is the pope teaching work for the dead

[sara888]

**Tmaque said:Yes, that is the ideal. But we are not perfect,

BUT WE ARE ALL CALLED TO BE HOLY AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO STOP SINNING. THAT IS WHY CATHOLICS HAVE PURGATORY, BECAUSE AS YOU CLAIM WE CANT STOP SINNING THEREFORE NOTHING UNCLEAN OR WICKED GETS INTO HEAVEN. AND THE BIBLE CLAIMS SIN SENDS ONE TO HELL.

SARA**

 

[Tmaque]

**Tmaque said:Yes, that is the ideal. But we are not perfect,

BUT WE ARE ALL CALLED TO BE HOLY AND THE WHOLE IDEA IS TO STOP SINNING. THAT IS WHY CATHOLICS HAVE PURGATORY, BECAUSE AS YOU CLAIM WE CANT STOP SINNING THEREFORE NOTHING UNCLEAN OR WICKED GETS INTO HEAVEN. AND THE BIBLE CLAIMS SIN SENDS ONE TO HELL.

SARA**

Exactly,

What is the best way to stop habitual sin? For most people it takes a long time and is a real struggle. It would be less effective for me if I believed that my forgiveness today, at this moment, hinged upon whether or not I sinned again 20 years from now. But, the real question here is what does the Church say?

From the Catechism:
1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.

1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

While of course it would be preferable, there is no absolute requirement to never commit the same sin again.

 

[sara888]

**Hi Todd

From the Catechism:
1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy. **

**The firm purpose of sinning no more in the ** future.

Sara

 

[tkdnick]

sara888:

You dont want to know, however it means a Christian is guranteed Heaven because he Believes in Christ and his sins were all paid for which include his past sins, present and future sins. Faith without works, however they distort and twist their theology to claim Faith produces works, however works have nothing to do with ones salvation. try to figure that analogy out.!
You cannot seperate Faith and Gods moral Laws,since Faith means to abide in Gods Laws.

Do you understand it, if you dont,no need to really know about this doctrine as it is misleading ,distorting and false.

So OSAS stands for??? Once Saved Always Saved? I know what that is.

 

[amgid]

Tmaque:

I was taught this growing up. Upon reading your question I called my Mom and asked her if there was any scriptural basis for this belief. She referred me to Alma 34:34,35.

---

I don’t know if this passage would mean the same thing to you as it does to her. It seems to me it could read either way. In any case, I was taught deathbed repentance was meaningless, that’s why I believed it to be LDS doctrine.

It is true that it is often taught in the LDS Church that deathbed repentance is meaningless. This is done in order to discourage some church members from believing that they can go on sinning for as long as possible, and “enjoy their sins” as it were for as long as they can, and then repent at the last moment and it would be as though nothing had happened, and they would be saved. LDS leaders are right in discouraging such an attitude. Salvation doesn’t quite work that way. There is a penalty for taking such an attitude. When LDS talk about salvation, or being saved, they usually mean being saved in the celestial kingdom; and one of the requirements of being saved in the celestial kingdom is that one should be “valiant in the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:79). Well, you are not exactly being “valiant in the testimony of Jesus” if you have decided to sin for as long as you can in your life; and then repent at the last moment and hope to be saved. That would be like making a mockery of the plan of salvation; and God has declared that He “will not be mocked” (D&C 63:58).

I believe that deathbed repentance may or may not be possible depending on the nature of the sin, and the circumstances in which it occurs. Contrary to common belief among most LDS, I personally believer that “the thief on the cross,” who obtained the promise that “today thou shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), was indeed “saved”. But I believe that his condition was different from that I have described above.

Daniel Peterson with Farms has this comment regarding the passage on the FARMS website:

“Alma 34 simply teaches that deathbed repentance is a snare and a delusion, that those who have knowingly chosen evil will enter the next life without having undergone any magical transformation and will be the same evilly inclined”

See above.

amgid

 

[TOmNossor]

Tmaque,
When I read your quote, my first inclination was to disagree with Dr. Peterson and then say that though I disagree I must acknowledge that in my opinion one is not likely to make much hay on Dr. Peterson does not understand Mormonism platform.
I then saw in his words a hint that he was not actually addressing what I am addressing here, but this hind was so small that I thought it best not to build upon it.

