What exactly is a 'work'?

[Brenda]

I was interested to see some early Mormon thought on this subject in my reading of the Journal of Discourses. Whereas coolpaste likes to select proof-texts to build his case, I can do the same.

To me, belief in Christ signifies a mental deduction, an acceptance, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He suffered and died in behalf of us, satisfying the demands of justice so that we can be forgiven and return to live with God again. I think belief gets confused for faith sometimes. In a conversation with an Evangelical Christian, I was informed that I'm not a Christian because I believe works are necessary in order for us to receive salvation. He informed me we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Because I would also say I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ, I realized the real disagreement dealt with our definition of "faith." His definition of faith would correspond more with what I defined above as "belief," and according to him, is separate from works. You're either saved by faith or by works. For Latter-day Saints, faith includes works. For the Evangelicals, it seems faith includes works, but you can't call them works. On a trip to the country of the Gaderenes, Christ and His disciples encountered a man possessed of evil spirits calling themselves "Legion." The unclean spirits recognized Christ; they even believed in Him:

Christ cast the demons out, they took up the body of pigs, which quickly ran to their deaths. Their belief in the power of Christ- they specifically demonstrated belief in His power by requesting to be allowed to enter pigs,- was not faith, it was just belief, acknowledgment. Even sure knowledge isn't faith. Brigham Young once explained:

Belief and acknowledgment didn't help the unclean spirits any more than it would help us to believe without having faith. Faith leads to action; that is what faith is: belief unto action. James was explicit on the matter, even mentioning the belief of demons not being true faith:

The Book of Mormon couples the word "unto"with faith; faith implicitly includes action. If I believe my seat belt will help in case of an accident I need to actually put it on, turning that belief into faith. It is my responsibility to place the seat belt on, while it is the seat belt that restrains and protects me. Christ's atonement doesn't eliminate our personal responsibility; it increases it. He satisfied justice in order to extend His hand in mercy, but we must clasp that hand:

There are many more scriptures that could be cited here, but this will suffice for now; the main object of Brigham's comments was that belief doesn't equal faith. Even the demons tremble. But they never had faith unto repentance, and that makes all the difference.

Well said.

[Brenda]

I think it's all about the middle.

So much gets argued about as if the other side goes too far.

I agree. We LDS often emphasize works too much. We forget the grace part and try to "get to heaven" by ourselves. Since this is impossible, we inevitably feel failure, and discouragement sets in. We start believing Satan, who says we can't make it, and stop trying.

So I think you're right. The answer is in the middle.

[bluebell]

We LDS often emphasize works too much. We forget the grace part and try to "get to heaven" by ourselves. Since this is impossible, we inevitably feel failure, and discouragement sets in. We start believing Satan, who says we can't make it, and stop trying.

So I think you're right. The answer is in the middle.

So true.

[coolrok7]

bluebell, please explain the following (I'll give you a hint, most of the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah):

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, â??BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.â? Brethren, my heartâ??s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about Godâ??s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 9:30-10:4)

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. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:16-21)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's a hint: New Paul Perspective

[BCSpace]

Sometimes it seems like circular reasoning is used by many non-LDS Christians to explain what is a work and what isn't. Which seems to teach, basically, that anything that Jesus requires us to do to gain salvation, like have faith and repent, can't be works because works play no part in our salvation.

Is this just a loophole? Semantics?

Jesus did away the Sola Fide loophole in Matthew 25:32-46 wherein he required good works for salvation.

What exactly makes tithing, for example, a 'work' but repentance not a 'work'?

I'm completely confused.

I think keeping any commandment is a work. EVs confuse grace with salvation. Grace, the free gift, is the operation that saves. Works are simply required for salvation and determine how much grace is applied which in turn determines your degree of salvation.

And since grace is what God has done for us that we cannot do for ourselves (Creation, Atonement, Resurrection, Salvation), we do not boast of the works we are required to do.

[bluebell]

bluebell, please explain the following (I'll give you a hint, most of the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah):

It teaches that man must have faith to be saved and is not justified by the law of moses any longer because Christ's Atonement fulfilled that law.

LDS completely agree.

Now, could you answer MY questions from my previous post please? Thanks.

[Hughes]

There are many more scriptures that could be cited here, but this will suffice for now; the main object of Brigham's comments was that belief doesn't equal faith. Even the demons tremble. But they never had faith unto repentance, and that makes all the difference.

Belief and faith are the same.

James' point is that if there is belief/faith then there is action that follows that belief/faith.

"Even demons believe [have faith] and tremble." In other words, their belief causes action, the trembling in the demons case.

