Jesus On Faith And Works

[freakin a man]

Salvation= Free gift to everyone, nothing is required

Exaltation = Working to become Christ-like

Salvation in what sense. If we are talking about going back to heaven then if it truely is a free gift to everyone with nothing required, even the atheists have received salvation. As even a requirement to have a mental belief in Jesus would be a requirement.

[Theophilus]

Salvation= Free gift to everyone, nothing is required

Exaltation = Working to become Christ-like

So if "nothing is required" for salvation, then why does the Bible continuously have teachings of this form?:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If "nothing is required", then why do the Scriptures repeatedly teach that "salvation" is dependent on "belief" (which LDS argue includes works!) ?

Theophilus

[cougarfan]

Since my post started the thread, I have a few comments.

First, I appreciate Theophillis's response. I am still trying to understand all of his beliefs, and I enjoy his well thought postings. Clearly, we don't agree on the issue of agency.

My personal belief is that we do not find salvation (in LDSdom "Eternal Life" or heaven with God the Father) all at once.

It is not through repeating the sinner's prayer that we find easy grace, but through repentance (which is based on our faith in the atonement) we find reconciliation. I don't believe that our agency is sufficient to make the changes required by repentance on our own. Becoming acceptable to God is both a process and a partnership. It is not all God nor all man. Fortunately, God allows us also to grow from grace to grace.

Faith or belief is not an all or nothing proposition. I believe that our faith grows as we use it. I do not believe the Lord learns of our faith by empty words. I think the Lord hears us through our actions. Matt. 25: 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. In this regard works are one way the Lord hears us speak.

Keep in mind that the two great commandments are the two great commandments. Upon them hang all the law and the prophets. This is specifically what the Lord told us to do. The Lord in other scriptures explained that believing on him brings eternal life, and that is because repentance and obedience are based upon faith. Faith is clearly required to honor the Lord. However a living growing faith requires works (per scripture). Some of this is chicken or egg stuff.

[Akboy]

Salvation= Free gift to everyone, nothing is required

Exaltation = Working to become Christ-like

Where do you see in the Bible that nothing is required for salvation? Theophilus listed many verses that made it clear that belief is required.

One passage that he didn't post was Matt. 25:31-46, but multiple people posted it to refute him. If nothing was required for salvation, then why does V. 46 say some will go everlasting punishment (which brings up another question because LDS doctrine teaches a temporary hell, but that's for another thread). The people that go to punishment here are not described as those who had the fullness of the light, but then refused it. It doesn't even describe them as murderers or adulterers. It just says they didn't help the needy. The Bible clearly teaches people go to everlasting punishment, even those who never heard of the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying helping the needy is required for salvation. Like Theophilus has quoted, We are saved by faith alone. However, faith that saves is never alone. True, saving faith will produce works, not the other way around.

[Theophilus]

One passage that he didn't post was Matt. 25:31-46, but multiple people posted it to refute him.

Apparently you didn't even read my initial post.

I did post that passage, and addressed it.

(Why do people insist on responding to posts they haven't even read?)

Theophilius

[Zeta-Flux]

Salvation= Free gift to everyone, nothing is required

Exaltation = Working to become Christ-like

So if "nothing is required" for salvation, then why does the Bible continuously have teachings of this form?:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

If "nothing is required", then why do the Scriptures repeatedly teach that "salvation" is dependent on "belief" (which LDS argue includes works!) ?

Theophilus

Theophlilus,

The answer to your questions is in the post directly before yours by freakin a man.

By the way, why do you read Rom. 10:9 as causative rather than correlative? In other words, what principle do you use to figure this out from context? In other words, what part of the context of Rom. 10:9 leads you to think it is causative, and what part of the context of Matt. 25 makes it correlative?

[Akboy]

It is not through repeating the sinner's prayer that we find easy grace, but through repentance (which is based on our faith in the atonement) we find reconciliation.

We are not talking about praying one prayer and being done. Reconciliation is through repentance. The difference is that LDS teach you need to keep working for the rest of your life, yet the Bible doesn't teach that. True repentance and faith will naturally produce works. That way our works will be completely out of love and devotion (a healthy relationship) and not out of obligation and requirement (a dry, constrained relationship).

[Theophilus]

If "nothing is required", then why do the Scriptures repeatedly teach that "salvation" is dependent on "belief" (which LDS argue includes works!) ?

