Jesus On Faith And Works

[freakin a man]

Many people who say because LDS say that works and obedience are required to be saved claim that the LDS are "anti-grace" That is completely not true. There is nothing we can do by ourselves to be saved. As the Book of Mormon says, "we are saved by grace after all we can do" or alternatively "after all we can do, we are saved by grace." We are saved by grace but grace is ultimately granted to us on condition that we do good works and are obedient.

[why me]

I agree with that 100%, of course. But as I arleady explained, we believe that true believers will do good works (through God working in us, Gal. 2:20, Eph. 2:10, etc.). So you need not worry about those who preach and believe "easy believism", or "cheap grace", for the above ensures that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

But the above doesn't say, "works are required". Indeed, you are simply assuming that it is a "prescriptive" statement, rather than a descriptive one.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Theophilus

I have no idea what this means. I feel a little nutty here. I have no idea what Theo is saying. On the one hand, works are required since no true believer would do bad works and yet, works are not required because of grace. Which is it? I feel a mumbojumbo going on here. It just doen't make sense in my humble opinion. And so what is required to get into Theo's heaven???

[revelation]

I have no idea what this means. I feel a little nutty here. I have no idea what Theo is saying. On the one hand, works are required since no true believer would do bad works and yet, works are not required because of grace. Which is it? I feel a mumbojumbo going on here. It just doen't make sense in my humble opinion. And so what is required to get into Theo's heaven???

Don't feel nutty, it is a really good question!

Works are not required for salvation.

We don't do good works "to be" saved. We do good works because we are saved already.

[Theophilus]

I have no idea what this means. I feel a little nutty here. I have no idea what Theo is saying. On the one hand, works are required since no true believer would do bad works and yet, works are not required because of grace. Which is it? I feel a mumbojumbo going on here. It just doen't make sense in my humble opinion. And so what is required to get into Theo's heaven???

I think the main problem is that you are trying to force my explanation into a context of "required for salvation", which is simply begging the question.

As many others have (correctly, IMO) explained, the religions of man can all be summarized by the idea of "man trying to reach up to God" (through works, rituals, sacraments, etc.), while true Christianity is unique in God reaching down to lift up man. In the former, man is trying to do the effort to raise himself up to God, while in the latter it is God who does the work.

Salvation occurs when God gives a man saving faith, and God regenerates that man, and God changes that man's heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, and God works good works through that person. Everything is God acting, not man.

Where do "works" fit in?

Works are the fruits of a saving faith. They are not a "requirment" to salvation.

We are commanded to do works.

So since we are commanded, and Jesus is our Lord, we do what is commanded.

What are those works "required" for?

It doesn't matter, we're to do them anyway.

What happens if we don't do "works"?

It's irrelevant, since we are commanded to do them, so we will do them.

We do works to show our love for God.

We do works to witness of God.

We do works to give God glory.

We do works because Jesus is our Lord.

The reason we do works is not because our salvation is allegedly dependent on it.

Theophilus

[freakin a man]

The question I have is what if a true believer stops doing good works. I can understand theo position that a true believer will do good works. This is true. But what happens if Jack who is a true believer and does good works at age 25 does no good works and rejects God at age 45. People do change through life as events and circumstances in their lives change.

Many people I have meet would say "well than Jack was never a true believer" however he was a true believer at 25 and 30 when he was doing good works. Jack would have asserted he was a true believer when he was 28.

The way I see it if salvation is completely by "grace alone" and works are not required, then all mankind is saved. Even a requirement to believe and trust Jesus requires me to do something (i.e to believe and trust Jesus). Mental works are just as much works as physical. If someone in Wicca has to stop believing in Wicca and to start believing in Jesus, that person is doing something. A true grace alone position is that we are saved by grace alone and there is NOTHING we have to do to be saved. That includes we don't even have to believe. As one a person is required to believe, they are being asked to do something (that is to believe). So a true "grace alone" position is a universalist position in my mind.

