What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

brotherofJared

Well-known member
What does that mean? How do works make the difference?
Without work, there is no faith.
If anything, striving to be obedient, shows us our weaknesses, its giving our weaknesses to Christ that makes them strengths is what makes the difference.
How very evangelical of you. If anything, striving for obedience shows Christ our faith and in that faith we find the strength to continue striving. That's what makes the difference.
Again, conflating ordinances with the rest of the commandments.
Again, I haven't said one word about ordinances. They are not salvific in and of themselves. They are not the works that save.
What amount of works is required?
Our whole life, everything we do and everything we do in response to things that are done to us.
So you have no faith in 3 Nephi 11, because instead to trying find agreement in the best of intentions, you continually want to contend with me.
Go pull the beam out of your eye, then we can talk.
Where have I judged you? Disagreeing with you is not judgment. Might I remind you that it was you who dusted your feet. not me. I find it hilarious that you resort to these off-the-wall condemnations. If you feel it's alright for the woman to have continued in adultery so long as she had faith, then just say so. There's no reason to shoot the messenger. At some point, we can address exactly when we know a person really doesn't have any faith. But that's not what we do here.

I have been very clear that if you keep the commandments, you'll be resurrected to life, I don't care if you're baptized or not, if you believe in Jesus or not. I don't care if you have one iota of faith or not. If you keep the commandments (actually God said, if the works you did in life were good) then you will be resurrected to life. I don't understand why that's a problem and why you think it only counts if you have faith.

I know what I need to do to obtain life but because I have Jesus in my life, I want to do so much more than just keep the commandments and the way I live my life is the evidence of my faith. What I choose to do isn't in the commandments, but I want to do them. I accept words of wisdom and I do them as I understand them. I believe that anyone that accepts and does them as they understand them will obtain the obvious benefits of them because they are, in fact, words of wisdom. We really shouldn't need God to tell us these things. But I don't believe doing them makes me anymore saved than the next person who is striving to follow Jesus or is just keeping the commandments. Having the priesthood doesn't, being endowed doesn't, and neither does marriage. Everyone who has strived to follow Christ will dwell together in the celestial kingdom, all of us being as close to God as we can possibly be. There will not be any classes of people. The person who chose not to obtain the endowment or get married will be treated no differently than those who did.
It makes the difference to help people determining if you have faith, but it does not make any difference in our level of conversion or toward our salvation.
That's an oxymoron. if works make a difference if you have faith, then it makes a difference towards salvation.
Works are simply manifestations of faith that already exists within us.
No faith exists if there are no works.
They help us recognize that we are on the right path. They are a lagging indicator. We did not do good works, for the sake of good works.
They also help us recognize if we are on the wrong path.
How was Alvin Smith saved?
By his works, just like everyone else who will ever be saved will because of their works.
He wasn't baptized.
Yes. He was. His brother, Hyrum, was baptized for him, twice, once in 1840 and again in 1841.
He didn't even have the work done for him. If works make the difference, then explain this paradox.
There isn't a paradox concerning Alvin's baptism, but what is a paradox is how you think Alvin's baptism escaped Joseph Smith when it was Alvin's death that prompted the events which brought about baptism for the dead.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
No. We don't. All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are. That is why we need a Savior.
ALL good works are necessary? That is why we need a Savior?
I'm totally confused.
You're saying "If I perform all good works (not distinguishing ordinances from commandments), then I'm saved. Ok. Then why do you need a Savior? Just to clean up the garbage bin of your past? Is that it?
So, which perfect person, that obeyed all the commandments, do you know that are saved?
What person living to you know is saved that currently has perfect obedience? I'd really like to talk to that person.

There are no ordinances that we must walk in. Ordinances are events, you don't walk in an event, you walk in life. And every action should reflect your belief, your faith.
Duh, it's the covenants attached to the ordinances that we walk in.
You really suck at being charitable. Clearly, you don't believe in charity. And without charity we are nothing. So, why should I listen to someone who is nothing?

And you missed the key in "after all we can do". What is "all we can do"? Grace offered through Christ's work on the cross comes only to those who do this and it comes to no others.
Huh? So, I grace comes in AFTER I'm walking in perfect obedience.
What good is grace then? You're basically saying "Help. Help. Oh wait! Nevermind Jesus, I got this."

This "all we can do" is effective whenever we apply it regardless of whether we are in life or after death. Those who are dead must do all they can in spirit.
Ummm...no. That's directly contradictory to the scriptures:
alma 34:
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

Work for the dead only counts if the person hasn't heard of the gospel in this life.

Question, what is it that they can do in spirit that would meet this absolutely necessary requirement? Obviously, the commandments have little import on them as they cannot kill, they cannot steal, they cannot commit adultery, they cannot covet, and they cannot bear false witness, what is it that they can do? Any thoughts?
Ummm...Accept the gospel of Jesus Christ by FAITH! Let's keep in mind, you are the one advocating salvation comes by works, not me.

