you are standing in a circle of people.
In the center of the circle, there is a source of light.
But rather than facing the center and the light, you are standing with your back to the light, facing outward.

When you stand this way, facing away from the light, all you can see is your own shadow.
You cannot see the light.
You can only look into your shadow.
You cannot see the others in the circle with you.
From what you can see, you are disconnected and alone in the dark.
​

Now imagine that you turn around to face the light that is in the center of the circle.
When you turn toward the light, you no longer see only darkness.
When you turn toward the light, your shadow is behind you.
When you turn toward the light, you can now see the other people who are standing with you.
You can see that the light is shining on everyone and that you are all connected in its radiance.

Many people ask us about our name: Metanoia. Literally, it is a Greek word meaning “change of mind”. Yet the full meaning is somewhat more. In the New Testament, the word metanoia is often translated as “repentance”. But this kind of repentance is not about regret or guilt or shame; it implies making a decision to turn around, to face a new direction.

Metanoia: Turn toward the light

No, I did not first come to this site because I was suicidal - I came doing a google on the word "Metanoia". What they say is true though... Only when the pools of your perception are clear can you see things as they really are. Those who cover everything and everyone with a blanket of blame (blame others rather than see yourself clearly) live in an imaginary world of their own creation... to the immature, others are not real.

I'm sitting in the airport at this moment and they are calling my plane, I'll get on line later and "repair" these posts..

have a nice flight!

It was a just a guess, but I'm pretty sure Aletheia is assuming Clear is LDS based on her comment in post #159: "Please tell me why you think there is more sin in my life than, say, there is sin in your bishop’s life?"

so... just curious clear, but what LDS thoughts do you not agree with? just curious... I guess that would be another thread too....

 

[edward]

Without plowing through page after page of dialogue, can you tell me, Clear, where any Christian has posted to this thread that they did not need to repent? Is it not grace that gives us the ability to repent?

Lastly, out of curiosity, given your dismal view of the 21st century church, where do you believe the authentic church lies?

Thanks and enjoy your flight.

Edward

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Post ONE of THREE

1) PRIOR CONTEXT


Alethia’s reply : Alethia’s response :

Now you and I have used up eight posts regarding my claim that you must repent in order to fully access the atonement of Jesus Christ, despite your responses, we continue to be right where we started before any posturing or defensive lines were drawn up on either side. I claim that you must repent of your sins and you continue to posture against the principle that Alethia (as well as all others), must repent of their sins. The underlying truth has not changed in during this delay and stalling and avoidance of the principle of repentance. Alethia, you still must repent of your sins to access the atonement. You still cannot expect Jesus will save you if you willingly choose evil. You still cannot disobey Jesus and expect he will save you. You still have no way around the principle of repentance. None of us do.

I have said and will continue to say that one must come to Christ. Jesus saves the one who comes to Him. What does God do for the sheep? He forgives them, He chastises them, He leads them, He feeds them, He guides them, He empowers them, He sanctifies them, He glorifies them. God saves sinners. If a person were righteous he would not need a Savior.

TO THE FORUM

2) REGARDING THE INABILITY TO ALLOW NEITHER DISAGREEMENT NOR AGREEMENT


I claim to agree with specific statements, Alethia made. She claims that I do not agree with these specific statements. The inabiIity for Alethia to allow me to agree with her robs me of faith that a discussion can ever make progress if the purpose becomes simply to argue for arguments sake alone. It represents obstinance rather than a desire to communicate and understand. Obstinance, in the face of better data is not a religious phenomenon. It is a psychological phenomenon. Obstinance, and a desire to argue for arguments sake is not a sign of faith, it is simply a sign of obstinance. Nor is obstinance helpful for any discussion.

And who is the obstinate one? The one who claims to agree and then constantly disagrees or the one who sees the claim that contradicts the facts?

3) SOMETHING TO LEARN FROM THE PHENOMENON OF OBSTINANCE

Since obstinance is not a religious phenomenon, but rather it is a psychological phenomenon, one cannot learn much about authentic Christianity from obstinance, but one CAN learn how a personal psychological characteristic affects their religious theory and interpretation of scripture and even which scriptures they choose to use and how they interpret them to justify, or make just, their personal religious theories. The study of obstinance demonstrates that it is inconsistent with the humility underlying authentic Christianity (since the earliest Christian texts always taught AGAINST the obstinance that refuses repentance.)

