LDS and Arminian Opposition to Eternal Security

[prisonchaplain]

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)
2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)
3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)
4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)
5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P...8_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

[Justice]

There are many teachings restored though Joseph Smith, and other modern prophets, that work against the beliefs of mainstream Christianity. Indeed, that's why the truth had to be restored.

To throw a different twist, if you were taught that your works played a part in your eternal salvation, and you doubted yourself or loved the things of the world and didn't want to give them up, you would move toward a teaching that God alone is responsible for your salvation, and as long as you made a once in a lifetime effort to accept Christ you were saved. It seems many people want the easy salvation as opposed to the "possible" salvation offered through Christ. He never said it would be easy, just that it would be worthwhile.

So, I don't view modern revelation as working against false beliefs so much as restoring truths that man misinterpreted and changed. If the Bible teaches we have to keep the commandments today, then it taught them 2,000 years ago. It's the man-made "in between" original revealtion and the restored modern revealtion that works against God's teachings.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice...my only concern is that you appear to easily dismiss those who believe in Eternal Security of wanting to skirt responsiblity for sin. In reality, sincere Calvinist will work hard towards holiness and righteousness in order to demonstrate that they are of the Elect. Nevertheless, it's likely true that when people are hungry for something they will gravitate towards belief systems that affirm their right to what they want.

[Justice]

It's true.

I didn't mean to imply that was the only reason people have that belief today. I do, however, believe it was the main reason people moved away from the truth over 1,000 years ago, when the church was in the hands of the government (politicians).

[symphonyofdissent]

I see nothing wrong with viewing the work of a prophet as restorative in the sense that he or she responds to excess and moves towards a golden mean of faith. In Joseph Smith's day and still today, many denominations went well too far in the salvation by grace and grace alone direction. Thus, Joseph Smith worked to restore a proper relationship between fulfillment of covenants and the promises of God. It does seem to me like the church has periodically gone too far in the direction of speaking of salvation as something 'earned' but this is quickly righted by a renewed focus on teaching the book of mormon which more fully shows our dependance on the grace of christ than any other earthly book. This shows one of the benefits of having prophets to institute calibrations and changes that redirect the true church on its proper course.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Nevertheless, it's likely true that when people are hungry for something they will gravitate towards belief systems that affirm their right to what they want.

I know that if I was hungry and homeless, I would gravitate to the Salvation Army. So your point is well taken.

I think your main point is that if we view salvation as a freighter that has hauled the shipwrecked from the ocean, there is no way to jump overboard again since we are permanently tethered to the ship's hull.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)
2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)
3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)
4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)
5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P...8_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

I think Joseph Smith (under divine inspiration, of course) tried to split the difference here.

A person can receive the conditional assurance through the Holy Ghost (received after baptism) that he will be saved if he continues in the path, and relying on the merits of Christ. But that assurance of the Holy Ghost can be lost fairly easily through sin.

BUT: Joseph Smith also taught that that assurance can become (to all intents and purposes) unconditional; and that a person who receives this assurance receives a personal visitation from Jesus Christ (the "second comforter"). This assurance can also be lost, but it takes a lot more to do it. The downside (as I understand it) is, if you lose this, you've achieved the relatively difficult feat of qualifying for the condition Mormons call perdition or outer darkness.

[prisonchaplain]

JAG...sounds like assurance can be a double-edged sword. To whom much is given much is required. Then again, if we're in a love relationship with our God, we'll want all He has for us, won't we?

[Traveler]

I believe that error is in understanding salvation in the first place. The word salvation comes from the same root as salvage. If we understand that G-d’s salvage operates on his love and grace we have a point of view that helps us understand the importance of G-d. That is, that there would be no salvation or salvage without G-d’s grace. None – therefore we are all dependent on his grace for our salvation.

But it is also important to understand that G-d will not salvage anything that is not of worth or value to him. The only way that the soul of man can present anything of value for G-d to salvage is by obedience to G-d’s commandments.

There has been discussion on another thread about giving one’s self to G-d. I pointed out on that thread that the only way to give one’s self to G-d is by obedience to G-d’s commandments. If someone thinks they can give themselves to G-d without being obedient to G-d’s commandments they lie to themselves about their relation ship with G-d.

The point is that G-d will always provide to every man all the grace that is needed to bring about salvation. There is nothing of concern about G-d because He will always provide his part. The question is will man invest in G-d (accept his grace) by obedience to his commandments?

I interpret a person that says that keeping the commandments as not being necessary to be someone that has no understanding about G-d or anything he has asked of us.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I moved this thread from Christian beliefs to LDS gospel because it addresses both a Christian denominational stance, and queries about how LDS teaching agrees and compares. (Plus, it was dying in the Christian beliefs section!)

Concerning the security of the believer (re: salvation) my church teaches that:

1. Salvation depends on a living relationship with Christ (John 15:6)
2. The Bible calls us to holiness (1 Peter 1:16, Hebrews 12:14)
3. Man may have his part taken out of the Book of Life (Revelation 22:19)
4. One who believes for awhile can fall away (Luke 8:13)
5. AND SO DISAPPROVES OF THE UNCONDITIONAL SECURITY POSITION WHICH HOLDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ONCE SAVED TO BE LOST. (See http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_P...8_security.pdf for more information)

I've said in previous strings that Joseph Smith's teachings about the necessity of good works, obedience to covenants etc., in order to secure salvation (entry into the Celestial Kingdom?) seems to be motivated signficantly by a reaction against the unconditional security position. THOUGHTS?

I do not understand the "unconditional security" position, PC. That is, I understand how you have explained it, but I do not understand how any person claiming to believe the New Testament can hold to it. I realize that you, like the Latter-day Saints, also don't believe it, but you do seem to have a better handle on the mindset than I do.

Given that, can you explain how a believer in this doctrine would explain Hebrews 6:4-6?

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Does not this verse teach openly and overtly that those "once enlightened" may yet indeed still fall away, and that such cannot again be "renew[ed]...again unto repentance"? How do the believers in the "unconditional security" doctrine you describe deal with this verse?