Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Doctrine 612

The gift of grace

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

I hope some Evangelicals chime in and we can discuss grace and works, as I don't know that that's been discussed here before ūüėú

I think the problem with what Evangelicals are saying and what we are saying, lies in the different definitions of what being saved means. If being saved in the Telestial Kingdom, which is a glory of God, and is still considered Heaven, then yes you can do just as the Evangelicals say, You can just call on Jesus and then turn around and commit all kinds of mayhem, and still end up saved.

On the other hand, if we actually want to live in God's presence, in the Celestial Kingdom, we are in need of a little bit more. Obeying commandments and doing righteous works helps us to become more like our Father in Heaven, in thoughts and in actions. This is what will prepare us to be able to withstand His presence, in His full glory. These actions won't earn us anything, they will only prepare us to be with Him again. The only way we get to be with Him again is with our great Mediator and Savior presenting us as worthy to be in His presence. No amount of keeping commandments without that grace will gain us entry into even the lowest of the kingdoms. Doing our works is merely the best expression of love that we have to offer back in return for that grace.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I hope some Evangelicals chime in and we can discuss grace and works, as I don't know that that's been discussed here before ūüėú

     Yes it has endlessly !.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine.

Washing My Garment/Robe

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I hope some Evangelicals chime in and we can discuss grace and works, as I don't know that that's been discussed here before ūüėú

:snort:

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I hope some Evangelicals chime in and we can discuss grace and works, as I don't know that that's been discussed here before ūüėú

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am one that has a hard time with this talk.  Not because Pres. Uchtdorf said anything wrong, but because I think it led to a more evangelical mindset among some members who don't understand grace/works, or how eternal law affects both.  I actually really liked the talk, but people jumped all over it on both sides of the debate so I'm not sure it answered much.

As for that quote - "you can't buy salvation with the currency of obedience", that's not entirely true.  But yet it is absolutely true.
See the problem?

Please, NOOOOO!

The role of obedience is one I've been mulling over the past week. I find that the Wikipedia entry on the New Perspective on Paul puts it best for me:

"For in the perspective of Luther and Calvin, God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works, while in the "new" perspective God graciously empowers individuals to the faith and good works, which lead to salvation." Funnily enough the new perspective is one which seeks to understand Paul's original perspective.

So the course and Atonement of the Lord become one eternal round. They graciously endow us with faith to which we can submit. Our submission is our choice, yet is strengthened by Christ as we accept it, and moves us to repent. Repentance is powered by grace, yet can still be arduous and require effort on our part. Obedience to law and ordinances is necessary, yet those ordinances are made effective by Christ and our ability to obey them and repent if we don't is made possible by him. In the words of a Catholic theologian, we are in effect, participating in the "dance of Grace" wherein we give grace to God, in return for even more grace.

So, as you said, we don't buy grace with obedience. We buy that which requires no coin. Yet we must give up all to receive all. The doctrine of the Gospel is at once beautiful in its surface level contradictions and in its simple, reconciling, sensicle, complexities.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, waveslider said:



On the other hand, if we actually want to live in God's presence, in the Celestial Kingdom, we are in need of a little bit more. Obeying commandments and doing righteous works helps us to become more like our Father in Heaven, in thoughts and in actions. This is what will prepare us to be able to withstand His presence, in His full glory.

These actions won't earn us anything, they will only prepare us to be with Him again. The only way we get to be with Him again is with our great Mediator and Savior presenting us as worthy to be in His presence. No amount of keeping commandments without that grace will gain us entry into even the lowest of the kingdoms. Doing our works is merely the best expression of love that we have to offer back in return for that grace.

 

I think you are countering your own argument.

Somehow, even though many LDS will work very hard, in the end, I think there will be a "Workers in the Vineyard" thing going on. (Matthew 20:1-16)

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

 

I think you are countering your own argument.

Somehow, even though many LDS will work very hard, in the end, I think there will be a "Workers in the Vineyard" thing going on. (Matthew 20:1-16)

 

I have no doubt that there will be a workers in the vineyard sort of thing going on. The thing about that parable is that they all worked while there was still some time to work, none of them didn't work at all. This parable only highlights the fact that it isn't the amount of work done, but rather the type of work done, that earns the pay. The Savior gives all workers the same gift for working. As for those who complained didn't understand just how personal that gift is, and instead of realizing that they are getting a good thing, they instead compare themselves with others who had their own personal gift. This makes it so that they didn't even grasp why they were working in the first place.

