What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Are we commanded to keep " faith " ? Which/what Faith is that ?
Exactly, can you answer that question? That's not what 1 John 2:3 says, but I asked for an elaboration on the subject earlier. Since you hit on faith being the prerequisite, perhaps you can tell us how one knows they have kept the faith or are keeping the faith? This is about keeping it, not guarding it.
 

Nic

Well-known member
Why should I change it. This is the issue I have with our critics. When the scriptures do like what the scriptures say, they use their own words. Why would we guard his commandments? Guard them against whom or what?
Why not answer what I ask?
Here's why...
Strong's Concordance
téreó: to watch over, to guard
Original Word: τηρέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: téreó
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-reh'-o)
Definition: to watch over, to guard
Usage: I keep, guard, observe, watch over.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Why not answer what I ask?
It's a hypothetical question that changes the message. I'm not going to entertain changes for the sake of making a change. There has to be a reason, such as the root meaning of the word or an alternate source. Changing words just to make the verbiage match your theology is backward IMO.
Here's why...
Strong's Concordance
téreó: to watch over, to guard
Original Word: τηρέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: téreó
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-reh'-o)
Definition: to watch over, to guard
Usage: I keep, guard, observe, watch over.
And this would be a reason why I might entertain the question, but I have to ask, why did the translators choose "keep" instead of "guard"? In HELPS word-studies, it also means to keep intact, or properly maintain. Also, in several passages that use that word, it is translated as "keep".

As I asked before, to guard them against what or against whom? Now, will you answer that question?
 

Nic

Well-known member
It's a hypothetical question that changes the message. I'm not going to entertain changes for the sake of making a change. There has to be a reason, such as the root meaning of the word or an alternate source. Changing words just to make the verbiage match your theology is backward IMO.
And this would be a reason why I might entertain the question, but I have to ask, why did the translators choose "keep" instead of "guard"? In HELPS word-studies, it also means to keep intact, or properly maintain. Also, in several passages that use that word, it is translated as "keep".

As I asked before, to guard them against what or against whom? Now, will you answer that question?
It clarifies the message. Keep isn't by default in every English translation. Guarding over them is a more encompassing expression than merely the word keep. Besides as I recall Bonnie's friend and Greek scholar [Dr. B. Luginbill] has previously clarified that keep is another expression for belief. Bonnie posts here a lot, I'm sure you've heard all the reasons why before. So I'm left with, why bother any further at this time? Thanks anyway, maybe I feel Iike it another day.
Good day.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Not in a public forum you can't.

1 John 2:3 "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments." demands that we keep his commandments.

I'm not "butting in" for grins and giggles. This is a difficult subject to understand. It is probably the most widely misapplied doctrine among our critics and within our church. Depending on the direction the wind is blowing, in our church, we have leaders saying God will take care of everything to if you fail on any point of doctrine, you will be damned. It was a favorite of leaders like Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R McConkie, etc. But neither is true or factual.

Clearly, Jesus is able to dwell among the sinners whereas His Father, isn't. This is the reason why Jesus is our mediator with the Father. He can be both in our presence and in the presence of his Father. If he is to be a moderator, there must be something to moderate, so perfection is not required. The question is, what brings us into Christ's side of the courtroom where he will moderate for our sins which are many? Does Jesus have conditions that need to be met before that will happen? I believe he does.
Ok. Fair enough, but with rhetorical questions like "you're just going to ignore the verse and pretend it doesn't exist?" Is not subject-centric, nor is it constructive. It does little to move the convo forward.
May I suggest, before posting, see if the thought can be conveyed without using the word "you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Again, we have another critic who argues from the perspective of willful ignorance. This is about what we believe and if you're not willing to address what we believe then you really have no business being here. Assuming this is a discussion forum.
It's CHRISTIAN discussion forum. D&C has nothing to do with that, being nothing but Joe Smith's lunatic ravings. I certainly AM "Willfully Ignorant" of his garbage. Why would a Biblical Christian want to have anything to do with it?? I've already addressed what you "believe". It's all GARBAGE - Salvation by WORKS.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I have to wonder what you think "all of them" is. Jesus was quite clear that the rich man was just fine. I think he kept all of them, in fact, he said he did and Jesus saw no issue with what he said. What he asked for was on par for an individual who would not need the atonement. It's clear from the Savior's response to his disciple's dispair, who could be saved? His response, with God, nothing is impossible. It is interesting that in one telling of the event, we get an additional view of an equally impossible situation, that of marriage and never ever getting a divorce. Clearly, most men who get married are committing adultery because there are a LOT of divorces in the world and they may not even know it. Who then can be saved?