James' point, "faith without works is dead" is just like saying, real belief or faith produces action. He was juxtaposing his position with those who said they had belief/faith, but didn't have actions that followed their belief.

[Mudcat]

It seems like whenever the topic of salvation through faith verses works comes up, one of the stumbling blocks between non-LDS Christians and LDS is the definition of a 'work'.

Sometimes it seems like circular reasoning is used by many non-LDS Christians to explain what is a work and what isn't. Which seems to teach, basically, that anything that Jesus requires us to do to gain salvation, like have faith and repent, can't be works because works play no part in our salvation.

Is this just a loophole? Semantics?

What exactly makes tithing, for example, a 'work' but repentance not a 'work'?

I'm completely confused.

Hi Bluebell.

IMO, there is a lot of confusion on the topic of "works" between LDS and some other Christian faiths.

A lot of the confusion is semantics, IMO. I know I draw a distinction between what I would call works and "good works". However, in most discussions I have with same faith people, we typically perceive any mention of works as "good works". There is a carryover from that in interfaith discussions. You may be applying an entirely different context to the term, than I... resulting in a lot of talking past the other person.

I don't believe works, in the legalistic sense have an impact upon salvation. However, I believe the we as Christians are compelled/called by the Holy Spirit to do "good works". I believe that the eligibility of a person to do such good works is that they are a Christian.

While not salvific these good works do have benefit in the sense of laying our treasures up in heaven. I also believe that such good works are a part of God's plan and we by our actions get to play a role in fulfilling the will of God.

That being said, I will try to address your question.

I don't see tithing as a good work, unless the HS has compelled you to do such. However, I do tithe and I do so because I believe I have been compelled by the Spirit to do so. When I was much less spiritually mature Christian, tithing was not an issue I felt compelled to do. I am under the impression that as we grow and mature in Christ, and conform closer to his image... we find ourselves drawn by God to do good works which were unimportant to us. Seems LDS may draw some similar conclusion in a broad sense, seems we both lean upon Isaiah 28:10 in some form or fashion.

Repentance, seems a different story. "Repent" is a rather complicated verb, IMO. Whereas a verb like "run" is a rather simple one. Most people believe repentance implies a number of things. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, could I ask how you would define repentance?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Hughes]

Don't Christians expect to be rewarded for their good works?

Yes, but not in the form of exaltation, since exaltation isn't taught in the Bible. Exact rewards are not specified because then people would only work and focus on rewards.

How is LDS's beliefs about exaltation different than non-LDS Christians beliefs about being rewarded above and beyond 'salvation' for their good works? Aren't you using semantics (the difference in definition of the word 'saved' to LDS and non-LDS) to bolster your arguement and doesn't your arguement disintegrate when the different definitions and beliefs concerning 'salvation' are understood?

Christians don't believe in exaltation.

Everything can hinge on definitions.

How is baptism NOT a work? How do you argue that baptism is not a work to Hoops22, an evangelical Christian, who has claimed that the bible CLEARLY teaches that baptism is not necessary for salvation (if i'm explaining his position correctly)?

Baptism isn't a requirement for salvation.

If non-LDS christians, all claiming that the bible is the inerrant and infalible word of God which needs no other scripture to clarify it, can't even agree on what is a 'work' and what 'isn't', why is it only the mormons who are following 'another gospel'. In your view, why isn't hoops, for example, NOT following another gospel when he teaches such things that you say clearly are anti-biblical.

Possibly because JS used extra biblical sources.

[bluebell]

Belief and faith are the same.

James' point is that if there is belief/faith then there is action that follows that belief/faith.

"Even demons believe [have faith] and tremble." In other words, their belief causes action, the trembling in the demons case.

James' point, "faith without works is dead" is just like saying, real belief or faith produces action. He was juxtaposing his position with those who said they had belief/faith, but didn't have actions that followed their belief.

Then why aren't the demons saved, if they have faith and that faith produces action?

[bluebell]

I don't see tithing as a good work, unless the HS has compelled you to do such. However, I do tithe and I do so because I believe I have been compelled by the Spirit to do so. When I was much less spiritually mature Christian, tithing was not an issue I felt compelled to do. I am under the impression that as we grow and mature in Christ, and conform closer to his image... we find ourselves drawn by God to do good works which were unimportant to us. Seems LDS may draw some similar conclusion in a broad sense, seems we both lean upon Isaiah 28:10 in some form or fashion.

I think this is pretty much how LDS believe as well.

I'm wondering something though. If someone feels compelled by the Spirit to do something but doesn't ever do it, will that impact their salvation at all in your belief? Can someone know that Christ is telling them to do something and reject that commandment and still have the same relationship with the Savior (in the next life) as someone who never did that?

