Who Said This? Work Out Your Salvation

[Theophilus]

I know EVs who do say that works contribute to their salvation.  What does that mean?

I have no idea.

I don't know your EV friends.

I know LDS who say Brigham Young was a false prophet.

What does that mean?

Theophilus

[rhinomelon]

I know EVs who do say that works contribute to their salvation. What does that mean?

In the sense of sanctification, that is certainly true. There are three "tenses" of salvation in evangelical thought: Justification (past tense, "have been saved" i.e. Ephesians 2), Sanctification (present tense, "being saved" I Peter, I think), and Glorification (future tense, "will be saved", numerous passages).

Works do not contribute to our initial justification, which is by faith. However, sanctification deals directly with our works, as we are firmly and continuously commanded to do good works and thereby conform more and more to the image of Christ.

Take care, everyone

[Beowulf]

Well that sounds pretty close to the Mormon view, with a little reshuffling of terminology. Even Theophilus' position is not so far from LDS (albeit veiled under a thin veneer of caustic commentary ).

So what is the argument?

And why do certain people (like Ed Decker, whose monthly rant was the impetus for my original post), think that they can blast us for being works-only, when they know perfectly well that we rely on the grace of Jesus Christ "after all we can do" (2Nephi)?

Respectfully,

Beowulf

[aaronshaf]

Philippians 2:12 should NEVER be quoted without 2:13:

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Shouldn't Christians work out their salvation with fear and trembling? Yes. WHY though? Because it is God who works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure. It's obviously not a "this is how I'm proving my worthiness in the second estate" activity.

And let's not forget 1:6:

6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

The power of the gospel of grace has way more power than any gospel which is simply giving us an opportunity to prove OUR worthiness.

[BCSpace]

And why do certain people (like Ed Decker, whose monthly rant was the impetus for my original post), think that they can blast us for being works-only, when they know perfectly well that we rely on the grace of Jesus Christ "after all we can do" (2Nephi)?

Because they are still stuck in the Lutherian contraBiblical over-reaction to the ancient Catholic Church's take on works (such as the sale of indulgences).

[consiglieri]

Philippians 2:12 should NEVER be quoted without 2:13:

12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Shouldn't Christians work out their salvation with fear and trembling? Yes. WHY though? Because it is God who works in us to will and to work for his good pleasure. It's obviously not a "this is how I'm proving my worthiness in the second estate" activity.

And let's not forget 1:6:

6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

The power of the gospel of grace has way more power than any gospel which is simply giving us an opportunity to prove OUR worthiness.

This last quote from aaronshaf speaks volumes about the entire discussion, in my humble opinion:

"The power of the gospel of grace has way more power than any gospel which is simply giving us an opportunity to prove OUR worthiness."

The reason I find this quote significant is because it brings out from the shadows the underlying philosphical argument that I think drives the whole EV Christian soteriology.

Here is a restatement of the underlying assumptions: (1) God's power is absolute. (2) Therefore God's power to save is absolute. (3) If anyone thinks that they can contribute something toward salvation, then that must necessarily detract from God's power to save. (4) That cannot be because . . . God's power is absolute.

It is a circular argument, admittedly, and one that causes EV Christians to focus on selected scriptural passages while having to explain away a host of others that contradict it (i.e., saying that Jesus was "misunderstood," or that when Paul says "all men," he actually means something decidedly different than "all men.")

It also tends to explain why it is that EV Christians often see the idea that works contribute to salvation as heretical, as they simultaneously view it as a challenge to the omnipotence of God.

My view of ALL the scriptures taken together, however, indicates that the plan of salvation is not a chess game where God moves us about the board as pieces; but as a joint venture between God and his children with the goal of bringing joy and glory to all the parties.

I think most LDS would, like me, agree with C.S. Lewis' observation that talking about whether we are saved by grace or by works is like talking about which blade of a scissors does the cutting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

I think most LDS would, like me, agree with C.S. Lewis' observation that talking about whether we are saved by grace or by works is like talking about which blade of a scissors does the cutting.

Using this analogy, the cut paper is salvation, the scissors (both blades) are grace, and your own hand doing the cutting are the requirements (works etc.) for salvation because after all, it is we ourselves who decide how much to cut (degrees of salvation).