So, we have two bad situations here. Almost no one is going to give they have to the poor and follow Christ and almost every marriage relationship is nd adulterous one.

Well, that's a very born-again idea. As long as you have faith, you can beat a person's brains out and you'll be fine. Clearly, that doesn't make any sense.

I appreciate your question on this subject, but clearly, those who follow Christ must do something different than those who don't. Faith requires action. Without it, faith is dead. So, the natural follow on question, is how does one demonstrate sufficient faith to be able to lay claim on the promises?
I believe blending your examples and the Joseph Smith quote I posted, I believe God cares less about our actions, and more about our hearts. If our hearts are right actions follow. A gift given grudgingly is essentially worthless.
We also need to take into account the factor of knowledge. Where much is given, much is required.
Thus, the conceptual intersection of heart and knowledge leads to understand the role of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost teaches us and changes our heart, he also knows our strengths and weaknesses. Thus, he is our guide which we follow - and internally we know when we're sincerely striving to obey vs denying the Holy Ghost. Thus, if our hearts are right, when we fall short we can rely on grace, and maintain hope, and better next time. And when the scriptures show us that our hearts are not right, then we have some repenting to do.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It clarifies the message. Keep isn't by default in every English translation. Guarding over them is a more encompassing expression than merely the word keep.
Now you have added another word. Where ever did you get the idea that we should "guard over" the commandments. Who or what are we supposed to be guarding them against?
Besides as I recall Bonnie's friend and Greek scholar [Dr. B. Luginbill] has previously clarified that keep is another expression for belief.
And now we really are letting loose the retranslation fodder cannons. :rolleyes: Now, it doesn't mean guard, it means belief, which, of course, alleviates anyone from obeying them. We just have to believe them.
Bonnie posts here a lot, I'm sure you've heard all the reasons why before.
I'm not sure how that's relevant.
So I'm left with, why bother any further at this time?
Don't bother for all I care. You have now effectively demonstrated the standard practice of our critics. Take a word, find a way to squeeze a new translation out of it to nullify the meaning of the passage and when pressed, they just don't want to bother anymore.

Thank you for participating. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Good day.
Bye
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Ok. Fair enough, but with rhetorical questions like "you're just going to ignore the verse and pretend it doesn't exist?" Is not subject-centric, nor is it constructive. It does little to move the convo forward.
May I suggest, before posting, see if the thought can be conveyed without using the word "you."
Sorry, I used moderately when I meant mediate.
Ok. Fair enough, but with rhetorical questions like "you're just going to ignore the verse and pretend it doesn't exist?"
Did I pose that question to you? Clearly, the poster ignored/pretended the verse didn't exist - which is what most of our critics do. If the verse doesn't fit their theology, they arrange it so it does. So, it wasn't rhetorical. I called the post out for what it was doing. I called it out, the critics went into a huddle and came back with the word means believe so we don't have to keep the commandments and the ran away. Cockroaches always run when the light comes on.
Is not subject-centric
"keeping" the commandments is not subject-centric? :rolleyes:
nor is it constructive.
It appeared to be constructive to me. @Aaron32 - you are not going to convert any of these people. Here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about the effect my responses are having and actually respond in ways that are subject-centric? Isn't that what you want?
May I suggest, before posting, see if the thought can be conveyed without using the word "you."
So, the "you", in this line is implied. Is that okay? I can imply it but not actually say the word, like what just happened? (See how I implied that you implied that I did something without using the word "you"?) :rolleyes:

Let me be clear, Bonnie didn't say it, Theo didn't say it. The person I was responding to, which isn't "you" said it and therefore, I addressed it to the person who said it.

So, the person I addressed this to, responded and explained (for once, this is something our critics rarely do) why he used "guard" instead of "Keep". The explanation was lame and ultimately ended up not even being "guard" but "believe" and they accomplished this by going to one of their college graduates who is an expert in rearranging words. He got too close to the heat and got burned and so ran away.

Now, the issue still remains open because clearly, the translation that we have says keep and I still don't have an answer to my question, why did the translators choose the word "keep" and not the word "guard"? To that end, what are we guarding the commandments against? Are we guarding them so no one can have them except for us? Are we guarding the commandments or are we using the commandments to guard something far more precious than a few rules on a sheet of paper?

Now, you've stated that all we need to keep is our faith, and my question to you, which you blew off before with a "stop it" post, how does one know they are keeping their faith?

