...err...when will we start to see evidence of that "out of the mormon box" thinking?
Posted on 05/25/2010 10:14:07 PM PDT by restornu
From the author of Yecheadquarters Creation
Osas, My story so far....
If you ever wondered what doctrine is right between osas and no-osas, then you have come to the right place. Don't think that because I will be supporting no-osas, that I will have a bias opinion. For I have been on both sides. I was born and raised a baptist. Grew up being taught osas. I never felt bad about it until one day my preacher preached on this subject, and what he said made me realize that this cannot be right. His sermon was based on never losing salvation. But he took it to an area of sin I knew was wrong. He made salvation sound like a ticket to sin.
Now this in itself did not convince me it was wrong. But it planted a seed for me to research it, and I have. A lot of my research involved debating this issue on forums with both osas and no-osas believers. At one point, which was the most confusing point of my life, I was about 50/50 on what to believe. After being frustrated for a while, I decided to go to the source and quit relying so much on doctrine, and what people are saying. Why? Man can take you only so far as truth is concerned. Only God can lead you the rest of the way to find absolute truth.
So I prayed and asked for wisdom about this. My journey was long with many events that were placed there to teach me how and why everything worked out the way that it did. For I can only pray and hope that what I have learned, I will be able to convey to an understanding of most who read this. Why is this so important to me? Because in my journey to learn the wisdom about this, I have also learned that this doctrine alone is destroying the faith of every Christian in such a slow death, most can't even detect it. You might be shocked to read that, because you may be one who believes this doctrine. But don't turn away just yet. For if I cannot convince you to read the rest of this section after reading the first page, then I have failed. So just bare with me while I try and make a point on why I believe this is destroying the Christian faith.
Losing the fear of God.....
I have found that the main thing that keeps me in-line is the fear of God. It keeps what I say and do in check. Problem is, what fear can you have when you cannot lose the ultimate goal as to why anyone would become a Christian?
If I cannot lose salvation:
1) Why should I ask forgiveness? 2) Why should I repent? 3) Why should I do any works for the kingdom of God?
For if you cannot lose salvation, then none of the above even applies. Why would God tell us to do something but then turn around and make it sound like none of it has to be done? It's like saying: You can drive the car all you want, but never put gas in it. Why? Because it's not needed. So why fear God enough to do what He has told us if we are not even going to be judged, or punished for not doing it. Does God speak worthless words? Is God's book a worthless book? If osas is believed, then 90% of God's word would have to be omitted to make it work. Because all punishment for sin has to be omitted.
Why obey the commandments?
In the osas belief, I have debated many. I have found that the ones who take it seriously also will tell you that the ten commandments no longer apply. Why? One verse says that we are no longer saved by the law, which is correct. But being saved by the law, and having to obey the law, are two separate subjects. So does the word of God actually make a mention that the ten commandments are no longer in affect as to following them?
jn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my Commandments. (Jesus speaking)
The love doctrines....
There are many doctrines that teach the love of Christ only. Such as some that teach there is no hell. Could osas be a modified version of one of these doctrines? Think about it for a second. Step back from what you believe and just look at the facts....
Osas claims:
Osas says you cannot lose salvation. Salvation with no conditions. The love doctrines claim there is no hell. Salvation with no conditions. So both determine no hell.
So what makes these two different but yet the same? The love doctrine applies to all. Saved or unsaved. It asks the question: Why would a loving God send His children to hell, or the lake of fire? Sounds like a tempting doctrine to look into don't it? But that's how the Devil hooks you and reels you in. Temptation. How? If you could live the life you want, and still end up in heaven. Which life would you prefer? The life that says we have to obey all these laws about sin, or the one where you can do anything? The anything life always appeals to the flesh, and we are flesh...... So for me to even say that I would not want this would be a lie.
The osas doctrine does the same thing. But it only applies to one group. Get saved and be secure. Never lose salvation. Do you see how the temptation is there? Sin all you want, your secure, you can never fall out of His hands etc....
Exalting the flesh over the spirit.
A doctrine that makes something more appealing to the flesh is what? A temptation.
Does The word of God appeal to the flesh, or the spirit? The spirit. Because heaven is the goal of every person that accepts Christ.
The Osas doctrine makes salvation more appealing to the flesh. How? If there is no punishment for sin, then what wins in the end? Is it the temptation to sin, or feeling you need to repent of the sin? Christ did not die on the cross for a covenant that is more appealing to our fleshly temptation, then our Godly need to abstain, and repent of them.
The God complex...
But, osas also has it's own judgement rules. If someone in their group should actually deny Christ, and decide to live a sinners life. How do they answer this? Well, he or she was never truly saved if they did this.... Really? At what point do we gain enough wisdom to make the same judgements as God? To be able to say, with authority, that this person was not truly saved, is to have a God complex. There is only one being able to determine this, and it is not us.
