Re: [TruthTalk] Justification

[Dave]

David Miller wrote: I have changed the subject line from Christian Perfection to Justification because in my judgment we have changed this thread sufficiently to warrant this. DaveH wrote: Jesus gave the requirements.... and as I see it, many Christians want to minimize the importance and necessity of some of those requirements. We agree that many Christians do lower the standard of God and want to minimize the importance of holiness. Nevertheless, there is something you are not seeing here, and that is how man's works are all dead works and worthless before God. Our righteousness is like filthy rags before Him. DAVEH:  If you are saying that to imply sees our righteous behavior as being abominable, I strongly disagree.  If you are saying it to suggest that as righteous as though we can be in mortality, it lacks being in the same righteous realm as God.....I would agree.  If you are saying it to imply something else....please explain. David Miller wrote: Something like, "God saves us after we have done all that we can do." DaveH wrote: And, pray tell.......what is wrong with that statement? The problem is that this statement mixes law and grace in a dysfunctional way. I would say that God saves us after we have stopped trying to do all that we can do. DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree.  To me, it seems like such a statement would give Christians an excuse to go golfing instead of church.  Might some might say that they have faith they are saved, and then proceed to be a complacent Christian?  Hmmmmm.......to me, those words seem oxymoronic, but I bet they aren't to most Christians. DaveH wrote: Does it not apply to Protestant theology too? Some of it, yes. The problem of mixing law and grace existed in the churches of Galatia and has continued being a problem in churches throughout history. Mormons are not the only ones who struggle with this problem, DAVEH:  LOL.....I'm not sure struggle is a word we perceive as applying to us.  That is not to say obedience is necessarily easy though. but they justify it with their theology, and that is very dangerous. DAVEH:  From my observations, it seems exactly the opposite.  The Lord gave us a road map (commandments, if you will), and I perceive a lot of Christians go out of their way to justify their refusal to follow it.....beginning with  the common misperception (IMO) that all that is required for salvation is belief in Jesus.  Do you believe belief alone is adequate?  IF so....then why do you  feel the need for justification by/through sinlessness?   (And....maybe I'm misreading you on that.....) DaveH wrote: If you don't have faith, DavidM.....can one be saved? No. DAVEH:  Can one be saved without being perfect? DaveH wrote: According to what Terry implied in a parallel post today, repentance, obedience and good works are all a part of faith. (Do you disagree?) They are connected, yes, but we see the connection much differently. For example, I think it is very important to see repentance as a foundation for faith, but Mormons reverse it. You guys say faith comes first and then follows repentance. I think you do this because you don't really understand what faith is. DAVEH:  I can visualize a child having faith, and it seems the Lord implied that perhaps a mustard seed may have faith.  But do either need repentance?  I don't think so.....   So.....yeah, perhaps faith does precede repentance......though I don't know that always has to be the case. Faith to you guys is some kind of mental agreement with God. DAVEH:  I'm normally reluctant to do what I'm about to do (quote LDS Scripture), but I think it is pertinent...... And now as I said concerning faith---faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.   Alma 32:21  (BofM) .......There are a lot more passages that help define faith, but I'm not sure any of them suggest it is some kind of mental agreement with God. If we get down to it, repentance and faith cannot co-exist. DAVEH:  Yikes......I sure don't see why you would think such.... Faith is confidence in God. Repentance is a response to sin, and there is no confidence in God with repentance. There is a sense of worthlessness and failure and a need to be redeemed. During the repentance phase, man feels separated from God, but when man is filled with faith he feels in communion with God. During repentance there is a tearing down and a destroying of old things, but faith builds up and establishes the new. Therefore, it is very important to see that repentance is foundational for the operation of faith. Unfortunately, Mormon revelation contradicts this perspective and makes it difficult for its disciples to experience true faith, the kind of faith that heals the sick, raises the dead, and causes us to walk in purity and holiness all the time. DAVEH:   Hmmmmm......now I think I see a difference between your philosophy and my philosophy.  You must be a pessimist, while I am an optimist!   :-)     Now that I ponder it, there may be more truth to it than I first thought.  Maybe most TTers consider themselves as worthless rags so to speak, who are just lucky God will spend a few moments of eternity to correct their deficiencies.  