Theophilus

The answer to your questions is in the post directly before yours by freakin a man.

Um, no, it isn't.

By the way, why do you read Rom. 10:9 as causative rather than correlative?  In other words, what principle do you use to figure this out from context?  In other words, what part of the context of Rom. 10:9 leads you to think it is causative, and what part of the context of Matt. 25 makes it correlative?

You have to take the context of the entire Bible.

There is only one way the entire Bible is consistent with itself.

Neither of the passages you cite explicitly show "causation". They are both descriptive (not "prescriptive") passages, and so it is an error to read them prescriptively, as if they asserted some "cause-and-effect".

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

If "nothing is required", then why do the Scriptures repeatedly teach that "salvation" is dependent on "belief" (which LDS argue includes works!) ?

Theophilus

The answer to your questions is in the post directly before yours by freakin a man.

Um, no, it isn't.

LOL! Okay, okay, okay, okay. I'll be a little more explicit.

mnm727 is talking about salvation from death. Everyone will be resurrected, free gift. Freakin a man pointed out that mnm727 was using salvation in a different "sense" than others were previously. (Note, I pointed out that this is a common problem in dialogue, when salvation is used in many different senses.)

[Theophilus]

mnm727 is talking about salvation from death.  Everyone will be resurrected, free gift.

Resurrection is no "gift", by any stretch of the imagination.

I would far rather die into "non-existence" than to have the <cough> "gift" of resurrection, only to spend eternity in outer darkness.

Knowing that's not how we understand "salvation", you are engaging in equivocation by trying to convince us with such argumentation.

So why does one need to "believe" in order to be resurrected?

(Maybe you should go back to not responding to me... just a thought...)

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

You have to take the context of the entire Bible.

Thank you for responding. I'm not entirely sure anyone is able to do what you suggest. But, be that as it may, let me try and rephrase my sincere question once more.

As evidenced by many posts recently, many read Matt. 25 as saying that works are required to be classified as Christ's sheep. Many of these same people have read the entire Bible. Many of these same people are honestly trying to come at the intent of what was written. So, my question, put in even more other words is: What context from the entire Bible would you point out to them showing that this interpretation is wrong? Do you believe that the true meaning of Matt. 25 is not spelled out from the local context? Would you cite scriptures you felt were incompatible with these other interpretations of Matt. 25? If so, how would you deal with the problem of infinite regress of differing opinions (i.e. what if their interpretations of these new scriptures still differed with yours, ad infinitum)? Are there other methods you'd use, besides citing other scriptures, to try and get around this problem?

Thanks.

[Theophilus]

As evidenced by many posts recently, many read Matt. 25 as saying that works are required to be classified as Christ's sheep.

... despite the fact that the word, "required", isn't even in that passage.

And I have noted in the past that God's truth isn't determined by the majority opinion of "many people".

  Many of these same people have read the entire Bible. 

And many of these same people have an external authority (eg. the LDS church), and other authorities (eg. D&C, BoM), which will alter their interpretation of the Bible.

Many of these same people are honestly trying to come at the intent of what was written.

I don't doubt anyone's sincerity.

So, my question, put in even more other words is: What context from the entire Bible would you point out to them showing that this interpretation is wrong?

For the umpteenth time, Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-5, 9:11-16, 11:5-6, John 3:15-18, 5:24, etc. etc. etc.

Are there other methods you'd use, besides citing other scriptures, to try and get around this problem?

Identify and don't allow external sources (such as LDS doctrines) to influence Biblical interpretation.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

mnm727 is talking about salvation from death.

[livy111us]

Quick question. If salvation by grace alone, where was this doctrine for 1500 years? It wasn't taught until Luther and his cohorts. Either the Catholic Church has it right, or there was an apostasy. Why would God keep the way to salvation hidden for centuries?

[Akboy]

We Mormons believe that the word "salvation" can be used in different contexts.  In the context of being saved by death, one doesn't need to believe.  In the context of one entering the covenant with Christ, or of being born again by the Spirit, one does need to believe.

Matt 25

41 "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; . . .

46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Rev. 20:14 calls this the second death. Again, the people described in that passage don't even come close to the description of the sons of perdition in LDS doctrine. These people will go through the second death. There are multiple verses that say salvation is for everyone, but they don't say God will save everyone. The LDS double meaning of salvation is simply not found in the Bible, therefore it's accursed (Gal. 1:6-.