[why me]

Don't feel nutty, it is a really good question!

Works are not required for salvation.

We don't do good works "to be" saved. We do good works because we are saved already.

'And the adversary is real. I am saved but I do bad works...why...because of the adversary. And yes, I believe'.

Why do I do good works...because I love god. I do not do good works to be saved since that would be false good. I think that all agree with this...it is just the phraseology that is different. All do good works because we all love god. How about that explanation?? And yet, if we do not do good works we will not have eternal salvation...but of course, in lds theology all receive a kingdom of glory according to their works. That makes sense, doesn't it?

And so what is the problem here??

[Theophilus]

The question I have is what if a true believer stops doing good works.

What happens if black becomes white?

What happens if a circle becomes a triangle?

What if God created a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it?

What happens if God becomes "not-God"?

What exactly is your purpose in speculating about an impossibility?

But what happens if Jack who is a true believer and does good works at age 25 does no good works and rejects God at age 45.

How can you possibly claim both that Jack was a "true believer", yet he "rejects God"?

How can a true believer reject God?

Jack wasn't a true believer.

The Shepherd knows His sheep, and He will not lose any who are His.

Many people I have meet would say "well than Jack was never a true believer" however he was a true believer at 25 and 30 when he was doing good works.

Says who?

Not God.

The way I see it if salvation is completely by "grace alone" and works are not required, then all mankind is saved.

That doesn't follow.

That only follows if God wants to save the sheep and the goats.

God saves His sheep (through grace alone).

God doesn't choose to save the goats.

Even a requirement to believe and trust Jesus requires me to do something (i.e to believe and trust Jesus).

No, since I have repeatedly pointed out that even faith itself is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, Matt. 16:17, etc.). Faith is not something we "do", it is something God gives to us.

A true grace alone position is that we are saved by grace alone and there is NOTHING we have to do to be saved. That includes we don't even have to believe.

Well, if you're going to create a straw-man definition, then it seems pointless to discuss things further.

Theophilus

[consiglieri]

Dear Dr. Theo,

You have recently mentioned in this post an allegation that someone is not "rightly dividing the word of truth." Your caption advertises that you, in contrast, "rightly divide the word of truth."

My question is this: Granted that you do a lot of dividing with God's word, why does the word of truth need to be divided in the first place?

Is not the answer because, if the word of God is simply taken as a whole, it contradicts itself and leads to all manner of divergent doctrine, as is manifest? Hence, one must divide the word in order to come up with a set of non-conflicting doctrines.

And why is it that you are the one who "rightly" divides the word of God? Is that just your opinion, or did somebody else say so?

(Now, back to your previously scheduled thread.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[revelation]

It certainly is contrary to the Bible.

And your manner of response simply showed all manner of problems in rightly dividing the word of Truth:

1) Instead of addressing the passages which Revelation brought up, you completely ignored them, and offered your own "proof-texts", seemingly trying to "pit Scripture against Scripture". I'm guessing that your point is, "my verses support me, so your verses must be wrong". But why couldn't we simply say the opposite, your verses must be wrong, since they contradict what Revelation has already demonstrated? No, when I see people try to argue from the Bible woh completely ignore the passages which contradict their view, I know they cannot be preaching God's truth.

2) You completely ignore the context of the "proof-texts" you quote, assuming whatever meaning suits your purpose, even if the passage's context does't support it.

3) You don't even seem to try to understand the opposing position, preferring instead to argue against a strawman (always an easier alternative to arguing against truth itself).

Addressing the last point first, most people seem to think that "grace alone" means "anti-works". Such is NOT THE CASE. We believe that those saved by grace are to do works, and in fact will do works. The only difference being that those works do not contribute to our salvation. And we believe the reason that believers will do works is very obvious, namely that salvation is God taking a person, giving him the gift of faith (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.), changing their heart of stone into a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19, 36:26, etc.), changing us into a "new person", someone who wants to serve God, not out of any selfish ambition or reward, but simply out of love and gratitude.

