Brad Wilcox'S View On Grace

[wenglund]

As I understand things, a fullness of God's grace is functionally contingent upon a covenant relationship between God and mankind, and thus neither the actions of God nor the actions of man can rightly be removed from the equation. The gift of grace may be freely given by God and may be sufficient in satisfying his side of the covenant, but our genuine acceptance of God's gift (through obedience to his commands) is need to satisfy our side of the covenant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 7, 2013 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

As I understand things, a fullness of God's grace is functionally contingent upon a covenant relationship between God and mankind, and thus neither the actions of God nor the actions of man can rightly be removed from the equation. The gift of grace may be freely given by God and may be sufficient in satisfying his side of the covenant, but our genuine acceptance of God's gift (through obedience to his commands) is need to satisfy our side of the covenant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade i agree it is a two way covenant with both parties contributing something. But you say obedience to his commandments is what is required on our part and LDS.ORg says otherwise

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives

You say obedience to his commandments

and

The Church says obedience to his Gospel

These are different

Obedience to his commandments is to keep the law

Obedience to his gospel is having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives

These do not seem to be one in the same to me.

I also add that if one clicks the LDS.ORG link I inserted above one does not find anything even close to "Keep the Commandments" other then the Quote I included and as I said I see a very distinct difference between the two.

Edited May 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[Senator]

EVs can teach us some things, but imho they are more the one note wonder than a group that possesses a depth of spiritual knowledge.

Given my Evangelical neighbors, I would passionately disagree with that statement!

[wenglund]

Wade i agree it is a two way covenant with both parties contributing something. But you say obedience to his commandments is what is required on our part and LDS.ORg says otherwise

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

You say obedience to his commandments and The Church says obedience to his Gospel

Since the gospel is comprised of God's commandments, you seem to be drawing and distinction without a meaningful difference. I don't.

These are different

Obedience to his commandments is to keep the law

Obedience to his gospel is having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives

To me, faith, repentance, being baptized, receiving the Holy Ghost, etc. are New Testament commandments and laws, or commandments and laws of the Gospel. Therefore, keeping the commandments is keeping the law of the gospel. So, again, you are drawing a distinction without a meaningful difference. I don't.

To say the one is to essentially say the other--counterproductive semantic nit-picks notwithstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Wade to say "keeping a handful of commandments(faith + repentance + ordinances) and trying to keep the rest( all God's teachings) is the same as keeping the commandments (being obedient to all God has given) is the same, misses that one allows a lot of mistakes (while encouraging one towards eternal perfection) while the other sets a bar (perfection in the here and now)

One I can keep and the other I can not

[Yep]

While we set works as the program that pushes us it really is about our heart and whether we are turning it to Christ and pushing to be more like him.

Perhaps you didn't understand my reference to Piaget and Kohlberg with regards to coming out from under the Law? Their position with regards to morality reference internal motivation, and I believe address your statements.

[Tacenda]

DB, I just went on a long walk with my dog and listened to the podcast with Brad Wilcox, it was awesome.

I loved what he said about the youth and how one of them kept coming in to repent (Brad was his bishop in the single adult ward) and finally just gave up and left the church. The young man didn't understand Grace well enough and Brad decided enough was enough and someone needed to write a book about it, this after he went to search for a book in the church about Grace, he couldn't find one. He didn't think it should be him that wrote it but someone with more authority but someone in the book world insisted that he write the book.

I also like what Brad said about the scripture "Grace, after all that we can do." can be looked at like this....the "we" is ourselves and the Saviour and He is helping us along the way, teaching us to hold to living a better life following the commandments. In other words we can't do it alone, we probably won't ever feel good enough to merit the Grace but if we know the Saviour is our biggest cheerleader and fall guy (my words) then maybe we can make the necessary changes. And Brad compares this to a nephew that was continually in and out of several drug rehabs people had sacrificed for him to go to for help and he still couldn't change. But with God's Grace he could but he needed to make the decision to accept it, atleast this is how I heard and interpeted it.