On the other hand, LDS folks consider themselves as spirit children of God who has a grand plan for their salvation and exaltation, with the eventual goal of becoming perfect like Him.  To you (Protestants, if it doesn't offend you), becoming mortal in a fallen state is contrary to the gospel plan.  But to us (LDS) it is an important part of the gospel plan of salvation and was planned as such from before the foundations of the world.  Many Christians go through life fearing a God who will cast those who are not believers into the lake of fire to be tortured, as opposed to our thinking of a loving God waiting expectantly for the prodigal son to return. DaveH wrote: Now, if you do all those things.....does that save you? Not in my opinion. Yet if you do none of them, do you think you will be saved? So.....it seems to me that you believe Jesus saves you even if you aren't able to exhibit faith enough of a mustard seed. IOW.....you do what you can to exercise your faith, and Jesus will save you. Isn't that what you believe? Sorry, Dave, but I cannot make much sense out of what you just said. :-) I can say that I do not believe that Jesus saves me even if I am not able to exhibit faith of a mustard seed. DAVEH:  Huh?!?!?!  Did you misspeak on that?  May I quote a friend........ Sorry, Dave, but I cannot make much sense out of what you just said. :-) Also, yes, I believe that I do what I can to believe, but that does not mean that I look for ways to have more good works. It means that I cherish a personal relationship with Christ and expect him to bring forth whatever works it is that he wants me to do. I try and live like Jesus did, and do nothing that I do not first see the Father do. DAVEH:  OK......I appreciate your perspective on that. DaveH wrote: where is that philosophy fail? Are you saved if you do absolutely nothing? IOW.....NO FAITH = SALVATION .....? I doubt you believe that. This might be semantics, but yes, I do believe that a person is saved if they do absolutely nothing. DAVEH:  No faith, no repentance.....no nothing, not even belief???   Hmmmmmm.....I had the impression most Protestants think belief, faith and repentance are required for salvation.   Now  you've thrown me a curve ball........ At the point of their faith in God, they are saved. They experience a change inside of them. That is why we say that they are saved now. It is experiential. This happens when they have done absolutely nothing. DAVEH:  OK.....I'm beginning to understand your perspective.  Do you consider that change inside to be repentance? Now I say it might be semantics because when this happens, we will see the changes reflected in how they live. However, those changes are a result of them now being a new person on the inside. Their heart is changed. Faith is not trying methodically to reason what would be good and pleasing to God and then trying to perform it. Faith is simply trust and confidence in God and his Word. DAVEH:  Thanx for the explanation. David Miller wrote: My perception is that nobody can be saved with this attitude that Mormons and many Protestants have. Many of us here believe in repentance from dead works. This is a deep realization that we can do NOTHING. DAVEH: Nonsense. Without faith, repentance and enduring to the end, there is no salvation. (And if you disagree with any of that, DavidM....please tell me.) Yes, I do disagree. Some will not "endure to the end" and yet be saved. For example, death bed conversions would be in this category. DAVEH:  Ahhhhhh.......we perceive end differently.  I view it as the resurrection and entry point to heaven.  You apparently view it as mortal death.  As you must know, I believe there is a lot of enduring that will go on in the spirit world after death.  Now I would agree that everyone must repent and believe (in that order), DAVEH:  Hmmmmmm.....that seems strange..... but in saying this I am not defining repent as bringing forth good works right then and there, but rather as a change of heart, being sorry for past sins and desiring a Savior. DAVEH:  I agree with that perspective. DaveH wrote: What many don't understand (IMHO) is that IF it were not for Jesus' atoning sacrifice AND resurrection, NOTHING we could do on our own would save us. That hardly negates the need for us to do something signifying acceptance of that grace from our Savior. I understand your point, and agree with you in regards to your specific words, but I think Scripture goes further than this when it contrasts saving grace without works and works of righteousness found in the law. In other words, I don't disagree with your statement but I think you still lack understanding in this area. DAVEH:  I suspect a lot of our differences are centered around our separate definitions for salvation.  As I've stated before, I view it in a two-fold sense:  First, salvation from physical death........and second, having our sins remitted.  Both conditions being satisfied, we are then ushered into heaven.....which is the ultimate form of salvation.     