I agree with that 100%, of course. But as I arleady explained, we believe that true believers will do good works (through God working in us, Gal. 2:20, Eph. 2:10, etc.). So you need not worry about those who preach and believe "easy believism", or "cheap grace", for the above ensures that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

But the above doesn't say, "works are required". Indeed, you are simply assuming that it is a "prescriptive" statement, rather than a descriptive one.

Exactly.

True believers will serve Christ as Lord. Those who ignore the Lordship of Christ don't truly trust in Him.

Keep reading until you get to chapter 3, where Paul concludes that "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God", and, "there is no one righteous, no not one", and about those who try to be "doers of the law" Paul concludes thusly:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

There is none (save Jesus) who is a "doer of the law".

There are none who can keep the law, for "all have sinned".

So Paul is right in preaching God's justice, that all will get what they deserve. But you seem to have stopped reading prematurely, and apparently didn't get up to the part where Paul teaches that by their sins, all deserve nothing but condemnation, for all have sinned.

Quite obviously, such a blatant rejection of God is indicative of one who has no faith (trust) in God.

Ah yes, the infamous James passages...

Wonderful verses to take out of context, as you so skillfully do.

First of all, they are not as plain as you would make it appear. For instance, one needs to coampre James 2:24 ("justified by works and not by faith alone"), with Paul in Rom. 4:1-5 (him that worketh not is justifed by faith). Either this is a plain contradiction of Scripture, or else Paul and James are speaking of two different things (I believe the latter).

First of all, we need to notice the general context of the specific epistles. Paul is writing a treatise on the law, sin, and salvation. James is not. James is writing to those who are already believers, and speaking of appropriate Christian behaviour (hence the emphasis on works).

Second of all, you apparently didn't notice that James isn't referring to true faith, but to claimed faith ("a man says he has faith"). Does everyone who claims to have faith, truly have faith? If so, why qualify that statement with "says he has"? And this man, who claims to have faith, according to James doesn't have any works to back up that alleged "faith". If it's a true faith, where are the "fruits" of that "faith"? Of course that "faith" cannot save, not because "faith alone" is unBiblical, but because the alleged, claimed "faith" here, is no faith at all. If it were, it would produce works as its fruits.

Thirdly, if you compare Rom. 4 and James 2, Romans 4 is speaking of being justified before God, while James 2 is talking about being justified before man:

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

You see here that the "works" spoken here are not "to contribute to salvation", they are used to demonstrate ("shew me") a saving faith to other men. But why are "works" not only not included, but explicitly denied, in Rom. 4? It is because God, who knows our hearts (and indeed, is the one who gave us our faith in the first place (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.) has no need to see "works" to confirm a saving faith.

It's not about "authority", Catholic Guy (and if you want to go that route, then obviously since you're not the Pope, you can't claim to have authority to interpret Scripture!).

It's about rightly dividing the word of Truth.

It's about being guided by the Holy Spirit, not by trying to support your religion's beliefs.

It's about interpreting passages in their context.

It's about letting Scripture interpret Scripture, by accepting all of the Bible's teachings.

It's about not ignoring passages which contradict your view, such as:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

*** 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

You can't say salvation is by "grace + works".

Grace and works are mutually exclusive.

It's either one or the other.

If it's by works, then it is "no more grace".

If it's by grace, then it is "no more of works".

To God alone be the glory, for He is the author and finisher of our faith,

our Saviour from beginning to end.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Theophilus

I agree with everything Theoplhilus said here. I just want to add to somthing he said here on the James passages for which I know Theo would agree.

The passage in James says we are justified by our works. And you all assume that it means our works justify us before God. But like Theo pointed out, our works justify us before MAN, not God.

How do we know this is the correct interpretation? Context of James clarifies as theo pointed out, but also, we believe scripture cannot contradict scripture. And very cleary in the following passage, Abraham is not justified by his works before God.

Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast aboutâ??but not before God."

[Theophilus]

My question is this: Granted that you do a lot of dividing with God's word, why does the word of truth need to be divided in the first place?

Maybe you should ask Paul:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Is not the answer because, if the word of God is simply taken as a whole, it contradicts itself and leads to all manner of divergent doctrine, as is manifest?

No, of course not.

The "divergent doctrine" you speak of doesn't come from the Bible itself, it comes from people who misinterpret the Bible, trying to force their "traditions" into it, rather than letting it speak for itself.

Hence, one must divide the word in order to come up with a set of non-conflicting doctrines.

It appears that your question serves to emphasize the problem with depending on out-dated translations (such as the KJV), which are not written in the language you can understand today. It appears that you misinterpret what "dividing" in the KJV means.

"Rightly dividing" in the KJV comes from the Greek, "ortho-tomeo", and means, "to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly" (Strong's).

If you were so inclined to look up the rendering from modern translations, you would find:

"...accurately handling the word of truth." (NASB)

"...rightly handling the word of truth." (AV, RSV, ESV)

"...teaching the message of truth accurately" (NET)

etc.

And why is it that you are the one who "rightly" divides the word of God? Is that just your opinion, or did somebody else say so?

Well, you are free to disagree that I "rightly divide the word of God", but I would answer your question by pointing out:

- I don't ignore context (as some do);

- I don't ignore "inconvenient" passages (as some do);

- I don't add extraneous "context" that isn't there (as some do);

etc.

Theophilus

[revelation]

The question I have is what if a true believer stops doing good works. I can understand theo position that a true believer will do good works. This is true. But what happens if Jack who is a true believer and does good works at age 25 does no good works and rejects God at age 45. People do change through life as events and circumstances in their lives change.

Many people I have meet would say "well than Jack was never a true believer" however he was a true believer at 25 and 30 when he was doing good works. Jack would have asserted he was a true believer when he was 28.

The way I see it if salvation is completely by "grace alone" and works are not required, then all mankind is saved. Even a requirement to believe and trust Jesus requires me to do something (i.e to believe and trust Jesus). Mental works are just as much works as physical. If someone in Wicca has to stop believing in Wicca and to start believing in Jesus, that person is doing something. A true grace alone position is that we are saved by grace alone and there is NOTHING we have to do to be saved. That includes we don't even have to believe. As one a person is required to believe, they are being asked to do something (that is to believe). So a true "grace alone" position is a universalist position in my mind.

I believe a person can lose their salvation, we must keep the faith we are given. In your example, the person may have lost his faith or he still has faith but has fallen away. But God will always try to take the faith that might still be in that person ( a smoldering wick) and he will attempt to get the flame burning again. God may even make repeated attempts.

There is nothing we must do to be saved. We are saved by faith alone, which itself is a gift of God. So we cannot take credit for the faith we have. Faith is a gift of God's grace and therefore by grace alone we are saved. Faith isn't somthing we do, Faith is somthing God gives to us.

We simply can't do anything for our salvation because we aren't good enough to contribute anything to it. And when we begin to think we can contribute somthing, that is pride and leaves room for boasting.

theo said:- I don't ignore context (as some do

Theo is right,

Interpreting Scripture in context is vital to proper interpretation. Also, interpreting a verse in a way that contradicts other scripture, is also incorrect interpretation. Scripture never contradicts scripture.

I can take a verse out of context and make a case for their being no God at all and then we can all pack up our bags and go home.

Psalm 53:1 "...there is no God..."

Point being, context is vital!

[Zeta-Flux]

What happens if black becomes white?

What happens if a circle becomes a triangle?

What if God created a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it?

What happens if God becomes "not-God"?

What exactly is your purpose in speculating about an impossibility?