This thread is not about obstinance.

I do not really know the underlying psychological motive for the development of the doctrine that “Grace renders repentance obsolete”. I have wondered if, for Alethians, the theory of “Grace renders repentance obsolete” is a phenomenon of moral laziness and / or a lack of context (since the doctrine cannot survive if Grace remains connected to the principles of Repentance and obedience. (see the discussion below). It is a theory of simply “opening the can of righteousness by faith”. No preparation nor work is involved since the righteousness is already prepared and cooked and the meal doesn’t even need to be warmed. If you simply open the can by faith, you are spoon-fed the rest.

I did not say that Christians ought not to turn from the past life. All Christians walk in newness of life because that is what God enables them to do; it is called sanctification. Sanctification is a work that God begins in the person who came to Christ. God is so completely able to make new creatures from the old.

Do you want to talk about my beliefs or about the LDS atonement? You have not told me where I misinterpreted LDS teachings about the atonement. This thread is about the LDS atonement. If you do not want to talk about the LDS atonement, I suggest that you start another thread.

4) ALL CHRISTIANITIES HAVE SCRIPTURAL BIAS
Even casual students of christianity notice that, differing Christianities teach Many, MANY, conflicting doctrines using the same scriptures by the simple mechanism of varying WHICH particular scriptures they quote and by varying the interpretations of the same scriptures (which they endlessly argue about). Alethia and I for example, agree on every scripture she has quoted. However, we do not interpret them the same way, nor use them in the same way.

post two of three follows this one

Oh, I grant that your interpretation of scriptures is different than mine. I grant that LDS like to say, "I believe that scripture, too."
It can be very misleading.

 

[idea]

Without plowing through page after page of dialogue, can to tell me where any Christian has posted to this thread that they did not need to repent? Is it not grace that gives us the ability to repent?

Lastly, out of curiosity, given your dismal view of the 21st century church, where do you believe the authentic church lies?

Thanks and enjoy your flight.

Edward

LOL - repent = works. Most Christians think salvation comes without works.
LDS say it takes BOTH - GRACE AND WORKS - not just grace. Personally, I don't think our works count for much, 99.999999% grace, .00000001% works, but works is part of it.

dismal indeed:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/
• Baptists, who constitute the largest non-Catholic Christian tradition, have increased their numbers by two million since 2001, but continue to decline as a proportion of the population.
• Mormons have increased in numbers enough to hold their own proportionally, at 1.4 percent of the population.
• The Muslim proportion of the population continues to grow, from .3 percent in 1990 to .5 percent in 2001 to .6 percent in 2008.
• The number of adherents of Eastern Religions, which more than doubled in the 1990s, has declined slightly, from just over two million to just under. Asian Americans are substantially more likely to indicate no religious identity than other racial or ethnic groups.
• Those who identify religiously as Jews continue to decline numerically, from 3.1 million in 1990 to 2.8 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2008--1.2 percent of the population. Defined to include those who identify as Jews by ethnicity alone, the American Jewish population has remained stable over the past two decades.
• Only1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic. But based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God). The number of outright atheists has nearly doubled since 2001, from 900 thousand to 1.6 million. Twenty-seven percent of Americans do not expect a religious funeral at their death.
• Adherents of New Religious movements, inc luding Wiccans and self-described pagans, have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s.

from the full report:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

pg 15:
"As regards to currently married adults, the Mormons and Baptists have the highest proportions with 68 and 60 percetn respectively, reflecting the emphasis on family values in these traditions."

considering Cohabitation or "living with a partner" (outside wedlock) Mormon and Protestant denominations seem best able to transmit their moral teachings to the young.

traditional normative family value index - proportion divorced/cohabiting - lowest percentage are Mormons (11%) - then Jews (13) and protestant (13).

not to brag or anything . but we can "hold our own".

