Jesus On Faith And Works

[revelation]

So you must be Catholic.

Protestant

Please present me with evidence of salvation by grace alone through the centuries

Faith is evidence of things not seen. Elijah thought in his day that he was the only true believer left. There was no outward evidence that their were any other believer's faithful to God. 1 Kings 19:10 "I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too." But God showed him that there were still true believers and 7,000 to be exact, but Elijah couldn't find evidence of that. " 18 Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel

[Akboy]

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?

Are you refering to Rev. 13? Chapter 5 describes 1/3 of all mankind being killed by fire and smoke and brimstone. That hasn't happened yet. Only two verses before the one you quoted, it says authority was given to the beast for 42 months, not centuries. You're taking a passage way out of context. As revelation said, the Bible doesn't support a complete apostasy. It does support a faithful God who never leaves us and stays with us to the end of the age.

[ED500]

One of the great truths restored by the prophet Joseph Smith is that there is a difference between salvation and eternal life.  Salvation from death and Adam's fall is made universal by the atonement of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, we are still judged by our works, and only those who do works worthy of a celestial inheritance will receive such.

Why do you say "...great truths restored..."??????

[urroner]

One of the great truths restored by the prophet Joseph Smith is that there is a difference between salvation and eternal life.  Salvation from death and Adam's fall is made universal by the atonement of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, we are still judged by our works, and only those who do works worthy of a celestial inheritance will receive such.

Why do you say "...great truths restored..."??????

Because God restored more than one great truth through Joseph Smith, to it's "great truths" and not "great truth."

[livy111us]

Only two verses before the one you quoted, it says authority was given to the beast for 42 months, not centuries. You're taking a passage way out of context.

Just as a day was a representation for a year in Numbers 14:34, and Ezekiel 4:6. You must remember that Revelations has many symbols, and not everything should be taken literally.

In Amos 8:11-12, it says there will be a famine of the hearing of the Lord. Dan. 7:21 This speaks of a symbolic horn, who will

[revelation]

You refer to Amos 8:11-12, Dan 7:21-25, Rev 13 to support the belief of a great apostasy in which truth is missing from the church on earth.

All three references, when studied within the context and in comparing with other scriptures, show that they are not referring to a great apostasy in which truth needs restoring at all.

The Basics of correct interpretation (although there may be more once we begin and are familiar with using the basics)

First - Scripture can never contradict scripture. . If how we interpret one specific passage contradicts another passage, then we have interpreted it incorrectly.

Second - Context is vital as well in understanding and interpreting scripture. The context will shed light on the intended meaning.

Third

[Pahoran]

As Charles H. Spurgeon once said:

The law is for the self-righteous, to humble their pride:

[revelation]

Evidently the Calvinist gospel is only for the lost elect. To the lost non-elect, it can only compound their despair

Don't know what Theophilus would say, but I agree with you on this one even though I am protestant.

God wants all men to be saved : 1 Timothy 2:4 "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Calvin's doctrine is in contradiction to this very clear passage. But this is a topic for another thread.

[rhinomelon]

Evidently the Calvinist gospel is only for the lost elect. To the lost non-elect, it can only compound their despair.

Not being of a Calvinist bent myself, I can really only guess what Theophilus would have to say, but here's my guess. If a person is truly an elect, then the gospel is the best news ever. If the person is not an elect, then they really wouldn't care either way. A person who truly despairs of their sin and of ever having a right relationship with God is probably an elect, because otherwise they wouldn't give a snit about the whole deal. As Theophilus said (I think) on another thread, God doesn't turn people away who seek after Him, wherever they are found. To go further, it is the fact that these people do seek after God that marks them as elect.

I also think the above comment assumes that we can know for sure who is elect and who is not, which is obviously only God's domain that we can't know.

Just my thoughts. Theophilus is more than welcome to rescue his beliefs from my mangling

Take care, everyone

[Theophilus]

Evidently the Calvinist gospel is only for the lost elect. To the lost non-elect, it can only compound their despair

Don't know what Theophilus would say, but I agree with you on this one even though I am protestant.

That's no surprise, as most Protestants are Arminian in soteriology.

God wants all men to be saved : 1 Timothy 2:4 "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

I certainly agree.

And there is no problem with that verse and Reformed theology.

Now, what Paul meant by "all men", certainly needs some discussion.

(Translation: I don't feel constrained to blindly accept your interpretation.)