However, reading in context what he wrote, Dr. Peterson is in fact speaking of something very different than we are.

Here is the full text.

I believe that LDS scriptures are very clear there is no post-mortal second chance. I suspect I go farther in this belief than do most of my LDS brothers and sisters. The spirit that possesses your body when you die is the one that participates in post mortal growth. The path one walks in the post mortal world is the perfectly informed path of one who is what they BECAME while they lived.

According to Alma and Dr. Peterson it is not possible to say, I will reject God, live the life of the heathen, and then ask for forgiveness on my deathbed. Knowing that one must repent it is damning to choose to wait to repent. Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, we cannot pray that God takes away our desire to sin, but that he waits until tomorrow to do so. This is the message of all but those who embrace easy-believism. I do not think Dr. Peterson or Alma are trying to say that profound change is impossible at any time in life. One may always repent and choose to go a different direction.

Of course, I have no ability to authoritatively define LDS doctrine. I also disagree with Paul and a number of general authorities who have placed Grace next to Works. I fully embrace sola gracia, and generally reject sola fide. I place faith next to works, but do not place works next to grace.

Charity, TOm

 

[sara888]

**Tom said: I place faith next to works, but do not place works next to grace.

Sara asks
So does grace place us above Gods commandments.?

If we dont follow the commandments are we still guranteed into the Kingdom of God.because we believe.?

If salvation has nothing to do with Commandments then why follow them.?

Can you give me yes or no answers and make it a simple reply.! Thanks Sara**

 

[flameburns623]

majick275:

OSAS = once saved always saved. This belief is taught in some protestant churches. (NOT by LDS or Catholic)

Both LDS and Catholics teach faith without works is dead.

Once-Saved/Always-Saved, also known as the Perserverance of the Saints, Preservation of the Saints, or Eternal Security, is sometimes abbreviated “OSAS”. It is derived from Augustinian and Calvinistic ideas that start from the assumption that the Bible means what it says when it declares human beings to be totally depraved, totally incapable of choosing God, totally at enmity with God. The idea is that until God performs a work of grace in an individual, that person will NEVER choose to accept God. If God DOES perform such a work of grace, it implies that He has chosen this soul for salvation and that He will therefore do all that is necessary to enable and ensure that this soul will ultimately perservere, ultimately endure, ultimately overcome. The position rejects the idea that human beings have any sort of free agency at least in respect to their own salvation: we are all predisposed to hate God by nature and cannot ever choose to feel otherwise unless God Himself changes our nature. God being no respecter of persons, chooses human beings for His own good purposes, without respect to any person’s character or good works–which, before God acts in grace, is always depraved and corrupt and without anything which would commend any soul to a holy God. This leaves the salvation of souls entirely up to the handiwork of God, with no part of our salvation owed in any respect to our own merits or good works.

 

[Tmaque]

**Hi Todd

From the Catechism:
1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future**. Conversion touches the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God’s mercy.

**The firm purpose of sinning no more in the ** future.

Sara

I agree with that completely. “The firm purpose”, meaning the firm intention to not sin again. It appears we agree.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom said: I place faith next to works, but do not place works next to grace.

Sara asks

So does grace place us above Gods commandments.?

No.

**If we dont follow the commandments are we still guranteed into the **

Kingdom** of God.because we believe.?**

No.

I described my view in detail in post #20 and #21.

My thoughts are that the most clear definition of the word “Grace” involved it being a free and sufficient gift.

Only a strict double predestinationist can suggest that Grace is something that we can neither accept nor reject. I am not a double predestinationist.

I suggest that through our faith and our choosing good works we accept God’s free gift of Grace. This free gift of Grace is then totally responsible for making us Justified/Sanctified.