Did I ever say that perfection was necessary for Salvation?
Yes, you did. I said we need to separate necessary works from unnecessary works, and you said "All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are."
What difference does that make? If you break one, you are guilty, period.
Exactly! You're the one that is saying that there is some line we cross that separates the saved from the unsaved.
I'm saying that line is faith is Christ, you're saying ALL the commandments.
I don't know. What level of obedience do you think she can keep? Is it obedience? or is it the effort to be obedient that is necessary? How does one reconcile themselves to God?
Oh, so now your talking about the effort that qualifies. Because that's a stark contrast from "if you didn't do it, you don't really have faith."
What drives the effort? Could that be FAITH?

This one: "Was she saved during the time she was committing adultery when she thought she was getting away with it?" Reveal to me, was she saved or wasn't she? Or, at least reveal your opinion about it. My guess is that you won't.
Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, I don't how you expect me to make a judgment call on it.
Was she aware of the law of chastity? Was she living against the dictates of her conscience?
The judgement given to those in the telestial kingdom will be judged by the people of that kingdom. So, maybe her husband was completely negligent, and was cheating himself. So my guess is "it's possible, but probably not." But more importantly, that's not a call I can make. We should only be concerned about our own salvation, not each others.
No commandment has ever been given that says, "I command you to have faith". :rolleyes: That is your interpretation which I disagree with, because, in my mind, that means that as long as this woman had faith, she could commit adultery and still be saved. That seems counterintuitive. If that was true, then we shall all just go ahead and commit adultery as long as we have faith. We ought to reinstate that pastor that got fired soliciting prostitutes.
Nope, I didn't simply invent this:
1 John 3:23 - And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Not only must we hear the word of God and obey in faith, trusting in Jesus with our salvation, but we must endure in faith.
If the woman committed adultery knowing it was a sin, yet allowed herself to be overcome in temptation, the she did not endure in faith to the end. Enduring to the end is a vital part.

Suppose she never committed adultery. Does that mean she's saved? Nope. We simply can't look at works to determine somebody's salvation.
In this context, I disagree with you. That which leads to Baptism isn't repentance brought about by "true" faith.

True faith leads to reconciliation which is the process where we strive to do the teachings of the gospel.
This is your effort, just to be disagreeable again, for the sake of being disagreeable. You add nothing to enlighten anything. It's just calling me wrong, to say I'm wrong, and then restate exactly what I said.

I said: True faith leads to repentance which leads to baptism.
You said: True faith leads to reconciliation which is the process where we strive to do the teachings of the gospel.

How is repentance different from reconciliation.
Is baptism a teaching of the gospel?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I know what it means. I don't know what it means to you.
Nope. I disagree. I don't see examples in the scriptures of people trying to be obedient, fail, and then try again.
Being reconciled to Christ means confessing to Christ that are hearts are broken in a contrite spirit, turning our lives over to Him, and then accomplishing the things which he commands us.
If only you had read a little bit further. ;) Now, you can't claim that you don't know what it means to me.

To reconcile: "to restore to friendship or harmony", "to make consistent or congruous", "to account for". I don't see a difference between what you said and what I said. First off, the covenant we made with Christ at baptism is to do the things he commanded us to do, that is the covenant path, Of course, we will fail because we are mortals with a lot of conflicting opposition to doing what we want to do, broken hearts and contrite spirits is the process of repentance, and then we get back on the covenant path. That's what I described above. "turning our lives over to Him" is what we did when we were baptized.
So are little children all knowledgeable?
It doesn't change the fact that no one can be saved in ignorance.
These two sentences are a complete contradiction:
You say "Works is the result of faith."
and "Works make the difference."
I understand that may confuse you, but the fact is, if works doesn't exist, then there is no faith. Therefore, logically, works makes the difference. You can have work without faith, but you can't have faith without work.
What do you tell drug/sex addicts that want to change, but keep making the same mistakes over and over? I'd imagine you'd say "Just TRY HARDER until you can get saved. You're not there yet." Yeah, there's no hope there. Works cannot be the catalyst that makes the difference.
It may not be the catalyst, but without the work, there was no catalyst. Without the work, claiming you want to change is just lip service.
Works are the evidence of our faith.
Yep. and Without works, there is no evidence of faith. :rolleyes:
Suppose we live next door, and you ask me to walk to your house. And it's snowy outside.
I know how to walk, I know where your front door is, I believe that if I put my knowledge into action I will reach your house. That belief is faith.
Yea. But if you just sit at home and believe it, you'll never get to my door,. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