Calvin's doctrine is in contradiction to this very clear passage. But this is a topic for another thread.

Well, please allow me to point out that this verse has come up for consideration wrt Reformed theology, and there has been plenty of time to consider the meaning.

And rather than calling this a "very clear passage" (!?), I would instead suggest that your interpretation (if by "all men", you interpret it as "all individuals, on an individually"), is over-simplistic, and not really looking like you have considered the context of the entire chapter.

For consideration of a more thoughtful view, you might want to read howCalvin himself addressed this passage.

There are passages which reject the Arminian view (John 17:9, Matt. 13:11-15, etc.), so passages must be studied in the context, and not just by glancing at a phrase and assuming a particular meaning.

You are free to disagree with the Reformed view, it just doesn't seem charitable to summarily dismiss it without any consideration.

IMO.

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

Not being of a Calvinist bent myself,

I have a strange feeling that might change in the next few years...

(btw, did you get my email?)

I can really only guess what Theophilus would have to say, but here's my guess. If a person is truly an elect, then the gospel is the best news ever.

Amen and amen!

If the person is not an elect, then they really wouldn't care either way.

No, a person who is not of the elect would hardly be apathetic, but the Bible state is in open rebellion against God. Jesus says much the same thing (Matt. 12:30, etc.). And that is only confirmed by my experience when I constantly encounter Arminians, LDS, Catholics, etc., who tell me, "I could never worship your God", or "if you're God really exists, I'd rather go to hell", etc.

A person who truly despairs of their sin and of ever having a right relationship with God is probably an elect, because otherwise they wouldn't give a snit about the whole deal.

I've read more than a few testimonys of ex-LDS, an ex-RCC Reformed believers who said they didn't really think there sins were that big of a deal before they learned of the Reformed "doctrines of grace". So to the elect, "truly despairs of their sin" really hits home. We realize how great, awesome, and Holy God truly is, and that He can't stand the presence of sin, and we realize how puny we are in comparison to God, and how unrighteous and sinful creatures we are.

I also think the above comment assumes that we can know for sure who is elect and who is not, which is obviously only God's domain that we can't know.

Of course we don't know who the elect are.

And that's why we are to share the gospel with all. We can't just "preach to the elect", because we don't know who they are. It's not like they grow in the dark or something.

Theophilus

[docrick]

In the "works" thread, in the context of "what is the relationship between salvation and works", Cougarfan wrote the following:

Clearly Jesus taught that the two great commandments were:

1) To honor the Lord thy God (without obeying the law how can one honor God?)

and

2) To love thy neighbor (without works how can one love his neighbor?)

What I notice, however, is that there is a difference between:

"Honouring God requires works" and

"Salvation requires works".

"Honouring God", and "salvation", are not the same thing.

I notice a difference between:

"Loving thy neighbour requires works" and

"Salvation requires works".

"Loving thy neighbour", and "salvation", are not the same thing.

I have said it before, many seem to interpret any mention of "works", and insert the context "required for salvation", thinking that is the implied context, when it is not.

These are what the Savior taught. Where did the Savior ever teach that belief was enough? If belief was sufficient, I believe the Savior would have said so.

Permit me to direct your attention to John's gospel:

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

No mention of any "works" required.

Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

No mention of any "works" required.

So we see that Jesus' gospel is completely consistent with Paul's repeated preaching of salvation by faith, "not by works" (Eph. 2:8, Titus 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 4:1-5, 9:11-16, 11:5-6, etc.)

Now, likely there will be those who have the immediate reaction to want to cite the passages of Jesus preaching "works". I have no problem with Jesus preaching "works". I can see why He preached them. They weren't in the context of "salvation" (at least as a reasonable expectation).

There are two different contexts in which Jesus preached "works", and we need to examine each context in turn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, there are the passages such as this well-known one:

Mar 10:17

[Brackite]

This is an interesting subject. The following is from Richard Lloyd Anderson from his Book titled, 'Understanding Paul

[Theophilus]

Abraham was the model for faith in Romans and Galatians, and he is the central example of faith in Hebrews.

[consiglieri]

Evidently the Calvinist gospel is only for the lost elect. To the lost non-elect, it can only compound their despair

Don't know what Theophilus would say, but I agree with you on this one even though I am protestant.

That's no surprise, as most Protestants are Arminian in soteriology.

God wants all men to be saved : 1 Timothy 2:4 "who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

I certainly agree.

And there is no problem with that verse and Reformed theology.