To add to my second “no,” I might mention the concept of “formed faith” which I believe was introduced and/or elaborated upon by Augustine. One who has “formed faith” is more than one who merely believes. Actions always follow “formed faith.”

One of the largest thefts the modern English language has perpetrated upon theological ideas it the idea that faith=belief. Faith is more than belief.

I have thought of saying, I embrace sola fide; but by Faith I mean “formed faith.” I have chosen not to make this statement because it denies the differences in those who embrace sola fide and those who reject sola fide. As I point out in post 20-21 these differences are not large, but they are in fact real.

I suspect you as a Catholic are rebelling against the Protestant position of sola fide as you understand it. It is very susceptible to the perversion of “Easy-Believism,” but it is in fact not “easy-believism.” As protestant ministers compete for followers by teaching to those with itchy ears, there are more and more preachers who speak of easy believism. This is a tragedy and in my opinion is the most damning heresy present in modern Christianity.

Charity, TOm

 

[arieh0310]

flameburns623:

It is derived from Augustinian and Calvinistic ideas that start from the assumption that the Bible means what it says when it declares human beings to be totally depraved, totally incapable of choosing God, totally at enmity with God. The idea is that until God performs a work of grace in an individual, that person will NEVER choose to accept God.

There are quite a few denominations (particularly in the Pentacostal camp) that hold to OSAS without the Calvinistic predestination thrown in. Their belief is that once you punch the ticket (alter call) you are forever covered by Christ, that your depraved human nature is forever hidden in Christ. But they also believe that the individual has full free-agency and the choice to believe in Christ is an act of the will.

 

[paul_barlow]

new formula SALVATION=GRACE+(FAITH+WORKS)
DO WE ALL AGREE ON THIS ONE

 

[flameburns623]

arieh0310:

There are quite a few denominations (particularly in the Pentacostal camp) that hold to OSAS without the Calvinistic predestination thrown in. Their belief is that once you punch the ticket (alter call) you are forever covered by Christ, that your depraved human nature is forever hidden in Christ. But they also believe that the individual has full free-agency and the choice to believe in Christ is an act of the will.

I think you are mistaken regarding the Pentecostal position, perhaps confusing this with non-denominational churches, modern mega-churches, “seeker-sensitive” churches, etcetera, many of them having a bit of a Charismatic flavor but not really Pentecostal as that term is properly understood. Orthodox Pentecostal groups (not to be confused with “Oneness Pentecostals”, "United Pentecostals, and so forth) are almost never proponents of eternal security–they tend to be full-fledged Arminians and beleive that salvation CAN be rejected after being accepted. I would be interested in seeing citations from official Pentecostal bodies such as the Assemblies of God, Churches of God, and so forth, which include in their statements of faith a belief in eternal security.

I agree that a great many popular preachers in the Baptist and non-denominational camps teach a sort of ‘whiskey Calvinism’–i.e. they put forward or give prominence to only the fifth proposition of the five points of Calvinism. (One-fifth of the Five Points of Calvinism–as in a ‘fifth of whiskey’–hence the appellation "whiskey Calvinism . . .get it?) Many of these groups would tell you–if you really nailed down their theology–that they ARE in fact Calvinistic, but seek to avoid being identified too closely with ‘denominational Christianity’ or with hyper-Calvinism. Hence they stress only the ever-popular teaching of ‘eternal security’, also known as once-saved/always saved. Usually their congregants gain only a very dim and distorted view even of what this teaching really means.

My point was that eternal security was originally formulated by and advocated by those of a Calvinist or Augustinian persuasion. Incidentally, although most Roman Catholics are likely to be more familiar with theories of soteriology more akin to Arminianism–or even to Pelagian heresies!!!–there is a strong tradition of Augustinianism within RCC theology. I read somewhere that even Pope Benedict is perceived to be strongly Augustinian in his theology.

 

[flameburns623]

paul barlow:

new formula SALVATION=GRACE+(FAITH+WORKS)
DO WE ALL AGREE ON THIS ONE

No.