Can you offer a thumbnail definition as a contrast? David Miller wrote: Only by a person realizing that all his efforts are vain and dead can he put the kind of absolute trust in Christ that is necessary. DAVEH: You make it sound like there is a lot of doubt about Jesus' ability to save us, and that we are busy trying to save ourselves by doing good works. I don't view it that way at all. I'm not trying to say that you have a lot of doubt about Jesus' ability. I'm saying that you appear to operate in a way that puts confidence in your own ability to be pleasing to God. DAVEH:  I perceive you do not know me as well as you may think.......   :-) Let me try an analogy. Suppose you were in a skating race but your skates were a little defective and somewhat rusty. All you need is a drop of oil on the ball bearings and you would win the race. Well, Jesus drops that oil in there, and voila, you win the race. This analogy would seem to accord with your perspective that Jesus saves you after you have done all that you can do. It also accords well with your viewpoint that without Jesus, there is NOTHING you could do to save yourself. Jesus had that drop of oil and you could not have done it without that drop of oil. Now from my perspective, salvation is very different. What happens is that we are trying to get to the moon with those skates. We have it all wrong. Repentance is realizing that those skates are useless to get us to the moon. We take them off and throw them away. Then Jesus puts us in a rocket ship and takes us to the moon. Those others who keep trying to use their skates and maybe look at Jesus hoping for that drop of oil so they can get to the moon have missed it. Jesus looks at them trying to use their skates and views them as foolish and wants nothing to do with them. Do you understand any better how our views differ? DAVEH:  I understand your analogy, but you have conveniently give each situation differing goals, so I don't think your analogy describes our views very well.  On the other hand, perhaps our (heavenly) goals are significantly different.  We focus on trying to become perfect like God, to the point of emulating his goals.  Protestants on the other hand, are just trying to avoid that lake of fire.  What they intend to do when the reach heaven, I'm not sure.  Guess that brings up another question, DavidM.....just what do you think one does when he finds himself spending eternity in heaven?  I digress......     Back to your analogy......Suppose Jesus tells you to take those skates to the moon, and you think they are useless to get you there, and hence.....throw them away.   Then, you arrive at the moon and find you really do need those skates, as the moon is perfectly smooth and easy to travel by skates....then how would you feel, knowing you were less than obedient? The skates are like the religious systems that men erect for themselves. It is man's way of trying to approach God and be pleasing to him. The skates can't get us to heaven, DAVEH:  Hey DavidM......having skates won't even get you to the skating rink, but once you get there, they ain't gonna let you on the floor unless you have them in your backpack.  While you may think baptism will NOT get you to heaven (and I agree....it won't), NOT being baptized will keep you out of heaven (as the Lord has said.) but some religions keep maintaining that these skates are a help to get us there even though they need a little help from Jesus too. DaveH wrote: To me, Jesus provided a map on how to get back to heaven. Those who follow it, will be accepted there. Yeah, but for some reason, it seems to me like you don't seem to know how to read the map. :-) DAVEH:  Sometimes I take shortcuts that seem to take longer.......   :-[ The first message of Jesus was repent. The second message was believe the gospel. DAVEH:  How do you discern that order from the Bible?     Do you have Talmage's THE ARTICLES OF FAITH?  If so, chapter 5 gives a good explanation of the LDS perspective.  To quote him as he partially defines repentance.... Repentance is a result of contrition of soul, which springs from a deep sense of humility, and this in turn is dependent upon the exercise of an abiding faith in God.  Repentance therefore properly ranks as the second principle of the Gospel, closely associated with and immediately following faith.  (pg 109) You got it backwards. It is like you claim to look at the map but you can't see that the map shows I-75 connecting with I-10. DaveH wrote: Those who don't won't find there way back there. His grace built the bridges that span the chasms that prevent us from achieving that goal. As I tried to explain earlier in this post, I think grace is needed for much more than that. I understand what you are saying, but it only underscores my perception that you do not understand man's fallen condition or how much grace he really needs. DAVEH:  And from my perspective, you don't understand the need for a fallen condition to fulfill the measure of the plan of salvation. You are looking at a road map to get to heaven, but there are not any roads that lead to heaven. You need a rocket ship. Do you understand what I am trying to say? If you spend all your time looking at the road map, the rocket ship to heaven is going to leave without you. :-) DAVEH:  And from my perspective, Christians are trying to get to heaven, when LDS folks are looking far beyond.  