Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Notions of Grace, Works, the Law, and Faith in the New Testament


Recommended Posts

I don't want to derail Five Solas' thread, so I'll continue the conversation here.

My position: A proper understanding of Faith, Grace, Works, and the Atonement are properly rooted in understanding the Culture and Language in which they were first described by the New Testament. Specifically, these concepts are rooted in an understanding of Greco-Roman patronage systems, gift economies, divine favour, and their interplay with Jewish Torah laws and rites. Paul did not seek to derail the place of righteous and pious living in the New Testament, and in fact advocated a kinship/patronage system with God out of loving obedience, submission, and action enabled by divine favour, otherwise known as grace.

Such notions were translated properly into the King James Version of the Bible, which predated the rise of Cartesian though and Enlightenment rationality. The connotations regarding faith and belief were accurately reflected in the scripture. Human interpretation thereof became muddled by the rise of empirical agnosticism combined with a premium on human thought. Faith and belief this became more associated with concepts of intellectual assent and agreement, and when combined with Protestant beliefs regarding the salvatory nature of Faith resulted in the common notion the a declaration of belief in Jesus as the Son of God was sufficient for salvation. This notion is incorrect and contrary to scripture.

---------

 

FormerLDS' position (as far as I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong): Faith and belief are rooted in humanity's intellectual and spiritual agreement with the truth of Jesus' divinity, saving death, and atoning grace. Human deeds have no place in salvation. This idea has been communicated accurately throughout history since the authorship of the Bible, and is the correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the age and language of the translation.

---------

Ground rules:

- Accusations of bias from either side have to be backed up with evidence showing so

- Neither side will seek to conclusively speak for the other.

- CFR's are acceptable

- Any particular translation of scripture may be utilized. Translations may be called into question, but never denied.

Thoughts? Please, feel free to comment. And Former, I'm seriously looking forward to this. I have no wish to get personal, or create a place of contention, but hope that in opposition we can better understand the Bible, and what it teahes us regarding Christ and his Salvation that he offers.

Link to comment

Though quite popular and long-lived, I think we need to put aside Hellenistic usage on "faith," and focus on the ancient Hebrew context:

When examining various possible etymologies for the personal name Ammon in the Book of Mormon, I took a look at the Phoenician and Hebrew name ʼāmôn “Firm, Faithful, True” (Jeremiah 52:15; Song of Songs 7:2), PN of a king of Judah (2 Kings 21:18-19).[1]   Michael Fox suggests that it takes the form of an infinitive absolute in Proverbs 8:30a, ʼĀmôn, indicating that “Lady Wisdom is declaring that while God was busy creating the world, she was [his faithful disciple], growing up like a child in his care.”[2].  Compare the play on words at Alma 18:2,10, “faithfulness of Ammon,” and 1 Samuel 22:14 “so faithful” (neʼeman).[3]

Grant Hardy says that  AMormon organizes his material to provide a rational, evidentiary basis for faith,@ but Athen . . . Moroni comes to reject that model of belief.@[4] 

In law a deal is sometimes spoken of as consisting of an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration.  However, just because you make a free offer doesn't mean that I accept it.  So, is faith required to accept the free gift of grace?  And is faith a "work"?  Is it a Aconsideration@?

 If so, how should we parse II Nephi 25:23?

            . . . be reconciled unto God;

for we know that it is by grace we are saved,

after all we can do.

II Nephi 10:24,

. . . reconcile yourselves to the will of God,

and not to the will of the devil and the flesh;

after ye are reconciled unto God and remember,

that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.

Alma 24:11, 

. . . all that we could do. . . it has been

to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed,

and to get God to take them away from our hearts,

sufficiently before God all we could do to repent for it was

that he would take away our stain . . . .

Should we follow Stephen Robinson here in his suggestion that Aafter@ is a preposition of separation, suggesting that we are saved by grace Aapart@ from all we can do, while at the same time requiring that we be faithful to the covenant.[5]  Or do we understand it according to Brant Gardner's suggestion that the "after all we can do" refers to centuries of observance of the Law of Moses, i,.e., "after" being sequential in time, with the Law of Moses being the type which looks forward to the antitype which fulfills the Law.[6]

[1] Y. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in NW Semitic, 66; cf. BDB 52-53 ʾommān (Songs 7:2).

[2] M. Fox, “ʾAmon Again,” JBL 115/4 (Winter 1996):702.

