Universal Apostasy Or Not?

[Lightbearer]

I imagine that there are at least four-and-twenty Mormons on this board who can identify the allusion off the top of their heads, in order to clarify the matter for Bob, so that he will thereafter "know what that's supposed to mean."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Glamdring")

Make that five and twenty...was that not Martha who was "careful and troubled about many things?" And was it Mary who chose the "better part?"

[captain-jack]

I went to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that the details of Rev. 13:7, and much of the rest of the chapter, do not fit into the history of the post-apostolic era. If you don't agree, fine. But, no LDS to date has demonstrated that the details of Rev. 13 fit at all.

You do not believe that people are being deceived by satan in these days? That people follow him, put trust in "miracle pill" placebos, think that crazy things will save them, etc?

I do not ever defend, refute or discuss the writings ECFs. I'm a biblicist, not an interpreter of of post-apostolic writings. Go back to the Bible to discuss the viability of doctrines. Not the opinions of non-canonical writers.

I won't comment about this more than the fact that you used the word "interpreter", and I just wanted it known. The reason will be known later.

Paul talks about several things he would like to apprehend and attain to, starting with verse nine. But, he says not one word about attaining or apprehending salvation.

Maybe not in that part but here it is said about him and salvation:

2 Peter 3: 15 And aaccount that the blongsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

What "mark" does every follower of Christ press toward for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ? What did God promise to every true believer? Eternal life in heaven with God. What does this have to do with God giving the free gift of salvation by grace through faith, not of ourselves and not of works? I think you're very confused about the gospel difference between being saved by good works, which is not possible, and being saved in order to DO good works. Salvation and grace cannot be earned, as your religion believes they must.

I think you still refuse to believe when we say we do not believe our works earn us anything, merely show our faith. Please show where it is taught, "and by works you are saved and it can only be done if you have works"

Jesus didn't use the word "first," nor did He imply it. You're adding to what He said. How can anyone endure until the end, without the power of the HG dwelling in them? I'm enduring until the end in the power of the HG, rather than my own strength. The evidence that I've been saved, is that i'm enduring to the end. The FACT that I've been saved, is found in all the verses about how salvation is gained by grace through faith, not of ourselves and not of works.

You do have a point that it is with the Lord's help we endure to the end, but the evidence is not there that you are saved, just that you believe and have faith. At any time you could lose said salvation through sin.

Because the evidence that we ARE (present tense, as Paul put it) partakers of Christ is that we hold the beginning of our confidence in Christ stedfast until the end, as he said. There are inposters in the Church, you know. So, not all who are in the Church will hold stedfast until the end. Those who do, will prove they ARE partakers with Christ. Who do you think Paul was talking to, saved people or unsaved poeple? Saved people, of course. The people of God, Christ's followers. His faithful children.

I believe Paul spoke to everyone, but in this case it was about those who endure to the end are partakers of Christ. You seem to have missed that, Paul speaks to all for the benefit of all to come unto Christ.

Read on in verses 2-3 for the answer. Who is "them" in verse 2? "Them" is not "us" whom Paul is talking to. What happened to "them"? The preached word didn't profit "them" because they didn't have faith. But, what did Paul say "we" who "have believed" (past tense) do? We enter into His rest.

You're not reading God's word in context, and you're missing the obvious. Read the verses around a verse, rather than cherry-picking one verse out of its intended context.

Here is where I bring in the "interpreter" part. We interpret the Bible differently, just because it is not in your context doesn't mean for a fact that we are wrong. The same can be said of us about you. We both believe we have it right, but there is not proof.

Because God DOES have expectations on His children. Those who are slothful prove that their faith is dead, if they don't demonstrate their faith with works. That's what James was talking about in chapter 2:14ff, and specifically in verse 18 when he said, "I will show you my faith BY my works." Read verse 14 to the end of Jame's chapter. If you have trouble seeing my point, I'll help you. Simply put, faith without works is dead, being alone (17). If faith is dead, then the person is not saved (verse 14). Only people whom God has been made alive with Christ are saved (Eph. 2:1-10).

Incorrect as the context in the next verse states that now is the time for the Zoramites to prepare to meet God (having been preached to, they have their chance before them). These people are soon to go to war and many will shortly meet their maker.

We believe the same, we show our faith by our works. Where are you getting that we are saved because of our works?

Of course your own logic has set up conflicts between the Bible verses we have mentioned above.I'll let that last comment slide, since you have yet to have the last word on anything we've dicussed.

You have a few questionable remarks as for conflicts go. Such as Paul, as I mentioned above.

The Zoramites are not mentioned in chapter 34. But, even if you can make a case for them being the subject of those verses in Alma 34, you cannot make a case for Paul telling the same thing to the allegedly Zoramites, in 2 Cor. 6:2, who were on the other side of the planet.

Same message, different people. Could that not be possible?

Okay, you're no reading the same Bible I am, because every verse on the salvation of the saints is either present or past tense. I cannot communicate lgically with someone who won't address the verses I've brought up on the subject, but instead, merely makes unsubstantiated claims like this.

If it is present for us now, it was future for them. So it should work for all three tenses then. I have brought up a few verses with you but have yet to see them addressed, as with the removal of John/3 Nephites, some pages ago. If I have missed them, my apologies, but if I have not you are throwing stones when you have displayed the same behavior.

Yes, expectations on the saved people of God, not on unsaved people who are not (yet, if ever) of God.

Expectations for all, if they meet them by having faith and living the best they can then they are saved. He expects the same from all of us, no matter what belief you are.

The "seed" is the message of the kingdom. Jesus tells of 4 different kinds of people that the seed (message) is sown in. Only one takes root in good soil, hearing and understanding the word, and subsequently bearing fruit.