BTW, nothing about that scenario demonstrates faith. It's only faith if you hope that it's true. If you know it's true, then it's no longer faith. there's no faith involved with turning on a light. I flip a switch and I know that light will come on and if it doesn't I know how to fix it. But if I didn't, and someone explained to me what I needed to do to fix it, then I might have faith in my ability to do so, but it's not going to get fixed if I don't do anything about it. My faith, in that case, would be useless.
As I walk to your house, I leave footprints in the snow. And you ask me, how did you get to my house. Should I then say "my footprints got me here."? No, that's simply evidence that I HAD faith that got me there.
Being at your house, I can say I my faith is no longer faith, it's knowledge.
I have to wonder how you knew here my door was if you've never been there before, but that's okay, I get it. The fact remains, if you didn't actually walk to my door, your faith would be useless.
So here's the question. Do you know that Jesus Christ is your Savior, or do you simply believe that Jesus is your Savior?
Sure. I both know and believe. But that is not enough.
I know Jesus Christ is my Savior, because I have the ability to live according to His words I could not otherwise do.
Ok. I have to accept that you believe that, but I don't have to believe any of this about you.
I know the difference in behavior didn't come from me.
Then, IMO, you are just in a state of denial. It's ludicrous if you think some outside influence is manipulating you. Criminals could use this same logic to escape conviction, It wasn't me, that behavior didn't come from me. :rolleyes:
Moroni 10:32 - Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
Yea. Lovely sentiment but the fact is if you don't "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" you aren't going to have any of the rest including grace. Note the words, "then is his grace sufficient for you"
If you know Jesus is your Savior, then you must claim that you are "saved".
I don't think that knowledge does anything for you. I'm sure that knowledge didn't do Ted Haggard any good. It sure didn't do my adulterous friend any good. That's just a evangelical fluff statement that is meaningless without the associated works.
You might not be perfect, but you are justified, according to His law - which is the law of the gospel of repentance.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Meaningless unless you obey the law. I repeat God's grace is sufficient for you IF you shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness. Did Ted do that? No. Did my friend do that? No.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Without work, there is no faith.
We've established that. And faith without works is nothing. What is it about works that makes the difference without faith.
How very evangelical of you.
So Ether 12:27 is evangelical? Is something wrong if we're able to attach a "evangelical" label to it?
If anything, striving for obedience shows Christ our faith and in that faith we find the strength to continue striving. That's what makes the difference.
But I thought you said we don't have faith unless we do the works. Striving implies failure, and if we fail, the work isn't performed. And if the work isn't performed faith is not evident. And, according to you, it's the works that make the difference.

Again, I haven't said one word about ordinances. They are not salvific in and of themselves. They are not the works that save.
Your theology gets more and more entertaining.
Ordinances are not the works that save. All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are. Works are what makes the difference.
How does one get saved? Not by faith, but by works, and not ordinances, but just keeping the commandments...I guess.
I don't really know at this point.

The only take way is that I'm wrong at all costs. No matter what. Some may call this anti-Aaron32ism. Your so anxious to disagree with me, you cut off your nose to spite your face.

Our whole life, everything we do and everything we do in response to things that are done to us.
Some might calling that "enduring to the end in faith". Yet, that talks about the f-word that you try to avoid.

Where have I judged you? Disagreeing with you is not judgment.
Judgment comes before disagreement. You always interpret the worst possible meaning of what I say, just as an excuse for you to bloviate.
Might I remind you that it was you who dusted your feet. not me.
Yeah, because what you were saying was completely anti-Christian.
I find it hilarious that you resort to these off-the-wall condemnations.
I'm simply applying your beliefs to your behavior. You know contention is wrong, yet you still contend. I'm trying to find middle ground, and your like "nope. won't do it."
If you feel it's alright for the woman to have continued in adultery so long as she had faith, then just say so. There's no reason to shoot the messenger. At some point, we can address exactly when we know a person really doesn't have any faith. But that's not what we do here.

I have been very clear that if you keep the commandments, you'll be resurrected to life, I don't care if you're baptized or not, if you believe in Jesus or not. I don't care if you have one iota of faith or not. If you keep the commandments (actually God said, if the works you did in life were good) then you will be resurrected to life. I don't understand why that's a problem and why you think it only counts if you have faith.
Why is that a problem? Because no one can keep all the commandments. "if you believe in Jesus or not" - that's anti-christian, BoJ.
Anyone who says they have no sin are liars. Jesus is essential for salvation.

Again:
10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

It's more important to be honest with yourself, to be congruent through and through, and live imperfectly than to strive to keep all the commandments and pretend you have no sin.
It's knowing we're imperfect that gives us charity. I forgive you as God has forgiven me. I don't judge you, because I don't want to be judged.