I also noticed that you completely blew off my statement in this post that there is a difference between those who will be saved and those who won't and the question is, what is that difference? If anyone seriously believes that only those who say "I believe" are those who will be saved, then we truly live in a horrible world and God made it that way. There are so so many good people who will, based on this horrible idea, be lost simply because they believed something else, but were still good people. The idea is ludicrous and is absolutely not just and these are the ones we know about. There are billions upon billions of people who never even heard the words, Jesus Christ, who, through no fault of their own will be damned by such an idea.

These are not rhetorical questions, they are legitimate questions that you are now avoiding along with our critics. Why don't you stop it?
 

rossh

Well-known member
Exactly, can you answer that question? That's not what 1 John 2:3 says, but I asked for an elaboration on the subject earlier. Since you hit on faith being the prerequisite, perhaps you can tell us how one knows they have kept the faith or are keeping the faith? This is about keeping it, not guarding it.
1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
So do you BELIEVE the above, if yes then you have faith in that message.
Is your leader/church one who tells you that the Word of God is full of mysteries and an esoteric manual that only certain people can decipher ?
 

rossh

Well-known member
It's a hypothetical question that changes the message. I'm not going to entertain changes for the sake of making a change. There has to be a reason, such as the root meaning of the word or an alternate source. Changing words just to make the verbiage match your theology is backward IMO.
And this would be a reason why I might entertain the question, but I have to ask, why did the translators choose "keep" instead of "guard"? In HELPS word-studies, it also means to keep intact, or properly maintain. Also, in several passages that use that word, it is translated as "keep".

As I asked before, to guard them against what or against whom? Now, will you answer that question?
SO ? why are you guys translating the Word of God so it suits " your new found religion "... and you are all 1800 years after the fact ?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..... Do you all debate this first verse and or decipher a million ways or just simple truly believe it ?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It's CHRISTIAN discussion forum.
And this is a Mormon subforum where we are not allowed to argue Christian theology. If the moderators feel the discussion is moving into a particular non-Mormon direction, they will move the topic into the appropriate forum. Therefore, all things LDS are options for discussion because this is a MORMON CULT subtopic discussion forum. Get used to it.

It seems that you want to have it both ways, pretty soon, we won't be able to talk about anything in here.
D&C has nothing to do with that
It has everything to do with a Mormonism subforum. ;)
being nothing but Joe Smith's lunatic ravings.
Your opinion is irrelevant. It's still a Mormonism subforum.
I certainly AM "Willfully Ignorant" of his garbage.
At least your honest about it. Thanks for indicating the level of your credibility. Is it okay with you if I add that quote to every single post you make in this subforum?
Why would a Biblical Christian want to have anything to do with it??
I don't know, why are you here? Maybe if you answer that question, we'll all know.
I've already addressed what you "believe". It's all GARBAGE - Salvation by WORKS.
Sorry, but if you bothered to read the quote from the D&C you might have understood that our theology appears to coincide with yours, but you would just prefer to listen to the anti-Mormon rhetoric than find out the truth for yourself. This kind of reminds me of a story of the loudmouth frog. It works much better with visuals and I'll shorten it, but there was once a loud mouth frog. He loved telling everyone who and what he was, He came across a cricket and introduced himself as a loudmouth frog, then the fly, then the caterpillar, then the fish, then the turtle, and one day he came across an alligator. He said, "Hello there. What do you do"? The alligator responded, "I eat loudmouth frogs". Then as tight-lipped, as the frog could muster, he said, "You do?"

I'll let you figure out the moral of the story. Hmmm. I may have told you this story before. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Nic

Well-known member
Now you have added another word. Where ever did you get the idea that we should "guard over" the commandments. Who or what are we supposed to be guarding them against?

And now we really are letting loose the retranslation fodder cannons. :rolleyes: Now, it doesn't mean guard, it means belief, which, of course, alleviates anyone from obeying them. We just have to believe them.

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Don't bother for all I care. You have now effectively demonstrated the standard practice of our critics. Take a word, find a way to squeeze a new translation out of it to nullify the meaning of the passage and when pressed, they just don't want to bother anymore.