[3] M. Bowen, “’According to My Faith Which is in Me’: The Covenant Dimension of Faithfulness in Nephi’s Writings,” SMPT Conference lecture, October 10, 2015, at BYU, Provo, Utah.

[4] Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon, 28.

[5] Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News (Deseret Book, 1992), 91-92(91, “regardless of all we can do”); cf. Robert Millet, After All We Can Do . . . Grace Works (Deseret Book, 2001); both cited by Spencer, An Other Testament, 94-95.

[6] Spencer, An Other Testament, 94‑95, citing Brant Gardner, Second Witness, I:343-344.

 

 

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment

Thanks Robert, your contribution to the discussion is absolutely welcomed.

Admitantly, my focus is more on the Hellenistic and even the Greco-Jewish understanding of faith and grace, with a specific emphasis on the New Testament. That's mostly to do with my background though.

Any help from the Hebrew side of things is appreciated and should help further this along. Hopefully I can help synthesize the two worldviews with the view on grace in 2nd Temple Judaism. From what I've been researching, the notion that it was a "graceless" collection of religious associations is rapidly being dropped, and that Paul's own emphasis on grace was inherited from his own instruction by figures like Gamaliel and his "zealousness" shifting from the Law to Christ.

Link to comment

Halconero,

When I study this subject, I will oftentimes substitute the words "faithful" or "faithfulness" for faith. I believe these words comprise belief, loyalty, obedience, among others. They carry a weightier meaning, at least as far as our modern English is concerned. As i read the words of Paul, John, James, etc, it feels to me that this is what they meant. Is this too simplistic?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, halconero said:

FormerLDS' position (as far as I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong): Faith and belief are rooted in humanity's intellectual and spiritual agreement with the truth of Jesus' divinity, saving death, and atoning grace. Human deeds have no place in salvation. This idea has been communicated accurately throughout history since the authorship of the Bible, and is the correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the age and language of the translation.

FormerLDS can correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but where you say "no place in salvation", I think the actual argument is "no place in justification". Protestants view justification as a singular event. That singular event being, when faith in Jesus Christ is professed. Catholics view that event as "initial justification", which occurs at baptism, and begins a lifelong process of growing in righteousness (Sanctification). Justification and Sanctification, are for Catholics and Mormons, essentially the same thing. Justification is a process, rather than a one-time event. Justification and Sanctification is that process. For Protestants, Justification is the one time event, and Sanctification is separate from Justification.

I think Catholics and Protestants can agree that justification is defined as a "translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." (Council of Trent)

I don't know if LDS agree with this definition, so perhaps defining what Justification is and is not, in LDS belief, would be a good starting point.

Edited by saemo
Link to comment

    From my understanding the greek words underlying the word "Faith"  in the anchient middle east had some 25 definitianal meanings 10 of which were/are allegience/commitment/confidence/devotion/discipleship/faithfulness/fidelity/loyalty/obedience/trust all are of which covenent words of marraige. When we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord of Life/Lord/Redeemer/Savior/God/King/Master you enter a covenant spiritual marraige to him.

    As to the True Salvation/Soteriological form/model as found in The Holy Bible it is a client/patron rescue. For a comparison a # of years ago I was broadsided by a semi truck at 70 mph while I was working, was in a coma 6 weeks, came out of my coma and was provded services to rehabilitate me to where I am today. My responsibility from after I recovered is to give honor/thanks to there services they provided me which extends to how I live my life today in relation to my family/friends/co workers. I labor to stay in Jesus Christ Atoneing Blood Sacrifice on my behalf [Walk In The Light ], and yes I fall and stumble but get up by Jesus Christ Grace [Repent] and move forward. Not to work for my True Salvation but to covenant to stay in True Salvation and to give True Honor and glory to him who Saved/Redeemed me.  Salvation is Absolutly Free 2 Nephi 2:4 but it costs you your very life Luke 14:25-35

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

          In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                         Anakin7

Link to comment
9 hours ago, saemo said:

FormerLDS can correct me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but where you say "no place in salvation", I think the actual argument is "no place in justification". Protestants view justification as a singular event. That singular event being, when faith in Jesus Christ is professed. Catholics view that event as "initial justification", which occurs at baptism, and begins a lifelong process of growing in righteousness (Sanctification). Justification and Sanctification, are for Catholics and Mormons, essentially the same thing. Justification is a process, rather than a one-time event. Justification and Sanctification is that process. For Protestants, Justification is the one time event, and Sanctification is separate from Justification.