Now, what Paul meant by "all men", certainly needs some discussion.

(Translation: I don't feel constrained to blindly accept your interpretation.)

Calvin's doctrine is in contradiction to this very clear passage. But this is a topic for another thread.

Well, please allow me to point out that this verse has come up for consideration wrt Reformed theology, and there has been plenty of time to consider the meaning.

And rather than calling this a "very clear passage" (!?), I would instead suggest that your interpretation (if by "all men", you interpret it as "all individuals, on an individually"), is over-simplistic, and not really looking like you have considered the context of the entire chapter.

For consideration of a more thoughtful view, you might want to read howCalvin himself addressed this passage.

There are passages which reject the Arminian view (John 17:9, Matt. 13:11-15, etc.), so passages must be studied in the context, and not just by glancing at a phrase and assuming a particular meaning.

You are free to disagree with the Reformed view, it just doesn't seem charitable to summarily dismiss it without any consideration.

IMO.

Theophilus

Dear Theo,

I am having a hard time following you here. You seem to be saying that when Paul says "all men," he means something different than "all men." Is this the type of special pleading that is required to believe in Calvinism?

And now I have a special question just for you:

If all God has given us to understand the way of salvation is the Bible, and if the passage "all men" in the Bible actually needs to be interpreted as something other than "all men," how is it that God can reasonably hold anybody accountable for not understanding the way of salvation as set forth in the Bible?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Theophilus]

I am having a hard time following you here.  You seem to be saying that when Paul says "all men," he means something different than "all men."

I'm not saying any such thing, of course.

But nice try at the fallacy of equivocation.

What I'm saying is that when Paul said, "all men", he didn't mean, "all individuals".

And that seems to be how LDS interpret "all men".

Is this the type of special pleading that is required to believe in Calvinism?

Of course, there is no "special pleading" involved on my part.

Only on the part of LDS and others who insist on interpreting "all men" as "all individuals", without an iota of supportive reasons for that interpretation, especially when such an interpretation isn't supported by the immediate context of the epistle, or of the general context of the Bible as a whole.

If all God has given us to understand the way of salvation is the Bible, and if the passage "all men" in the Bible actually needs to be interpreted as something other than "all men,"

I said no such thing, of course.

how is it that God can reasonably hold anybody accountable for not understanding the way of salvation as set forth in the Bible?

He doesn't hold them accountable "for not understanding the way of salvation".

He holds them accountable for their sins.

Theophilus

[consiglieri]

I am having a hard time following you here.

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

Calvinism was in charge on that dreadful night.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri:

Calvinism was in charge on that dreadful night. 

That one statement was enough to send a chill down my spine as cold as the icy Atlantic!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Theophilus]

All you seem to be saying, over and over, is that "all men" does not mean "all individuals."  You say that we don't have one shred of evidence (other than the plain meaning of words, I suppose),

Why do you feel that it is a requirement (with no alternatives) to interpret "all men" on an individual level?!

The Bible frequently refers to classes of people, ("men", "women", "Jews", "Gentiles", "bondservants", "freemen", "Pharisees", "Sadducees", "kings", "princes", "rulers", "those in authority".

These are differentclasses of people.

Even the context of this very passage refers to "classes" of people, rather than "individuals" (v. 2, "for kings, and for all in authority").

It says "all men" in v. 4, and you want to interpret that as "every single person individually". Does such an interpretation fit the context? Verse 1 also refers to "all men", in which are are to pray for "all men". Does that mean "every single person, individually"? Do you suppose Paul is expecting us to open up the Ephesian telephone directory, and pray for each person by name? No, he is saying that not only are we to pray for each other, we are to pray for "enemies", and "kings", and "persectors", and people we wouldn't necessarily think (or want) to pray for.

To interpret the Bible in an "individual" manner is a very modern idea, and as such, is completely foreign to the Biblical context.

to believe this interpretation, but you seem to be advancing a paucity of evidence yourself for your interpretation that "all men" does not mean "all individuals."

Such an interpretation as you suggest contradicts the rest of the Bible.

I see no reason to voluntarily accept such a contradictory interpretation.

Are you trying to say that "all men" doesn't include women and children?

Of course not.

Do you really think it's any benefit to mock my beliefs, and try to portray them as something so silly? (I don't.)

So God only wants adult males to be saved, and not women and children?  Where is Calvinism leading with this?

The above isn't my belief, of course.