Your formula is known as Pelagianism. It is found in a number of contemporary heretical groups including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostal groups AND most notably for this sub-forum–in Mormonism.

The Christian understanding is that salvation is by the grace of God through faith–faith and grace both being gifts of God and not a result of any merits in any human being. Works SHOULD follow faith as an evidence of salvation, and in the Arminian forumula they MUST do so if one is validly saved. But one is NEVER, in any Christian formulation of the equation, saved by a combination of both faith and works. To complicate the formula: in Catholic theology, good works are both the result of God’s grace AND are purveyors of God’s supernatural grace. (In Protestant theology, works are the result of God’s grace but carry no intrinsic supernatural merit within themselves). I’m probably articulating this all very badly but perhaps someone will add to the discussion.

 

[arieh0310]

flameburns623:

I think you are mistaken regarding the Pentecostal position, perhaps confusing this with non-denominational churches, modern mega-churches, “seeker-sensitive” churches, etcetera, many of them having a bit of a Charismatic flavor but not really Pentecostal as that term is properly understood.

I stand corrected, I was thinking of non-denominational charismatic groups and denominations such as Foursquare or Calvary Chapel (who can trace their roots to Pentacostalism).

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

The Christian understanding is that salvation is by the grace of God through faith–faith and grace both being gifts of God and not a result of any merits in any human being.

If Faith is a CHOICE, and Grace comes through faith, then the gift of Grace is predicated upon faith. I maintain that Faith is a CHOICE and that one can CHOOSE works and that Grace is predicated upon these CHOICES. Not that the gift of Grace is offered only to those who CHOOSE rightly, but rather the act of making Grace efficacious (or figuratively picking up the free gift) in ones life is preformed through Faith and choosing good works.
I fully acknowledge that Faith comes through Grace in that we cannot have faith until God first bestows upon us something in which to have faith (which He bestows upon EVERY man througout all time). And good works are only the choice to perform good works not the actual human exertion to do something for our salvation.
I am unconvinced simple statements like “Grace+(faith+works)” are theologically sophisticated enough to be linked to the Pelagian heresy.
If Paul was agreeing with post 20&21 with his statement then he was expressing what is called “infused righteousness” which is the Catholic view and in my opinion the best LDS view of the path to Justification/Sanctification.
The “theological novem” introduced by the reformists is called (unfortunately) “imputed righteousness.” Catholic scholars call this “legal fiction.” In “imputed righteousness” Justification and Sanctification are split. One is justified (made clean, saved) by grace alone through faith alone. Then the process of Sanctification is continued as believers participate with Christ to perform good works.
Here is a Protestant (I think) scholar acknowledging the newness of the protestant view:
(I have quoted this for a while and I just thought of something that I need to check upon concerning it, but here it is for your consideration anyway)
Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 1, pp. 184, 185:
The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and regeneratio is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before. Despite astonishing theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification represents a theological novem…However, it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it.

The Pelagian heresy (as is presented by those who reject pelagious and largely eradicated his view) is that we perform good works to merit salvation. This is certainly something that LDS and Catholics are accused of believing by Protestants AND it is certainly something that some LDS and even some Catholics believe. I believe that this incorrect view has the ability to lead one to the correct view when one is asked more than they can possible perform. Eventually, they fail and lean upon Christ and recognize that it never was them that DID anything. (the recent movie King Arthur presented Pelagious in a different light than does the Catholic Church, but it was of course fictional).
Easy Believism on the other hand perpetuates itself because it always feels good and one never has the opportunity to KNOW of their inability to work out their salvation. Sure they may know they cannot do it; but until one experientially KNOWS, I believe one will lack one of the most important born again experiences this life has to offer us.
In any case, I am solidly Catholic in my understanding of Grace, Faith, and Works. I believe there are Pelagian (as formulated by the Catholic Church) LDS (and Catholics BTW), I believe there are even sola fide LDS (I am pretty sure I can show this from published LDS material), but I believe “imputed righteousness” is the best read of LDS scriptures.
Charity, TOm

 

[flameburns623]

Tom:

Where you and I part company is in the assumption that a totally-depraved soul can ever make a choice for God. I believe the common teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition is that human beings are conceived in sin and incapable of making a choice for God. It is only by the free grace of God that anyone may ever be enabled to receive the gift of faith.

