An Angel Of Light

[Hoops22]

I think both are reliable. Now it is your turn.

Where do you put Peter's writings?

2 Pet 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

[Billy]

You would be surprised if you knew how many Evangelicals I have spoken with or read who say that this verse is enough for them to reject the Book of Mormon.

My favorite example is Shawn McCraney, who, in a moment of candor, said that even if the Book of Mormon had all of the archaeological evidence in the world behind it he would still refuse to accept the Book of Mormon because of that single verse. This, he said, is enough to constitute "another Gospel" despite all of the evidence for it.

So I don't think it is really that farfetched.

If you have two contradictory ideas, can they both be true? I would have to agree with McCraney on this one, because both of the verses below can't both be true at the same time. It is either by our own efforts to some degree as the LDS suggest, or it is entirely by grace through faith, but not both.

2 Nephi 25:23. . . it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Ephesians 2

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

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[ttribe]

If you have two contradictory ideas, can they both be true? I would have to agree with McCraney on this one, because both of the verses below can't both be true at the same time. It is either by our own efforts to some degree as the LDS suggest, or it is entirely by grace through faith, but not both.

2 Nephi 25:23. . . it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Ephesians 2

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

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Obviously, Billy, we don't agree with you that these two ideas are contradictory. In fact, I can see the consistency in them just fine.

[erichard]

If you have two contradictory ideas, can they both be true? I would have to agree with McCraney on this one, because both of the verses below can't both be true at the same time. It is either by our own efforts to some degree as the LDS suggest, or it is entirely by grace through faith, but not both.

2 Nephi 25:23. . . it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Ephesians 2

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

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Hi Billy,

Salvation is by grace, but salvation does NOT come to everyone. Hmm.

Here are two possibilities for this:

1) God capriciously saves some and capriciously sends others to hell.

or

2) Even though it is by Grace, one still has to SOMEHOW qualify for that grace.

I do not accept #1, and hope you don't either. A Capricious God would be scary.

Do you agree that one has to qualify for Salvation by Grace? How?

The Mormon answer, as I understand it, is: Faith in Christ, Repentance from sins and rebelliousness against Christ's teachings, Baptism by John the Baptist or someone with the same authority, reception of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Other "works" in the Mormon faith are to gain perfection and exaltation, not salvation.

Here is one non-Mormon answer to this question: Admit you are a sinner and turn away from your sin. Believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from your sins and give you eternal life. Come to him by faith. You may pray a simple prayer to God. Now, donâ??t doubt. Tell someone about your decision. (From: http://christianity.about.com/od/newchrist...mechristian.htm )

It sure seems to me that someone could complain that both these lists, and all the others out there in Christianity, require "works".

But does anyone suggest these "works" actually replaces the atonement? Or that they actually pay the price of saving one from sin? Of course not.

Is it not honestly fair to say that the "works" of qualifying for salvation -- whatever they are-- do not in the least take away our need of the Grace of God to actually save us from our sins?

Richard

[Billy]

Hi Billy,

Salvation is by grace, but salvation does NOT come to everyone. Hmm.

Here are two possibilities for this:

1) God capriciously saves some and capriciously sends others to hell.

or

2) Even though it is by Grace, one still has to SOMEHOW qualify for that grace.

If a president pardons a prisoner, and the prisoner refuses to accept that pardon he can't go free. You must believe that Christ paid for your sins and accept the terms that has been offered.

Do you agree that one has to qualify for Salvation by Grace? How?

You qualify by accepting the free gift by faith in Jesus and making him your Lord and Saviour of your life. Remember you do not have to accept anything, including a gift. Some would say that faith is what is needed to qualify and that faith is a work, others, especially Calvinists will say that God draws those who are his elect to him and this includes giving the elect their faith in Christ. But this is not what I am talking about when I speak of works and I think that you already know that. When I speak of works, I am speaking of doing a list of things that you would consider necessary to return and live with God (EV's heaven or LDS' Celestial kingdom). These are extra things required in addition to placing your faith in Christ for your salvation (exaltation). Either you can get there without any of these things in addition to your faith, or your ARE required to do these things to obtain your exaltation.

If a man was dying on the street and had 10 minutes to live, and he said to you that he will do anything that you ask of him in the short time prior to his death so that he can go to heaven (Celestial Kingdom), what could you do to ensure that this would happen? Or is this not possible according to the LDS theology?

Other "works" in the Mormon faith are to gain perfection and exaltation, not salvation.

When a EV uses the term salvation, that means living with God the Father again, the equivalent to the Celestial Kingdom. Often times when a LDS member uses the term salvation it can mean receiving a resurrection body, which everyone will receive, including all the bad people who have lived on the earth, but this does not mean that they will live with God the Father again.