Thank you for participating. :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Bye
You keep them and when you fail, remember the Triune God of the Scriptures has died to set the captives free. If you think your keeping them now, you have no idea what your talking about.
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
And this is a Mormon subforum where we are not allowed to argue Christian theology.
However we ARE allowed to call into question the heretical lunacy of Joe Smith, and teach the Worthlessness of the phony religious system that Smith - and the heretics that succeeded him originated and developed. That you think SALVATION is predicated on WORKS puts your silly religious system crosswise with that which the BIBLE teaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I believe blending your examples and the Joseph Smith quote I posted, I believe God cares less about our actions
the first part of your statement is empty, I have no idea what you believe or what you think is the result of your belief since you didn't say. This last part is very born-again Christian and has no part in our theology. We believe that God very much cares about our actions. I have no idea where you would get the idea that he doesn't. Don't you recall where God, in tears, explained the cause of those tears were over this children's actions? Are you honestly trying to tell me that he knows every sparrow that falls from the sky but he could care less about our actions? There are 800k children trafficked every year. Do you really think he doesn't care? A sparrow falls and he cares, but a child is murdered and he doesn't. Okay. Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.
and more about our hearts.
That's really odd. Isn't our hearts that determines our actions? Our critics seem to believe that the only good works that count are the works of the saved, but I don't agree. I think our actions are an indication of where our hearts are and there are a lot of people who are not born-again Christians whose hearts are in the right place. I would dare say that these are the elect that our critics believe belongs only to them. These are the ones who will not bend the knee to Baal and they don't even know it. It is in their DNA, so to speak. And the worse part is, our critics say this on bended knees, IMO.

So, it is clear to me, that you don't understand what it means to be saved any better than our critics do.
A gift given grudgingly is essentially worthless.
Irrelevant.
We also need to take into account the factor of knowledge. Where much is given, much is required.
What does this have to do with being saved?
Thus, the conceptual intersection of heart and knowledge leads to understand the role of the Holy Ghost.
I disagree. Only the Holy Ghost leads to understanding the role of the Holy Ghost. Knowledge, spiritual knowledge, the knowledge that matters in this case, comes through the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost teaches us and changes our heart
So, you just contradicted your first statement. Logically, you proved yourself wrong.
Thus, he is our guide which we follow - and internally we know when we're sincerely striving to obey vs denying the Holy Ghost.
This is pretty much the same as saying, we guide ourselves and whatever we think is right, is right.
Thus, if our hearts are right, when we fall short we can rely on grace, and maintain hope, and better next time. And when the scriptures show us that our hearts are not right, then we have some repenting to do.
So, now the scriptures come into the picture. Where were they before when it was only our heart and knowledge that guided us? If the scriptures guide, then what happened to keeping the commandments from the scripture you quoted in your OP?

What you just wrote is born-again - faith-alone hogwash (because there is no such thing as faith alone). We need a guide. There are things that we know are wrong, innately. We really don't need scriptures to tell us that murder is wrong. I'm pretty sure that our neighbors will ensure we understand that taking their things without permission, is wrong. I believe that women will make it clear that adultery is wrong. But there are some things that we wouldn't know were wrong without the scriptures, like the 7th day, no graven images of God, honoring parents, coveting our neighbors' belongings (which leads to stealing or damaging or discrediting, which probably aids in bearing false witness). We can justify some of the things we do that we know are wrong or we know they aren't right. Like that politician in the audit. He knew it was unethical, but it wasn't illegal. We know a lot about what the right thing to do is, but we, too often, justify what we do in order to do it.

The scriptures are a guide. The prophets who wrote them were living guides at the time. The world has been without living guides for over a thousand years and we know have living guides again plus the scriptures. Follow the guides and you can't go wrong. I agree that once you have the gift of the Holy Ghost and you follow the guides then your knowledge will increase.

I was in church today and this fellow described how a person on the street used profanity and it offended him. He thought this person can't possibly have the spirit's guidance and be cursing like that. I don't know how he was cursing but two things came into my mind. This person was judging another person based on his language. He doesn't really know anything about the person who was cursing but he thought he was able to judge the person. That's wrong, IMO. I personally don't care if anyone cusses, but I do think there is a time and a place for it or that there are places where you don't do it. Funerals, church, and the White House are examples of places where cursing would be inappropriate, most of the time and, of course, it depends on the company that is present. I do believe that it is a sign of disrespect but it is not an indicator of the person's spiritual condition relative to our own.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe perfect people cuss. By the same token, I don't believe that people who don't cuss are perfect. They may be a little closer to perfection than I am, but what I usually find is that they make a mountain of an issue out of this relatively benign wart while they ignore the weightier matters. How much more holy is a person that doesn't cuss but murders children? Which is the more weighty matter? Would that person be justified in killing someone because they cussed? Does he stand in a position to be a judge of another person based on what he can see that they just did?