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

Tom:

Where you and I part company is in the assumption that a totally-depraved soul can ever make a choice for God. I believe the common teaching of Scripture and Christian tradition is that human beings are conceived in sin and incapable of making a choice for God. It is only by the free grace of God that anyone may ever be enabled to receive the gift of faith.

As I understand what you just said, you are a complete and total predestinationist. Correct?

I have been somewhat unconcerned with this position, but I just admit that I think it is likely that if I ever became a sola scripturist, I would also be one who embraces predestination. I fact, I think all but “limited atonement” are pretty strong Biblical understandings.

My thoughts on predestination are as follows.

First, I do not personally believe that God has revealed Himself to me such that I could believe some humans were born to be damned. I believe humans are different than animals. The best way of showing this is as follows.

Minerals – no life

Plants – life no consciousness

Animals – consciousness no Self-Awareness

Humans – posses all 3, life, consciousness, and self-awareness.

To be a total predestinationist one would have to believe that some Human with self-awareness were born to be damned.

In fact you might say,

Non-elect Humans – Self-Awareness, no spiritual in-tune-ness

Elect Humans – Spiritual in-tune-ness.

My understanding of God is such that He does not make Self-Aware humans, but make them so they cannot partake of His spirit.

Still, I do not regularly pity the dog because he was born a dog and not a human so, perhaps it is ok that folks are born to be damned.

Second, I do not care! If predestination is God’s way, who am I to tell Him it is unfair. If I am born to be damned, I will love life as a LDS till it is time for hell. I will be thankful for the gifts God gave me for without Him I could not have enjoyed them for a season.

If I am elect, I needn’t worry irresistible Grace will wash over me in God’s time. If irresistible Grace has already washed over me (which if there is such a thing I can hardly imagine it could be more than the wondrous Grace of which I already partake so I imagine this washing is in the past) I will continue living, loving, and serving as a LDS because it is glorious to do so. Or if as some folks suggest being a LDS is incompatible with irresistible Grace, one day in the future God will exert Herculean love and efforts to remove me from the CoJCoLDS. Either way, God’s time is fine by me.

Third, the idea of predestination AND I am elect that is generally expressed by those who advocate predestination has always stung me as just a tad prideful in its best manifestations (and radically prideful in its worst manifestations). Of course truth is truth and we should not walk away from what we know to be true.

Anyway, I do not think the Bible demands absolute predestination, but I think it is a solid sola scriptura read. I am happy that my faith tradition does not teach this, and were I to be Catholic I would still not believe it (although Catholics can get pretty far down this path if they choose).

Charity, TOm

 

[sara888]

---

Tom said:
And good works are only the choice to perform good works not the actual human exertion to do something for our salvation.

Why do the gospels claim a different explanation for salvation, If works has nothing to with ones salvation, then why is commandment keeping part of Faith and Love for Christ, how can someone love Christ yet omit works, "If you love me you obey my commandments. " So in a sense works is a very important and crucial part of Faith, how can one seperate them when in essence they are one in the same. The whole NT is filled with IF’s and consequences for the believers. Faith does equal Love , then we produce good works.

We claim Grace saves us, yes it does , however we are judged by our actions to this great faith of ours, these actions are works or laws of God to the faithful follower or Christian. If Salvation has no other requirements besides Faith, we must define what Faith is, and since we all agree it includes Love and Laws, works, etc, then commons sense and logic tell us it has something to do with salvation. How can we seperate Faith and commandment keeping since we all agree this is part of Faith, then distort the Salvation process.

Sara****

Sara

 

[sara888]

**Since we know we must keep every commandment of Jesus in order to receive the saving grace of God, everything He tells us to do before salvation is absolutely essential in order for one to receive salvation. **

Sara