I hope that the LDS curriculum dept. may see fit to include more "Grace" into our lessons one day and even maybe more songs can be written to be put into our hymn books. Of course I'd love the hymn "Amazing Grace" to be put in. I could hear that all day. Okay maybe not, but I'd also love to hear the hymn "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" in church more often.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=come+thou+faount&mid=9DFF0BE7F394BE6A25F29DFF0BE7F394BE6A25F2&view=detail&FORM=VIRE1

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,

Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;

Streams of mercy, never ceasing,

Call for songs of loudest praise.

Teach me some melodious sonnet,

Sung by flaming tongues above.

Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,

Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,

Till released from flesh and sin,

Yet from what I do inherit,

Here Thy praises I’ll begin;

Here I raise my Ebenezer;

Here by Thy great help I’ve come;

And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,

Safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,

Wandering from the fold of God;

He, to rescue me from danger,

Interposed His precious blood;

How His kindness yet pursues me

Mortal tongue can never tell,

Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me

I cannot proclaim it well.

O to grace how great a debtor

Daily I’m constrained to be!

Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,

Bind my wandering heart to Thee.

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,

Prone to leave the God I love;

Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,

Seal it for Thy courts above.

O that day when freed from sinning,

I shall see Thy lovely face;

Clothed then in blood washed linen

How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;

Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,

Take my ransomed soul away;

Send thine angels now to carry

Me to realms of endless day.

[wenglund]

Wade to say "keeping a handful of commandments(faith + repentance + ordinances) and trying to keep the rest( all God's teachings) is the same as keeping the commandments (being obedient to all God has given) is the same, misses that one allows a lot of mistakes (while encouraging one towards eternal perfection) while the other sets a bar (perfection in the here and now)

One I can keep and the other I can not

I view the phrase "keep the commandments" in pragmatic and realistic sense, and not in an absolute and universal (i.e. fundamentalist) sense. As such, it is viable in the here and now, and thus there is no meaningful difference between "keeping the commandments" and "keeping the gospel."

If you view the phrase "keeping the commandments" in a fundamentalist sense, then that may explain our difference in opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

I view the phrase "keep the commandments" in pragmatic and realistic sense, and not in an absolute and universal (i.e. fundamentalist) sense. As such, it is viable in the here and now, and thus there is no meaningful difference between "keeping the commandments" and "keeping the gospel."

If you view the phrase "keeping the commandments" in a fundamentalist sense, then that may explain our difference in opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

agreed

Now my only other issue is there are 1000's if not tens of thousands who define it like me. They need Wilcox's view so they can begin to open to see the gospel in the right way so the discouragement and dispair dissipate.

Edited May 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[volgadon]

The problem with saying ultimate rewarding of a kingdom is based on our works places emphasis outwardly while God looketh on the heart and Helaman 3:35 - "Sactification" or changing to be like Christ comes by "yielding our heart to God". By focusing on the works we miss that While generally as our heart turns to God our works will reflect that, it makes it very easy for one to be discouraged when their "works" don't meet their "expectations of what God requires.

And here is one of the main issues that I have with the evangelical notion. It forces an artificial wedge between heart and hands, so to speak.

"An action has intrinsic meaning; its value to the world is independent of what it means to the person performing it. The act of giving food to a helpless child is meaningful regardless of whether or not the moral intention is present. God asks for the heart, and we must spell out our answer in terms of deeds."

- Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism, p. 157.

We can't divorce ourselves from our behaviour, placing a premium on inwardness. No man, after all, is an island, complete in and of itself, and our deeds- our works- are among the main ways in which we interact with the world around us, and respond to God's election of us into his covenant .

"It is in deeds that man becomes aware of what his life really is, of his power to harm and to hurt, to wreck and to ruin; of his ability to derive joy and to bestow it upon others; to relieve and to increase his own and other people's tensions. It is in the employment of his will, not in reflection, that he meets his own self as it is; not as he should like it to be. In his deeds man exposes his immanent as well as his suppressed desires, spelling even that which he cannot apprehend. What he may not dare to think, he often utters in deeds. The heart is revealed in the deeds.

The deed is the test, the trial, and the risk. What we perform may seem slight, but the aftermath is immense. An individual's misdeed can be the beginning of a nation's disaster. The sun goes down, but the deeds go on."

-Heschel, Between God and Man, p. 82.

[Calm]

One could point to a man who was paralyzed to the point of not being able to move or communicate, but still able to think and state that God could give that individual the highest rewards of his Kingdom based on what that man would do if given the opportunity...but if one is dealing with a person who can move and communicate, if they do not perform those actions, they do not have the true intent that is manifested by their action.