To us, there are distinct levels of heaven of which most would satisfy the perceived needs of Christians, but to LDS folks exaltation elevates to a level beyond traditional Christian thought. DaveH wrote: As I've suggested before, DavidM......works does not in themselves save us, but rather it is our works that signify our acceptance of the grace of our Saviour's atoning sacrifice. I hope you understand that we agree on this point. DAVEH:  No....I did not know that.  It's nice to know we have a little common ground. However, this does not fit in with your road map example very well. If grace only builds brides over chasms that would otherwise be impassable, then works do much more than just signify and acceptance of grace. Works are the actual means of salvation DAVEH:  I don't think I'd say it quite like that.  Rather than means, I think requirement would more aptly describe it. with grace being a necessary assistant. After all, grace only built the bridges, but you had to travel the roads and cross those bridges. DAVEH:  I've said such previously.  The Lord provides the means (we don't....we just meet the requirements), but he isn't going to drag us to heaven. DaveH wrote: As an example, it is my opinion that those who are not baptized, are not taking upon themselves the birth, death and sacrifice of Jesus.....and in essence, they effectively are not signing their name to the covenant. That is why Jesus explained the importance and relationship of baptism and salvation in both Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5. I know you have rationalized both passages to harmonize with preconceived Protestant beliefs, I do not think that I have done that. I have read the passages and think that I understand them for what they say. DAVEH:  As I remember our previous discussions, you rationalized vs 16 by believing that since the second half of the verse did not mention a lack of baptism as causing damnation, you assume that belief is the only factor necessary for salvation.   Now that I understand that you believe repentance comes before faith (belief?), perhaps that would explain why you think that way.  From my perspective, if a person does not believe, baptism is to no effect.  So.....vs 16 tells us that one must believe AND be baptized to be saved.  Once the belief is taken out of the equation, the baptism is an ineffective work.     As for vs 5, you have rationalized that born of water is defined as a mortal birth, when I view it as a symbolic birth denoted by a water baptism.  I perceive you have to think that way to preserve your convictions of other doctrines (that may or may not be inherited from Protestantism), whereas I derive my understanding from LDS Scripture that clarifies it.  When I look at a lot of the other Biblical passages that refer to baptism in association with washing away and remission of sins, my perspective seems normal to me (and I realize I'm highly biased), whereas your view seems rather unBiblical to me. DaveH wrote: but to me it seems obvious the Bible message suggests baptism is related to symbolically washing away sins. I too believe that baptism is related to symbolically washing away sins. We have had this discussion many times but you still do not understand my perspective. DAVEH:  I think that is because I suspect you think those sins can also be washed away without baptism.  IOW.....you do not believe baptism is a requirement for salvation, when as I understand the Bible (from my LDS biased perspective) it is a requirement of salvation. DaveH wrote: Faith alone is inadequate to do that, even if it is sufficient to move mountains. With this statement, you disconnect baptism and faith whereas I do not. I see baptism as a vehicle for expressing faith. Baptism is to faith what a car is to gasoline. DaveH wrote: Repentance may change one's life to avoid repeating sinful living, but it does not remove one's sins. That comes by virtue of the atonement. I agree with this. DAVEH:  Whew.....Another one we can agree upon!   DaveH wrote: And to avail one's self of the atoning sacrifice of our Saviour, requires a covenant. IMHO..... that covenant is ratified by baptism of both water and the Holy Spirit. And I agree somewhat with this. DAVEH:  Careful, DavidM.......you're going to be accused of converting to Mormonism if you keep agreeing with me!!!   :-D I believe that faith expressed through baptism is a ratifying of a covenant with Christ. The response to this on Christ's part would be the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The way in which we differ on this, based upon past conversations, is that you believe that without water baptism there can be no covenant. DAVEH:  Hey......You may have hit the nail on the head. To me that is kind of like saying that God only has written contracts but no verbal contracts. I do not believe that God operates this way. DAVEH:  Why would you think that way.  What was the purpose of circumcision?....if it is not the written contract?   What's the purpose of baptism?....if it is not the written contract? I perceive other ways in which faith might be expressed and in which the covenant might be established. DAVEH:  OK.....I'll bite.  Can you give me a few examples, please? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.