I know what I need to do to obtain life but because I have Jesus in my life,
Well, now I'm totally confused.
I want to do so much more than just keep the commandments
What more can you do than keeping the commandments? I don't think that's possible.
We need charity or we are nothing. Charity is the pure love of Christ. No greater love exists than those who lay their life down than their friends.
We are supposed to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. I'm pretty sure whatever "over and above" you want to do, is something Jesus already declared what you should do.
and the way I live my life is the evidence of my faith.
But, remember, according to you, it's not faith, it's the works that make the difference.
What I choose to do isn't in the commandments, but I want to do them.
Yeah, not so much.
I accept words of wisdom and I do them as I understand them. I believe that anyone that accepts and does them as they understand them will obtain the obvious benefits of them because they are, in fact, words of wisdom. We really shouldn't need God to tell us these things.
You think this desire just originated in you because your such a good person or something?
*smh*
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

But I don't believe doing them makes me anymore saved than the next person who is striving to follow Jesus or is just keeping the commandments. Having the priesthood doesn't, being endowed doesn't, and neither does marriage.
And yet, you say only people who do the works has saving faith. You're either suffering from multiple personality syndrome, or just screwing with me.
Everyone who has strived to follow Christ will dwell together in the celestial kingdom, all of us being as close to God as we can possibly be.
So striving counts now, does it?

There will not be any classes of people.
Yeah, I disagree. I'm pretty sure there's 3 classes (or degrees) people are classified in.

The person who chose not to obtain the endowment or get married will be treated no differently than those who did.
So marriage now is no longer required for salvation. So, is there a difference between saved and unsaved people? I believe there was a difference, but now you don't sound to sure.

That's an oxymoron.
How is "It makes the difference to help people determining if you have faith, but it does not make any difference in our level of conversion or toward our salvation." and oxymoron?
if works make a difference if you have faith, then it makes a difference towards salvation.
And you've yet to prove how "works make a difference"
No faith exists if there are no works.
Except for when were striving, right?
By his works, just like everyone else who will ever be saved will because of their works.
What works did he do different from unsaved people?
Yes. He was. His brother, Hyrum, was baptized for him, twice, once in 1840 and again in 1841.
But he was seen in heaven BEFORE his work was done. How's that possible if "works make the difference"?
There isn't a paradox concerning Alvin's baptism,
Totally wrong. You can't claim "works make the difference" when Alvin was saved before "the work" was done.
Simply saying "taint so" doesn't make me wrong.
but what is a paradox is how you think Alvin's baptism escaped Joseph Smith when it was Alvin's death that prompted the events which brought about baptism for the dead.
First, you don't know what I think
Second, what does this have to do with anything?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
If only you had read a little bit further. ;) Now, you can't claim that you don't know what it means to me.
Nope. I'm totally lost on anything you believe. Only that the important to you is that I'm somehow wrong.
To reconcile: "to restore to friendship or harmony", "to make consistent or congruous", "to account for". I don't see a difference between what you said and what I said.
So why do you continue to disagree with me?
First off, the covenant we made with Christ at baptism is to do the things he commanded us to do, that is the covenant path, Of course, we will fail because we are mortals with a lot of conflicting opposition to doing what we want to do, broken hearts and contrite spirits is the process of repentance, and then we get back on the covenant path. That's what I described above. "turning our lives over to Him" is what we did when we were baptized.
But unless you do what he asks you don't have faith. According to you, faith doesn't come into existence until you've done the work.
It doesn't change the fact that no one can be saved in ignorance.
Ok.
I understand that may confuse you, but the fact is, if works doesn't exist, then there is no faith. Therefore, logically, works makes the difference. You can have work without faith, but you can't have faith without work.
Yep. So you've told me. I disagree. I believe faith precedes the work, even if we're successful at performing the work of not.
It may not be the catalyst, but without the work, there was no catalyst. Without the work, claiming you want to change is just lip service.
You have no faith in "No contention" because all you want to do is contend with me. You believe a child of God to be something other than a peacemaker.
Yep. and Without works, there is no evidence of faith. :rolleyes:
And you're rolling your eyes at me because....?
Yea. But if you just sit at home and believe it, you'll never get to my door,. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Did I say otherwise? More strawman wrestling on your part.

BTW, nothing about that scenario demonstrates faith.
Of course, heaven forbid I do anything right.
It's only faith if you hope that it's true.
I only have faith if I hope that it's true? So if I don't hope the sun comes up tomorrow, but I believe that it will, then what do you call that?
I'm following a map to get to my destination. Am I hoping the map is accurate? Or am I just reading a map? Do I have faith IN the map? Or just a desire to get where I'm going?

If you know it's true, then it's no longer faith.
So, let me get this straight. Faith doesn't exist until AFTER I've done the work, but when I know that it works, I have knowledge not faith.
So faith really is non-existence. Magically I do things. We don't know what inspires me to do things, but we know it's not faith, because faith can't exist until after I've done the thing I want to do.
there's no faith involved with turning on a light.
Really? So, if the power is out, the light burnt out, but I didn't know that, and I want light into the room. The first thing I do is flip on the light switch, but nothing happens. Why did I flip on the light switch if it didn't bring light into the room?
I flip a switch and I know that light will come on and if it doesn't I know how to fix it.
I'm guessing you haven't been a parent. Here's an experiment. Go flip the circuit breaker to the room you're sitting in, and then ask a 3 year old to turn the light on. If the light doesn't turn on, ask the child how to fix it. Don't do anything unless the child says so. If you never get the light on, is the child having faith in his attempts to get the light on? Or does faith only occur AFTER the light turns on.