Repentance, seems a different story. "Repent" is a rather complicated verb, IMO. Whereas a verb like "run" is a rather simple one. Most people believe repentance implies a number of things. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, could I ask how you would define repentance?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

According to strong's concordance, the word 'repent' in the NT means to have a change of heart.

However, i think that having a true change of heart implies specific actions that will go along with such. I think true repentance means to confess, to God and to those we've wrong, to make amends as much as we can, and to actively strive not to repeat the offense (i don't mean perfection from the moment of repentance but rather, the difference between someone who repents knowing they will do the same thing again tomorrow and will just repent again then and the person who sincerely WANTS to change and strives to do so with the help of the Savior).

We know that the bible teaches that repentance is necessary for salvation-we know it's something that requires some kind of action (it's something we must DO) and we know that repentance requires US to do that something and is not totally the work of the Savior.

So, given all those things, why isn't repentance a work that is necessary for salvation?

Thanks mudcat.

[bluebell]

Yes, but not in the form of exaltation, since exaltation isn't taught in the Bible.

Becoming a joint-heir with Christ in gaining all that the FAther has isn't taught in the bible? That's what LDS believe exaltation is.

Exact rewards are not specified because then people would only work and focus on rewards.

Where does the bible teach this? It sounds extra-biblical to me.

Christians don't believe in exaltation.

Why not? It's taught in the bible-

"6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:"

Everything can hinge on definitions.

I agree.

Baptism isn't a requirement for salvation.

Cookroc, a non-LDS Christian, disagrees. I've met a few other non-LDS Christians that would also disagree with your statement. I'm wondering why, in their belief, baptism isn't a work. If you don't hold that belief, then that's fine.

Possibly because JS used extra biblical sources.

I don't understand what this statement has to do with my question to non-LDS Christians who believe different things about whether or not baptism is necessary. Could you clarify?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Possibly because JS used extra biblical sources.

I tend to think some might understand "biblical" as indicating inspired revelations from God, among other things. In that case, you are exactly right. Joseph used extra Biblical sources. And mighty fine sources they are!

[Joseph Antley]

Exact rewards are not specified because then people would only work and focus on rewards.

Yet its okay to focus on [fear of] punishment (since exact punishments are specified)?

[coolrok7]

It teaches that man must have faith to be saved and is not justified by the law of moses any longer because Christ's Atonement fulfilled that law.

LDS completely agree.

Now, could you answer MY questions from my previous post please? Thanks.

Sure, I was a bit tired today and didn't quite get back to answer. I provided the quotes concerning the "works of the law" to understand how you think that relates to the "Law of Moses". I answered another relevant post this morning before I went to church. I've been napping this afternoon.

A quote from Jesus that I think goes to the underlying basis of the question:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:25-29)

Anything Christians do is in obedience to the command of Jesus. His last command to His disciples was the following:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:18-20)

Baptism is explained in the following context and is not a work in the context of "good works". It is part of Justification:

For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (Titus 3:3-eight)

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Romans 6:3-7)

Don't Christians expect to be rewarded for their good works?

It depends on who you ask. The Bible does speak concerning rewards but it is not my motivation as a Christian. What I do (or anyone for that matter as Christians) in the sense of "good works" is the result of the change that comes about from being a new creation in Christ:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 CorCorinthians 5:17)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Galatians 6:15)

How is LDS's beliefs about exaltation different than non-LDS Christians beliefs about being rewarded above and beyond 'salvation' for their good works? Aren't you using semantics (the difference in definition of the word 'saved' to LDS and non-LDS) to bolster your arguement and doesn't your arguement disintegrate when the different definitions and beliefs concerning 'salvation' are understood?

As I've already explained, Exaltation is the redefinition of what it means to have "eternal life" as a gift of God and made into something one has to work for or merit. The teaching of Joseph Smith and those who follow him in that teaching are misled. This I believe is demonstrable in not being the Biblical teaching on salvation. The Word of God in the Bible bolsters that understanding.

The BofM distorts that teaching, starting with the appearence of the BofM itself as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith and further developed in the D&C, originally the Book of Commandments.

How is baptism NOT a work? How do you argue that baptism is not a work to Hoops22, an evangelical Christian, who has claimed that the bible CLEARLY teaches that baptism is not necessary for salvation (if i'm explaining his position correctly)?

Baptism is a command and one of the two Sacraments Jesus gave to us for the forgiveness of sin. Baptism is a one time event and the Lord's supper (Sacrament) as "often" as we partake of it.