Can't cut the paper with out the scissors, can't use the scissors without the hand....James 2:24

[consiglieri]

I think most LDS would, like me, agree with C.S. Lewis' observation that talking about whether we are saved by grace or by works is like talking about which blade of a scissors does the cutting.

Using this analogy, the cut paper is salvation, the scissors (both blades) are grace, and your own hand doing the cutting are the requirements (works etc.) for salvation because after all, it is we ourselves who decide how much to cut (degrees of salvation).

Can't cut the paper with out the scissors, can't use the scissors without the hand....James 2:24

Dear BC Space,

I agree with you that the cut paper is salvation, but I see it more as the place where the scissor blades come together to cut the paper is the process of grace and works working together, just as the two scissor blades must work together to cut the paper.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Anyone for a game of rock, scissors, paper? Of course, the "rock" would be the atonement of Jesus Christ which affords the ability for the scissors to come together to cut the paper. (I had no idea this was so spiritual a game!)

[BCSpace]

I agree with you that the cut paper is salvation, but I see it more as the place where the scissor blades come together to cut the paper is the process of grace and works working together, just as the two scissor blades must work together to cut the paper.

Sure. Seeems still to work with my analogy as the force of the hand is concentrated along the edge of the blades.

[rhinomelon]

I think most LDS would, like me, agree with C.S. Lewis' observation that talking about whether we are saved by grace or by works is like talking about which blade of a scissors does the cutting.

Of course, I don't know if LDS would agree with what he meant by that. If you read further on, he says that works play a part in that when we've finally tried everything we can possibly do to be worthy of salvation, we fail. Only after we've tried all the works we can dredge up do we finally throw in the towel and rely on God's grace to save us. So it is not our good works that play a part in our salvation; in a very real way, at least for Lewis, it is our failure to do good works that plays a far bigger part.

(1) God's power is absolute. (2) Therefore God's power to save is absolute. (3) If anyone thinks that they can contribute something toward salvation, then that must necessarily detract from God's power to save. (4) That cannot be because . . . God's power is absolute.

I don't see this as playing a huge part in my soteriology. What I find more convincing is simply the nature of our sin and God's holiness.

And why do certain people (like Ed Decker, whose monthly rant was the impetus for my original post), think that they can blast us for being works-only, when they know perfectly well that we rely on the grace of Jesus Christ "after all we can do" (2Nephi)?

In my view, it is because the simple phrase "after all we can do" justifies much that is wrong with the LDS system, which basically sets up a works-based system to earn exaltation. The temple system is works based, as the issue is always worthiness, instead of God's grace and how God sees the sinner who believes in Christ. Without the temple, nobody gets exalted. It's that simple.

Of course, if the change I see happening regarding the interpretation of that verse continues to spread, I think LDS will end up closer to mainstream Christian belief than they are now. Some LDS interpret that verse to mean "after all the sin and junk we do, it is God's grace that saves us". Basically, God's grace saves us not "because of" or "in addition to" all we can do, but "in spite" of all we do. I have no problem with that interpretation, although that would likely contribute to knocking the legs out from under the temple system.

Take care, everyone

[Theophilus]

Sometimes I get the feeling that LDS believe that if they can create an analogy for their beliefs, that they believe that is some sort of "proof" that their belief is true.

I already understand LDS beliefs, and I still don't see any reason to believe they are true, no matter how many "analogies" are brought forth for them.

Perhaps the "analogy" methodology is a by-product of some belief that, "if someone doesn't believe Mormonism, it must be because he doesn't understand it, so let's give another analogy to help him understand it."

Theophilus

[Magyar]

Thank heaven for the "temple based system," which shapes my character towards godliness and fills my heart with God better than anything else I have experienced on earth!

I go there knowing that I am very much a sinner, but that temple questions, temple lessons and temple promises, such as eternity with my Angel Wife help keep my face towards the Face of God when the flesh would have me turn away.

It's not works, it's love and gratitude. God shared his gospel with me, so every few Saturdays I will drive a hundred-plus miles into the ^%$ of Washington DC traffic in order to offer such an opportunity to some soul whom I never met and never knew. And I will feel the presence of God like a warm blanket over my shoulders the whole time.

[rhinomelon]

I found the actual C.S. Lewis quote:

Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come.

