And Zeezrom said
again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said
unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his
word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for
he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but
he shall not save his people-- as though he had authority to command God. Now
Amulek saith again unto him: Behold thou hast lied, for thou sayest that I
spake as though I had authority to command God because I said he shall not save
his people in their sins. And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in
their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing
can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye
inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.
(Alma 11:34-37)
Within many strains of Protestantism,
especially that of the “no-Lordship Salvation” perspective, there is a very low
view of sin. Consider the following (one can replace “suicide” with adultery,
murder, etc):
3. What happens to
a person who commits suicide?
He doesn’t have time
to deal with the sin he is committing before he dies. All of our sins were paid
for at the cross, including sins like suicide. Therefore, a Christian who
commits suicide does not face hell. However, he does have to face the bema with
the shame of such a sin and will certainly receive stern reproof from Christ
and miss certain rewards reserved for those who finish their courses. (Joe L.
Wall, Going for the Gold: Reward and Loss at the Judgment of Believers [Chicago:
Moody Press, 1991], 60)
Such a blasphemous view of sin and
salvation is just taking Protestant soteriology to its logical conclusion. Even
if one is a Lordship proponent and holds to the “Perseverance of the Saints”
understanding of “eternal security,” when one is justified, not just their past
and then-present, but also future sins have been forgiven, so no sin
will result in one losing their salvation. Furthermore, note how such is
informed by the belief that Christ’s atonement is a legal payment, informed, in
part, by a misreading of John 19:30.
For articles refuting such blasphemous nonsense and the underlying theological presuppositions, see, for e.g.:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Christina Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
1 Corinthians 3:15: A very un-Protestant Biblical Verse
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30