If non-LDS christians, all claiming that the bible is the inerrant and infalible word of God which needs no other scripture to clarify it, can't even agree on what is a 'work' and what 'isn't', why is it only the mormons who are following 'another gospel'. In your view, why isn't hoops, for example, NOT following another gospel when he teaches such things that you say clearly are anti-biblical.

What hoops or others believe is in agreement with what I understand the Gospel to be which is way different than what Mormons believe is the "Gospel" which is not the same as in the bible. All one has to do is read the Mormon explanation concerning "exaltation" as I provided the quotes.

The Bible is the Word of God and contains the words of God along with other's words as well. The innerant part would be of course only in the originals the things the bible records that is truly God's Word. The transmission of the text is not innerant but is for the most part pretty reliable (Mormons of course have their own understanding of the innerancy of what the Word of God to them is through "living Prophets"):

But either Jesus Christâ??and the disciples touched and inspired by His spiritâ??spoke the truth or they did not. We believe that they spoke the truth, and that the truth they spoke was the Word of God. (Mormon Church Readers Digest Christmas advertisement, 1972)

Scholars Look at the New Testament Gospels A major theme of the symposium was the authenticity of the New Testament text. . . .â?the New Testament text is well establishedâ?â??that it has an enviable position of reliability when compared with other ancient texts. . . .no text is better attested in both quality and quantity of readings than the New Testament writings. . . .(The Ensign, May 1985, p.105, Brigham Young Universityâ??s symposium on the New Testament Gospels., C. Wilfred Griggs, . . .(in a paper read by his wife)

[Mudcat]

I think this is pretty much how LDS believe as well.

I'm wondering something though. If someone feels compelled by the Spirit to do something but doesn't ever do it, will that impact their salvation at all in your belief? Can someone know that Christ is telling them to do something and reject that commandment and still have the same relationship with the Savior (in the next life) as someone who never did that?

Well I think it would be good if we could put some kind of face on this action. Since tithing seems to be something we agree with in some respect, let's use it.

Say a person has been compelled by the Spirit that they should tithe, yet somehow they continually never tithe.

It's a tough question. I don't know the answer, but I can give you my thoughts...

At best, say they listen to the Spirit in all other things. Well, I suppose we could talk about what sort of blessings they would miss for their lack of trust. So you could certainly say there is an impact upon relationship. At worst, makes me think of those folks in Hebrews who had tasted of the Spirit and rejected it thereafter.

According to strong's concordance, the word 'repent' in the NT means to have a change of heart.

However, i think that having a true change of heart implies specific actions that will go along with such. I think true repentance means to confess, to God and to those we've wrong, to make amends as much as we can, and to actively strive not to repeat the offense (i don't mean perfection from the moment of repentance but rather, the difference between someone who repents knowing they will do the same thing again tomorrow and will just repent again then and the person who sincerely WANTS to change and strives to do so with the help of the Savior).

We know that the bible teaches that repentance is necessary for salvation-we know it's something that requires some kind of action (it's something we must DO) and we know that repentance requires US to do that something and is not totally the work of the Savior.

So, given all those things, why isn't repentance a work that is necessary for salvation?

Thanks mudcat.

Here is my thought. Repentance IMO, in the spiritual sense, refers to recognition of sin, regret for such, a need to repair the damage, a recognition that we can't repair it of ourselves, seeking Christ for forgiveness of our sins and a commitment to turn from them.

.. Seem like a lot to do. So how is repentance not a work? I think it has to do a great deal with the statement I bolded. Without the recognition that Christ has done something for us that we ourselves could not do, how can we call it a work? I think after the point of salvation "good works" are something that should be evident, but to say we have a part in our salvation is contrary to my thinking. I suppose it is semantics, but I will give you an analogy.

Say a person is drowning in a storm. They recognize the fact they will drown. Left to themselves they will die. Someone throws them a life line and they grab it. Consequently they are saved from death.

In relation and if I am understanding you correctly, you feel that the persons choice to reach for salvation is a "work" towards salvation?

Another note, I underlined a bit or your post Bluebell. It has to do with making repairs not only with God, but with those we have offended with our sin. I don't disagree. I think this is something we realize more and more as we mature as Christians. However, I think God is capable of saving me before I make efforts to make such temporal repairs, though undoubtedly he will compel me to such, after the fact.

Regardless, the question I would have.. as tithing and seeking amends seems a relevant topic.

Say a man of 30 joined the CoJCoLDS and was for any practical standard a TBM(no offense intended). Would he be responsible to make amends for all those years prior that he didn't tithe? Say for example, prior to joining he had made about $500,000. Would he be responsible for $50,000 on top of his tithe?