Just for the sake of discussion. It seems to me that Lewis basically says that works are necessary in that they fail to get us where we need to be, and we know it. Faith in Christ provides the only escape, and out of that faith, good works inevitably flow.

Take care, everyone

[consiglieri]

Sometimes I get the feeling that LDS believe that if they can create an analogy for their beliefs, that they believe that is some sort of "proof" that their belief is true.

I already understand LDS beliefs, and I still don't see any reason to believe they are true, no matter how many "analogies" are brought forth for them.

Perhaps the "analogy" methodology is a by-product of some belief that, "if someone doesn't believe Mormonism, it must be because he doesn't understand it, so let's give another analogy to help him understand it."

Theophilus

Dear Theo,

Does this mean we can look forward to no more analogies from you? I think that I have never encountered as many analogies from one poster on this message board than from you.

All the Best!

--Coniglieri

[BCSpace]

Sometimes I get the feeling that LDS believe that if they can create an analogy for their beliefs, that they believe that is some sort of "proof" that their belief is true.

The analogy is proven by scripture. Quite Biblical in this case.

I know for a fact (no feelings) that all EV's treat many Bible verses as if they don't exist. Matthew 25:31-46 for example, or John 20:17.

[Theophilus]

I found the actual C.S. Lewis quote:

Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come.

Just for the sake of discussion. It seems to me that Lewis basically says that works are necessary in that they fail to get us where we need to be, and we know it. Faith in Christ provides the only escape, and out of that faith, good works inevitably flow.

Take care, everyone

Yes, it seems that Lewis is quoting Spurgeon (perhaps unknowingly) when he said:

"The law is for the self-righteous, to humble their pride: the gospel is for the lost, to remove their despair." -- C.H. Spurgeon, "All of Grace".

It seems that Lewis is saying the same thing, that works, in terms of a "serious moral effort", is needed to realize that we aren't as "good" as we want to think we are, and convict us as sinners in need of the gospel of grace.

In short, Lewis isn't saying anything different from Paul:

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.

Thanks for doing the leg-work, Rhino... It makes a big difference when taken in context.

Theophilus

[Theophilus]

I know for a fact (no feelings) that all EV's treat many Bible verses as if they don't exist.  Matthew 25:31-46 for example, or John 20:17.

You are wrong.

That is a fact.

Just because we reject your "causation" interpretation, doesn't mean that we reject the verses as they are.

You don't seem to recognize the distinction.

Theophilus

[consiglieri]

I think most LDS would, like me, agree with C.S. Lewis' observation that talking about whether we are saved by grace or by works is like talking about which blade of a scissors does the cutting.

Of course, I don't know if LDS would agree with what he meant by that. If you read further on, he says that works play a part in that when we've finally tried everything we can possibly do to be worthy of salvation, we fail. Only after we've tried all the works we can dredge up do we finally throw in the towel and rely on God's grace to save us. So it is not our good works that play a part in our salvation; in a very real way, at least for Lewis, it is our failure to do good works that plays a far bigger part.

(1) God's power is absolute. (2) Therefore God's power to save is absolute. (3) If anyone thinks that they can contribute something toward salvation, then that must necessarily detract from God's power to save. (4) That cannot be because . . . God's power is absolute.

I don't see this as playing a huge part in my soteriology. What I find more convincing is simply the nature of our sin and God's holiness.

And why do certain people (like Ed Decker, whose monthly rant was the impetus for my original post), think that they can blast us for being works-only, when they know perfectly well that we rely on the grace of Jesus Christ "after all we can do" (2Nephi)?

In my view, it is because the simple phrase "after all we can do" justifies much that is wrong with the LDS system, which basically sets up a works-based system to earn exaltation. The temple system is works based, as the issue is always worthiness, instead of God's grace and how God sees the sinner who believes in Christ. Without the temple, nobody gets exalted. It's that simple.

Of course, if the change I see happening regarding the interpretation of that verse continues to spread, I think LDS will end up closer to mainstream Christian belief than they are now. Some LDS interpret that verse to mean "after all the sin and junk we do, it is God's grace that saves us". Basically, God's grace saves us not "because of" or "in addition to" all we can do, but "in spite" of all we do. I have no problem with that interpretation, although that would likely contribute to knocking the legs out from under the temple system.