I think Catholics and Protestants can agree that justification is defined as a "translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." (Council of Trent)

I don't know if LDS agree with this definition, so perhaps defining what Justification is and is not, in LDS belief, would be a good starting point.

That's kind of how LDS view it.

LDS view justification as a singular event (something that happens the moment that a person enters into a covenant with Christ by having faith in Him, repenting of sins, and being baptized), but probably similar to Catholics, LDS believe that a person can lose that justification if they leave the covenant.  If they stop having faith in Christ, if they stop repenting and trying to follow Him, then  they are no longer justified.  So, it's singular but also an ongoing process.  

Sanctification is also ongoing. Justification declares us innocent and sanctification helps us to become like Christ.

Elder Christofferson says it like this-"If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin."

Link to comment

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll offer a minor observation here. There was no dichotomy between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, all were Hellenised, and responses to Hellenistic culture should be seen as part of a continuum, with attitudes varying regardless of geography.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, volgadon said:

I don't have a lot of time, but I'll offer a minor observation here. There was no dichotomy between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, all were Hellenised, and responses to Hellenistic culture should be seen as part of a continuum, with attitudes varying regardless of geography.

Exactly. While notions of covenant and grace were present in pre-Alexandrian scriptural texts, attempting to divest Hellenism and Hebraic understands of grace is producing a dichotomy which didn't exist.

Heck, even Maccabees, a story about Jewish rebellions against Hellenistic occupiers is rooted in Hellenistic literary motifs and genres.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, filovirus said:

Halconero,

When I study this subject, I will oftentimes substitute the words "faithful" or "faithfulness" for faith. I believe these words comprise belief, loyalty, obedience, among others. They carry a weightier meaning, at least as far as our modern English is concerned. As i read the words of Paul, John, James, etc, it feels to me that this is what they meant. Is this too simplistic?

It an awesome start. I'll post more tonight if I get my laptop back. My resources are primarily contained there, and I hate typing on a tablet.

A good basis for understanding is the Greco-Roman patronage system. Pistis, the word used to describe faith and belief in God, is a common way of describe the relationship between patron and supplicant:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    From my understanding the greek words underlying the word "Faith"  in the anchient middle east had some 25 definitianal meanings 10 of which were/are allegience/commitment/confidence/devotion/discipleship/faithfulness/fidelity/loyalty/obedience/trust all are of which covenent words of marraige. When we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord of Life/Lord/Redeemer/Savior/God/King/Master you enter a covenant spiritual marraige to him.

    As to the True Salvation/Soteriological form/model as found in The Holy Bible it is a client/patron rescue. For a comparison a # of years ago I was broadsided by a semi truck at 70 mph while I was working, was in a coma 6 weeks, came out of my coma and was provded services to rehabilitate me to where I am today. My responsibility from after I recovered is to give honor/thanks to there services they provided me which extends to how I live my life today in relation to my family/friends/co workers. I labor to stay in Jesus Christ Atoneing Blood Sacrifice on my behalf [Walk In The Light ], and yes I fall and stumble but get up by Jesus Christ Grace [Repent] and move forward. Not to work for my True Salvation but to covenant to stay in True Salvation and to give True Honor and glory to him who Saved/Redeemed me.  Salvation is Absolutly Free 2 Nephi 2:4 but it costs you your very life Luke 14:25-35

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

          In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                         Anakin7

halconero would you agree with my post above ?.

Link to comment

When I read Paul and his usage of the term 'faith', I hear him urging to some sort of dynamic, behavior, and action-based life, religion, and relationship with God.  He is precisely warning against a token-based purification--that the law said that you did [such ritual] and thus were clean.  Paul is saying--it's just not that simple.  We have to live our cleanliness, or rather our becoming clean over time.

Link to comment

I gave a lesson in Gospel Principles this last Sunday on the gifts of the Spirit. The manual mentions that to access the gifts one must be faithful. We discussed for a bit on what would the characteristics of a faithful dog be. Some of the characteristics included: obedience, loyalty, protective but not aggressive, trainable, loving, good with people, a true friend.

This applies equally to justification. When we are "faithful" to God and our covenants with Him, I picture the previous characteristics all rolled into one idea: faithfulness. I've heard time and time again people say Mormons believe they are saved by works. This isn't true.

We do works, but we are saved through the atonement (grace) by faith (faithfulness). John put it best in Revelations 14:12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, bluebell said:
13 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's kind of how LDS view it.