The following is the wages of our work in the vineyard. No matter how long, or short, we labor we still learn these valuable lessons, as long as we actually labor :

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

Obeying commandments and doing righteous works helps us to become more like our Father in Heaven, in thoughts and in actions.

The following is the grace we receive by merely getting hired, Not everyone was chosen to work in this parable so it is a gift to be given the opportunity to work:

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

The only way we get to be with Him again is with our great Mediator and Savior presenting us as worthy to be in His presence.

Doing our labors doesn't earn us this, and if we fail to grasp the following concept we will be the ones complaining about those who didn't have to work as long.

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

No amount of keeping commandments without that grace will gain us entry into even the lowest of the kingdoms

If we understand the following than we will end up being fulfilled in a much better way, regardless of how long we labored with this attitude. I'm quite certain the owner of the vineyard would appreciate this type of laborer over the complainers, who wanted more than what they both agreed upon was fair in the first place.

17 hours ago, waveslider said:

Doing our works is merely the best expression of love that we have to offer back in return for that grace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/1/2016 at 11:10 PM, Calm said:

:snort:

With such a warm-hearted invitation as that - I guess some poor, slob EV ought to step up & engage the topic...

;0)

A former bishop (the last one I had in the YSA program, actually) explained his idea of grace to me this way:  Grace affords the opportunity to be with [the LDS] Heavenly Father.   And we should be grateful to [the LDS] Jesus, because this opportunity comes from his atonement.  But after that, it's up to the individual and his/her exercise of "agency."  So from my perspective, when Uchtdorf writes, "the gate is unlocked"--he more/less means the same thing as my former bishop.  

But it's a weird thing, because the very meaning of grace is "unmerited favor."  And so, as LDS would have it, a person receives unmerited favor in order to merit their salvation "by obedience" (3rd article of faith).  Those without merit, merit.  That doesn't make much sense, does it?  One could easily conclude LDS soteriology isn't about grace at all, that what we have in Uchtdorf's address is just some awkward window-dressing (for whatever purpose he has). 

Personally, I think he would have been a good deal more credible to have named it karma.  Certainly less opportunity for confusion.

--Erik 

Share this post


Link to post

    Hebrews 5:9.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garments/Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin

 

Edited by Anakin7

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

But it's a weird thing, because the very meaning of grace is "unmerited favor." 

--Erik 

The problem is that this definition of grace has be thoroughly debunked using the New Testament.

 

(If in doubt, just go back and refresh your memory of this thread.)

 

I suggest that Evangelicals correct their false definition of grace and then come and have a meaningful discussion with us.

Edited by Vance

Share this post


Link to post
On September 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Calm said:

Or they could both be built on the long term discussion on grace in the scriptures and teachings of the Church.

 I could agree if we had a history of teaching grace that way. But we don't. It is what made Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet and Brad Wilcox unique was that their idea of Grace was very different from the correlated teaching on Grace.  Pres Uchtdorf is the first general authority to really pick up on this concept and it is apparent he gets much of his formulation from Wilcox. Pres Uchtdorf is the first general authority to really pick up on this concept and it is apparent he gets much of his formulation from Wilcox

Edited by DBMormon

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Vance said:

The problem is that this definition of grace has be thoroughly debunked using the New Testament.

...

I suggest that Evangelicals correct their false definition of grace and then come and have a meaningful discussion with us.

Grace means unmerited favor, Vance.  You can look it up on Google, "(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings."  You can look it up on dictionary.com, "Theology. a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God."  No thread on this forum is going to change the meaning of grace within the context of Christian theology. 

;0)

But here's a question with perhaps a bit more use: As DBMormon suggests above, certain LDS have been acknowledging the common usage of the word grace in their work (he cites several above).  Do you see Uchtdorf moving away from what DBMormon calls "correlated teaching" and into the common understanding and usage of grace?  I personally don't, but interested in what you (and others) think.     