Because, to freakin-a-man, it isn't an impossibility? To assert otherwise (without any evidence) is to beg the question. Further, to assert otherwise by quoting scripture, without addressing those passages which seem to run contrary to the assertion, is just side-stepping the whole issue.

[consiglieri]

Maybe you should ask Paul:

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

No, of course not.

The "divergent doctrine" you speak of doesn't come from the Bible itself, it comes from people who misinterpret the Bible, trying to force their "traditions" into it, rather than letting it speak for itself.

It appears that your question serves to emphasize the problem with depending on out-dated translations (such as the KJV), which are not written in the language you can understand today. It appears that you misinterpret what "dividing" in the KJV means.

"Rightly dividing" in the KJV comes from the Greek, "ortho-tomeo", and means, "to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly" (Strong's).

If you were so inclined to look up the rendering from modern translations, you would find:

"...accurately handling the word of truth." (NASB)

"...rightly handling the word of truth." (AV, RSV, ESV)

"...teaching the message of truth accurately" (NET)

etc.

Well, you are free to disagree that I "rightly divide the word of God", but I would answer your question by pointing out:

- I don't ignore context (as some do);

- I don't ignore "inconvenient" passages (as some do);

- I don't add extraneous "context" that isn't there (as some do);

etc.

Theophilus

Dear Dr. Theo,

Thank you for the clarification on the dividing bit.

But, while you are busy "not ignoring context" and not "ignoring inconvenient passages," would you explain to me again why, in a different thread, you insist on interpreting "all men" in 1 Timothy to mean something different than "all men"?

And while you're at it, would you explain to me again why, in yet another thread, you insist on interpreting a reference in The Shepherd of Hermas to a fast "day" to mean fast "days"?

It seems to me that, in both these instances, you not only "ignore context" and "ignore inconvenient passages," you also add "extraneous context" that is not there. I even have at least one of your fellow Protestants who agrees with me on this.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I believe a person can lose their salvation, we must keep the faith we are given. In your example, the person may have lost his faith or he still has faith but has fallen away. But God will always try to take the faith that might still be in that person ( a smoldering wick) and he will attempt to get the flame burning again. God may even make repeated attempts.

There is nothing we must do to be saved. We are saved by faith alone, which itself is a gift of God. So we cannot take credit for the faith we have. Faith is a gift of God's grace and therefore by grace alone we are saved. Faith isn't somthing we do, Faith is somthing God gives to us.

We simply can't do anything for our salvation because we aren't good enough to contribute anything to it. And when we begin to think we can contribute somthing, that is pride and leaves room for boasting.

Theo is right,

Interpreting Scripture in context is vital to proper interpretation. Also, interpreting a verse in a way that contradicts other scripture, is also incorrect interpretation. Scripture never contradicts scripture.

I can take a verse out of context and make a case for their being no God at all and then we can all pack up our bags and go home.

Psalm 53:1 "...there is no God..."

Point being, context is vital!

Revelation writes: Interpreting Scripture in context is vital to proper interpretation. Also, interpreting a verse in a way that contradicts other scripture, is also incorrect interpretation. Scripture never contradicts scripture.

This concept that "scripture never contradicts scripture" is, in my opinion, naive, and additionally constitutes one of the primary well-springs for the difficulty in agreeing on Bible interpretation.

The game is played out this way: One decides what one believes, then marshals the Bible scriptures one can find in support of that position. No matter the position, there are other Bible scriptures that can be marshalled against that position. Why? Because they contradict it. The game continues by explaining away, by hook or by crook, all the contradicting Bible scriptures; then sitting back and claiming that one's position is Biblical.

At least, that's the way I see it. It is due to this that the game has been going on for 2,000 years now with no sign of half-time in sight.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[freakin a man]

Don't feel nutty, it is a really good question!

Works are not required for salvation.

We don't do good works "to be" saved. We do good works because we are saved already.