But if I didn't, and someone explained to me what I needed to do to fix it, then I might have faith in my ability to do so, but it's not going to get fixed if I don't do anything about it. My faith, in that case, would be useless.
Regardless, you're trying.
You keep trying to paint on me that I'm promoting a "do nothing" faith. That's not what I'm saying. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I have to wonder how you knew here my door was if you've never been there before, but that's okay, I get it. The fact remains, if you didn't actually walk to my door, your faith would be useless.
No one is saying "do nothing." This is just your escape hatch aargument because you can't simply agree with me.

Sure. I both know and believe. But that is not enough.
How do you know?

Ok. I have to accept that you believe that, but I don't have to believe any of this about you.
Based on your words, you don't want to believe this about me.

Then, IMO, you are just in a state of denial. It's ludicrous if you think some outside influence is manipulating you. Criminals could use this same logic to escape conviction, It wasn't me, that behavior didn't come from me. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't call it manipulating me, I'd call it assisting. But yeah, clearly you don't want to give any more credit than you absolutely have to.

Yea. Lovely sentiment but the fact is if you don't "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" you aren't going to have any of the rest including grace. Note the words, "then is his grace sufficient for you"
The Book of Mormon is just a "lovely sentiment" now? *facepalm*

I don't think that knowledge does anything for you. I'm sure that knowledge didn't do Ted Haggard any good. It sure didn't do my adulterous friend any good. That's just a evangelical fluff statement that is meaningless without the associated works.
Again, how does one know? Go read Alma 32. How do you know if it's a good seed. Not until AFTER you're planted and nourished the seed.

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Meaningless unless you obey the law. I repeat God's grace is sufficient for you IF you shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness. Did Ted do that? No. Did my friend do that? No.
Ok BoJ, I've had enough of your trolling. I'm done going in circles with you.
All I can say, for all your blather, you possess no fruits of a Christian.
I'm going to exercise my faith in the "Ignore" button.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So if you do a good work, and an evil work, does that you saved, or damned?
Try and follow the argument. It isn't a system of checks and balances. All that is required is that we be reconciled to God.
I thought the Mormon Savior only gave you resurrection?
Please clarify?
You thought wrong, how's that for clarification? Where would you even get such an idea. The resurrection is the free gift to all regardless of what you do or did or will do in life. But it also cleanses us of our sins, if we remain reconciled to God.
Well, if you understand language, then you know the "I command you" is redundant.
Do you really think there is any difference between:

"Stand at attention!"; and
"I command you to stand at attention!"?

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
There is no "thou shalt". Therefore, it's not a commandment, it's an invitation. Unfortunately, most of our critics ignore the 10 commandments in favor of their faith-alone theology in my experience.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
ALL good works are necessary? That is why we need a Savior?
I'm totally confused.
Maybe if you paid attention to the whole statement, you wouldn't be.
You're saying "If I perform all good works (not distinguishing ordinances from commandments), then I'm saved. Ok. Then why do you need a Savior? Just to clean up the garbage bin of your past? Is that it?
Not just clean up our sins, but also to be the exemplar of the way to salvation. He isn't asking us to do anything He, himself, didn't prove is within the capacity of all non-handicapped humans.
So, which perfect person, that obeyed all the commandments, do you know that are saved?
Who said anything about being perfect? :rolleyes:
Ummm...no. That's directly contradictory to the scriptures:
Ummmm... no, it contradicts no scripture whatsoever.
alma 34:
33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
And how many witnesses do you think a majority of the world has had today? How many have they had over the last 2000 years? And how do you know how many anyone has had, including yourself? As I said, you can't see the Holy Ghost. You can't audibly hear the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, so how do you know it's the Holy Ghost and not your own inner-self talking?
Work for the dead only counts if the person hasn't heard of the gospel in this life.
Again, according to you. I know there are some hardliners who believe that and teach it, even GAs who teaching, but the scriptures don't support it. "heard" is not a witness. Jesus specifically talked in parables to keep the Jews from hearing or receiving a witness. So, apparently, God even decides in your daily life if you will be given to understand and receive or not, just as he places babies in harms way, on purpose. He actually plans it. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Try and follow the argument.

Try to present one.

It isn't a system of checks and balances. All that is required is that we be reconciled to God.