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/1/2016 at 9:00 PM, waveslider said:

No amount of keeping commandments without that grace will gain us entry into even the lowest of the kingdoms. 

I was going to take exception to that point, but upon reflection, realize that it is correct. We cannot inherit any of the kingdoms without a body.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Grace means unmerited favor, Vance.  You can look it up on Google, "(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings."  You can look it up on dictionary.com, "Theology. a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God."  No thread on this forum is going to change the meaning of grace within the context of Christian theology. 

;0)

But here's a question with perhaps a bit more use: As DBMormon suggests above, certain LDS have been acknowledging the common usage of the word grace in their work (he cites several above).  Do you see Uchtdorf moving away from what DBMormon calls "correlated teaching" and into the common understanding and usage of grace?  I personally don't, but interested in what you (and others) think.     

--Erik

That has always been my understanding of the term grace. There is nothing any mortal man can do, no good works in the service of our fellow man that can pay for even one sin (my understanding). If we labor all of our days serving the Lord we will yet be "unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21). The grace of Jesus Christ is unmerited by any of us and it happened because of the love God the Father and the love of Jesus Christ.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

...

That has always been my understanding of the term grace. There is nothing any mortal man can do, no good works in the service of our fellow man that can pay for even one sin (my understanding). If we labor all of our days serving the Lord we will yet be "unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21). The grace of Jesus Christ is unmerited by any of us and it happened because of the love God the Father and the love of Jesus Christ.

Glenn

Obviously Vance understands grace very differently and calls "unmerited favor" a "false definition."  Do you think most LDS would agree with you, or do you think most would agree with Vance?  

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question--I genuinely don't know and would appreciate your opinion, Glenn.   

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Grace means unmerited favor, Vance.  You can look it up on Google, "(in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings."  You can look it up on dictionary.com, "Theology. a. the freely given, unmerited favor and love of God."  No thread on this forum is going to change the meaning of grace within the context of Christian theology. 

;0)

But here's a question with perhaps a bit more use: As DBMormon suggests above, certain LDS have been acknowledging the common usage of the word grace in their work (he cites several above).  Do you see Uchtdorf moving away from what DBMormon calls "correlated teaching" and into the common understanding and usage of grace?  I personally don't, but interested in what you (and others) think.     

--Erik

Your definition, (written by evangelicals) is false.  It is false because it would render this verse totally meaningless.

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

How can you receive an unmerited gift in exchange for an unmerited gift? The answer is you can't.

From Strong's Bible concordance, we get this,

Cognate: 5485 x√°ris (another feminine noun from xar-, "favor, disposed to, inclined, favorable towards, leaning towards to share benefit") ‚Äď properly, grace. 5485 (x√°ris) is preeminently used of the Lord's favor ‚Äď freely extended to give Himself away to people (because He is "always leaning toward them").

5485 /x√°ris ("grace") answers directly to the Hebrew (OT) term 2580 /Kan√° ("grace, extension-toward"). Both refer to God freely extending Himself (His favor, grace), reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (be near) them.

[5485 (x√°ris) is sometimes rendered "thanks" but the core-idea is "favor, grace" ("extension towards").]

http://biblehub.com/greek/5485.htm

YES, grace is a gift.  But to limit it to being an "UNmerited" gift only is to present false doctrine.  THUS your definition is FALSE.

 

Plus we have this,

Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Here, "grace and apostleship" was "received" "for obedience to the faith.  So again your definition is rendered false.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Obviously Vance understands grace very differently and calls "unmerited favor" a "false definition."  Do you think most LDS would agree with you, or do you think most would agree with Vance?  

I don't mean this as a rhetorical question--I genuinely don't know and would appreciate your opinion, Glenn.   

--Erik

I do not really know. As I have read posts by LDS on this board and blogs here and there, there does not seem to be a consensus on the understanding the doctrine of grace, and quite a few other things as well. There are scriptures that can be quoted that would seem to support both sides of the debate, as Vance has already demonstrated. I am comfortable with my understanding.