So when you use the term salvation, does that mean Celestial Kingdom, or does it simply mean receiving a resurrecton body? By your statement it seems that you are acknowledging the fact that exaltation does include a set list of works for entrance. Would you agree?

[jmhughes]

You qualify by accepting the free gift by faith in Jesus and making him your Lord and Saviour of your life.

That acceptance is a work, God can't do it for your. Also, I know you've heard this before but faith without works is dead.

[Cold Steel]

2 Nephi 25:23

...it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Ephesians 2

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

These are not contradictory in the least.

Without the sacrifice of the Savior, no work could get one to heaven. Mother Theresa herself would return to her native element, or that which she was before she became a spirit, and all the Earth would be returned to an uncreated and unsaved condition.

That salvation is a gift is something that both Nephi and Paul realized. But the gift is not unconditional. It requires that we believe and it requires that we obey God's dictates. Thus we must be baptized and endure to the end, doing whatsoever the Father commands.

One thing that might explain the differences in approach here is that in the Old World, Nephi had to trudge up to the top of a very high mountain (like Moses) to commune with God. He understood that this was symbolic of doing everything in one's own power before expecting God to intervene in our lives. Paul, as far as we know, never did this. But Nephi's remarks acknowledge that grace is the only means to salvation, but he adds that we must comply with the gospel to receive that salvation, which includes belief. Baptism is a work, but it doesn't save. Still, we must do it to be saved, because that's part of the sacred covenant we make at baptism, and in the sacrament.

If you had a copy of the sacramental prayer, Billy, you would know what I'm talking about; but alas, that was not included in the Bible. It has, however, been restored. It states that we are "willing to take upon [us] the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given [us]...." So it's not works in any way, shape or form. Of course no one has to believe in Jesus; no one has to be baptized or to make those covenants. But if they don't, they can in no wise receive exaltation (salvation), because the instant you say that one must "believe," well, that's an act, or work, isn't it? Believing? And if believing, then obedience. But these things without the sacrifice would be meaningless.

[Billy]

That acceptance is a work, God can't do it for your. Also, I know you've heard this before but faith without works is dead.

If someone comes to your house to visit and they bring you a gift and you accept that gift, would you call that a work?

James 2:26. . .so faith without works is dead also.

If you look at this verse, what is dead without works in this verse? The answer is Faith

Without works in your life, it is difficult to know it you truly have faith. If I told you that tomorrow morning at 8 am a meteor would come through your roof and hit your bed, if you said that you had faith in what I had told you, how could I really tell for sure if you truly had faith in what I told you? If you were asleep in bed at 8 am, by your works or actions I could tell that even though you said you had faith in what I said, by your actions you did not really believe me. The same is true in the life of a Christian, if he has a lot of fruit in his or her life, then likely that person has true lifesaving faith in Christ.

[Billy]

Without the sacrifice of the Savior, no work could get one to heaven.

Agree, with the caveat that nobody period could get into heaven, with or without works.

That salvation is a gift is something that both Nephi and Paul realized. But the gift is not unconditional. It requires that we believe and it requires that we obey God's dictates. Thus we must be baptized and endure to the end, doing whatsoever the Father commands.

So if we do not follow God's dictates (works) then we can't go to the Celestial Kingdom?

If you had a copy of the sacramental prayer, Billy, you would know what I'm talking about;

I should know it by heart, because I said it so many times in my life, not to mention when I had to repeat it because I did not get the approval nod from the bishop.

[Dutch]

Billy,

If grace is a free gift, why do you still have to DO something? One still has to acknowledge Christ as the Savior, one still has to acknowledge his sinful state and his total dependence on Christ to save him. One still has to exert faith in something outside of himself to attain salvation. Doesn't sound free to me. It doesn't sound free, becuase it isn't. A price still has to be paid. And that price is a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

[Billy]

Billy,

If grace is a free gift, why do you still have to DO something? One still has to acknowledge Christ as the Savior, one still has to acknowledge his sinful state and his total dependence on Christ to save him. One still has to exert faith in something outside of himself to attain salvation. Doesn't sound free to me. It doesn't sound free, becuase it isn't. A price still has to be paid.

Lets just say for argument sake that you have to work to have faith in Christ and accept Him as your Lord and Saviour, would you then agree that you are not required to do anything else for your entrance into the Celestial Kingdom?

Add

John 6

28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

And that price is a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Do you have a Biblical reference for this concept?

[LDSMusic483]

Billy,

What do you make of Mark 10:17-22?