 

[idea]

I have said and will continue to say that one must come to Christ.

wonderful, so you agree that the work of "coming to Christ" is needed in order to be saved. Wonderful, you admit that works are in fact needed.

Goodnight everyone

 

[ἀλήθεια]

"As regards to currently married adults, the Mormons and Baptists have the highest proportions with 68 and 60 percetn respectively, reflecting the emphasis on family values in these traditions."

Staying married to the one you loved on your wedding day doesn't grant salvation. But I've been faithful to the one I love since my wedding day. I believe in marriage between a man and woman and I love all my descendants very much. :yes:

 

[ἀλήθεια]

wonderful, so you agree that the work of "coming to Christ" is needed in order to be saved. Wonderful, you admit that works are in fact needed.

Goodnight everyone

Your post is off topic.

It isn't man's work that brings someone to Christ. It is a change of heart. Faith is a gift of God.

Ephesians 2
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

It's amazing what God can do!

 

[edward]

LOL - repent = works. Most Christians think salvation comes without works.

I don't believe that I have ever heard that repentance was considered works. However, just for the record, you can count me among the "most Christians." To do things for God because He has saved you is not "works," but appreciation for what He has already done. If one do not do all of the "works," however you care to define that word, it does not mean that his salvation is lost. Read I Corinthians 3:11-15 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; very man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

If we believe that our works can save or be part of our salvation, we misunderstand the scriptures. Romans 3:28 says "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified (saved) by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:4-5 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 5:14-16 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. (salvation).

LDS say it takes BOTH - GRACE AND WORKS - not just grace. Personally, I don't think our works count for much, 99.999999% grace, .00000001% works, but works is part of it.

And orthodox, evangelical Christianity claims that salvation is a FREE gift. If is is of works, it is no longer a gift, but a debt owed by God to man. Read Romans 4:4 again.

dismal indeed:

That was a poor choice of words on my part. I was trying to come up with term that justified the message I was getting from Clear regarding his view of Christianity. Perhaps abhorrent would be a better word for that message, I'm not sure. One thing that is clear, he does not appreciate any form of Christianity that I am familiar with.

It's late so I am off. Have a good evening.

Edward

 

[Watchmen]

It's a free gift for those who accept it. How does one accept it? By his actions: having faith, repenting, being baptized, and receiving the holy ghost.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

It's a free gift for those who accept it. How does one accept it? By his actions: having faith, repenting, being baptized, and receiving the holy ghost.

John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

If God gives me to Christ, what do I have to do? If I have faith, where did I get it?

Ephesians 2
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

LDS, how many sins does a person need to forsake for baptism and how many for eternal life with Heavenly Father? Is repentance the forsaking of some sins, several sins, or all sins?

 

[edward]

It's a free gift for those who accept it. How does one accept it? By his actions: having faith, repenting, being baptized, and receiving the holy ghost.

A free gift comes with no strings attached. If there are strings attached then it isn't free but has stipulations that then entitle you to obtain this "gift." This may be a gift, but it certainly isn't free. It becomes an obligation from God to man, read Romans 4:4. These items you mentioned are a result of having accepting the gift, not an obligation on your part to get the gift. Faith is also a gift from God, not an action from man, repenting is turning away from sins that man is committing and never returning to them, being baptised is a sign of the new creature and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, also, is a gift freely given by God to man in the manner that God determines . People have been known to receive the Holy Ghost before being baptized.
Love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul and mind and our neighbors as our self fulfils the law and is what is necessary to enter into his presence in the heavenly realm.

 

[Katzpur]

A free gift comes with no strings attached. If there are strings attached then it isn't free but has stipulations that then entitle you to obtain this "gift." This may be a gift, but it certainly isn't free.

Edward, I'm assuming that at Christmas you buy gifts for your family and friends. You aren't obligated to do so, but you do anyway. You don't (or at least shouldn't) feel as if you have to buy someone a gift because he bought you one last year. The people you buy for are people with whom you have developed a close relationship. It's the people who have shown you by their actions that they care about you and want to be your friend. When you give them a gift, it's really a gift. They haven't earned it. But you are selective in who you give gifts to and that doesn't make it any less of a gift.