[Zeta-Flux]

As evidenced by many posts recently, many read Matt. 25 as saying that works are required to be classified as Christ's sheep.

... despite the fact that the word, "required", isn't even in that passage.

And I have noted in the past that God's truth isn't determined by the majority opinion of "many people".

[Theophilus]

Quick question. If salvation by grace alone, where was this doctrine for 1500 years?

In the Bible, where it's always been.

It wasn't taught until Luther and his cohorts.

That's simply not true.

Read some of Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings.

Or some of St. Paul's epistles, for that matter.

Or simply the teachings of Jesus, as I've already cited (John 3:15-18, 5:24, 6:40, etc. etc.)

Either the Catholic Church has it right, or there was an apostasy.

That's what's called a "false dichotomy".

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

We Mormons believe that the word "salvation" can be used in different contexts.

[Akboy]

LOL! You sure know how to write so as to "stir the blood" so to speak!

Anyway, I'm not sure you really want an answer to your question, but since you asked I might as well reply. My first post on this thread brought up the fact that Joseph Smith taught that eternal life and salvation are not the same thing. Eternal life is the culmination and highest reward to the righteous in the plan of salvation. You might enjoy reading all the scriptures I posted on the subject.

Best regards,

Zeta-Flux

Let me get this straight. You don't agree with my interpretation because it contradicts with scripture you have. Based on that criteria, shouldn't I reject Joseph Smith and all LDS doctrine? All you did was mention what taught, not how it agrees with the Bible. Bringing up Joseph Smith's teachings as the main proof for your point doesn't support it, actually it reveals a major flaw in your point. The Bible came first. JS needs to agree with the it. Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet.

[cougarfan]

Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet.

First, I believe that JS in in fact someone who agreed with the KJV 99% of the time. While some of his teachings may seem to contradict the Bible, they are a drop in the bucket compared to how the Bible contradicts itself.

Second, the belief that the Bible is correct inerrant and complete does not appear to me to be justified by either history or its own teachings.

Third, I don't believe anyone can argue a testimony of JS either pro or con. I believe one must reject or accept him as a prophet based on a spiritual witness or lack thereof.

Fourth, the accounts of my ancestors who were there and were educated thoughtful successful men and women who knew the prophet personally bear strong testimony of his character and divine calling.

I thoroughly respect your right to your opinion, but in this case resting your judgement as described in your argument seems superfluous.

[Zeta-Flux]

LOL!  You sure know how to write so as to "stir the blood" so to speak!

Anyway, I'm not sure you really want an answer to your question, but since you asked I might as well reply.  My first post on this thread brought up the fact that Joseph Smith taught that eternal life and salvation are not the same thing.  Eternal life is the culmination and highest reward to the righteous in the plan of salvation.  You might enjoy reading all the scriptures I posted on the subject.

Best regards,

Zeta-Flux

Let me get this straight. You don't agree with my interpretation because it contradicts with scripture you have. Based on that criteria, shouldn't I reject Joseph Smith and all LDS doctrine? All you did was mention what taught, not how it agrees with the Bible. Bringing up Joseph Smith's teachings as the main proof for your point doesn't support it, actually it reveals a major flaw in your point. The Bible came first. JS needs to agree with the it. Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet.

LOL! There you go again, trying to start a fight right off the bat.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what your interpretation was, other than that you believed these verses spoke of the second death. I'm not sure if that is right or not, to tell the truth. You might be right. Sounds like a good interpretation to me at this point.

I also wasn't sure whether or not you'd even disagree with what I wrote. But, now that you have, I understand your position a little better. You said: "Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet." I personally don't think this is a wise idea. A much better idea, in my opinion, to detect a possible false prophet is by his works. Are they good, or are they bad. But anyway, does the idea that being saved from death (i.e. the resurrection) and receiving eternal life are different contradict the bible? If not, then that answers your question. Note, both of these things are called "salvation" in different contexts.

[Akboy]

Second, the belief that the Bible is correct inerrant and complete does not appear to me to be justified by either history or its own teachings.

I actually just started a thread on this topic about an hour ago. It's called "Unbroken scripture" and, as of now, it's still on the first page.

Third, I don't believe anyone can argue a testimony of JS either pro or con. I believe one must reject or accept him as a prophet based on a spiritual witness or lack thereof.

