Grace only after all we can do?

[Reklaw]

From a past thread by Bsix along with how I respondedIts not a matter of â??the critics of Mormonismâ? being â??ignorant or deliberately deceptiveâ?, it is interpreted by those who have authoritative positions in the Mormon Church who give meaning to it.It starts with Joseph Smith adding the words, â??after all we can doâ? to Paulâ??s:

He doesn't add to Paul. Nephi isn't quoting Paul in anyway. This pre-dates Paul by several centuries.

The words from a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet:

Right. A mere intellectual assent is not enough. "Faith only" in a sense of a mental concept is condemned by James.

And those high up in Mormon leadership/scholarship:

Yes, we are to keep the commandments. What is your point?

Eternal life is a gift, what is earned (or deserved) is eternal punishment for rejecting the Son of God who purchased us from the fall by His blood:

I'm surprised you included Gal. 5:4. The Greek means "fallen out of grace" or "fallen from a position of grace", which indicates that these individuals had partaken of grace. Salvation can obviously be lost through apostasy and disobedience to the gospel.

Mormonism apparently doesnâ??t have a high enough view of the blood of Jesus as those who do are mocked in the following way. Notice the following statement from the, â??WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRISTâ? pamphlet, under the section- Blood of Christ, it says:

It is mere belief if you take away works from being an essential element. You cannot reason otherwise.

Contrast the above with the following (to believe in Jesus is not â??mere beliefâ?):

Great, then you believe in keeping the commandments. Welcome to the fold.

The Bible teaches one can â??knowâ? that they have eternal life. In Mormonism resurrection becomes the â??giftâ? (stated above) in place of â??eternal lifeâ?:

Perhaps you should check earlier in John's 1st epistle. Try chapter 2. He explains how to "know" Christ.

Mormonism seeks to put people back under law to earn (eternal life) what canâ??t be earned/merited/worked for:

Yes, keeping the commandments are essential. No argument there. Prove to me it isn't.

In Mormon teaching, the term â??exaltationâ? (godhood), is what is being earned/merited/worked for to enter the Celestial Kingdom which is their hope if they are eventually deemed worthy.Paul argues: To work out one's salvation is not to work for salvation as it is a gift that cannot be earned/merited/worked for! Mormonism has put you back under law that Paul argued in the book of Galatians:

Perhaps you should read the link I provided in my post. When you do that and stop vomiting up the same old "arguments" (which are most likely copied from another website), then we can have a proper discussion. No one is interested in your drive-by posts..

[Reklaw]

So Lds see any distinction between sinlessness and righteousness? That may play apart if muddling through this subject.I do seek to do so. But I also recognize the difference between what is promulgated and what is practiced.

Perhaps when you have something productive to say, someone might care.

[Hoops22]

You do seek to do so? So how about actually doing it, then? Just because you take quotes out of context and read them with an already pretty obvious bias doesn't mean what you're promulgating is truth.

I don't believe I have ever quoted any LDS - past or present.

Have you listened to any recent General Conference talks?

Yes.

Attended an LDS ward recently?

No. Nor ever.

All I ever see brought up are out-of-context quotes from the past, when we LDS believe in a progressive faith. Had we not had the belief in continuing revelation since the beginning we'd all be sitting next to you in one of the thousands of other 'mainstream' Christian faiths.

I'm on the end, about in the middle. I need the room to stretch out.

It would be just as easy to find so-called "damning" quotes from Christian history or even the history of your own particular denomination.

Yes, it would. With a particular difference. We don't claim further revelation is necessary for salvation. Therefor, whenever someone in our side of the aisle says something preposterous - which has happened - we match it with God's word. Where it doesn't, it is dismissed. You are shackled to this idea of continuing revelation and can then never know if a prophet is speaking for God or something else.

Would it be fair for me to argue with you about the past if you believed the biblical notion of "line upon line?"

Sure.

Would it be fair for me to ask what exactly you believe, and then after getting an answer, go about telling you what you REALLY believe?I think not.

See above.

Perhaps when you have something productive to say, someone might care.

I care. That's enough for me.

[Reklaw]

I care. That's enough for me.

You care about unproductive comments? You'll go far then. It is easy to talk about "matching the word of God", it is another thing to actually do it. When you have some scriptural and doctrinal responses, I will be more than happy to address them.