LDS view justification as a singular event (something that happens the moment that a person enters into a covenant with Christ by having faith in Him, repenting of sins, and being baptized), but probably similar to Catholics, LDS believe that a person can lose that justification if they leave the covenant.  If they stop having faith in Christ, if they stop repenting and trying to follow Him, then  they are no longer justified.  So, it's singular but also an ongoing process.  

Sanctification is also ongoing. Justification declares us innocent and sanctification helps us to become like Christ.

Elder Christofferson says it like this-"If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin."

That's kind of how LDS view it.

LDS view justification as a singular event (something that happens the moment that a person enters into a covenant with Christ by having faith in Him, repenting of sins, and being baptized), but probably similar to Catholics, LDS believe that a person can lose that justification if they leave the covenant.  If they stop having faith in Christ, if they stop repenting and trying to follow Him, then  they are no longer justified.  So, it's singular but also an ongoing process.  

Sanctification is also ongoing. Justification declares us innocent and sanctification helps us to become like Christ.

Elder Christofferson says it like this-"If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin."

With all due respect, bluebell, LDS have little notion or view of the Biblical doctrine of "Justification."  You can do a word search on lds.org and the top result dates back to 2001.  For all practical purposes, that word simply isn't in the LDS lexicon.  It's not taught, it's not understood, and I'm pretty sure that word doesn't have any theological connotation to the overwhelming majority of LDS. 

Of course, it means a lot to us Protestants (and for what it's worth, it meant a lot to the Apostle Paul too).  But LDS simply don't talk about it (certainly not in General Conference). 

And one last thought/question.  The part bolded above: LDS (for the most part, myself at the time included) baptized at age 8.  You think that "something" happens each time to 8-year olds?  Seems awfully optimistic on your part, no? 

--Erik

Link to comment
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

With all due respect, bluebell, LDS have little notion or view of the Biblical doctrine of "Justification."  You can do a word search on lds.org and the top result dates back to 2001.  For all practical purposes, that word simply isn't in the LDS lexicon.  It's not taught, it's not understood, and I'm pretty sure that word doesn't have any theological connotation to the overwhelming majority of LDS. 

Of course, it means a lot to us Protestants (and for what it's worth, it meant a lot to the Apostle Paul too).  But LDS simply don't talk about it (certainly not in General Conference). 

And one last thought/question.  The part bolded above: LDS (for the most part, myself at the time included) baptized at age 8.  You think that "something" happens each time to 8-year olds?  Seems awfully optimistic on your part, no? 

--Erik

I think you're searching for the wrong words. Try "justice", " mercy", and "atonement". You will find the concept is fervently taught. For all intents and purposes, substitute the word " grace" for "atonement". You're so caught up in the lexicon that you fail to see what's right in front of your face. A deeper and truer understanding of faith, grace, and justification. By accepting Christ through baptism, we are beholden to Him instead of the Law because the Law doesn't save, it just condemns. God does not expect perfection or to live the Law perfectly, He just expects a willingness to be faithful (saved by faith).

And yes, I do believe an 8 year old can be " willing" to take upon him Christ's name, "willing" to always remember Him, and "willing" to keep his commandments.

Edited by filovirus
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, filovirus said:

I think you're searching for the wrong words. Try "justice", " mercy", and "atonement". You will find the concept is fervently taught. For all intents and purposes, substitute ...

No, I'm pretty sure I got the right word, filovirus.  Romans 4:25, 5:16, 5:18...

--Erik

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right.  And of these "6000 hits" - cite one that gives a workable definition (i.e., with specific reference to the New Testament usage) of the word from, say the last 5 years.

;0)

--Erik

Link to comment

"

We may not live perfect lives, and there are penalties for our mistakes, but before we came to earth, we agreed to be subject to His laws and to accept the punishment for violating those laws.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23–24).

The Savior wrought the Atonement, which provides a way for us to become clean. Jesus Christ is the resurrected Christ. We worship and recognize Him for the pain He suffered for us collectively and for the pain He endured for each of us individually, both in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. He bore all with great humility and with an eternal understanding of His divine role and purpose.

Those who will repent and forsake sin will find that His merciful arm is outstretched still. Those who listen to and heed His words and the words of His chosen servants will find peace and understanding even in the midst of great heartache and sorrow. The result of His sacrifice is to free us from the effects of sin, that all may have guilt erased and feel hope.