Which type of person did Peter describe, similarly to the type which Jesus described?

Peter: one who is again entangled in the pollutions of the world.

Jesus: one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it.

Those without true faith, can only last so long, before they show their true self. The tares among the wheat. The wolves among the sheep. The types of ground in which the seed won't take root and bear fruit.

Yes, that is true, but only the Lord knows who are the tares and who are the wheat. As for the planting the seed, I believe that refers to faith not the person but it could go for both.

True. Which was very long ago, and has nothing to do with us. He was using the angels as an example of how God spares no one who lives in sin. So?

The message has something to do with us, no matter how saved you think you are now, you can still sin and that will take your salvation away.

[consiglieri]

Make that five and twenty...was that not Martha who was "careful and troubled about many things?" And was it Mary who chose the "better part?"

Five-and-twenty it is!

And congratulation to you, Lightbearer, for being the first Mormon to demonstrate a greater Bible proficiency than that of Mr. Betts!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[captain-jack]

Five-and-twenty it is!

And congratulation to you, Lightbearer, for being the first Mormon to demonstrate a greater Bible proficiency than that of Mr. Betts!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Dibs on post 666, who better to take it than a mangy Mormon-Pirate?

I don't know.

A mangy Mormon Pirate who can spell, maybe?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That's a big word for me to spell right, mate.

[consiglieri]

Dibs on post 666, who better to take it than a mangey Mormon-Pirate?

I don't know.

A mangy Mormon Pirate who can spell, maybe?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bob Betts]

So, in Mormonism, grace is not the unmerited or undeserved favor from God as in the Greek definition, but it must be earned.

Bob,

Strawman! Your summary of our position is logically untenable, and confuses the issue. I'm not really sure whether you are really so far in left-field that you don't realize you're perjurying your own objectivity, are doing so complelety in ignorance, or are simply disingeneous. Your ability to synthesize information and draw conveniently lame conclusion from them is disheartening...and you do it too often. Permit me to demonstrate:

Grace IS completely unmerited and undeserved. The fact that Christ permits us to come unto him and be baptized unto remitting our sins is completely due to His grace--and undeserved. Baptism hasn't been some self-existing, metaphysical product from the becomings of the universe for which we can solely take hold of for our own purposes... It is completely available because of His atonement (and thus grace). The fact is, we're in a hole called sin, and he's past a rope down to us. He will not force us to take hold of his grace...that is our work. But once we do and do it with all our might, His grace IS sufficient to pull us out.

Interesting analogy. Let me try a different one on you:

I was dead in my trespasses and sins, in which I formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them I too formerly lived in the lusts of my flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and was by nature a child of wrath, even as the rest.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved me, even when I was dead in my transgressions, made me alive together with Christ (by His undeserved favor I had to be saved), and raised me up with Him, and seated me with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward me in Christ Jesus. [This is a personalized rendition of Eph. 2:1-7, out of the NASB]

What work did I do, what work COULD I do, when I was so dead in my trespasses and sins?

I had neither the strength nor the capability to do anything but decide to trust God to save me, through Christ Jesus my Lord, as He promised to do IF I put my trust in Him alone.

The assumption you (LDS) make is, that you're actually (somehow that escapes me) still alive in your trespasses and sins, capable of doing something to assist God in your salvation effort, believing that He WANTS you to do something to help save yourself. To that end, you describe God passing a rope to you to grab onto and try with all your might to do ALL that you can do, by denying yourself of ALL ungodliness, to pull yourself up BEFORE He will pull you up.

But, that's not the scenario that the Apostle Paul described, in Ephesians 2:1-7. Instead of passing a rope and telling you to "grab on and give it all you've got, THEN I'll save you," God said, "For by undeserved favor from me, you have been saved through faith; and that not of grabbing onto the rope, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of giving it all you've got until you've done all you can do, so that you may boast."

How could His grace be "insufficient" you ask? To say it is completely sufficient to save all men with complete disrespect to their own actions insinuates that God babies the lazy, which is antithetical to both justice and mercy.

??? No, God saves the humble who realize their complete incapacity to do anything to save themselves in the midst of their total depravity. Why do you think Paul described you as DEAD in your trespasses and sins? Why do you think He used THAT analogy of our human condition in Eph. 2:1-3 before telling us that the only thing that could save us was God making us alive together with Christ by His underserved and unattainable grace (verse 5)? Those of us who truly understand this all-sufficiency of God, and total depravity of man, don't become lazy after He rescues us from our cesspool of sin and from hell, then both indwells and empowers us by tHis Spirit. To the contrary, we're more than grateful and willing to serve the Lord. You have a very skewed view of Christians, if you think we're a lazy lot.

You cheapen that free gift of salvation in your belief that there is anything you can do to save yourself, after Christ did ALL that was required of the Father to satisfy the debt of your sins. THAT'S the atonement. Christ earned your eternal life FOR you on the cross. He bought your ticket to hell with His life. You ARE nothing, and could DO nothing to please God prior to accepting His perfect propitiation for your sins, as the absolutely free gift, by God's absolutely undeserved and unattainable favor on you, which He freely offers you. Dead people can do nothing for themselves.

There's no proverbial rope, PacMan, that God expects you to grab onto and strain to earn forgiveness for all your sins, and earn eternal life. Christ is that eternal lifeline. He totally satisfied the requirement for all our past, present and future sins, and made the free gift of eternal life for whosoever will completely trust in Him and His all sufficient atonement. That doesn't make me lazy. It makes me incredibly thankful. It makes us want to serve Him all the more.