[Hoops22]

You care about unproductive comments? You'll go far then. It is easy to talk about "matching the word of God", it is another thing to actually do it. When you have some scriptural and doctrinal responses, I will be more than happy to address them.

I've asked a question. That's not productive?

[Reklaw]

So Lds see any distinction between sinlessness and righteousness? That may play apart if muddling through this subject.

Someone can be just at times, but not completely sinless.

[Hoops22]

Something can be just, but not sinless.

Huh?

[Reklaw]

Huh?

I edited for clarification.

[Hoops22]

I edited for clarification

I asked if you see a difference between sinlessness and righteousness? Or are they, essentially and functionally, the same?

[Reklaw]

I asked if you see a difference between sinlessness and righteousness? Or are they, essentially and functionally, the same?

One cannot be righteous and sinful in the same aspect at the same time obviously. Complete righteousness would indeed be complete sinlessness. However, one may be righteous in some aspects and sinful in others. That is why I said one can be just, but not sinless.

[Hoops22]

One cannot be righteous and sinful in the same aspect at the same time obviously. Complete righteousness would indeed be complete sinlessness. However, one may be righteous in some aspects and sinful in others. That is why I said one can be just, but not sinless.

Let me rephrase:

If one were sinless, would one also be righteous? By default?

[Reklaw]

Let me rephrase:

If one were sinless, would one also be righteous? By default?

Considering "sin" is a Greek verb that means "to err, to be mistaken, to miss the mark", while "righteousness" invokes an upright observance of law, then yes, they would be considered righteous. I believe I made that clear when I said, "Complete righteousness would indeed be complete sinlessness." However, righteousness refers both to the legal sense and moral character (integrity, sincerity, uprightness). We have both the Hebrew and Greek Bible describing individuals as "perfect" or "righteous" (Noah, Job, etc.), even though they have sinned and can be considered sinners. It is when one embodies the ethical nature and quality of God to do what is right that they are considered righteous according to scripture. The Jewish philosopher and rabbi Maimonides described a righteous person as "One whose merit surpasses his iniquity." That certainly seems to be the case in scripture.

[Anijen]

Smac97 has one of the best posts on this subject here is the link;

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208561910

[Reklaw]

Smac97 has one of the best posts on this subject here is the link;

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208561910

And it should be pointed out that Smac97 was responding mostly to rhetoric and "this is how I think it should be"-based arguments. Like I said, when a scriptural point is made, then we might have something to go off of. Simply saying, "The Bible says..." and expecting us to conform to the presuppositions based on 16th century theology behind that phrase does absolutely no good.

[Glenn101]

Where in the Bible does it say that we receive grace AFTER all that we ca do? I have never seen any indication of hinting of this never mind that actual words being there. Yet I hear LDS say this quite often. If Grace is truly a free gift then why are we earning it. Is it then a reward rather that a gift. If the Bible says that all of our works are like filthy rags, then how can we possibly assume that grace kicks in AFTER all that we can do. There was no time fir the thief in the cross to do any work. He confessed, accepted Jesus and Jesus said that on this day he would be in Paradise with him. And yes I do believe that Paradise is the same as Heaven. Will look this up in the Greek to confirm. God does in fact deem works necessary but NOT as a means to salvation but as a sign to the world that we are saved and now have this desire to do good works.

Yes, we are saved by grace, because there is nothing that we can do on oue own to atone for the slightest of sins that we commit.

But mainly I would like to comment on the "filthy rags" comment. I think that this scripture is taken out of context.

Isa. 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

This is from the Old Testament, obviously, and it is concerning, in my opinion, a repentant Israel (whenever that will be) understanding that all of their displays of "righteousness" under the Mosaic, all of their burnt offerings, etc. were as "filthy rags" because they were only paying lip service to the law while masking a multitude of iniquities.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Glenn

[Reklaw]

This is from the Old Testament, obviously, and it is concerning, in my opinion, a repentant Israel (whenever that will be) understanding that all of their displays of "righteousness" under the Mosaic, all of their burnt offerings, etc. were as "filthy rags" because they were only paying lip service to the law while masking a multitude of iniquities.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Glenn

I agree. The verses from Psalms that I provided demonstrate that. And Paul condemns this kind of self-righteousness in Romans and Galatians.

[Reklaw]

Seems like the original poster wasn't too concerned about the topic.

[Lightbearer]

Actually this sums it up pretty well:

(D&C 14:7) "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."