Yeah but why should we waste are time doing good works when we are already saved. Just party. Does a businessman pay his employees for the work they have done or what they will do in the future? Would you pay a man a years worth of wages at the beginning of the year and expect the man to just hang around for a year to do the work because he loves you. Vast majority of people might work for a month or two then quit.

[Theophilus]

But, while you are busy "not ignoring context" and not "ignoring inconvenient passages," would you explain to me again why, in a different thread, you insist on interpreting "all men" in 1 Timothy to mean something different than "all men"?

I don't.

I've explained this to you many times already, but you seem to only want to reject my explanation, and continue to try to put that straw-man in my mouth.

So yes, I would mind explaining it to you (again, and again, and again).

And while you're at it, would you explain to me again why, in yet another thread, you insist on interpreting a reference in The Shepherd of Hermas to a fast "day" to mean fast "days"?

It is precisely because of the context that I interpret "day" to mean "day" (not "days", as you errantly claim). And need I point out that it is YOU, not me, who ignores context, and inserts his own eisegetical "context" (of "Lord's Supper") without any basis? Why don't you try leaving discussions in the threads they belong, instead of chasing me all around the board when I've already answered you in the appropriate threads?

It seems to me that, in both these instances, you not only "ignore context" and "ignore inconvenient passages," you also add "extraneous context" that is not there.

That's because you insist on hanging onto your own invented context (of "Lord's Supper").

I even have at least one of your fellow Protestants who agrees with me on this.

Truth is by majority agreement now?

I don't think so.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

Consig, I think you will find life far more enjoyable if you take all those chips off your shoulder.

Theophilus

Yeah but why should we waste are time doing good works when we are already saved.

Freakin, how many times do I have to answer this question?

The answer doesn't change, no matter how many times you ask it.

Regenerated believers don't consider doing good works "a waste of time".

Regenerated believers do good works to glorify God.

Regenerated believers do good works because they love God.

Regenerated believers do good works to witness of God.

Regenerated believers do good works becuase it is God working within them.

Regenerated believers do good works because they are commanded to.

Regenerated believers do good works because Christ is their Lord.

Theophilus

[freakin a man]

Theophilus

Freakin, how many times do I have to answer this question?

The answer doesn't change, no matter how many times you ask it.

Regenerated believers don't consider doing good works "a waste of time".

Regenerated believers do good works to glorify God.

Regenerated believers do good works because they love God.

Regenerated believers do good works to witness of God.

Regenerated believers do good works becuase it is God working within them.

Regenerated believers do good works because they are commanded to.

Regenerated believers do good works because Christ is their Lord.

HAHA, I asked that to revelation so you did not need to answer but I am glad you did anyway.

All that is fine and I don't have a problem with it. But what if a "regenerated believer" from age 25 cesses to do good works at age 45 and this person becomes an atheist? Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as ex-Christians. I have never seen a bigfoot or a Loch Ness Monster but I have seen many ex-Christians who at one time where "regenerated believers".

[JAHS]

This is a long thread so forgive me if someone has already mentioned this.

In the end it really isn't just the works we have done that gets us saved, it is who we have become that determines our salvation.

In the Matt. scriptures it says:

"Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"

Jesus answered him saying:

"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (Matt. 19: 21)

According to these scriptures it appears that in order to have these treasures in heaven(eternal life),we are required to do something on this earth. But notice that Jesus told the man that "if thou wilt be perfect" he should give to the poor. It is not necessarily the act of giving to the poor that will get him into heaven, it is what he becomes by doing so(perfect) that will get him there. When we have perfected ourselves we will be able to abide a Celestial glory.

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks said:

"From such teachings we conclude that the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil actsâ??what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughtsâ??what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become."

(Dallin H. Oaks, â??The Challenge to Become,â? New Era, Aug. 2002, 12)

So belief, faith, works are all required to help us to be all we can be.

Return to top

[Orpheus]

Theophilus has requested we close this thread (he is the thread starter). If you wish to discuss this topic further start your own thread please.