If He didn't put even minimalistic demands on the efficacy of His grace, there'd be no reason for any movement of Christianity to exist, for we'd all be saved regardless of what we believed!

Then you don't grasp the first thing of what Eph. 2:1-10 means.

How could God make any demands on spiritually dead people, other than trust Christ for forgiveness of sins AND everlasting life? Christ paid the entire debt for sins, to satisfy God's demand that He, God's spotless Lamb, die for all the sins of the world.

The wages of sin is death, not YOUR total effort. There is nothing you can do to earn that unattainable grace or salvation. It's free. Good works are the grateful response of those He has rescued with His own blood and death.

That minimalistic demands that He HAS placed on us, are what Paul refers to as "works," which in their entireties are extensions of His grace.

What's minimalistic about "after all you can do"? What's minimalistic about "total effort on the part of the recipient"? What's minimalistic about having to "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you"?

If God has minimalistic demands on us, then Christ's crucifixion was NOT sufficient to satisfy the debt for all sins and for everlasting life.

I am stunned that you obfuscate such a simple notion.

I'm stunned that your religion thinks and teaches that Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient, and that you must somehow earn forgiveness of sins, and earn eternal life, by means of your OWN righteousness, as if you had any, rather than recognize that you HAVE NO righteousness of your own. You cheapen the gift by believing that you can earn it. You make God out to be liar, by teaching that He offers a free gift, but expects you to earn it through your own efforts.

This is what makes the BoM a false book. The false idea that grace and salvation must be earned, after Christ was sent by God to pay the debt in full in our place, and on our behalf. All He asks is that we trust in Him. AFTER we trust in Him, THEN we serve Him. We cannot MAKE ourselves worthy of God. Christ MADE us worthy on the cross.

Untill you GET this, you don't have it.

[captain-jack]

You know, Mr. Betts, I repeatedly tell you that is not what we teach. You have yet to prove where it is taught in our faith. CFR on LDS teaching that we must work to earn grace. If you cannot or refuse to show where we teach that, then please drop it. It's getting old.

[consiglieri]

You cheapen that free gift of salvation in your belief that there is anything you can do to save yourself, after Christ did ALL that was required of the Father to satisfy the debt of your sins. THAT'S the atonement. Christ earned your eternal life FOR you on the cross. He bought your ticket to hell with His life. You ARE nothing, and could DO nothing to please God prior to accepting His perfect propitiation for your sins, as the absolutely free gift, by God's absolutely undeserved and unattainable favor on you, which He freely offers you. Dead people can do nothing for themselves.

* * *

This is what makes the BoM a false book. The false idea that grace and salvation must be earned, after Christ was sent by God to pay the debt in full in our place, and on our behalf. All He asks is that we trust in Him. AFTER we trust in Him, THEN we serve Him. We cannot MAKE ourselves worthy of God. Christ MADE us worthy on the cross.

Untill you GET this, you don't have it.

Dear Mr. Betts,

Do you find it of any significance that it is the Book of Mormon (you know, that "false book") that teaches salvation by grace alone after we put our trust in Jesus?

Example after example are put forth in the Book of Mormon of just that--wicked people being saved through no act of their own, but solely through trusting in the grace of Jesus Christ.

How is it, then, that a book you label as "false" teaches the doctrine of salvation you espouse?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[PacMan]

Bob,

The assumption you (LDS) make is, that you're actually (somehow that escapes me) still alive in your trespasses and sins, capable of doing something to assist God in your salvation effort, believing that He WANTS you to do something to help save yourself. To that end, you describe God passing a rope to you to grab onto and try with all your might to do ALL that you can do, by denying yourself of ALL ungodliness, to pull yourself up BEFORE He will pull you up.

Well then, please disambiguate “alive,” because that seems to be the great source of your confusion. If one is dead in sin, but still “alive” with a pulse, can he still repent? After Paul’s great transgressions, are you suggesting he never repented? Are you suggesting he never was baptized? And assisting God? What’s that mean? STRAWMAN!! (You enjoy falsifying our position, don’t you?) And yes, we have to hold onto the rope before God pulls up the rope. If not, that be a really mean trick—pulling up the rope without us on it! Brilliant…

As far as Ephesians 2 is concerned, you’re leveraging argumentum ad ignorantiam to ridiculous extremes. There is nothing to suggest that Paul did not repent, nor was baptized, nor accepted the Lord’s rebuke. You make it sound like Paul was a dumb marionette and God pulled all the strings! That’s ridiculous! Paul DID do something, and I bet if he were here right in front of us, he’d say it wasn’t easy, and probably painful. In fact, he talks about his experience of persecuting the saints…do you think he’s bragging about it? Of course not! He’s obviously remorseful.

Instead of passing a rope and telling you to "grab on and give it all you've got, THEN I'll save you," God said, "For by undeserved favor from me, you have been saved through faith; and that not of grabbing onto the rope, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of giving it all you've got until you've done all you can do, so that you may boast."

THEN IF IT TAKES NOT WORK ON OUR PART, WHY DOESN’T GOD PULL US ALL UP RIGHT NOW? WHY ARE SOME STILL FLOUNDERING? IF ITS ALL UP TO GOD, WHY DOESN’T HE CAUSE US ALL TO REPENT AND BELIEVE, INSTEAD OF “MAKING” OTHER NOT, AND GO TO HELL? Your insinuations are logically untenable.

No, God saves the humble who realize their complete incapacity to do anything to save themselves in the midst of their total depravity. Why do you think Paul described you as DEAD…

Oh…so we need to humble ourselves? Sound like a work to me! And DEAD is because we are spiritually unclean, incapable of returning to God’s presence. We ARE dead, because sin separates us from God and there’s nothing we can do about it without Christ’s help.