 I don't know that a precise understanding of that expect of the gospel is required for salvation. I do believe that most if not all LDS believe that without the grace of Christ, as embodied by the Atonement, that all mankind would be doomed.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
Additional comments

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 I could agree if we had a history of teaching grace that way. But we don't. It is what made Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet and Brad Wilcox unique was that their idea of Grace was very different from the correlated teaching on Grace.  Pres Uchtdorf is the first general authority to really pick up on this concept and it is apparent he gets much of his formulation from Wilcox. Pres Uchtdorf is the first general authority to really pick up on this concept and it is apparent he gets much of his formulation from Wilcox

And where do you think Brad Wilcox got it from?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Vance said:

Your definition, (written by evangelicals) is false. 

...

Out of respect for the OP author's intent--I won't turn this thread into a rehash of the one you linked from last year.  Feel free to take it up with Glenn101, should he wish to debate your definition with you. 

To keep things on topic, I'll ask again, do you think Uchtdorf's address moves away from what DBMormon called "correlated teaching" and towards the common meaning/usage (which you reject) as acknowledged by Robinson, et al? 

Your opinion, please.  Yes or no?

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post

From Bro. Wilcox's talk...besides many scripture references that I am certain Pres. Uchtdorf is familiar with, Wilcox also quotes:

Quote

 

Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written, ‚ÄúThe great Mediator asks for our repentance¬†not¬†because we must ‚Äėrepay‚Äô him in exchange for his paying our debt to justice, but because repentance initiates a developmental process that, with the Savior‚Äôs help, leads us along the path to a saintly character‚ÄĚ (The Broken Heart¬†[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 149; emphasis in original).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said, referring to President Spencer W. Kimball‚Äôs explanation, ‚ÄúThe repenting sinner must suffer for his sins, but this suffering has a different purpose than punishment or payment. Its purpose is¬†change‚ÄĚ (The Lord‚Äôs Way¬†[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991], 223; emphasis in original). Let‚Äôs put that in terms of our analogy: The child must practice the piano, but this practice has a different purpose than punishment or payment. Its purpose is change....

Elder Bruce C. Hafen has written, ‚ÄúThe Savior‚Äôs gift of grace to us is not necessarily limited in time to ‚Äėafter‚Äô all we can do. We may receive his grace before, during and after the time when we expend our own efforts‚ÄĚ (The Broken Heart[Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989], 155). So grace is not a booster engine that kicks in once our fuel supply is exhausted. Rather, it is our constant energy source. It is not the light at the end of the tunnel but the light that moves us through the tunnel. Grace is not achieved somewhere down the road. It is received right here and right now. It is not a finishing touch; it is the Finisher‚Äôs touch (see Hebrews 12:2)....

Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said the following:

Now may I speak . . . to those buffeted by false insecurity, who, though laboring devotedly in the Kingdom, have recurring feelings of falling forever short. . . .

. . . This feeling of inadequacy is . . . normal. There is no way the Church can honestly describe where we must yet go and what we must yet do without creating a sense of immense distance. . . .

. . . This is a gospel of grand expectations, but God‚Äôs grace is sufficient for each of us.¬†[CR, October 1976, 14, 16; ‚ÄúNotwithstanding My Weakness,‚Ä̬†Ensign,¬†November 1976, 12, 14]

 

And if you went into their talks, who would you find they were quoting?

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not really know. As I have read posts by LDS on this board and blogs here and there, there does not seem to be a consensus on the understanding the doctrine of grace...

Appreciate the candid reply, Glenn.  Obviously grace matters hugely to Christians and is a primary doctrine by any account (it's one of the Solas, per my user name/alias).  But it isn't terribly important for LDS.  LDS are welcome to have radically opposing views/definitions when it comes to understanding this term.  As we've demonstrated right here on the thread--you're comfortable with the common definition of grace as "unmerited favor" while your fellow LDS, Vance, considers this a "false definition," "written by evangelicals."  We'd have to work hard to find deeper disagreement on this forum!

Perhaps the main takeaway from this thread is that Utchdorf's words don't really matter (whatever he may have intended by them) to most LDS.  Tempest in a teacup...

