Jesus On Faith And Works

[Hammer]

QUOTE (Zeta-flux)

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.

Akboy: 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?

Akboy, according to the scriptures: Matt. 7: 16-20 this is true.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth agood fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good afruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

[Theophilus]

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

Vocal intonation and body language don't make it through text very well at all.

That's why in such venues we need to bend over backwards to give others the benefit of the doubt, especially in forums such as this one.

(Not directed specifically at you, it's good advice for everyone.)

Let me ask some clarifying questions.  Do you believe all people (good and bad) are resurrected?

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, [...] there is none good but one, that is, God.

Yes, all people (bad and bad) are resurrected.

Do you believe that being saved (even if only temporarily) from the effects of Adam's fall can be termed a salvation?

It's a loaded question, since you did in fact refer to it as "being saved" in your question.

Theophilus

[livy111us]

Actually by dodge, I mean avoiding the question completely, which you seem to have done. Way to go. If you define answered as dodging, you have completed your task.

Tell me, can salvation by grace alone be found in Church history from Ignatius to now? I would love to see you actually answer me this time, that would be great.

[Theophilus]

Actually by dodge, I mean avoiding the question completely, which you seem to have done. Way to go. If you define answered as dodging, you have completed your task.

Tell me, can salvation by grace alone be found in Church history from Ignatius to now? I would love to see you actually answer me this time, that would be great.

Who's the one "dodging"?!

I've pointed out Augustine twice to you now. (This will be the third time.)

What was I writing in, invisible ink?!

And apparently all of Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings are summarily dismissed (forgeries?! never existed?! figments of my imagination, perhaps?!) by you, just because you want to gainsay, "Augustine didn't".

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

My comment about fight-starting was meant tongue-in-cheek.

[Theophilus]

By the way, I like your new avatar. Who is he?

LOL!

It's still Spurgeon... <g>

Theophilus

[livy111us]

Theopholis,

You are hilarious!!! You are the perfect candidate for throwing out red herrings. Let's go over this again, I'll go slowly this time so you MIGHT (but doubtfully) will understand.

I asked you in my very FIRST post to provide evidence of salvation by grace ALONE (something Augustine didn't believe, the alone part that is) being taught by the Church from the time of Christ to Luther. So far you provided ONE man, who, when looked at all his teachings, not just his anti-Pelagian writings, does not believe that you are saved by grace ALONE. I would love to see you convince a Catholic otherwise.

The burden of proof is on you. I asked, numerous times now, for you to show evidence that grace alone was taught throughout time. Now, unless Augustine lived to be 1500 years old, you will need to come up with some other examples.

Good luck!

[cougarfan]

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?

This is such a common response by non-LDS. A spiritual witness is not an internally generated "feeling". For LDS we come to recognize the HG as he witnesses to us.

I already addressed the fact that the Bible contradicts itself over and over (hence some of our better threads).

Matt. 25:41, 46? See you in hell

[cougarfan]

I asked, numerous times now, for you to show evidence that grace alone was taught throughout time.

The doctrine of easy grace as some EVCs teach, appears to be a relatively new concept which has evolved during the past 125 years (about when the EVC movement began). As recently as 25 years ago, a Baptist sermon was likely to contain a lot of hell fire and brimstone. Guilt seems to have evaporated, while the televangelists have grown wealthy.

[revelation]

Tell me, can salvation by grace alone be found in Church history from Ignatius to now?

Yes and there is evidence from God himself and he doesn't lie.

Isaiah 55:11 "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

Mathew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

[urroner]

Tell me, can salvation by grace alone be found in Church history from Ignatius to now?

Yes and there is evidence from God himself and he doesn't lie.

Isaiah 55:11 "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

Mathew 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

Is that from God or is that your interpretation of what you think He said?

[livy111us]

How bout some documented evidence. Your interpretation of scripture doesn't do me much good.

[revelation]

Is that from God or is that your interpretation of what you think He said?

That is from God, I don't interpret God's word, I allow scripture to interpret Scripture.

The verses are very clear that the gates of Hades will not overcome it and God's word always achieves it purpose.

The Bible never supports a "complete" apostasy

Grace alone is the doctrine the Bible teaches.

God's will always prevails

Man cannot thwart the purposes of God

[urroner]

Is that from God or is that your interpretation of what you think He said?

That is from God, I don't interpret God's word, I allow scripture to interpret Scripture.

The verses are very clear that the gates of Hades will not overcome it and God's word always achieves it purpose.

The Bible never supports a "complete" apostasy

Grace alone is the doctrine the Bible teaches.

God's will always prevails

Man cannot thwart the purposes of God

So, everything you believe about God and Jesus are from their lips to your ears and is totally right. Gotcha.

None of it went through the understanding of some human like a preacher, a parent, a neighbor. In fact, your understanding of God is static since it can't grow or change. Gotcha.

What do you mean by "complete apostasy" anyway.

[revelation]

So, everything you believe about God and Jesus are from their lips to your ears and is totally right. Gotcha.

If everything I say doesn't contradict scripture. The burden of proof is in everyone else's hands to show me scripture that says I am wrong. Then I will change my mind.

None of it went through the understanding of some human like a preacher, a parent, a neighbor. In fact, your understanding of God is static since it can't grow or change. Gotcha.

Yes and no. I listen to everyone who wants to put forth an interpretation of scripture. God wants us to remain teachable and open to learning, yet we study his word daily to see if what people are saying is true or not. My understanding can grow but only the word of God will get me there.

What do you mean by "complete apostasy" anyway

A complete apostasy is something the LDS believes in. They believe the whole church on earth was apostate and that is why Joseph Smith was called to restore the gospel.