You cheapen that free gift of salvation in your belief that there is anything you can do to save yourself, after Christ did ALL that was required of the Father to satisfy the debt of your sins. THAT'S the atonement. Christ earned your eternal life FOR you on the cross. He bought your ticket to hell with His life.

Again, you proof-text and twist my words. And no, it is not cheapened, but appreciated. Until you go through the pains of experience, you never fully appreciate things…from childhood until we die, if we don’t suffer the pains of experience, we can’t fully appreciate the benefits of grace. But you ARE right, that Christ DID all that was required of the Father to satisfy the debt of your sin. And what’s the exchange? To accept Christ, to follow him, and be baptized….all works.

You ARE nothing, and could DO nothing to please God prior to accepting His perfect propitiation for your sins, as the absolutely free gift, by God's absolutely undeserved and unattainable favor on you, which He freely offers you. Dead people can do nothing for themselves.

“Accepting?” Sounds like another work to me. I really think your are on the fringe of anti-mormonism because you seem to shutter at the thought that our doctrine makes sense. If you accept Christ, that’s a work. And when you do, you repent. That’s a work. Part of the repentance process is baptism…and that’s a work. And it’s all encompassing of being obedient…which is also a work.

There's no proverbial rope, PacMan, that God expects you to grab onto and strain to earn forgiveness for all your sins, and earn eternal life. Christ is that eternal lifeline. He totally satisfied the requirement for all our past, present and future sins, and made the free gift of eternal life for whosoever will completely trust in Him and His all sufficient atonement. That doesn't make me lazy. It makes me incredibly thankful. It makes us want to serve Him all the more.

Keep cheerleading, but it makes not sense. So you’re in the pit of sin, and He comes down the well, picks you up, and brings you out without any effort on your part? THEN WHY DOESN’T HE DO IT FOR EVERYONE? There is no justice, and it is not merciful. It is logically untenable, and makes God a respecter of persons which he is not! Instead of holding so fastly to your notions, why don’t you start treating the great problems that they introduce?

I said:

If He didn't put even minimalistic demands on the efficacy of His grace, there'd be no reason for any movement of Christianity to exist, for we'd all be saved regardless of what we believed!

Instead of telling me I don’t understand, why don’t you respond to what I say.

How could God make any demands on spiritually dead people, other than trust Christ for forgiveness of sins AND everlasting life? Christ paid the entire debt for sins, to satisfy God's demand that He, God's spotless Lamb, die for all the sins of the world.

Simple; Because spiritually dead people aren’t physically dead. They can still hear, feel remorse, and repent. Moreover…to trust is a work! ARGGGHHH!

There is nothing you can do to earn that unattainable grace or salvation. It's free. Good works are the grateful response of those He has rescued with His own blood and death.

Well…except faith without works is dead. They’re not optional. Moreover, you again structure a STRAWMAN!!! Will you get it out of your warped, EV mind that Mormon’s believe they can EARN grace or salvation? This is so disingenuous, I wonder what business you have as a minister in any capacity! You are purposefully and now maliciously restructuring a position which has never been! It CAN’T be earned! The idea of baptism, as I’ve said, isn’t self-existing: it’s offered by Christ, and is complete grace. Being baptized doesn’t “earn” us anything. It’s like a child learning to eat…the parent works for money, to buy the food, prepares it, breaks it up, puts it on the spoon…and all the child has to do is open his mouth. And to you that’s ‘earning’ his food?

What's minimalistic about "after all you can do"? What's minimalistic about "total effort on the part of the recipient"? What's minimalistic about having to "deny yourself of all ungodliness, THEN is His grace sufficient for you"?

Here’s the problem; Christ wants us to accept him and follow him…to be obedient and exercise faith, right? Perhaps you haven’t seen this:

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

(New Testament | Romans 10:16)

If you don’t obey, then you don’t believe. And only those that obey can be saved:

21

[Bob Betts]

Hmmm. Why then does God call prophets. Are they not men on earth that speak the will of the Lord?By definition of the Hebrew word, nabi, they're mouthpieces of God.

We're to listen to them, assuming they're true prophets/mouthpieces of God.

God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God," to be delivered to whomever. The "mouthpieces of God" delivered the messages. Then, in due time, God acted on His messages, which His mouthpieces delivered for Him. Nowhere in this verse, nor anywhere else, does God instruct His people to follow any "mouthpieces."

No, they (and Moses) followed the Lord through the desert:

You'll have to be specific.

I don't know what you're trying to remember. So, I will assume that what they were condemned for was not obeying the message, which were delivered by His mouthpieces.

Yes, as "mouthpieces of God," not as humans to be followed. Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the only one we are ever to follow, not humans. However God uses us as humans, we are not to be followed. We are always supposed to cause people to look to and follow the Lord, only. Following prophets was not a biblical concept or practice. Adhering to the messages of God, delivered by His mouthpieces, WAS a biblical concept and practice.

Bob,

It looks like we have very close to the same understanding. Now this is the part that is a little strange for me.

I disagree. You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets. You have a hymn praising Joseph Smith. You have pictures of Joseph Smith hanging everywhere. There are busts of Joseph Smith in the LDS Museum west of Temple Square. You have a larger than life, full-length statue of Joseph Smith in the lobby of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building east of Temple Square. You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God. If the treatment of Smith isn't worship (by definition), then it sure LOOKS remarkably like it. It's apparent you have a very different perspective on God's "mouthpieces."