So one can talk in the abstract that only the heart matters, but when the hand is connected to the heart, if the hand doesn't move, it's because the heart is lacking....the hand is one with the heart iow.

Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

I love that chapter and verse. They're my favorite.

It does a body good when wrestling scriptures to destruction.

[teddyaware]

The problem with saying ultimate rewarding of a kingdom is based on our works places emphasis outwardly while God looketh on the heart and Helaman 3:35 - "Sactification" or changing to be like Christ comes by "yielding our heart to God". By focusing on the works we miss that While generally as our heart turns to God our works will reflect that, it makes it very easy for one to be discouraged when their "works" don't meet their "expectations of what God requires.

There are two very easy to understand verses from the Book of Mormon that should, once and for all, end the faith vs works controversy. So for the board's enlightenment and edification I post them...

"24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God." (Moroni 10)

It's so simple -- the works we are commanded to perform are works that are inspired by and made possible by the power and gifts of the Spirit of God. This means that the works that we perform as "our part" are works of God as well. Works that are not inspired or enabled by the power and gifts of God are "dead works." Therefore, faith without works is dead, and works performed without the power and gifts of God are dead as well. The Saviour understood this principle of indwelling spiritual power well, for he said:

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (John 14)

and again...

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15)

Again, understanding salvation by grace is very simple and easy to comprehend. All it means is that we receive forgiveness of sins through the atonement of Christ, and we receive the power to eschew sin and live a righteous life by the powers and gifts of God, also bestowed upon us through the atoning sacrifice, that's it. The grace of God is forgiveness and spiritual empowerment through the atonement of Christ.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

WE is the saviour and each of us? Talk about doing violence to the plain, or intended meaning of the text. I can't seem to make this work without ironically placing the Saviour outside of the same grace that he is supposed to be offering us!

[teddyaware]

WE is the saviour and each of us? Talk about doing violence to the plain, or intended meaning of the text. I can't seem to make this work without ironically placing the Saviour outside of the same grace that he is supposed to be offering us!

If you're responding to my post, please restate the above because I don't understand what it is you're trying trying to say.

[volgadon]

If you're responding to my post, please restate the above because I don't understand what it is you're trying trying to say.

If, if, if.

The reason why it doesn't make sense in relation to your post is because it isn't responding to your post.

[teddyaware]

If, if, if.

The reason why it doesn't make sense in relation to your post is because it isn't responding to your post.

Thanks! I thought I had entered the twilight zone.

[Tacenda]

If, if, if.

The reason why it doesn't make sense in relation to your post is because it isn't responding to your post.

Who's post, mine? Not that you care, (kidding).

[volgadon]

Who's post, mine? Not that you care, (kidding).

I've decided to have "I don't care" tattooed on my forehead.

[Tacenda]

I've decided to have "I don't care" tattooed on my forehead.

funny, btw if you don't answer about the post I'll feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. You can say it, because it looks similar to what I mentioned that Bro. Wilcox said, or is it all a coincidence? Edited May 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

funny, btw if you don't answer about the post I'll feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. You can say it, because it looks similar to what I mentioned that Bro. Wilcox said, or is it all a coincidence?

I seem to be sending a lot of people to the Twilight Zone recently, so perhaps I should start a tour agency.

At any rate, yes, you did mention what bro. Wilcox said and I can't at all square it with what the verse says.

[Tacenda]

I took it a lot less serious. I think he just means that the Saviour will be with us while doing what we need to be ready to receive His Grace. Meaning it isn't all our doing. Did you listen to the podcast? Maybe I heard it wrong.

[CV75]

1.) Is his view credible?

2.) Is this a fresh take on Grace? not that it is Doctrinal or not, but that it has never been explained in this way

3.) Is it Doctrinal?

4.) Is there a shift in the Church towards more emphasis on Grace and less on Works (not that the Doctrine has changed or is changing but our emphasis is)?

I think just about any inspired take on the subject is helpful, and different Church-sponsored talks emphasize different things and perspectives for various audiences (and all are generally valid). We need to take them in by the Spirit to get the individual message we need.