17

[Deblldo]

Hi,

hope you dont mind me adding a reply,

The man that came to jesus knew the commandments only too well, but like jesus knew that these wouldnt get him to heaven. Thats why jesus told him to do more than works, but to have total faith in him, to leave everything he knows and place nothing else above jesus , the man however was not willing to do this as it say's he had many material pssesions.

Its quite easy to follow a list of rules , and rituals hoping they will be good enough to give us eternal life, but jesus said forget all that and have me , and only me, as the first in your life then you will have the true fruits of the spirit which only comes after the saving power of jesus christ.

In my opnion the works come as a result of our faith, not to gain it.

you have probably heard it before but i like this interpretation,

imagine you are in a court room facing jail as you owed millions of pounds, you have no way of paying it , you are to face the rest of your life in prison, you are on your knees begging for mercy, when a man who you have never met before walks in the room and pays the judge on your behalf, you see what has happened you are gratefull beyond words and humbly thank the man telling him there is no way you can pay him back . thats ok said the man, i did it because i love you you dont owe me anything.

now i dont know about you but i would do anything to try and repay this man , somehow (eg, our works) not with money as i dont have as much as he does, but in kindness, love, faithfullness and the fruits of good work.

you see if we try the story the other way round, i will be faithfull, and kind and read my bible everyday,go to church perform certain prayers , rituals etc please judge can you give me millions and millions of pounds?..............our works dont measure up do they?

only God can make that type of payment for us , the price is too high for us to even consider saying "i can match that" all we can do is humbly accept His gift and then try our best out of love for Him to say thankyou each and every day of our lives.

deb.

[Mudcat]

Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".

Hi Rommelator,

"after all we can do", certainly doesn't fit the modus operandi for evangelical doctrine. For those evangelicals who do believe in some sort of progression in the hereafter. It is handled within the bounds of Grace.

However, I would posit that there are at least three LDS who post from time to time who have submitted in the past, that Robinson and Millet seem to both offer an alternative interpretation of the verse.... to possibly mean "in spite of all we can do". Personally I find that a more agreeable rendering.

I would point out that most likely these folks seems to be exceptions to the rule. At least from an outsiders perspective, it seems that the alternate translation though agreeable with evangelical thinking, is inconsistent with LDS teaching.

No doubt, you are correct in surmising that many evangelicals would say that the LDS approach to salvation, that seems to be derived greatly from that pesky verse, would place your faith outside of the genuine Gospel. If so, I suppose it places Catholics and JW's, among others, outside of that bubble, as well for similar works based doctrine.

This has got me thinking.

In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work?

It sounds that way to me.

And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light?

I won't exclude the possibility. I would note that the 1832 First Vision account would meet this criteria IMO, as well as the Moroni appearances.

And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light?

But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one?

I don't know what JS did or didn't see. If his words were factual or fictional. However, If we took his statements at face value and linked them with Paul's words in Galatians, is there any reason not to believe this is one of those 'other' Gospels that Paul warns us against? I mean, do the other later visions/visitations somehow disqualify the first visitations from this 'other Gospel' concept?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Billy]

Billy,

What do you make of Mark 10:17-22?

The individual came and asked what he should do to inherit eternal life. The Savior answered him with a list of works. What say you to that?

What do you make of the Rich mans answer?

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, ALL these have I observed from my youth.

Did that man give an honest answer, or was he lying? He basically says that he has kept ALL the commandments since he was young. This is impossible and is a lie according to 1 John 1:8 which states, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This man had a proud heart, who thought that he actually keep all the commandments. God resists the proud as noted in this verse in James 4:6 which says, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

[Brade]

What do you make of the Rich mans answer?

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, ALL these have I observed from my youth.

Did that man give an honest answer, or was he lying? He basically says that he has kept ALL the commandments since he was young. This is impossible and is a lie according to 1 John 1:8 which states, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This man had a proud heart, who thought that he actually keep all the commandments. God resists the proud as noted in this verse in James 4:6 which says, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

I never thought about it like that. On the face of it that seems like a pretty good analysis.

[erichard]

...

Billy,

You did not seem to address the main point I made: that there is clearly a difference between Works that are supposed to do away with the need for Christ's atonement and Works that are part of qualifying for salvation through the atonement.

If a president pardons a prisoner, and the prisoner refuses to accept that pardon he can't go free. You must believe that Christ paid for your sins and accept the terms that has been offered.

The FIRST Mormon principle of Salvation is FAITH in Christ. Surely that includes believing "that Christ paid for your sins and accept the terms that has been offered". Right?