Take care, everyone

Dear Rhino,

I agree with the rest of C.S. Lewis' quote, to which you refer. I think it is only when we get to the place where we realize that we cannot merit salvation on our own (alone) through works that we can rely solely on the merits of him who is might to save. I think this is the process that brings about the broken heart and contrite spirit referred to so often in the scriptures. At least, that has been my experience. I am not so sure that it is a template that must fit all comers.

I also think this is the teaching of the Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible.

And I have long thought that the phrase "after all we can do," should be understood as "in spite of all we can do." I think most would agree that nobody actually does all they can do. If that is so, nobody can be saved, according to some interpretations of this passage. That would be a downer.

I think that the point comes down to this: AFTER we have realized our own inability to merit salvation through our own works, and realizing that we are inherently sinful and just can't be "good enough," and AFTER we have called out in despair to the Lord Jesus to save us from our miserable, lost and fallen state; and AFTER God has heard our prayer, according to his promises, and brought us into his wonderful light and saved us; THEN does God want us to do anything in order to continue in the path that leads to eternal life?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

In short, Lewis isn't saying anything different from Paul:

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.

Except that you are still confusing the law of Moses with the law of the Gospel as evidenced by the verses you quote.

[ED500]

While perusing some of Ed Decker's sillier ramblings, I noted his knowing smirk at "those poor Mormons down the street" who are "working out their salvation". Unlike himself and his friends who got their salvation by grace, merely by believing.

This constant harping at the insidiousness of works is irritating...

So I wondered. Where do we Mormons get the phrase (which we use often, I admit) to "work out our salvation?". Is it in the Bible anywhere?

After a (short) search, I found it! And guess who said it? Not James, that bugaboo of all grace-only folks from Martin Luther on down.   No, people, it was Paul (hah!).

Phillipians 2:12 (KJV): Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

(NEB) So you too, my friends, must be obedient, as always; even more, now that I am absent, than when I was with you. You must work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.

Paul, while acknowledging the grace of God, knows full well that people must also act on their own behalf to reach that state where the grace of God can operate.

In other words, he sounds just like a Mormon...

Beowulf

Hello folks,

Well, this seemed to be a never ending debate - for obvious reasons.

The LDS doctrine - NOT THE BIBLE - teaches that works is necessary for eternal salvation(after all we can do and all....). I guess the LDS doctrine and way of seeing things make them read the Bible (as a non-primary foundation of their faith) and understand it different from what is REALLY PREACHED BY the Apostles Paul, Peter and the rest in the New Testament.

Is this a fair assesment? Correct me if I am wrong.

I have always tried to explain my Biblical salvation but it seemed that the LDS's view is also correct based on the LDS person's view ??

Well, let me see....

Eternal adoption is somewhat like this....

You rebelled against your Dad; you left home and wanted to live a life that is outside his will and provision. Anyway to make the long story short - life outside your dad's home suck big time and now you wanted to be back.

Now you ask Dad to forgive you and DAD did and give back all the entitlements you deserved as his Son/Daughter.

Now - you don't have to WORK to become Dad's Son/daughter AGAIN.

All you did was ASKED DAD to FORGIVE YOU - and kabbooommmm you are back to life under your dad's provision and care.

Because He is your dad - he is proud to see you live happy and all.

He practically never wanted you to live him anyway.

He is and was always your Dad - even when you desserted him.

He would never ask you to WORK on something so you can call him dad again, right?

That would be stupid.

Now I was really trying to come up with some made up story --- but it occured to me that this is exactly what happened in the "Prodigal Son" story in the Gospels.

It is also obvious that your Dad (after forgiving you...)would expect you to live like his son/daughter right? He would expect you as his son/daughter to do your duties at home - not because you need to earn the right to become his son/daughter but because that what son/daughters should do right?

Well, i'm tired and hungry.....

[BCSpace]

The LDS doctrine - NOT THE BIBLE - teaches that works is necessary for eternal salvation

Matthew 25:31-46 and the other verses always bursts that bubble. The fact that there are no sola fide verses in existence also does the trick. ECF history can do it also.

I guess the LDS doctrine and way of seeing things make them read the Bible (as a non-primary foundation of their faith) and understand it different from what is REALLY PREACHED BY the Apostles Paul, Peter and the rest in the New Testament.