I think it is just as wrong to hail someone as a defender for a word for validating our own agenda as it is to make him an offender for a word for not validating it. So one’s take on how his thoughts represent the direction of the Church (or the message others should be getting) may actually reflect one’s own ambition for the Church and how others should see things.

In reading the article, I find his view credible and doctrinal, but not necessarily “fresh,” especially when tied to the key points listed at the end of the article, which represent a fairly common view. The piano idea is akin to Elder Packer’s mortgage parable, except in this case the mother paid for lessons the boy may not have wanted. But the “higher plane” idea was addressed in the Lord’s simile of the hen gathering her brood under her wings, and D&C 88 teaches about what and how much of it we are willing to receive.

Edited May 8, 2013 by CV75

[danielwoods]

And here is one of the main issues that I have with the evangelical notion. It forces an artificial wedge between heart and hands, so to speak.

"An action has intrinsic meaning; its value to the world is independent of what it means to the person performing it. The act of giving food to a helpless child is meaningful regardless of whether or not the moral intention is present. God asks for the heart, and we must spell out our answer in terms of deeds."

- Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism, p. 157.

We can't divorce ourselves from our behaviour, placing a premium on inwardness. No man, after all, is an island, complete in and of itself, and our deeds- our works- are among the main ways in which we interact with the world around us, and respond to God's election of us into his covenant .

"It is in deeds that man becomes aware of what his life really is, of his power to harm and to hurt, to wreck and to ruin; of his ability to derive joy and to bestow it upon others; to relieve and to increase his own and other people's tensions. It is in the employment of his will, not in reflection, that he meets his own self as it is; not as he should like it to be. In his deeds man exposes his immanent as well as his suppressed desires, spelling even that which he cannot apprehend. What he may not dare to think, he often utters in deeds. The heart is revealed in the deeds.

The deed is the test, the trial, and the risk. What we perform may seem slight, but the aftermath is immense. An individual's misdeed can be the beginning of a nation's disaster. The sun goes down, but the deeds go on."

-Heschel, Between God and Man, p. 82.

I think the evangelical notion focuses on the crux of the issue. What gets us reconnected to God, and by extension, heaven?

The statement that "we must spell out our answer in terms of deeds." is more likely a Jewish notion, as that statement is not replicated in the NT. The evangelical view is that the crux of the issue is relationship. 2 Cor.5:^{18 "}God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ..."

Our being reconciled or reconnected to God is the goal because that is what saves us, everything else, such as deeds and works, etc. are works the Spirit does through us, which are a result of our connection and relationship to God.

By way of analogy, we get married to our spouse, not because we want to be married for the sake of some law of marriage, but because we are in love. The marriage is the result of the love relationship that already exists. And further, we buy flowers, or what have you, not because we have to, but because we are compelled by our love, just as Paul stated in 2 Cor. 5:^{14 "}For Christ’s love compels us..." So, in the same way, our deeds are a natural result of Christ's love welling up inside us.

[volgadon]

I think the evangelical notion focuses on the crux of the issue. What gets us reconnected to God, and by extension, heaven?

The statement that "we must spell out our answer in terms of deeds." is more likely a Jewish notion, as that statement is not replicated in the NT. The evangelical view is that the crux of the issue is relationship. 2 Cor.5:^{18 "}God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ..."

Our being reconciled or reconnected to God is the goal because that is what saves us, everything else, such as deeds and works, etc. are works the Spirit does through us, which are a result of our connection and relationship to God.

By way of analogy, we get married to our spouse, not because we want to be married for the sake of some law of marriage, but because we are in love. The marriage is the result of the love relationship that already exists. And further, we buy flowers, or what have you, not because we have to, but because we are compelled by our love, just as Paul stated in 2 Cor. 5:^{14 "}For Christ’s love compels us..." So, in the same way, our deeds are a natural result of Christ's love welling up inside us.

A very famous Jew once asked a question about two brothers. One refused to do what his father asked, but later changed his mind, went and did it. The other said yes, but then did not go and do. Which son actually did what his father wanted?

I recommend this essay by a friend of mine and ocassional poster on this board. It looks into the New Testament understanding of grace. http://www.academia.edu/447879/Grace_and_Faith_in_History_and_Within_the_Context_of_Mormon_Soteriology