So what does that statement, so often used by osas, reveal? That it is by man's own choice to not lose salvation that we become secure in it. And because we think and believe this, what we believe makes us judge others as if we were God ourselves. Because security of salvation is our choice, so the judgement of that security in others becomes our choice as well. Osas is setting the rules for salvation for themselves, so why not set it for others as well.
You were not truly saved because you strayed, rejected and denied Christ? If we were not able to sin upon being saved, then this would be true. But I see it no where written in God's word where it says that we can never reject Christ. Sounds like a God complex to me. Because if you can make that type of judgement on earth, then who will be on the throne when we get to heaven? This type of judgement of another brings God down to the level of man. And therefore God would not be worthy to set upon the throne if man has the same ability to judge as He does. To be able to judge another as if we were Gods, also brings pride. And where pride is, becoming humble is much harder to do.
I was replying to Salvation
I know that Salvation, I know the Catholic Church holds to so many wonderful truths of the Lord
...err...when will we start to see evidence of that "out of the mormon box" thinking?
got to get back to the soaps!:)
Thanks
Doctrine of (wo)man? The very thing you accuse "mainstreamers" of following?
Doctrine of (wo)man? The very thing you accuse "mainstreamers" of following? [Szonian]
Good catch.
More inconsistency from the one who has veered...and continues to veer...back & forth...back & forth...
Yes, and no. Some Mormon theologians (like BYU prof Rbt Millet) will use "salvation" and "exaltation" interchangeably. But most take the time to label "exaltation" as an exclusive form of salvation limited to temple married Mormon who keep ALL of the commandments, ordinances, covenants of Mormonism.
...that LDS exaltation is what we understand to be salvation,...
Again, yes and no. Yes, in that it equates to being in God's presence forever. ('cause all other forms of what Mormons call "salvation" negates this). But "No" in that Mormon exaltation = becoming a god...having all knowledge, all wisdom, all power, the ability to be a creator, receiving worship, etc.
...and that salvation itself in LDS terms refers only to the resurrection of the physical body itself.
Yes, in that salvation is a general term Lds use to apply to "immortality" and a resurrection of the dead.
However, they will talk about salvation to a non LDS Christian as if it were exaltation, and allow that presumption of “sameness” to exist as long as they are not questioned on it. They will even use salvation/exaltation in the same sentence as if they were synonymous terms. Not that they do this intentionally, because most of them may not even understand the difference between the two terms according to their own scripture.
Correct. You've nailed it.
I tried pointing that out in a thread How can 'exaltation' be 'eternal life' when 'eternal life' starts now & exaltation occurs later?.
I said, citing John 3:36 and John 5:24 about eternal life being NOW: Jesus says we pass from death to life already! It's already happened for the "hath" (has) everlasting life people. You may say, "Wait a minute. My Mormon leaders have told us 'eternal life' = eternal progression and celestial heaven and becoming heirs. But you're telling me eternal life is now? How can that be?"
And one LDS poster labeled what I said to be a strawman and false dichotomy. So I showed him all the places Mormon leaders falsely "dichotomized" in making 'eternal life" out to be an exclusive Mormon club...and where Mormon leaders didn't "dichotomize" between 'eternal life' and 'exaltation' in order to pull those theological gymnastics off...see: When Mormon leaders say ‘Eternal Life’ they mean exalted godhood
I am self taught
Doctrine of (wo)man? The very thing you accuse “mainstreamers” of following?
***
I said the anti’s who are OSAS embraces the philosophy of men!
No, you clearly said YOU were "self-taught".
Meaning you have "taught yourself" the doctrines, ergo, doctrines of (wo)man according to Resty.
The very thing you continually accuse "mainstreamers" of doing.
See your post #74 and try to spin your way out of that one Resty or ignore, or deflect, or....
No, you clearly said YOU were “self-taught”.
Meaning you have “taught yourself” the doctrines, ergo, doctrines of (wo)man according to Resty.
***
Self taught as in grammar not religion!
I learn the Lord’s Doctrine by the power of the Holy Ghost.
John 14: 26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you
The religion of the “anti-lds” is called Christianity.
Look it up on Google.
The Catholic Church doesn’t consider mormonism to be a Christian religion. They will, however take your money and do good things with it.
There is so much to say and so little band width.
“I learn the Lord’s Doctrine by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
If this were true, you would not make so many posts filled with false theology.
Great point.
Just because I do not recognized the philosophy of men
That is not all of the offices you think you know what else is new!
Nothing you have posted reminds me of the Lord Jesus Christ but it does remind me of doctrine of men!
yet follow blindly the smithite philosophy of a demostrated liar.
that funny a liar calling some else a liar...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.