"Throughout the Bible, the Lord is the only one we are ever to follow, not humans. However God uses us as humans, we are not to be followed" And this part "God revealed His messages to the "mouthpieces of God," to be delivered to whomever. The "mouthpieces of God" delivered the messages. Then, in due time, God acted on His messages, which His mouthpieces delivered for Him. Nowhere in this verse, nor anywhere else, does God instruct His people to follow any "mouthpieces.""

Help me out. If God uses mouthpieces (prophets) and by following the prophets words wich are Gods words. how then do you not follow a prophets words but follow Gods?

You do a whole lot more than just follow Smith's words. You have a different perspective on prophets. Shall I post Kimball's Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophets and we'll see together how your church treats LDS prophets as more than just mouthpieces with messages from God?

This makes no sence. You admited that the children of Israel were under condemntaion for not obeying the message that God delievered unto His prophets. Are obeying and following diffrent in meaning?

Sure. Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

THanks for your time. Thank you for not being rude too.

You're very welcome. Thank you for the very courteous questions, without having to relentlessly accuse me of "strawmen" and "obfuscation" in every post, as some are want to do.

[Momus]

Bob a poster has requested us to inform you that a Call For Reference has been made where you make the claim that LDS require works to gain salvation. Can you please answer this cfr asap.

Momus

[Bob Betts]

But the free gift must be used in order to have any effect.

No, it must be received.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

That is why faith and works are requirements for salvation. Even in James 2 you see that works justify us...makes us eligible for salvation...which of course dovetails with Jesus' statements in Matthew 25

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

Even the lexicon (Strongs and Thayers) has 'justified' in this verse set (from vs 21 on) as the 'meritorious cause of their acceptance' and compares it to Paul's statements about 'apprehending'.

James 2:14ff:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Who is James talking to? (â??my brethrenâ?) So, James is talking to saved, born-again, sanctified, reconciled, justified, redeemed, filled with the Holy Spirit, believers in and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; Christians.

Who is James talking about? A hypothetical man who says he has faith, but has no works to show for it. "Can faith save him"? No. He does not have a faith in God that will save him. He does not have the kind of pure faith that is manifested by good works. Why not? Next two versesâ?¦

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? What did the hypothetical man, who says he has faith, neglect to do? He neglected to love those in need. As in verse 14, James asked the same question as in verse 16, â??What doth it profitâ?? What does it profit a man to say he has faith in God, while he neglects those in need? In Godâ??s economy and in Godâ??s Kingdom, nothing. Therefore,â?¦

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. So, if a man says he has faith in God, but proceeds to do no good works (loving God and his neighbor), then his faith is dead; he is not saved.

Then, James talks about a different kind of man:

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. This hypothetical man boasts to James that James has faith, while the man has works. James challenges the man to show James his faith without his works, and James will show him a better way: James will show his faith BY his works. Did James say he would show his salvation by his works? No.

NOTE: This is what Christians have been telling LDS all along. Good works demonstrates faith in God. Salvation is in no way taught in James, nor elsewhere, as the LDS belief states it, â??we are saved by faith plus works.â?

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. That hypothetical man even believed there is one God, and that man does well to believe that. But, devils believe it also. So, what is the hypothetical manâ??s problem? Again, as above, the manâ??s faith, this time in the belief that there is one God, neglects the issue of demonstrating faith with action. Subsequently, the manâ??s faith is dead, being faith alone. The faith this man has, that â??there is one God,â? is not a saving faith. Even those who believe there is one God, are no better off than the devils who also believe it, and tremble. Neither that man, nor those devils, share in the salvation of God.

James reiterates: 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? James is talking about a vain man, an unsaved man, who has faith in there being one God, but no love/action to back it up.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Here, the LDS say, â??See? Abraham was justified by works. Thatâ??s just what WE believe.â? The next verses explain:

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? Was Abraham not a man of faith before he offered Isaac upon the altar? Yes, he was. So, would offering Isaac upon an altar achieve Abrahamâ??s salvation? No, Abraham did not offer his son on the altar in order to attain salvation by works. Then, what does James want us to â??seestâ?? That faith plus Abrahamâ??s actions worked together to make his faith perfect/complete by his action. His action demonstrated that his faith was genuine. His action, in concert with his faith, completed his faith. His faith was already alive, as opposed to dead. Tha action proved it.

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. What, exactly, caused righteousness to be imputed to Abraham? Believing God. And, believing God made Abraham a â??Friend of God.â?

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. The LDS again say, â??See? James said, weâ??re justified by faith plus works. Thatâ??s just what WE believe.â? If this verse alone, was all James said on the subject, you could make that case. But, as weâ??ve just seen, in context, the main subject is not salvation by faith plus works, but faith being made complete and alive, by the accompaniment of works. Works justify a man, only when his faith is already alive and active. His works are the outward manifestation of his living and active faith.

25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? Another example, by James, of faith in action, not salvation by faith plus works.

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. The antithetical expression of this verse is: just as the body needs the spirit to be complete and alive, so faith needs to be accompanied by works to be complete and alive.

Summary: Jamesâ?? letter to Jewish believers is a message of encouragement and admonishment to live out their faith in their daily lives. It is not a message which ties good works to faith in order to attain salvation. James audience was believers.

Addendum: Paul said, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28).

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16)."

Are Paul and James contradicting each other as some LDS have alleged? No. The problem is context. James was not in disagreement with Paul when he said, â??Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.â? Paul was talking about deeds (works) of the law not justifying a man, but James was talking about good works (love actions) accompanying faith as a manifestation of the manâ??s being justified before God. The actions (work) are the evidence of genuine faith.

[Paul Ray]

Bob,

Please give us your ideas about grace/works/salvation in another thread that is focused on those issues.