So, back to the OP. Where do you draw the line between the saved and unsaved and how can a person know they are saved? I agree, we all have some repenting to do. I really don't think you can depend on your heart to tell you and I don't believe that anyone has the guidance of the Holy Ghost if they don't follow the counsel of the prophets.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I want to add to what I said here. Pres Nelson gave a talk "Perfection Pending" in which he indicates what I believe is the best explanation of what is expected and I believe it's expected because Jesus issued the command. "Be ye therefore perfect, even has your Father, which is in heaven, is perfect". Pres Nelson analyzed the Greek word used here for the English word, "perfect". I'll paraphrase it as best I can, but essentially, he said that the word does not mean a state of being, but rather a target or objective. So, the commandment was to strive to achieve perfection and I believe common sense would tell us that we need a lot of time to achieve that, more time than what we have in mortality. This seems to be consistent with Joseph Smith's teachings.

So, if we are not on that path that requires an effort to improve and overcome the world, then we need to get back on that path and we can do so through repentance. Most of us, perhaps all of us, will be repenting for the same thing over and over until the day we die and still, we might not have overcome that shortcoming. But we have an eternity to work on it. Salvation comes to those who are on the path and to no others.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
You keep them and when you fail, remember the Triune God of the Scriptures has died to set the captives free. If you think your keeping them now, you have no idea what your talking about.
I notice that you still haven't answered any of my questions. I can only assume that you have none. Good luck with your life. I just hope that you strive to follow Christ in whatever course you think is right. If you do, I have no doubt that we shall meet at the pleasing bar on the day of judgment and can rejoice in each other's salvation.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
However we ARE allowed to call into question the heretical lunacy of Joe Smith
Except for you. You can't because you don't even know what's there. That was your claim, willful ignorance. What you do is take potshots without even knowing what you are shooting at. And, of course, you are entitled to do that. But at the level of credibility, you offered by your own statement, such statements would only be annoyances that anyone who cares will be able to easily discount making nearly all of your posts irrelevant to anything important.
That you think SALVATION is predicated on WORKS
I do per Eph 2:10 "... created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." If you are not walking in those good works, then you aren't created in Christ Jesus and if you aren't created in Christ Jesus, you aren't saved. This applies regardless of what you claim about your saved state. You can say that you believe, but if you aren't walking ni those good works, then you don't believe. You can claim you have faith, but if you aren't walking in those good works, then you don't have faith. You can claim that Jesus has come into y our live and you are born again, regenerated daily, but the second you aren't walking in those good works, you aren't saved anymore.

That's what I think. I think that if you would die in the moment you decided to stop walking in those good works, you will wake up in hell. So, I suggest you all stop playing around and start repenting and make sure you are doing the good works that were before prepared for us to walk in them. Hopefully, you know what those are. Good luck.
puts your silly religious system crosswise with that which the BIBLE teaches.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Yeah, right. It's clear that you all don't believe the Bible or that you rework it to fit your theology and not fit your theology to the Bible. Our theology does fit.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
What has this got to do with this topic?
So do you BELIEVE the above, if yes then you have faith in that message.
that's fine, How does one deny the Son? How does one acknowledge the Son and doesn't deny him, in this context? Any ideas? You think you can do anything you want as long as you say, "I acknowledge the Son"? Isn't this the same as I said previously, you band bludgeon someone over the head, and as long as you "acknowledge the Son", you're still saved? How does that make sense? You can rape little children and as long as you acknowledge the Son, you are saved? Sure. And I have a very fine crystal cathedral you can donate to. ;)

And, is it faith in the "message" that saves? Odd. I thought it was faith in Christ.
Is your leader/church one who tells you that the Word of God is full of mysteries and an esoteric manual that only certain people can decipher ?
No. But your's certainly seems to be. How cryptic can a passage be? Thank goodness we have you to spell it out for us and we can do whatever we want as long as we acknowledge the Son. Or, could it possibly be that this specifically applies to those who know and can detect who an anti-Christ is? Here's the context, if someone comes among you and denies the Christ, that's an anti-Christ (of course, that should go without saying). He goes on to say, v 24 "Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father." In other words, there is more to it than simply acknowledging the Son. You would also need to keep what you heard from the beginning and that it would live within you, be your whole life.

This makes more sense to me. If what you heard from the beginning does now live within you, you are not saved. I can accept that. It looks like works to me. It certainly wouldn't allow me to go around killing and raping and still claim I'm saved.
 
Top