Faith is also a gift from God, not an action from man, repenting is turning away from sins that man is committing and never returning to them, being baptised is a sign of the new creature and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, also, is a gift freely given by God to man in the manner that God determines . People have been known to receive the Holy Ghost before being baptized.

Of course faith is a gift. Everything we have is a gift from God, but we have to use it in order for it to have any worth. Regarding the Holy Ghost... We believe that it is entirely possible to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost before being baptized. As a matter of fact, in the Book of Mormon, the reader is told to pray for a witness from the Holy Ghost to know of the truth of the things that he has read. It's through the Holy Ghost that people know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and this happens before they are baptized. Receiving "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" (i.e. the right to have His constant companionship) is given after baptism by the laying on of hands, just as was the case in New Testament times.

 

[edward]

Edward, I'm assuming that at Christmas you buy gifts for your family and friends. You aren't obligated to do so, but you do anyway. You don't (or at least shouldn't) feel as if you have to buy someone a gift because he bought you one last year. The people you buy for are people with whom you have developed a close relationship. It's the people who have shown you by their actions that they care about you and want to be your friend. When you give them a gift, it's really a gift. They haven't earned it. But you are selective in who you give gifts to and that doesn't make it any less of a gift.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here. It sounds like we are in complete agreement, but if we are why would you bring it up? Of course it is selective, I am not God, therefore, could not give to all. I also do not believe in universalism, but that is not the point. The point is that was that Jesus' atonement was a payment for a debt that we have no way of repaying. He gave it freely. nobody took his life from him. It was/is the gift of eternal/everlasting exaltation to be with him. Yes, we have to accept the gift, but that is not a work. That is holding out our arms in grateful adoration for what he has done for us.

Of course faith is a gift. Everything we have is a gift from God,

I respectfully disagree. Every perfect gift is from God, (James 1:17) but not the evil that comes into our lives, e.g. the pedophile who destroyed a child's innocence.

Of course faith is a gift. Everything we have is a gift from God, but we have to use it in order for it to have any worth.

Why would anyone not use any gift that they have received from God? The mere thought of that is absurd.

Regarding the Holy Ghost... We believe that it is entirely possible to feel the influence of the Holy Ghost before being baptized. As a matter of fact, in the Book of Mormon, the reader is told to pray for a witness from the Holy Ghost to know of the truth of the things that he has read. It's through the Holy Ghost that people know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and this happens before they are baptized. Receiving "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" (i.e. the right to have His constant companionship) is given after baptism by the laying on of hands, just as was the case in New Testament times.

Considering the topic of this thread, I'll just say that I disagree, but thanks for responding, respectfully.

Edward

 

[ἀλήθεια]

The earliest texts show that Ancient Christians were very aware that the doctrine of grace that underlie all other doctrines of atonement. They understood that "without love, nothing is pleasing to God" (I cl 49:5), yet they knew that "if we disobey his commandments, then nothing will save us" (2 cl 6:7). Since perfect obedience wasn’t possible, repentance was the balancing factor. Thus their daily doctrinal diet, was heavy on repentance (though a different kind than described by Alethia) and a profound movement in the direction of obedience. Grace was accessed through repentance.
For them Obedience was never separated from the principle and the process of repentance. Thus, obedience to the principle of repentance shielded them from Judgement: they taught that God's "many benefits turn[ed] into a Judgement upon all of us, as will happen if we fail to live worthily of him, and to do...those thing which are good and well pleasing in his sight." (I cl 21:1).

Clear, do LDS consider non-canonical writings to have the same authority over them as scripture does? You are presenting non-canonical writings as if the they, too, are scripture.

My appeal is to scripture rather than extra-biblical writings. Scripture says that apart from God's working in an individual, that individual neither has the desire nor the ability to come to Christ.

Of the unregenerate, it says:

Romans 3
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Romans 8
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

1 Corinthians 2
14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 3
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

How does one receive the new birth so that he becomes a spiritual man?

Ephesians 2
5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )

 

[Watchmen]

You are presenting non-canonical writings as if the they, too, are scripture.

Do you realize how many times you've done that very same thing???!!!