This focus of this thread is centered on the issue of apostasy, and while all gospel truths can be considered to be related, I believe it wouild help to focus only on what apostasy was/is in this thread.

I hope you will agree on that idea, but if you don't, please humor me.

Thank you.

[Lightbearer]

Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

Actually the Bible says otherwise:

(Philippians 3:17) "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample."

And also this:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-10) "For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; Neither did we eat any manâ??s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us."

And yet another:

(1 Corinthians 4:15-16) "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me."

So here are three quotes from the Apostle Paul that disputes what you said about following prophets. So I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. Joseph Smith did the same, and we do not worship him as you know full well.

[Paul Ray]

... I do not think you can deny the fact that at least Paul admonishes the Saints to follow him as he follows Christ. That is the duty of all true prophets, to be an example to those whom they are called to minister to. Joseph Smith did the same, and we do not worship him as you know full well.

I think it would help if you realized that Bob, himself, said that while we may not technically "worship" Joseph Smith, it sure looks a lot like worship from his perspective.

I think "worship" basically refers to following, and/or serving, and/or being a disciple of "someone/anyone", but we usually only use the word "worship" in connotation with God.

We do follow, and/or serve, and become disciples of other people, besides God, though. We just normally don't use the word "worship" in connotation with other people.

... although some people do sometimes say that other people are actually worshipping Satan.

It's a strange phenomenon.

Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled program, please?

[selek]

I think it would help if you realized that Bob, himself, said that while we may not technically "worship" Joseph Smith, it sure looks a lot like worship from his perspective.

I think "worship" basically refers to following, and/or serving, and/or being a disciple of "someone/anyone", but we usually only use the word "worship" in connotation with God.

We do follow, and/or serve, and become disciples of other people, besides God, though. We just normally don't use the word "worship" in connotation with other people.

... although some people do sometimes say that other people are actually worshipping Satan.

It's a strange phenomenon.

Oh for the love of Pete, Paul! Give your hobby horse a rest!

And as to your post at 12:12pm:

Please give us your ideas about grace/works/salvation in another thread that is focused on those issues.

This focus of this thread is centered on the issue of apostasy, and while all gospel truths can be considered to be related, I believe it wouild help to focus only on what apostasy was/is in this thread.

I hope you will agree on that idea, but if you don't, please humor me.

One of the mods has directed Bob to stop obfuscating and directly answer a CFR.

Why don't you stop giving him cover?

[Paul Ray]

One of the mods has directed Bob to stop obfuscating and directly answer a CFR.

Why don't you stop giving him cover?

I asked the mods to direct Bob to provide that CFR in another thread so that we can stop obfuscating the topic of this thread.

I'll wait to see what they AND Bob have to say about that request.

[BCSpace]

You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God.

That JS might be a savior is Biblical in the Obadiah 1:21 sense.

If the treatment of Smith isn't worship (by definition), then it sure LOOKS remarkably like it. It's apparent you have a very different perspective on God's "mouthpieces."

Yet such does not match the Bibical lexiconal definition of 'worship' (such as that found in John 4:24). You will have to do better than that such as obeisance or prayer to.

Notice also John 14:12

[Lightbearer]

I think it would help if you realized that Bob, himself, said that while we may not technically "worship" Joseph Smith, it sure looks a lot like worship from his perspective.

I think "worship" basically refers to following, and/or serving, and/or being a disciple of "someone/anyone", but we usually only use the word "worship" in connotation with God.

We do follow, and/or serve, and become disciples of other people, besides God, though. We just normally don't use the word "worship" in connotation with other people.

... although some people do sometimes say that other people are actually worshipping Satan.

It's a strange phenomenon.

Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled program, please?

I read his post and the portion I was addressing was that the Bible does refer to following apostles and prophets at least the apostle Paul refered to it three different times and he was talking to the Saints that were located in the cities where the epistles were addressed to. As for worshipping Joseph Smith, we do not worship him any more than those at Philipi, Thessalonica, and Corinth did Paul in following him and his word as he (the apostle) followed Christ.

[Bob Betts]

Hmm. No, I donâ??t think so.

Here is what you quoted earlier in your OP from â??Preach My Gospelâ??:

What I said in my last post was that the apostasy was not â??completeâ? in the sense I think you meant it.

We still have vestiges of the earlier church, such as words from some apostles that are recorded in our New Testament, so I donâ??t think it is proper to say there was a â??completeâ? apostasy, if by â??completeâ? you are thinking there isnâ??t anything leftover from the earlier church.

What we didnâ??t have were apostles to establishâ?¦ and correctâ?¦ local leaders, until the restoration God accomplished by the work of Joseph Smith.

Try looking at it this way for a moment:

If the earlier church was still on the Earth in the days of Joseph Smithâ?¦ and Iâ??m not saying it was or wasnâ??t at that pointâ?¦ which one do you think Joseph should have joined? Which one do you think had the fullness of the gospel and was led by authorized apostles of God with the authority to establishâ?¦ and correctâ?¦ and removeâ?¦ and replaceâ?¦ local leaders in all of the churches of God everywhere on the Earth then... while also appointing new apostles and general authorities over the whole Earth as the need for more apostles and general authorities arose?

Okay. Here we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "Church." The Church is both universal (all true believers in Christ around the world), and local (Corinth, Galatia, Rome Ephesus, etc.). Not one central organization controlling everything. Christ's Apostles didn't ever have everything under control, as you see from reading the epistles.