;0)

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the candid reply, Glenn.  Obviously grace matters hugely to Christians and is a primary doctrine by any account (it's one of the Solas, per my user name/alias).  But it isn't terribly important for LDS.  LDS are welcome to have radically opposing views/definitions when it comes to understanding this term.  As we've demonstrated right here on the thread--you're comfortable with the common definition of grace as "unmerited favor" while your fellow LDS, Vance, considers this a "false definition," "written by evangelicals."  We'd have to work hard to find deeper disagreement on this forum!

Perhaps the main takeaway from this thread is that Utchdorf's words don't really matter (whatever he may have intended by them) to most LDS.  Tempest in a teacup...

;0)

--Erik

Edited by boblloyd91

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the candid reply, Glenn.  Obviously grace matters hugely to Christians and is a primary doctrine by any account (it's one of the Solas, per my user name/alias).  But it isn't terribly important for LDS.  LDS are welcome to have radically opposing views/definitions when it comes to understanding this term.  As we've demonstrated right here on the thread--you're comfortable with the common definition of grace as "unmerited favor" while your fellow LDS, Vance, considers this a "false definition," "written by evangelicals."  We'd have to work hard to find deeper disagreement on this forum!

Perhaps the main takeaway from this thread is that Utchdorf's words don't really matter (whatever he may have intended by them) to most LDS.  Tempest in a teacup...

;0)

--Erik

It sounds to me like you're making blanket statements about the entire membership of the church because on the surface it looks like Vance and Glenn101 don't see grace in the exact same way. Then you make another statement that no one takes   President Uchtdorf's words seriously. I'm not sure what your intentions are by saying these things but it's naive to assume an entire group of people think in a certain way, based on the various replies of a message board.

Not to speak for Vance, but I'm assuming that he referenced that thread to address the debate we were having about the relationship between grace and obedience. Again I won't speak for Vance or Glenn101, but I doubt the disagreement is as deep as you're making it. If they wish to correct me I will be more then happy to take this back. I'm sure Vance, who past interactions have shown is familiar with the New Testament, does not believe he can save himself and understands the need for A Savior, as do I and other Latter Day Saints on this board as well. 

What I find extremely offensive is your statement that Grace isn't important to the LDS. How dare you assume this? I get as a Calvinist you disagree with our views, but I find it mind boggling you claim to know our hearts and minds and spiritual experiences. One of the most powerful stories of grace I have ever read was by an LDS man named Gerald Curtis, who wrote about his experience with sexual addiction and how he learned to rely on the Savior to overcome this and depend on the Savior's power.

In my own life I've talked to people who've had among other things addiction, sexual abuse, chronic illness, and other things that have caused them to rely on the Atonement. They are active LDS who have had tangible experiences with Christ's grace. I myself believe that I have had experiences with the Savior that have shaped who I am and how I see the world.  Like I said it is both hurtful and deeply offensive to tell me that I don't care about Christ's grace. I hope that wasn't your intention, if it wasn't please be more careful about generalizing your opinions to everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

...

How dare you...

Dan Dare, Bob.  Yes, you'll thank me should you pull the trigger, as this is truly great stuff!  And no, I haven't made any "blanket statements" and/or "generalized [my] opinions to everyone."  I submit that if anyone was hurt and/or offended--he/she was laboring to find such. 

As for Uchtdorf's words, I think the divergence of LDS views manifest on this thread concerning grace says all that needs be said.  And do you think any of this really matters to the LDS rank & file?  I can't prove it--but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed if you answer with anything other than, "meh."

;0)

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Dan Dare, Bob.  Yes, you'll thank me should you pull the trigger, as this is truly great stuff!  And no, I haven't made any "blanket statements" and/or "generalized [my] opinions to everyone."  I submit that if anyone was hurt and/or offended--he/she was laboring to find such. 

As for Uchtdorf's words, I think the divergence of LDS views manifest on this thread concerning grace says all that needs be said.  And do you think any of this really matters to the LDS rank & file?  I can't prove it--but I'm pretty sure you'll be disappointed if you answer with anything other than, "meh."

;0)

--Erik

Again, I can't figure out how you can omnisciently gauge the hearts and minds of LDS folks...

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Again, I can't figure out how you can omnisciently gauge the hearts and minds of LDS folks...

 Easy, I don't.

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...