So you're saying that if you are reconciled to God, you can do all the evil works you want?
🤣 🤣 🤣

There is no "thou shalt". Therefore, it's not a commandment, it's an invitation. Unfortunately, most of our critics ignore the 10 commandments in favor of their faith-alone theology in my experience.

I see...
So when a sergeant tells his privates, "Stand at attention!", that's merely an "invitation" (that they're free to ignore), because Simon didn't say, "thou SHALT stand at attention"?
🤣🤣🤣
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Ummm...Accept the gospel of Jesus Christ by FAITH! Let's keep in mind, you are the one advocating salvation comes by works, not me.
So, you don't know. I'll give you one possibility. They could teach the gospel to others, gathering in the followers of Christ amongst those who have died and await judgment.
Yes, you did.
No, I didn't.
I said we need to separate necessary works from unnecessary works, and you said "All good works are necessary and all evil works are damning regardless of what they are."
And how is that the definition of perfection?
Exactly! You're the one that is saying that there is some line we cross that separates the saved from the unsaved.
I'm saying that line is faith is Christ, you're saying ALL the commandments.
Nope. I never said there was some line we cross. I believe I've been extremely clear that we must be reconciled to God. The only line, I'm aware of is denying the Holy Ghost. Outside of that, we can easily be reconciled to God through the process of repentance. If perfection was required, there would be no need for repentance.

This is what the argument boils down to, Are works necessary for salvation. I say yes, you say no. If no, then that must mean we can do whatever we want and long as we have "faith". I believe that is wrong because faith without works is dead. That is all scriptural. There is no such thing as faith without works. They are two sides of the same coin. So, what we have here is you and our critics constantly running around in circles trying to avoid the obvious.
Oh, so now your talking about the effort that qualifies.
What else would it be if a person cannot be perfect but needs to be reconciled to God? Any ideas? Repentance isn't some insincere motion you go through, it actually takes work. I know people who have quit smoking cold turkey without any effort and I know people who have suffered a great deal to quit smoking. Some things are easy and some things are not. We all have issues that require effort to remain reconciled to God. Paul mentioned one that was a thorn and he recognized it was not going to go away and thanked God for not being perfect. He wasn't giving himself permission to cease any effort to be reconciled to God. But, yes it is effort to stay on the covenant path. What do you think I mean by works? :rolleyes:

Because that's a stark contrast from "if you didn't do it, you don't really have faith."
What drives the effort? Could that be FAITH?
It certainly could be FAITH, but if the effort wasn't applied, which is work, then there is no faith. :rolleyes:
Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, I don't how you expect me to make a judgment call on it.
Exactly what I expected. Avoid any call to explain exactly what you mean by faith alone.
Was she aware of the law of chastity? Was she living against the dictates of her conscience?
:eek: Now we can do anything we want as long as our conscience dictates it?
The judgement given to those in the telestial kingdom will be judged by the people of that kingdom. So, maybe her husband was completely negligent, and was cheating himself.
I have no idea what the first sentence is about and by the second sentence, it seems that two wrongs make a right in your theology. I get the impression you are doing everything in your power to justify breaking the commandment.
But more importantly, that's not a call I can make. We should only be concerned about our own salvation, not each others.
As I said, you won't answer the question.
Nope, what?
1 John 3:23 - And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
So, adultery is okay as long as she loves others?
Not only must we hear the word of God and obey in faith
What is "obey in faith" if we're not really obeying? Isn't obeying work?
If the woman committed adultery knowing it was a sin, yet allowed herself to be overcome in temptation, the she did not endure in faith to the end. Enduring to the end is a vital part.
If then what? You have the if part, but seemed to drift off. Maybe you thought you were too close to admitting there is some work involved here, but I'll tell you, she not only knew it was a sin, she didn't care. She got caught with another married man from her husband's congregation. She wasn't overcome with temptation. Endure what until the end? Endure abstaining from adultery? Isn't that effort? Isn't that work?
Suppose she never committed adultery. Does that mean she's saved? Nope. We simply can't look at works to determine somebody's salvation.
If you can work to unsave yourself, then you can work to save yourself. Adultery is just one. You know there's sin all around that we participate in willingly, but you really gotta pay attention to the 10 commandments. I mean, we have to set the bar somewhere.
This is your effort, just to be disagreeable again, for the sake of being disagreeable.
It's not for the sake of being disagreeable. I simply disagree.
You said, "True faith leads to repentance. Repentance leads to baptism". In my mind, I read this as a process of events where baptism is a once in a lifetime event. Therefore, it is unlikely that true faith leads to it because the person doesn't know what they are getting into, even though we teach them. They are acting on a witness, which, at the time, leads them to know they are making the right decision. Knowledge is not faith. They know it's true already. At the very most, it might be considered a desire to know if it's true, which isn't "true" faith either. After baptism and the world starts to rush in on the new convert, it's an uphill battle. What was an easy decision to make, is suddenly bombarded by opposition which slows the investigator down. So, I read your statement as "true faith leads to repentance, which leads to baptism" and I disagree with that statement. It seems that it was a random exclamation that didn't quite fit. True faith leads to repentance which leads to being reconciled to God. That reconciliation process is work. You're just trying to avoid the obvious and that is that works-based salvation is more appropriate, works-alone is not.
I said: True faith leads to repentance which leads to baptism.
Good, my paraphrase of what you actually said is correct. Again, I disagree with the above statement.
You said: True faith leads to reconciliation which is the process where we strive to do the teachings of the gospel.
I should have said, to live the teachings of the gospel. That is more in line with the idea that salvation costs us our whole life.
How is repentance different from reconciliation.
There isn't. It just doesn't lead to baptism. I don't even know why you put it in there.
Is baptism a teaching of the gospel?
It is, but it has nothing to do with reconciliation. We don't get baptized every time we want to reconcile ourselves to God and the Sacrament privilege may be taken away from us if the transgression is strong enough to warrant it, so I can't say that the Sacrament is part of reconciliation either. It seems to me that you must first reconcile yourself to God and then you can partake of the Sacrament, so they are separate issues.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Nope. I'm totally lost on anything you believe.
That's understandable. If you don't want to see it, you won't see it.
So why do you continue to disagree with me?
I didn't. You disagreed with me. I explained what I thought was reconciliation, you said I was wrong and then said the same thing I said.
But unless you do what he asks you don't have faith.
That looks like works-based salvation to me. If you don't do what he asks, you don't have faith. Isn't that what I've been saying?
According to you, faith doesn't come into existence until you've done the work.
And according to you, what you just said, that is true, except, I don't know what you mean by done the work, It's like house cleaning, that work is never done. You just gotta keep doing it.
I believe faith precedes the work
And this is great, but it still requires the work, no work, no faith.
even if we're successful at performing the work of not.
I've never argued that you have to succeed. You just have to work. Example, Abraham was promised land by God. All that he could see would be given to him. So he went to live there and in all his life, it was never given to him. Did he succeed? No. But did he act like he had? Yes.
You have no faith in "No contention" because all you want to do is contend with me. You believe a child of God to be something other than a peacemaker.
😭😭😭
Stop whining about my style of argument. I'm not doing this just to be disagreeable. You keep beating around the bush offering one comment after another that I actually disagree with.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Aaron, I'm curious why the Bible itself says no man is perfect except Jesus Christ. So all humanity is imperfect. I sin. We all sin. I had a Mormon tell me once that he never sins. I find that difficult to accept as truth. While people can deny they have impure or vengeful thoughts we know they do. If someone is cruel or hurtful emotionally or physically to your child do you not feel anger and maybe even disgust for that person? I do. And that is sin. I grew up with a father who is cruel, narcissistic, and abusive. There are times I think about the relief we will feel when he is gone. Yep, I'm a sinner. I have had evil thoughts about Adolph Hitler and about rapists and murderers. So when any human being says they are sinless I don't find that likely at all. Do you sin? Sure we can strive to be everything Jesus was and desire with our whole heart to be righteous and sinless but we fail.. otherwise why would we have needed the Atonement if not to save us from our sinful nature. Have you ever lusted for a woman not your wife? Do you ever? Do you always have pure and righteous thoughts? Do you ever laugh when someone else falls or makes a mistake because it seems humorous. I would say we are all sinners. So when Mormons say they don't sin do you believe they NEVER sin? Even in thought?
Since you quoted what I posted, I'll reply to this post. My response is to simply point out that I'm not referring to myself. I may very well be damned, and yet this doesn't negate what I've posted. The bible plainly points out that those who are under the New Covenant don't sin. The whole purpose of the new covenant is so that God's chosen people keep his commandments. Keeping commandments is not equivalent to transgressing them.

Paul points out that the entire Old Testament is a testament to failure. Why? Because they sought it by their own will and effort rather than through the power of Christ's faith. You and I both see what is in our own hearts, and this proves beyond any shadow of doubt that we can't be in the New Covenant. The bible says God will put a new heart into those he has chosen for his New Covenant, and that new heart keeps his commandments.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
Since you quoted what I posted, I'll reply to this post. My response is to simply point out that I'm not referring to myself. I may very well be damned, and yet this doesn't negate what I've posted. The bible plainly points out that those who are under the New Covenant don't sin. The whole purpose of the new covenant is so that God's chosen people keep his commandments. Keeping commandments is not equivalent to transgressing them.

Paul points out that the entire Old Testament is a testament to failure. Why? Because they sought it by their own will and effort rather than through the power of Christ's faith. You and I both see what is in our own hearts, and this proves beyond any shadow of doubt that we can't be in the New Covenant. The bible says God will put a new heart into those he has chosen for his New Covenant, and that new heart keeps his commandments.
So then Jesus sacrifice was not necessary? If we can be sinless which the Bible says is false, then we wouldn't need Christ.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
He's referring to all of God's commandments as articulated in the bible.

