First and foremost, I enjoyed your description of putting Christ first in faith; I too believe that faith is the total abandonment of self. If we cling, in any way, to anything other than Christ, than our faith is not yet whole. We must place the Lord first in our lives. But isn’t that, by definition, work? For doing so is not natural. It’s not natural to completely abandon oneself and place yourself in the hands of someone else, and whom you’ve never seen (in the flesh). It requires faith, and is proved through works.

But also you suggest that essentially our salvation is denied because our definition of God differs from yours. For while we describe God differently, and disagree on his characteristics, there is only one God, and our debates about definitions doesn’t change his reality, they merely reflect our understanding of scripture and revelation (whichever denomination you’re in). But while this feels a bit precarious, it still doesn’t address the main issue – that of sufficiency. For if this is your definition (we must agree on doctrine to be saved), then that’s far from “the atonement is sufficient for all”, and therefore contradicts itself.

It just seems to me that simply accepting doctrinal paradoxes as “natural” stems from an inability to make sense of scripture in order to cling to the creeds of the past. In other words, “because this scripture flies in the face of an ancient creed, I must either deny the creed or deny the scripture, and since I can do neither, I’ll simply assume acceptance of the contradiction. For to deny the creed is to deny my faith.” And thereby you ignore indication of the necessity to explore theological alternatives in order to support a tradition to which you’ve dedicated so much.

But, for instance, the apostles of the Lord, when called as such, abandoned their nets, left their boats, and followed the Savior, even though he taught doctrine that was rebuked and rejected in his days and flew in the face of their traditions.

But the interesting thing is that within the doctrinal explanations as revealed through Joseph Smith and latter day prophets, and upheld by Latter-day Saints (Mormons), there are no such paradoxes of principle. All truth is able to be harmoniously interwoven into one elegant, all-encompassing theology, free of such troubling in congruencies.

It’s the beauty of Mormon doctrine, that all things now make sense, and there’s no more need for such debates (even among the same believers – as in the times of Creeds) to reconcile beliefs and come up with a compromise-based cannon. Rather it’s a cannon based on ongoing revelation to prophets and apostles, as in times of old.

You’ve elegently bypassed the point entirely. If I walked up to you as a stranger and said: “I I have faith in Jesus Christ. I accept Him as my personal Savior,” you would welcome me as a fellow Christian. If I said “I’m a Mormon,” you’d cast my faith aside.

I disagree with your point about the “different God” theory. It’s wrong. I KNOW I believe in the same God you do. I know I believe in the same Jesus Christ you do. You may not agree with that, and that’s fine. But you can’t reject the fact that’s what I believe to be true. There’s nothing in my theology that states your diety is different than mine.

So, when it comes down to it, you’re classifying and stratifying fellow believers in Christ, based on their individual doctrines. It’s funny - there are thousands of Christian churches and denominations out there. Tens of thousands. They all look at each other and call themselves collectively “the church” (which is another doctrinal fallacy), even though amongst themselves, their beliefs are so variant that it’s impossible to comprehend. Yet the one thing most love to do is look at my brand of Christianity and judgementally say “you’ll never qualify”.

Sorry, but that’s downright un-Christian. You’re REAL definition of salvation is “profess your faith in Jesus Christ AND don’t be a Mormon.” Both variables are required.

Just like believing Lutherans, Mormons ” confess our sinfulness, our unworthiness, our imperfections, our inabilities, etc.” This means that God is the subject of our sentences about faith. And that’s no different than any other Christian.

Rusty, you seem to maintain that paradox is a problem. Lutherans see paradox as very scriptural and essential. Scripture is both Law & Gospel (the same passages at the same time). We are both saint & sinner (at the same time). The bread and wine in Holy Communion are also the Body and Blood of Christ. There are many other examples. What we experience when we attempt to resolve the paradox is that we diminish the witness of scripture, usually by ignoring those portions that don’t fit our resolution (as you’ve often warned against). Life is full of these paradoxes, and to diminish or excise them from our experience of faith diminishes faith. For example, my spouse is the source of my greatest joy and also the source of my greatest distress. So, which is it, those who want to resolve the paradox ask. It is both. Hence paradox.