Is this a fair assesment? Correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong and you will never be able to provide an example of how you might be right. Feel free to provide an example (with verses to back you up) an we will correct it.

[Beowulf]

Now Rhino has at last shown some misunderstanding of the LDS position, if he thinks that we are "reinterpreting" the "after all we can do" verse in 2nd Nephi to move closer to mainstream Christian grace... (Theophilus, on the other hand, has shown time and time again that he knows nothing of LDS theology, and that nothing we ever say can shake him from this firmly held position. )

The LDS position has never changed. We must do everything in our power to do the right thing, and to obey God's commandments. Yet we know that even after all this effort, it is still not sufficient to be saved. We need God's grace.

Yet we cannot expect God's grace if we have not done everything in our own power. This is what Paul means by "work out salvation with fear and trembling."

And yes, I am fully aware of the following verse. But it is NOT an escape card for cheap-grace people. God is there, helping us, encouraging us, to do the right thing, working through us, to do the right thing. Yet it is still our choice to do right (or not), as Paul well knows.

He also knows that we can backslide if we do not keep persevering, even after coming to a knowledge of God. This message of his to "work out salvation" was sent to his followers, people who have already accepted the Gospel, or in other words, people who are already saved, in the EV system. Yet he still calls for "fear and trembling". Surely he implies that there is still "work" to do, even by the most valiant of Saints.

Beowulf

[Luigi]

While perusing some of Ed Decker's sillier ramblings....

From the little I've heard of Ed Decker's insanity I don't think anything he wrote would even be worth perusing. I think most 'anti's' don't even like to mention him since he might be held up as evidence that apostates become raving lunatics yelling anything profane about Mormonism (credible or not) while frothing at the mouth.

[rhinomelon]

I also think this is the teaching of the Book of Mormon, as well as the Bible.

And I have long thought that the phrase "after all we can do," should be understood as "in spite of all we can do." I think most would agree that nobody actually does all they can do. If that is so, nobody can be saved, according to some interpretations of this passage. That would be a downer.

Your interpretation is definitely in the minority of LDS I've talked to. Most LDS frame "all we can do" in terms of temple worthiness, works, etc. But I find this interpretation to be a refreshing change, one that I hope will spread.

I think that the point comes down to this: AFTER we have realized our own inability to merit salvation through our own works, and realizing that we are inherently sinful and just can't be "good enough," and AFTER we have called out in despair to the Lord Jesus to save us from our miserable, lost and fallen state; and AFTER God has heard our prayer, according to his promises, and brought us into his wonderful light and saved us; THEN does God want us to do anything in order to continue in the path that leads to eternal life?

Great paragraph, and the answer to your question is a definite and resounding "YES!!". The New Testament contains more commandments than the Old Testament does, including many more regarding the inner character and life of the follower of Christ. Indeed, because God has heard our prayer, brought us into His light and saved us (interesting that you used the past tense there, also not typical for LDS, in my experience), because He has shown us such grace as to save us in spite of all we've done, we obey Him and follow Him wholeheartedly (although we obviously stumble along the way).

Wow, long sentence. Oh well.

Anyway, the fact that God wants us to live lives worthy of Him and His grace to us does not mean that He gives us lists to do in order to keep our "saved" status. Each person's relationship with God is different, and God works differently in each person's life.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Now Rhino has at last shown some misunderstanding of the LDS position, if he thinks that we are "reinterpreting" the "after all we can do" verse in 2nd Nephi to move closer to mainstream Christian grace...

The LDS position has never changed. We must do everything in our power to do the right thing, and to obey God's commandments. Yet we know that even after all this effort, it is still not sufficient to be saved. We need God's grace.

Some are indeed interpreting it differently, as consiglieri noted earlier. However, I would agree with you that the "official" interpretation is as you described it, and most LDS do frame it in such a way. But change can happen...

And yes, I am fully aware of the following verse. But it is NOT an escape card for cheap-grace people. God is there, helping us, encouraging us, to do the right thing, working through us, to do the right thing. Yet it is still our choice to do right (or not), as Paul well knows.

To my knowledge, nobody on this thread has claimed this second half as validation of "cheap grace". But the first half of the verse, likewise, is not an escape hatch for those who think in terms of "earned grace", which is something of an oxymoron.

Take care, everyone