So we're supposed to rely on our feelings even if they contradict scripture? Matt. 25:41, 46 mean something. What is it?

LOL! There you go again, trying to start a fight right off the bat.

What, just because I say I think JS was a false prophet, that means I'm starting a fight? I may not beat around the bushes in what I say, but I'm not looking for a fight. Like my sig says, I'm more interested in the truth than just a conversation of what we each believe.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what your interpretation was, other than that you believed these verses spoke of the second death. I'm not sure if that is right or not, to tell the truth. You might be right. Sounds like a good interpretation to me at this point.

That's part of it. You claimed that even people who don't believe at all will be saved from death. Matt. 25:41, 46 contradict that. Not only will they die a second time, but they will also be punished for eternity with Satan, which contradicts two more LDS doctrine (temporary hell and sons of perdition).

You said: "Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet." I personally don't think this is a wise idea. A much better idea, in my opinion, to detect a possible false prophet is by his works. Are they good, or are they bad.

So, as long as I have good works, I can preach what ever doctrine I want? Many religions have people in them who do lots of good works. Are they all correct?

But anyway, does the idea that being saved from death (i.e. the resurrection) and receiving eternal life are different contradict the bible? If not, then that answers your question. Note, both of these things are called "salvation" in different contexts.

Being saved from (second) death is not the same as resurrestion. Revelation teaches that everyone will be resurrected from the first death, but that's not salvation. What is raising someone from the dead saving them from? After the resurrection is the second death. What verse says that resurrection is salvation?

[livy111us]

Quick question. If salvation by grace alone, where was this doctrine for 1500 years?

In the Bible, where it's always been.

Way to dodge the question.

There were only a handful of times, by only a few people who embraced this doctrine (Augustine is not one of them). If salvation was received this way, it should have been taught continually throughout time. You cannot support salvation by grace through the ages, because, it didn't exist, and accepted fully, until Luther

[Theophilus]

In the Bible, where it's always been.

Way to dodge the question.

I see...

So for you, "dodge" means "you have answered".

Good to know.

(The possibility of misunderstanding you is great, based on how most others use that term.)

There were only a handful of times, by only a few people who embraced this doctrine

How do you allegedly know this?

(Augustine is not one of them).

So all of his anti-Pelagian writings are just forgeries, I suppose?

If salvation was received this way, it should have been taught continually throughout time.

Yeah, well, humans have this tendency to sin.

You cannot support salvation by grace through the ages, because, it didn't exist, and accepted fully, until Luther

Apparently you are unwilling to accept any view other than the above.

So be it.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

LOL! There you go again, trying to start a fight right off the bat.

What, just because I say I think JS was a false prophet, that means I'm starting a fight? I may not beat around the bushes in what I say, but I'm not looking for a fight. Like my sig says, I'm more interested in the truth than just a conversation of what we each believe.

To be honest, I wasn't sure what your interpretation was, other than that you believed these verses spoke of the second death. I'm not sure if that is right or not, to tell the truth. You might be right. Sounds like a good interpretation to me at this point.

That's part of it. You claimed that even people who don't believe at all will be saved from death. Matt. 25:41, 46 contradict that. Not only will they die a second time, but they will also be punished for eternity with Satan, which contradicts two more LDS doctrine (temporary hell and sons of perdition).

You said: "Until you can show me where/how JS teachings on double salvation don't contradict the Bible, I have to reject him as a false prophet." I personally don't think this is a wise idea. A much better idea, in my opinion, to detect a possible false prophet is by his works. Are they good, or are they bad.

So, as long as I have good works, I can preach what ever doctrine I want? Many religions have people in them who do lots of good works. Are they all correct?

But anyway, does the idea that being saved from death (i.e. the resurrection) and receiving eternal life are different contradict the bible? If not, then that answers your question. Note, both of these things are called "salvation" in different contexts.

Being saved from (second) death is not the same as resurrestion. Revelation teaches that everyone will be resurrected from the first death, but that's not salvation. What is raising someone from the dead saving them from? After the resurrection is the second death. What verse says that resurrection is salvation?

My comment about fight-starting was meant tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if that didn't go through my keyboard.

Let me ask some clarifying questions. Do you believe all people (good and bad) are resurrected? Do you believe that resurrected bodies can die physical deaths? Do you believe that being saved (even if only temporarily) from the effects of Adam's fall can be termed a salvation?