You qualify by accepting the free gift by faith in Jesus and making him your Lord and Saviour of your life. .... When I speak of works, I am speaking of doing a list of things that you would consider necessary to return and live with God (EV's heaven or LDS' Celestial kingdom).

So the ONLY thing that saves is "accepting the free gift by faith in Jesus and making him your Lord and Saviour of your life"? That kinda sounds like D&C 10:

67 Behold, this is my doctrineâ??whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

So you are saying that any OUTWARD action can be considered "Works" and thus cannot be part of qualifying for salvation?

What about Baptism? What about Repentance from Sins that require some outward changes? I guess not.

These are extra things required in addition to placing your faith in Christ for your salvation (exaltation). Either you can get there without any of these things in addition to your faith, or you ARE required to do these things to obtain your exaltation.

One of the problems I see in your position is this: you seem to be saying that Christ would never ask anyone whom He saves to do anything for Him. Because if He did, their alliegence to Him would require them to actually DO something, and that would mean Works.

If a man was dying on the street and had 10 minutes to live, and he said to you that he will do anything that you ask of him in the short time prior to his death so that he can go to heaven (Celestial Kingdom), what could you do to ensure that this would happen? Or is this not possible according to the LDS theology?

We cannot determine whom Christ will save. But it definitely would seem unlikely if the person had a long history of rebelliousness against Christ's teachings.

...So when you use the term salvation, does that mean Celestial Kingdom, or does it simply mean receiving a resurrection body? By your statement it seems that you are acknowledging the fact that exaltation does include a set list of works for entrance. Would you agree?

Salvation definitely means entrance into the Celestial kingdom, and not just resurrection. In the Mormon faith, only some of those who attain to the Celestial Kingdom gain Exaltation, but all in the Celestial Kingdom will gain Salvation and a degree of Eternal Life.

Billy, we agree that one's heart has to be right for salvation. We agree that nothing anyone does can REPLACE the atonement of Christ. What we seem to disagree with is how one qualifies for Salvation. And you probably do not accept the principle of "going onto perfection" after one gains Salvation.

I truly believe you misunderstand the New Testament teachings. I truly believe that Salvation requires the "Works" of Repentance from sin and true Baptism and the reception of the Holy Ghost and heeding the promptings of the Holy Ghost to do good "works" for Christ's sake.

But NONE of these "works" replace the atonement. The are only for qualifying for salvation, they do not replace the atonement in the least. So none of them contradict Ephesians 2 --"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

One has to study Ephesians 2 AND the rest of the Bible to clearly understand Ephesians 2.

Richard

[sleepyhead]

Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".

This has got me thinking.

In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one?

Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently.

Hello rommelator,

Back 35 years ago when I was an investigator, the logic was to make one jump from belief in the book of mormon to the lds church being the one true church. Critical thinking demands that you examine each step along the way. If the claim is made for an individual seeing an angel, then in the interest of critical thinking all possibilities need to be examined which would include whether it was a good angel or a bad angel. So the answer is no evangelical critics are not admitting the turthfulness of js claims, but merely presenting alternate interpretations of those claims

[Phinehas]

Evangelical critics of the Church often like to quote that passage in Galatians that speaks of how even an "angel of light" can deceive us and bring "a different Gospel". They also like to apply this to Joseph Smith and his story of the angel Moroni coming and revealing to him the Book of Mormon which, in turn, is a different Gospel because of one pesky verse in 2 Nephi that speaks about how we are saved "after all we can do".

This has got me thinking.

In order for this verse form Galatians to apply to Joseph Smith, then doesn't having a real being of light visiting him therefore become a prerequisite for this verse to work? And if this is so, then are Evangelical critics admitting that Joseph Smith was in fact visited by a being of light? And if so, then doesn't this mean that Joseph Smith was telling the truth when he said he was visited by a being of light? But also, then what is stopping us from accepting Joseph Smith's other claims of visions and angelic beings if we accept this one?

Just some thoughts that I have been mulling around recently.

Yes

Like the claim that an angel with a drawn sword would kill Joseph if he didn't immediately marry lots of other women? (paraphrase)

[Cold Steel]

Agree, with the caveat that nobody period could get into heaven, with or without works.

That is a given. Without the atonement, no work would be great enough, no enterprise substantial enough for salvation. All the baptizing, all the giving to the poor, all the visiting of the sick and afflictedâ??nothing could bring us back to the presence of God. And Mormons realize this as much as anyone.

So if we do not follow God's dictates (works) then we can't go to the Celestial Kingdom?