By embracing the entirety of Christ's character one cannot then continue to sin. There is no sin in Christ, and therefore those who are in Christ cannot sin.
I don't recall responding to this.
Is it possible that we do sin (failing to keep ALL the commandments), though we desire to keep the commandments, yet those sins are swallowed up in Christ as we continue to have faith, and partake of His flesh and blood?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
So then Jesus sacrifice was not necessary?
No. I never made that claim. However, the author of Hebrews points out that Christ's sacrifice covers only those sins committed under "the first testament". Christ does not reign over a kingdom of sinners, but only those who are chosen to be conformed to the image of Christ. Again, there is no sin in Christ.
If we can be sinless which the Bible says is false,
The bible points out that those who are saved, and enter into the new covenant "keep god's commandments" Keeping God's commandments is not equivalent to disobeying them. Those who disobey God's commandments are sinning. Those who God creates for the explicit purpose of keeping his commandments do not sin.
then we wouldn't need Christ.
Christ sacrifice is necessary to cover one's sin, but it isn't necessary or intended to allow one to continue to sin; Big Difference. Salvation is from sin, not to allow one to sin.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I don't recall responding to this.
Is it possible that we do sin (failing to keep ALL the commandments),
It's an empirical fact.
though we desire to keep the commandments,
Desire to keep God's commandments is not equivalent to being created to keep them.
yet those sins are swallowed up in Christ
When sin is swallowed up, it no longer exists. If one continues to sin, those sins are anything but swallowed up. Sin is very much alive in the sinner if they continue to sin.
as we continue to have faith, and partake of His flesh and blood?
"Those who walk after the spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh"

James also points out that those who have faith bear fruit, not unto sin; but unto righteousness. One cannot partake of the flesh and blood while they continue to persist in sin. Paul points out that those who do are damned.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
It's an empirical fact.

Desire to keep God's commandments is not equivalent to being created to keep them.

When sin is swallowed up, it no longer exists. If one continues to sin, those sins are anything but swallowed up. Sin is very much alive in the sinner if they continue to sin.

"Those who walk after the spirit do not fulfill the lust of the flesh"

James also points out that those who have faith bear fruit, not unto sin; but unto righteousness. One cannot partake of the flesh and blood while they continue to persist in sin. Paul points out that those who do are damned.
I'm very curious to meet one of these sinless people.
What about sins of omission? Are those included to?
Sorry if it sounds like Im mocking you. I'm really not, just sincerely curious. Mormons also believe that a "mighty change of heart" is required, but that man is still imperfect (a spirit vs flesh thing), so we continue to try our best in faith.
I'm assuming you're charismatic?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I'm very curious to meet one of these sinless people.
I suspect that it takes one to know one.
What about sins of omission? Are those included to?
Of course.
Sorry if it sounds like Im mocking you. I'm really not, just sincerely curious. Mormons also believe that a "mighty change of heart" is required, but that man is still imperfect (a spirit vs flesh thing), so we continue to try our best in faith.
To try is to fail. Trying is explicitly relying upon our own will and efforts when the only solution is in, with, and through the faith of Christ which God must first place in the new creation. Once one becomes a new creation, they cannot sin. We all just have to wait our turn according to God's sovereign will.
I'm assuming you're charismatic?
That would be a false assumption. I used to play keyboards in a charismatic church, but I was never charismatic.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I suspect that it takes one to know one.

Of course.

To try is to fail. Trying is explicitly relying upon our own will and efforts when the only solution is in, with, and through the faith of Christ which God must first place in the new creation. Once one becomes a new creation, they cannot sin. We all just have to wait our turn according to God's sovereign will.

That would be a false assumption. I used to play keyboards in a charismatic church, but I was never charismatic.
So maybe the difference that separates us is the principle of agency, and/or the definition of sin.

The argument used against Mormons is that grace is never obtained because there is something more we can do:

Yet, if you're saying it's possible to live a sinless life, I'm really curious as to what that looks like.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
No. I never made that claim. However, the author of Hebrews points out that Christ's sacrifice covers only those sins committed under "the first testament". Christ does not reign over a kingdom of sinners, but only those who are chosen to be conformed to the image of Christ. Again, there is no sin in Christ.

The bible points out that those who are saved, and enter into the new covenant "keep god's commandments" Keeping God's commandments is not equivalent to disobeying them. Those who disobey God's commandments are sinning. Those who God creates for the explicit purpose of keeping his commandments do not sin.

Christ sacrifice is necessary to cover one's sin, but it isn't necessary or intended to allow one to continue to sin; Big Difference. Salvation is from sin, not to allow one to sin.
If you are trying to tell me that any human being is totally sinless all the time that is not true at all.
 
Top