Thank you both for your responses. I trust that our differences are as members of the same family and not overly contentious. But we do have differences.
I would never encourage someone to become Mormon. In its theology I absolutely believe it is ‘another Gospel.’ But I have found that very few Mormons are that familiar with the details of their theology in much the same way that most Christians would be very hard pressed to explain the difference between homoiousion and homoousion. Few Christians can enumerate the details of the presumed conflicts between predestination, foreordination and free will. The average Christian cannot tell you whether they are pre-trib, post-trib, amillenialist, postmillenialist, or nunc-millenialist.
Can the average Christian intelligently discuss the niceties of transubstantiation? How many Christians can adequately explain what Paul meant in Colossians 1:24 when he said, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church” and how that squares with the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. How about working out one’s salvation with ‘fear and trembling’ Philippians 2:12? Or how about transubstantiation and consubstantiation, or ‘real presence’ or symbolism? Open or closed communion?
No, the average Christian believes, correctly I think, along with Karl Barth who answered the question of how he would summarize the millions of words he had published in the area of theology by saying, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.” In my experience, most of the Mormons I know, subscribe to that.
Yes, I am familiar with the semantics of Mormonism and I may be more conversant with their theology than many Mormons are. Most of my LDS friends accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and unless they are deliberately lying to me it is on the same basis that I do.
We quickly part ways in belief after that as so much of their doctrine immediately plunges in to works righteousness, exaltation, celestial marriage, eternal preexistence of matter, polytheistic interpretations of the Trinity, etc., etc. etc.. I believe they share in the foolishness of the Galatians. There is much of Mormon theology, as you both have pointed out, that is heretical; that elevates the status of their belief system to a cult. I differ in the extreme with those who would fancy themselves Mormon theologians and who uncritically buy into the heresies, fantasies and inconsistencies foisted upon them by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and their entire line of ‘Prophets.’ So yes I always advise Mormons to seek out an orthodox Christian church, as difficult as that can be in their culture.
But I also part ways with those who want to argue over immersion vs. sprinkling, or, those who want to tell me — as a good friend pointed argued when I invited him to my baptism (by immersion) some 30 odd years ago — that I was going to Hell because the pastor used the wrong words. “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” instead of “In the Name of Jesus.”
As Paul puts it in Romans 14, “Each... should be fully convinced in their own mind.” You may have answered all of these questions with enough certainty to be able to separate the sheep from the goats, though I would argue that there is only one who will do that because he is the only one who is qualified. Yes we are to exercise discernment and be wise. But we should fight the natural human tendency to vote people off the island. To demand that someone share my doctrinal understanding down to the last ‘iota’ is gnosticism and the last time I checked, that, too, is heresy.
I try not to spend too much time figuring out who should be tossed out of the lifeboat because of their theology. I am convinced that all of us will have much wrong theology to repent of in that moment when we see him face to face. Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology, but by the blood of God’s own son.
OK. take ONLY this one statement of yours at face value, and then combine it with John 3:16.
What might we conclude?
(a) Jesus shed blood & died for the whole world (John 3:16)
(b) That blood saves
But then does that add up to meaning the whole world is saved?
Jesus didn't indicate that. In fact, He said at one point that wide is the road that leads to destruction.
So, we need to dig deeper as to what leads many to this wide-road destruction -- deeper than your cute statement that theology doesn't save, Jesus does.
So what's the hang-up, then?
Well, for starters, let's focus on what the apostle Paul stressed in 2 Cor. 5: 18-20: Reconciliation, which is, after all, a Relationship word.
But simultaneously, we can still realize, "Hey. Identity theft exists. People can still enter into false relationships...thinking they've encountered the genuine God or the genuine Christ." (Jesus discussed false messiahs in Matthew 24).
Consider some of the horror flicks strewn about by Hollywood...ones where the female victim has mistrusted the wrong guy...having misid'd him as her would-be knight in shining armor. As the flick script goes, the guy is originally billed as a supposed "good samaritan" who changed her tire or offered to give her ride from a broken-down vehicle.
The irony is...if Hollywood would ever finish these storylines to the end...these knights in shining armor who "saved" these women in distress...who as the movie progresses, winds up preying upon false trust...do at times indeed wind up "dying for" these women...as they are strapped into the electric chair for killing them, that is!!!
My point? All "theology" is -- is the "study of"...
...
...and if some lady starts relating to a guy online -- and "misid's" him...IOW, she failed to "study" who he really is, or if she fails to "study" who the potential "good samaritan" is...
...well, that has or can become a fatal fault.
So while it sounds great that theology doesn't save you, lack of knowing who God really is (which is the heart of theology) can still leave you in your sins.
If I don't know the true you, Newheart, inevitably if I try to describe you I will be off base. Even if I've heard some correct things about you, and relay that to others...if I don't you, and try to relay to others who you are...at some point, if I keep it up, I am going to be so off-base that I'm no longer describing YOU. At some point, I thereby flunk Newheartology. Well, so it is with God.
Jesus made it plain in John 17:3 that what moves us into that relationship with God and with Christ is "Knowing the ONLY TRUE God." If you misidentify who God is and who Jesus is, then your response to Him is going to be faulty. And while your point is that it's faulty already for all of us; my point is that at some point, people move away from responding to the true God as He is...and wind up responding to a charicature of Him.
Theology can be so poor that many people do indeed respond to a mere charicature -- a totally false ID of who God is.
You can't just say that all responding to conflicting attributes about God is still leads us all to the same relationship with Him.
It wasn't only a fairy tale where we learned about a wolf attempting to gobble up others.
The apostle Paul warned the Ephesian church for three years night & day about savage wolves who wouldn't spare the flock...and how did Paul say they would do that?
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31)
I'm sure much of the flock through the centuries that hasn't been spared knew that Jesus died for them. But knowing that cognitively -- and actually being in a relationship with the true Christ and the true God -- are two different things.