[urroner]

A complete apostasy is something the LDS believes in. They believe the whole church on earth was apostate and that is why Joseph Smith was called to restore the gospel.

Well, we don't believe that the whole gospel was taken from the Earth, so apparently you are wrong there.

[revelation]

Well, we don't believe that the whole gospel was taken from the Earth, so apparently you are wrong there.

I said "restore" the gospel, apparently you are wrong there.

A gospel that needs restoring isn't a true gospel otherwise it wouldn't need restoring.

Supported by scripture and the words of prophets, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches unequivocally that there was an apostasy from the Lord

[urroner]

Well, we don't believe that the whole gospel was taken from the Earth, so apparently you are wrong there.

I said "restore" the gospel, apparently you are wrong there.

A gospel that needs restoring isn't a true gospel otherwise it wouldn't need restoring.

Supported by scripture and the words of prophets, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches unequivocally that there was an apostasy from the Lord

[livy111us]

Revelation,

You seem to have looked past my post. Please present me with evidence of salvation by grace alone through the centuries. If this was the true way to salvation, it should be easy to find.

So, either do this, or admit that there was at least a portion of apostasy. We will work on the other principles later.

[rhinomelon]

I asked you in my very FIRST post to provide evidence of salvation by grace ALONE (something Augustine didn't believe, the alone part that is) being taught by the Church from the time of Christ to Luther.

Actually, I would disagree with you here. Augustine's writings were cited quite a bit by the Reformers, mostly Calvin and Luther, in support of salvation by grace alone. Granted, Augustine framed the issue a bit differently, but the basic framework is the same. Augustine was a staunch defender of the doctrine of original sin, which outright states that we can contribute nothing to our salvation; it is entirely through God's grace. Now where some people get confused is the fact that Augustine also speaks of works by which the saved person cooperates with God's grace. But what is often neglected is the fact that Augustine spoke of these works themselves as completely by God's grace. In other words, whatever works we bring to the table of our salvation are not of our ability or volition, but also of God's grace. So in the end, for Augustine, salvation is only through God's grace from first to last, albeit applied in different ways in the life of the believer.

For some quotes from the early church fathers:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a84.htm

I realize that these don't give much context, but at least it can show that the idea of salvation apart from our works was definitely not absent in church history.

Take care, everyone

[consiglieri]

Yes very good  a true biblical perspective

Yes, it is a very good Biblical perspective; as long as we focus only on the middle of John chapter 3, and ignore the early verses of the same chapter which state being "born of water" (a work) is required for admission into the kingdom of God; and as long as we ignore the later verses in the same chapter which talk about how "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Even EV Christians' favorite chapter in the Bible is loaded with works-charged words such as "doeth," and "deeds." One must first "do truth" in order to "come to the light."

John chapter three is a mine-field of "works" passages that the EV Christian must carefully negotiate in order to support a belief in salvation without works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

"I'm the fly in the ointment; the monkey in the wrench."

[consiglieri]

Is that from God or is that your interpretation of what you think He said?

That is from God, I don't interpret God's word, I allow scripture to interpret Scripture.

The verses are very clear that the gates of Hades will not overcome it and God's word always achieves it purpose.

The Bible never supports a "complete" apostasy

Grace alone is the doctrine the Bible teaches.

God's will always prevails

Man cannot thwart the purposes of God

Dear revelation,

As gently and respectfully as I possibly can, I would suggest you are in error that you do not interpret the scriptures. One can draw no meaning from the scriptures (or anything else) without reading them; and reading itself is the process of interpreting.

The Bible doesn't support a "complete" apostasy? Really? I thought the Bible taught that God gave power to Satan to make war against the saints, and to overcome them. Sounds pretty complete to me. But perhaps you can tell me the correct understanding of this passage without the need of interpreting it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

. . . and, by the way, since it answers the issue regarding unbreakable scriptures so well, allow me to draw attention to the quotable statement from alpha which I made a part of my signature line:

THE ONLY SCRIPTURES THAT CAN'T BE BROKEN ARE THE ONES THAT YOU AGREE WITH.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[simply_disappear]

Very thorough. Thank you and all who have contributed to this and the other thread about salvation.

[TOmNossor]

I asked you in my very FIRST post to provide evidence of salvation by grace ALONE (something Augustine didn't believe, the alone part that is) being taught by the Church from the time of Christ to Luther.

Actually, I would disagree with you here. Augustine's writings were cited quite a bit by the Reformers, mostly Calvin and Luther, in support of salvation by grace alone. Granted, Augustine framed the issue a bit differently, but the basic framework is the same. Augustine was a staunch defender of the doctrine of original sin, which outright states that we can contribute nothing to our salvation; it is entirely through God's grace. Now where some people get confused is the fact that Augustine also speaks of works by which the saved person cooperates with God's grace. But what is often neglected is the fact that Augustine spoke of these works themselves as completely by God's grace. In other words, whatever works we bring to the table of our salvation are not of our ability or volition, but also of God's grace. So in the end, for Augustine, salvation is only through God's grace from first to last, albeit applied in different ways in the life of the believer.

For some quotes from the early church fathers:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a84.htm

I realize that these don't give much context, but at least it can show that the idea of salvation apart from our works was definitely not absent in church history.

Take care, everyone

Rhinomelon,

It seems to me that a number of Protestant scholars have acknowledged that the idea of Sanctification and Justification are two separate events was a creation of the Reformation. Before the Reformation the transformation of the sinner into the saint was part of the Sanctification/Justification process which included good works. That being said Catholics and Arminians and Calvinists have been battling about what the Bible says for a long time but a new day may be dawning. (Concerning your ECF quotes I would say that they have been pulled out of context generally, Clement of Rome continues here are the sentences immediately following your