When Christians write Mormons out of God’s grace, it’s not because of some “work” that is not accomplished by Mormons. Most bluntly, it is because Mormons don’t worship the same God. I know that is a tough one, and I fully expect to be called on that, but that is what it boils down to. Mormons use the same words, point to the same scriptures, and worship a different God than I do. The Jesus Christ in the the official name of the LDS church is not the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Jesus warned of false Christs, and Christians believe that Mormons worship a false Christ. (To be fair, Christians are understood to be apostate by the Mormons … so really no difference here. Each “side” claims Jesus as their own.)

Now, using logic. If this is true, and this is how those you describe above see it, then there really doesn’t exist the paradox you claim.

Having said that (and ducking from the incoming rounds):

Even the Evangelical Christians you point to have trouble with the subject of saving faith. Too often, the focus is on what they have done (as in Andrew’s example above). I think most of the time they get it wrong too, and when they start to sound like they are moving toward “a works righteousness” they skittle off confused. A friend of mine recently wrote the following:

“I’ve had this brief conversation a few times: Someone asks, “Do you love the Lord?” I respond, “Yes, but more importantly, God loves me.” Faith and our proper confessions of Jesus begin with God. If we start
with us rather than God, we can only confess with Luther: “I believe that I can’t believe.” We confess our sinfulness, our unworthiness, our imperfections, our inabilities, etc. When we are weak and helpless, then God is strong and powerful. The Christian faith is primarily about God. This means that God, (by some name,) needs to be the subject of our sentences about faith.

“I’m not sure how many of our people in the pews understand this gospel-centered theology. Perhaps the most powerful idol we need to overcome is our selves and a works-righteousness that puts self in the center of our faith rather than God.

—

So, in the end: Yes! Christ’s atonement is completely and absolutely sufficient for salvation. To say anything less is to place ourselves in front of Jesus. Frankly, there was a way to salvation (through the Law) before Jesus. If Jesus is just a door, then … what a waste!

Pondering Pastor

Rusty, you have whetted my appetite for your future project on the Plan of Salvation (Happiness). I’m soooo glad I’m a Latter-Day Saint! I add my invitation to Rusty’s for all to consider these things carefully, with an open heart.

I found the dialog your wrote amusing. But here’s a different way of saying it:

Me: “I have faith in Jesus Christ. I accept Him as my personal Savior. He is the only way to be saved. There is no other.”

Ev: “That’s all it takes. His grace is sufficient.”

Me: “Great. You should know that I’m a Mormon.”

Ev: “Then you’re not saved.”

That’s where the evangelical claims go to their final conclusion, and it doesn’t make sense. Because of this train of logic, Mormons can’t be saved because of something they’ve DONE, in spite of their firm faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons are condemned because their WORKS prevent them from being saved. And while they condemn Mormons, they profess that no works or effort are required for salvation.

“There is nothing you can do. His grace is sufficient for salvation.”

“You Mormons have done something that prevents you from being saved.”

Yet all the while, as a Mormon, I profess my faith in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, knowing that there is no other way, nor any other means that I can be saved.

I also was intrigued by Eric Nielson’s comments.

Eric - great addition. I do plan on expounding upon your latter point in an upcoming series about the plan of salvation. Actually it’s a larger project that will cover the sweeping panaroma of principles involved in it’s intricacies. I’m building it as a flash application which lays out visually the entire plan, with mouse-over sumaries of each primary point, and then links on each to more info - which will lead to a blog post dedicated to that point for further coverage and ongoing discussion. But I’m very glad you brought it up here, as it’s very suiting to this particular point, that the theology of sufficiency as held by traditional christianity represents an unreconcilable paradox that illustrates the effects of the apostacy and accentuates the beauty behind reveled doctrine and present-day prophetic and apostolic leadership.

After that, the degree of glory we receive in this salvation is dependent on the type of person we have become, which is often expressed by what we do.

With this combination, Mormonism provides both the most merciful and just view of the salvation and the atonment that ther is.

People like Terry G. can pick isolated verses of scripture and twist them while ignoring the rest of the book to make strict Calvinist claims regarding salvation. Bottom line it is God choosing who to save and who not to save.

You have laid this out very well, and it exposes a huge weakness in many protestant beliefs, and the incredible strengths or Mormon beliefs.