Another way of saying the following:

(1 John 3:2-9) "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

If we do not endure to the end, if we do not purify ourselves by repenting of sin and then not doing it anymore, then we are not born of God. This spiritual rebirth is a process of change, we do not become perfect in an instant suddenly, that is why we renew our covenants each week with the sacrament. We go "from grace to grace" and line upon line until we perfect our lives. His grace is obtained by following Him and loving God and our fellow man. The heart and soul of the teaching of the Book of Mormon is as follows:

(Moroni 10:32-33) "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot."

Because some want to excuse themselves for their sins, many twist Paul's words and excuse themselves for not believing in Jesus words by saying that He was only talking to the house of Israel! That makes God a liar and a respecter of persons. What will save a Jew will save a Gentile as well.

[Tanyan]

Where has the original poster gone to ?, oh well perhaps another Dog Barking at the heel's of us who are on the appointed coarse to the Celestrial Realm with the Caravan [As The Late Bruce R. McConkie would say].

As a response to the filthy rags scripture that is given to us adinfinentum - http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/filtyrags.htm http://www.14lds.com/rags.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FILTHY.TXT http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/rags.html

http://www.wor.org/Books/f/Filthy_Rags.htm

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Calm]

I think of grace more along the lines of how my dad handled giving a piano to my daughter. He knew that the old clunker we had gotten in lieu of rent wouldn't work for her learning piano, so he graciously bought the piano for her and informed us if she didn't use it to develop her talents over the next year, we would be expected to pay him for half of it (my dad likes to provide motivation, lol).

IOW, we were in debt to him, but he wanted to be repaid by us using the gift and only if we didn't actually use the gift would we be required to repay in the same way that he paid for us.

[Tanyan]

Where in the Bible does it say that we receive grace AFTER all that we ca do? I have never seen any indication of hinting of this never mind that actual words being there. Yet I hear LDS say this quite often. If Grace is truly a free gift then why are we earning it. Is it then a reward rather that a gift. If the Bible says that all of our works are like filthy rags, then how can we possibly assume that grace kicks in AFTER all that we can do. There was no time fir the thief in the cross to do any work. He confessed, accepted Jesus and Jesus said that on this day he would be in Paradise with him. And yes I do believe that Paradise is the same as Heaven. Will look this up in the Greek to confirm. God does in fact deem works necessary but NOT as a means to salvation but as a sign to the world that we are saved and now have this desire to do good works.

As a response see = http://www.thebible.net/study/articles/ARE...CEALONE-dm.html

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Obiwan]

Where in the Bible does it say that we receive grace AFTER all that we ca do? I have never seen any indication of hinting of this never mind that actual words being there. Yet I hear LDS say this quite often. If Grace is truly a free gift then why are we earning it. Is it then a reward rather that a gift. If the Bible says that all of our works are like filthy rags, then how can we possibly assume that grace kicks in AFTER all that we can do. There was no time fir the thief in the cross to do any work. He confessed, accepted Jesus and Jesus said that on this day he would be in Paradise with him. And yes I do believe that Paradise is the same as Heaven. Will look this up in the Greek to confirm. God does in fact deem works necessary but NOT as a means to salvation but as a sign to the world that we are saved and now have this desire to do good works.

Easy, it's called the "Law of the Harvest".... Never heard of that concept in the Bible?

Read this non-LDS treatise on the subject. Pay particular attention to Law 6 on that link.

It is directly echoing the LDS scripture.

http://bible.org/article/seven-laws-harvest

Just because God in the latter day's clarified the principle even more with just one sentence doesn't somehow make LDS belief in this principle both non-Biblical as well as not from God.

Anti-mormons simply like being offenders for a word..... not realizing they are offending God the most by their perversion of the faith of his other children.

See Mark & Luke 9 for the seriousness in Christ's eyes of anti-mormon attacks....

[Tanyan]

Thou saith well my fellow LDS Jedi Knight Brother In Christ Jesus Comrad. The Law Of The Harvest Law #6 fits perfectly well with 2 Nephi 25:23. This parallel should silence those that are critical of us on this issue.... but then perhaps not.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Brade]

Is belief ever a choice that individuals make?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

So, the quibble here is that Mormons believe that they are saved by grace through 'faith' (Greek pistis) in/towards their Lord, Jesus Christ?

Seems like a strange quibble for a self-proclaimed â??Christianâ? to be making.