Since the reformation, the Church gradually broke up into denominations and independent Churches. What you claim as Smith's dilemma over which Church was true, you view as a choice of which denomination was true. Fact is, the Church landscape had radically changed in Smith's day, from the days of the early Church of the apostolic age. Knowing what I know NOW, if I had been living in Smith's day, I would have done then what I've done today: attend the local Church which I best see as adhereing to the NT doctrines as I best understand them, and the one which most closely tries to live it on a personal level and in the community. I won't go into why I think Smith chose to start his own.

So, to answer your question, I can't answer your question. Because, 1) I don't know what each denomination or independent Church was like in Smith's day, and 2) I don't believe that Churches need to be led by alleged living prophets and apostles, as in the early Church. The foundation was laid by the OT prophets and the early Church Apostles, and according to Paul in Ephesians, does not need to be relaid, with ongoing living Apostles or prophets.

I look at the authority stucture of any given local Protestant Church today, and if it serves Christ and the community with true believers who love God and their neighbor, understanding the biblical nature of God as triune and one, and that salvation is by grace through faith alone, as taught from our extremely well-preserved Biblical canon, then it is a successful body of Christ, being used of, and bringing glory to God.

We (LDS) claim that our Lord told Joseph Smith to join none of the churches in his day because they were all wrong (meaning they were all wrong to some extent, I believe). That their creeds were an abomination in our Lordâ??s sight, and those professors were all corrupt (meaning they mixed truth with error, I believe). That they drew near to him with their lips, but their hearts were far from him (meaning they were like the Pharisees, I believe). That they taught for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they denied the power thereof (meaning they denied at least some of what God could accomplish through them, I believe).

Yes, well, I've read a photo-copy of Smith's 1832 diary account of that alleged event, and what's in IT is not at all like what you all consider the official version, in the PoGP. So, I put no stock in Joseph Smith or anything he ever said. I do not believe he was sent by God.

Nowhere in that statement did our Lord say there werenâ??t still some remnants of either doctrine or people who remained from the earlier church, and nowhere did our Lord say the Holy Bible is useless to help others see what the earlier church once was.

Nor did Christ's authority and priesthood ever leave the earth, since Christ was always ON the earth, in Spirit. As I've already quoted Him saying to the disciples before His ascension, "Lo, and I will be with you always." I take Him at His word on that. Since He was here, so was His authority, and His priesthood, and the keys, even though the Apostles were all dead.

When people start teaching their own ideas as the doctrine of God, without accepting the idea that other people have the authority to correct them, we see divisions upon divisions of people forming so-called churches of God with nobody thinking God has the power to bring everyone into unity... and that power of God to bring people into unity with God is exercised through the priesthood of God that is righteously exercised by Godâ??s authorized servants, aka apostles of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I repeat the problem which you have with these comments of yours: there are dozens of other Joseph Smith-believing churches around, all claiming to be the one true Mormon church, and all believing YOURS is the apostate one, being the false church of the Brighamites. Even Joseph Smith's own widow, the first lady of the original Mormon church, disavowed Brigham Young AND polygamy and helped to start a new Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called the Reorganized LDS, now CoC. Smith's own son, eventually became the prophet, and evidence in LDS archival history affirms that Smith named His son as his successor.

At least the Catholic church seems to be aware that there needs to be some kind of general authority figures, NOW (they didn't have any for several centuries after the death of the apostles), but they are not following the pattern of our Lordâ??s earlier church. They have changed some ordinances and come up with some new doctrines that are not in harmony with what we can see in the Holy Bible.

When you say "At least the Catholic church...," I'm reminded that what you are somewhat setting up as an example, is what the BoM suggests was the "Great and Abominable Church." So, I don't know if setting up that "abominable" church as an example is such a good idea.

At least some other Christians see the value of trying to conform to the pattern of the Holy Bible.

I don't believe that setting up a Church with Apostles and prophets is conforming to the pattern of the Holy Bible. The pattern of the Holy Bible, is that as the Apostles each died, replacements were not always picked. If the pattern of the Holy Bible was to keep the succession of Apostles going, Christ would certainly have arranged for that to happen. He didn't. You have your reasons why, and I have mine. And mine has nothing to do with an apostasy of priesthood authority and keys, since Christ was always here with His priesthood authority and keys.

Why donâ??t you just bring all the good that you have and add it to all the good that we have by joining you and your whole church with us and our church?

For the obvious reason: for me to even accept your church as a true church, I'd have to believe Smith was true. I don't.

I donâ??t think any LDS would ever try to tell you that you are completely wrong about everything.

Then why did Christ allegedly tell SMITH that. It appears as if you're back-pedaling from the very blunt, ALL-condemning statements which Smith claims Christ emphasized to him. Don't you believe what Christ allegedly told Smith? If you do, then all our Churches must still be wrong, all our creeds must still be an abomination, and all our professors still corrupt. I doubt that you would view our Protestant Churches as having become less wrong, our creeds less abominable, and our professors less corrupt. At least not according to what I've heard on THIS site.

You simply need to be willing to learn more than you know now, from the people who have the authority to teach you, aka our Lordâ??s apostles.

I know you mean well and you're sincere. But, I don't believe your church or apostles have anything to offer this biblicist.

God bless you in your journey.

Thank you. I know you mean that with all your heart.

Enjoy the experience.

I've experienced your "church." It was not enjoyable.

If you're not a member of our Lord's church before this year is over, I'll be very disappointed with you, personally, Bob.