Had He not accomplished the Atonement, there would be no redemption. It would be a difficult world to live in if we could never be forgiven for our mistakes, if we could never purify ourselves and move on." - Boyd K. Packer, 2014 General Conference

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Right.  And of these "6000 hits" - cite one that gives a workable definition (i.e., with specific reference to the New Testament usage) of the word from, say the last 5 years.

;0)

--Erik

So do you discount scriptures because they aren't written in the last five years?

You do understand that these manuals are in current use?

Link to comment

I've been having this same discussion with a good friend of mine. He runs the "Leaving Mormonism for Christ" organization. Here is a response I gave to him a few days ago:

Justification - Being made perfect. Sinless. Spotless.

So how does one sin? In order for one to sin, there must first be a law. Romans 3:20. I am sure we differ on what the Law entails. Ultimately it comes down to "Love they Lord thy God" and "Love thy Neighbor" Matthew 22:37-40. In the restored Gospel of Christ, we have Laws to help us understand how to incorporate those two great commandments into our lives. Ie Law of Chastity, Law of Tithing, Law of the Fast, Law of the Sabbath. We make covenants between us and God that we are "willing" to live these laws. This is similar to Christ giving us these two great commandments, and then explaining that they encompass the other other commandments.

Sin then is breaking the law that Christ has given, and even one sin will keep us from salvation 1 John 3:4. Even one sin makes us imperfect. James 2:10. If we live a perfect Christ-like life except for one small instance where we tell a little white lie, we are still considered imperfect and fall short.

The Pharisees had a misconception of the law. They believed that if they obeyed the law perfectly, they would obtain salvation. What they didn't understand was that there is no salvation in the Law. Galations 2:16. Their heart was not set to glorify God, it was set to try and live the Law perfectly. This is the ultimate form of hypocrisy, and Jesus condemned it. Matthew 23:13-33

I gave an example previously of a man paying his tithing perfectly, but for the wrong reasons. According to the law, he is doing it correctly. But because he does it for the wrong reasons, it is as if he weren't paying it at all. There is no salvation in the Law. Yet we are still expected to live the law (obedience to the will of God).

So we all sin and come short of the Glory of God. Justice demands a punishment for those sins. There are only two ways to be justified before God. Either live a perfect, Christ-like life free from sin, or receive a punishment for our sins. Living perfectly, or a punishment.

Let me quote Joseph Smith:
"We believe that man will be punished for their own sins" This is one of the LDS articles of faith, which is a list of LDS beliefs.

The good news is that Christ, because He, the Son of Man and the only one who could live a perfect life, atoned for our sins. This is grace. He takes our punishment upon himself. By him taking away our sins, we are now "justified" (spotless, sinless). But notice we are made perfect only through Christ, only through his grace, and not by the Law (works).

When we accept Christ into our lives (in the restored Gospel we do this by means of faith and make a covenant to follow him through baptism) we promise that we are "willing" to keep his commandments. In this act we are "justified" before God. We repent and give our sins to Christ, and he makes us perfect. Were we not commanded to be perfect? Matthew 5:48.

Does that mean we don't sin? In no means of the imagination. But we are justified in our "willingness" to live how Christ directs. That is the reason the Publican, who was still a sinner, was justified whereas the Pharisee was not. Luke 18:10-14. The Publican had a "willingness" to give his sins to Christ in exchange for trying to live a better, more Christ-like life. 

Now if we don't give up our sins to Christ (repentance), we will be justified before God through punishment. Eternal damnation.

And so it is by the Grace (atonement) of God that we are saved, lest any man boast of himself. Ephesians 2:8-9.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Five Solas said:

With all due respect, bluebell, LDS have little notion or view of the Biblical doctrine of "Justification."  You can do a word search on lds.org and the top result dates back to 2001.  For all practical purposes, that word simply isn't in the LDS lexicon.  It's not taught, it's not understood, and I'm pretty sure that word doesn't have any theological connotation to the overwhelming majority of LDS. 

--Erik

With all due respect, you don't really know what you are talking about. :)

The top talk date backs to 2001.  Many of the other results on that page are from lesson manuals, one of which was taught in Sunday school this very year.

Quote

And one last thought/question.  The part bolded above: LDS (for the most part, myself at the time included) baptized at age 8.  You think that "something" happens each time to 8-year olds?  Seems awfully optimistic on your part, no? 

Do i think it's optimistic that 8 year olds can be justified?  No, not at all.  I have no doubt that 8 year olds are very capable of having faith in Jesus and in repenting and in wanting to follow Christ. Were you not capable of that when you were 8?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...