Correct. The gift of God is not without conditions. Belief is clearly a requirement. Baptism is a requirement. Obedience is a requirement. There are plenty of passages in the scriptures that back this up. "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2:4). Orson Pratt explained this quite well:

Faith, repentance, baptism and the laying on of hands, are the four rules

of adoption. Remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, are the two

blessings of adoption which are inseparably connected with obedience to

the rules. Both the rules and the blessings of adoption are the same in all

ages and dispensations of the gospel. No man or woman ever entered into

the Church or kingdom of God on this earth, and became a legal citizen

thereof, without complying strictly with these rules. Indeed, it is the only

door or entrance into the kingdom. Any persons attempting to get into the

kingdom in any other way are called "thieves and robbers,"

Again, keeping the Lord's commandments would not save a soul had it not been for the atonement of Christ. But once effectuated, the commandments fit into the "all we can do" category. It's meeting God at the point that we're capable of meeting him. It's like trudging up the mountain to the highest point. At that time, you say, this is all I can do, Lord. I can come no further. It's at that point where God meets so many of His prophets, and it's where he meets us. No one understands the balance between faith and works as the Latter-day Saints. We understand the atonement as few others do. We understand why the "bitter cup" could not be removed.

[Billy]

Billy,

You did not seem to address the main point I made: that there is clearly a difference between Works that are supposed to do away with the need for Christ's atonement and Works that are part of qualifying for salvation through the atonement.

There are absolutely no works that man can do to save himself without the atonement of Christ. Both you and I agree that the atonement was necessary for us to live with God again. But your second statement is where we disagree. You propose that it is based on a set list of things in addition to the atonement, I say that there are not additional works that we must do to live with God again. Some may say that faith is a work etc. but you and I know that this is not what we are both talking about.

The FIRST Mormon principle of Salvation is FAITH in Christ. Surely that includes believing "that Christ paid for your sins and accept the terms that has been offered". Right?

I agree with your statement here that we need faith and that we must accept the gift that is offered for us, but I bet we would differ on your explanation of the "terms" that you would say were offered.

One of the problems I see in your position is this: you seem to be saying that Christ would never ask anyone whom He saves to do anything for Him. Because if He did, their alliegence to Him would require them to actually DO something, and that would mean Works.

There is a difference in the idea of justification and sanctification. A person who is justified by faith in Christ is considered perfect in the eyes of God, not because of the individuals righteousness but because of the righteousness of Christ that is imputed onto the believer through faith. This justification allows one to go to heaven (Celestial equivalent) despite no real works in that persons life, if that person were to die after becoming a new believer. Sanctification is a process of becoming more and more like God through time during the life of the believer, so a long term Christian would be further along in terms of following the things that Christ would want him to do, but make no mistake, the new believer and the older believer are BOTH justified and both will go to the same heaven based not on their individual works but because of their faith.

[Billy]

Correct. The gift of God is not without conditions. Belief is clearly a requirement. Baptism is a requirement. Obedience is a requirement. There are plenty of passages in the scriptures that back this up. "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2:4). Orson Pratt explained this quite well:

Can you really call it a gift it is has a long list of conditions associated with it?

Either salvation is by faith in Christ made possible via the atonement, or it is not. Both can't be true, either works are required or they are not required as part of the entrance requirement to live with God again. I am not arguing the fact that we should do good things, of course we should do good things and we should live a life that pleases God, but the question is do these good works get us in to heaven or not?

Again, keeping the Lord's commandments would not save a soul had it not been for the atonement of Christ.

We both agree that the atonement of Christ was required.

No one understands the balance between faith and works as the Latter-day Saints. We understand the atonement as few others do. We understand why the "bitter cup" could not be removed.

Why does it seem to disagree with NT teaching then, that we are justified by faith and not by works? Don't you see how mainstream Christianity could see the LDS works aspect as "another gospel" that Paul warns us about?

[Jason]

Can you really call it a gift it is has a long list of conditions associated with it?

If I only give you a birthday present when it is your birthday, is the present still a gift?

[Billy]

If I only give you a birthday present when it is your birthday, is the present still a gift?

I am not sure I understand your point here, could you restate what you are saying?

If you are saying that a condition of my gift was that it was my birthday, are you calling that condition a work?

If on the other hand you came to my house and offered me a gift and upon receiving that gift you told me that now I am obligated to now clean your house and mow your lawn every week until I die, this would be a list of conditions that come with your so called free gift.

[Jason]

If you are saying that a condition of my gift was that it was my birthday, are you calling that condition a work?

Consider: it could be your birthday and I could chose not to give you a gift anyway - therefore it is in fact my affection for you that prompts my giving you the gift, and not any obligation owed to you or anything you did to earn it. However, I can't give you a birthday present when it's not your birthday. It has to be your birthday before I can give you a birthday present.