You will be very disappointed. Last week, I completed 3 weeks of the most amiable discussions with some "elders." They put on the full press to get me to pray about Smith and the BoM. I did not succumb. They ended future discussions because I would not do so. We parted on the friendliest of terms.

p.s. And btw, you might also enjoy reading 'Bishops and Apostles in Early Christianity', written by Hugh Nibley.

p.p.s. I'd like to explain that statement you quoted in the PMG. Who knows, maybe this will help you:

After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them... OIOW, wicked people, including Jews, persecuted and killed many of the apostles and true disciples of the true God that some of them claimed to worship.

With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth... OIOW, when the apostles died, the priesthood keys and presiding priesthood authority of those apostles who died were taken from the Earth along with them.

The Apostles had kept the doctrines of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members... OIOW, the apostles maintained order and the standard of worthiness for Church members and kept the doctrines of the gospel pure despite any/all efforts by other people who taught, perhaps unintentionally, corrupt forms of true gospel doctrines.

Without the Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.... OIOW, without apostles to maintain order in the Church and the standard of worthiness for Church members and the purity of true gospel doctrines, the true gospel doctrines became corrupted and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as doctrines concerning who can baptize another person and who can confer the gift of the Holy Ghost upon another person, as well as how to perform those ordinances.

Now to sum it up: Without apostles to continually maintain the church and all true gospel principles, by personally visiting and/or writing letters continually, the field was open and ready to be corrupted by people who were laboring in God's vineyard... some of whom probably have had only the best of intentions while thinking that their way was the best way to do things.

Adieu, Bob.

I do not believe there was such an apostasy. I don't believe the priesthood authority of Christ ever left the earth, because He has always been here, as He promised the disciples. I believe the foundation of Christ's Church, built upon the OT prophets and Apostles and Christ as the Cornerstone, was permanently laid for all generations. I don't believe that every time an Apostle died, that part of the foundation went away also, and needed to be replaced by another living Apostle. If Christ, the Cornerstone and Head of the Church, who was always here according to His promise to the disciples, wanted an Apostolic succession of living Apostles, He would have made it so. He didn't.

That didn't result in an apostasy, but a continuation of His Church (at least a remnant), with Himself still the Chief Cornerstone and Head on earth, using Bishops and Elders and Deacons, etc., by His Spirit, to build upon the foundation which He and His Apostles and the OT prophets had already laid.

[BCSpace]

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28).

A common EV mistake is to take verses that refer to the law of Moses and apply them to all deeds and works. In the above example, Betts has made Romans 3:28 conflict with....

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

... and several other verses besides such as Matthew 25:31-46 which he did not address with anything other than denial.

[captain-jack]

Guess we'll play the waiting game until we are finally answered.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bob,

It looks like we have very close to the same understanding. Now this is the part that is a little strange for me.I disagree. You (LDS) view and treat Joseph Smith entirely differently than the Bible views and treats OT prophets. You have a hymn praising Joseph Smith. You have pictures of Joseph Smith hanging everywhere. There are busts of Joseph Smith in the LDS Museum west of Temple Square. You have a larger than life, full-length statue of Joseph Smith in the lobby of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building east of Temple Square. You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God. If the treatment of Smith isn't worship (by definition), then it sure LOOKS remarkably like it. It's apparent you have a very different perspective on God's "mouthpieces."

Help me out. If God uses mouthpieces (prophets) and by following the prophets words wich are Gods words. how then do you not follow a prophets words but follow Gods? You do a whole lot more than just follow Smith's words. You have a different perspective on prophets. Shall I post Kimball's Fourteen Fundamentals of Following the Prophets and we'll see together how your church treats LDS prophets as more than just mouthpieces with messages from God?

Sure. Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message. There is nothing in the Bible about following prophets or anyone else, save the Prophet, Jesus Christ.

You're very welcome. Thank you for the very courteous questions, without having to relentlessly accuse me of "strawmen" and "obfuscation" in every post, as some are want to do.

Hmmm

Lets see here. You feel we worship JS becuase we have a statue of him. So any time some one has a statue or a picture of some one do you equate that with worship? From my view, Bob, I could say you worship the cross not Jesus. People have crosses everywere. Now I dont think that is what you do, so lets not go down that road. I dont worship JS. I revere him but that is it. Do I worship my kids becuase I have pictures of them? No. Do I worship Beethoven becuase I have a little bust of him on my piano? No. So do you see?

Also lets look here. "You (LDS) treat Joseph Smith more as a savior, than just a mouthpiece of God." How do we do this? Im now more confused. (sorry) JS is not my savior, only Jesus is. Were are you getting this from. Ok I shouldnt have asked. You listed a few things that "looked" like we worship JS but we dont so its a non issue.

Bob, how is this diffrent? " Adhereing to following the message from God, is entirely different than following the prophet who delivered the message." Please elaborate. Can you follow the message from God with out following a prophet? I really want to know this great mystery. If so how, if not why not?

[BCSpace]

I don't believe the priesthood authority of Christ ever left the earth, because He has always been here, as He promised the disciples.

But you have yet to show that any believing disciples remained and continued to teach and impart, especially in the Ephesians 4:11-14 sense which requires living apostles and prophets to be in the Church and in light of universal apostasy verses.

Prime historical evidence is also found in the fact that no ECF ever taught anything like modern nonLDS christianity in the Catholic and especially in the Protestant sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A common EV mistake is to take verses that refer to the law of Moses and apply them to all deeds and works. In the above example, Betts has made Romans 3:28 conflict with....

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

... and several other verses besides such as Matthew 25:31-46 which he did not address with anything other than denial.

Not that I want to bust you guys but take the faith vs works thing some were else. Please start a new thread. I be happy to take this there too, so will Bob. I msure Bob will join you.

Guess we'll play the waiting game until we are finally answered.

Have some patients. Im glad Bob actually reads and responds to almost all the posts. It takes time. he will get there.