Why you think mispresenting my beliefs serves any productive purpose, I have absolutely no idea.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

Why do you feel that it is a requirement (with no alternatives) to interpret "all men" on an individual level?!

Theophilus, I think I should point out a possible point of equivocation. In my discussions with you on this issue (and elsewhere) you seem to be claiming that it is absurd on the face of it to assume that "all men" is referring to all individuals, because earlier we are told to pray for all men, and clearly it is impossible to pray for everyone individually. We agree with you on this. However, this is not what we are saying, nor what we mean, when we say this scripture is talking about all individuals.

It all comes down to where you place your qualifiers. You seem to be hearing from us, "pray for each man, individually." What we are saying, rather, is that "all" clarifies which subset of "mankind" (or "men") we are to pray for, but NOT the manner of how to pray for this subset. So, to make it extremely formal, we would read the scripture as telling us to pray for everyone, just not one at a time.

As for the context, I personally believe this is the correct interpretation, and I recommend to the readers to look through the entire book of 1 Timothy for the words "all" and "men."

[consiglieri]

All you seem to be saying, over and over, is that "all men" does not mean "all individuals."

[Theophilus]

Thank you for that first rate example of eisegesis.

Criticism is more than simply discovering some "cool words" like "eisegesis" to throw at other people to try to mud-sling their beliefs.

I think the semi-unbiased reader can tell that my belief is based on the context, and yours is not. It is in fact you who are engaging in "eisegesis". At least, as of yet you have been unable to show from the context of the passage that "all men" has to mean "all individuals".

You have interpreted all the meaning right out of that passage.

Obviously, I disagree.

And the passage isn't even about universal salvation. It's about praying for those who are against us (just as I pray for you). Only one of us is even engaging the context of passage, and it isn't you.

Now "all men" does not mean "all men"

Of course it means "all men".

And I have never denied that (despite your shallow attempts to try to show the contrary).

But you are being incredibly disingenuous here in interpreting "all men" as "all individuals" (even though it doesn't say that, and even though the context doesn't support that), and implying that your interpretation ("all individuals") is the only valid interpretation.

when you do not want it to mean "all men." 

It has absolutely nothing do with what "I want".

It has everything to do with what God intended, and what Paul intended for it to mean when it was written.

Because it would contradict your interpretation of the "rest of the Bible."  Perhaps you might consider revising your interpretation of the rest of the Bible

Just as you admitting that it might not mean "all individuals" would contradict your interpretation of the Bible. You are hardly in any better position than I am, and where I stand, I believe you are in the far worse position.

in light of this clear cut scripture . . .

It seems that it is incredibly self-serving on your part to refer to this as "clear cut scripture", simply because you want to make this the anchor for your pet doctrine (in contradiction to other passages that are actually written about the issue, rather than this one which simply mentions it in passing).

or you could admit that errors have crept into the text.  That's always a nice way out.

Or I could accept all of inerrant Scripture, which teaches a unified, cohesive, and God-glorifying gospel, and simply reject your unsubstantiated interpretation.

Which is precisely what I do.

Theophilus

[Zeta-Flux]

But you are being incredibly disingenuous here in interpreting "all men" as "all individuals" (even though it doesn't say that, and even though the context doesn't support that), and implying that your interpretation ("all individuals") is the only valid interpretation.

While I cannot address whether or not it is disingenuous to say this is the "only valid interpretation" (which position I do not hold), I would direct the readers to my last post, which should clarify what we mean by "all men" which is *not* how Theophllus is using the phrase "all individuals." We do not read the text as saying "each individual, individually" but rather "all members of the human family, *together*." Hence the phrasing, "all men" rather than "each individual." This interpretation definitely fits the contex, and I would even hazard to guess it is the most common interpretation, the least doctrinally motivated interpretation, and the most straightforward reading of the text. (But note, not necessarily the only reading.)

Again, I would direct readers to look in later chapters of 1 Tim., where Paul uses this same phrasing (and further, uses the word "some" in a context that makes it clear what he means by "all" when he modifies "men").

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[revelation]

When you have a discussion of faith vs works with LDS realize there is no true faith vs works. We LDS believe all mankind (with few exceptions) will be resurrected and receive a degree of glory (mansion in the Father's house).

Mathew 22:13-15 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

This passage shows that FEW will be chosen and MANY will go to outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Mathew 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

This passage also shows that MANY go to destruction and FEW unto life.