[bluebell]

Regardless, the question I would have.. as tithing and seeking amends seems a relevant topic.

Say a man of 30 joined the CoJCoLDS and was for any practical standard a TBM(no offense intended). Would he be responsible to make amends for all those years prior that he didn't tithe? Say for example, prior to joining he had made about $500,000. Would he be responsible for $50,000 on top of his tithe?

No, because it is not the perfect obedience to the law of tithing that saves him, but the grace of Christ. Obeying the law of tithing, once they have a testimony of it, is just another way for them to keep ahold on the rope that Christ has offered. They don't need to swim back 500,000 dollars worth and grab it back when it was first offered-it's enough that they have grabbed it now. All that matters is that they have a hold of the rope and keep holding on now.

Does that make sense?

As the book of mormon teaches, the grace of Christ is sufficient to save. Our works (which i define as things we can do to 'reach that rope' you spoke of) do not save us, they give us access to His grace-because that is how Jesus has declared we gain access to it.

To use your analogy. No man, who was in the predicament you described, would ever say "i saved myself because i grabbed the rope!" and no bystander would ever say "He saved himself because he grabbed the rope"-both would acknowledge that the rope, and the person on the end of it, saved the man-the man's 'work' of grasping it only allowed him access to that salvation, nothing more.

This is why i don't understand non-LDS Christians who say that LDS believe we are saved by our works. They take a situation in which no reasonable person would ever describe the process as 'saving oneself' and yet do exactly that. An LDS person says, we aren't saved by baptism but we must grasp the rope of baptism offered us by the Savior to be saved, for example, and the non-LDS Christian replies "Then you believe you are saved by your own works." That's not a logical deduction of what is taking place, as your analogy shows, but that's how they characterize it anyway.

[bluebell]

Sure, I was a bit tired today and didn't quite get back to answer. I provided the quotes concerning the "works of the law" to understand how you think that relates to the "Law of Moses". I answered another relevant post this morning before I went to church. I've been napping this afternoon.

A quote from Jesus that I think goes to the underlying basis of the question:

Anything Christians do is in obedience to the command of Jesus. His last command to His disciples was the following:

Baptism is explained in the following context and is not a work in the context of "good works". It is part of Justification:

It depends on who you ask. The Bible does speak concerning rewards but it is not my motivation as a Christian. What I do (or anyone for that matter as Christians) in the sense of "good works" is the result of the change that comes about from being a new creation in Christ:

As I've already explained, Exaltation is the redefinition of what it means to have "eternal life" as a gift of God and made into something one has to work for or merit. The teaching of Joseph Smith and those who follow him in that teaching are misled. This I believe is demonstrable in not being the Biblical teaching on salvation. The Word of God in the Bible bolsters that understanding.

The BofM distorts that teaching, starting with the appearence of the BofM itself as it came from the mouth of Joseph Smith and further developed in the D&C, originally the Book of Commandments.

Baptism is a command and one of the two Sacraments Jesus gave to us for the forgiveness of sin. Baptism is a one time event and the Lord's supper (Sacrament) as "often" as we partake of it.

What hoops or others believe is in agreement with what I understand the Gospel to be which is way different than what Mormons believe is the "Gospel" which is not the same as in the bible. All one has to do is read the Mormon explanation concerning "exaltation" as I provided the quotes.

The Bible is the Word of God and contains the words of God along with other's words as well. The innerant part would be of course only in the originals the things the bible records that is truly God's Word. The transmission of the text is not innerant but is for the most part pretty reliable (Mormons of course have their own understanding of the innerancy of what the Word of God to them is through "living Prophets"):

I'm sorry coolroc, i really am trying to understand what you are saying but it's coming out like it's all semantics. Baptism is a commandment that one must obey but is not a work, simply because....it's not?

Is there a more concise way you could answer the question of 'what is a work' without trying to show why LDS are wrong? Your posts are really hard to follow a lot of the time. Thanks.

[Mudcat]

No, because it is not the perfect obedience to the law of tithing that saves him, but the grace of Christ. Obeying the law of tithing, once they have a testimony of it, is just another way for them to keep ahold on the rope that Christ has offered. They don't need to swim back 500,000 dollars worth and grab it back when it was first offered-it's enough that they have grabbed it now. All that matters is that they have a hold of the rope and keep holding on now.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does, thanks for answering. I suppose what got me thinking to ask you this, was my own personal experience with tithing. As I stated it wasn't something I always did, nor felt compelled to do... but one day I did find myself compelled by the Spirit to do so. After feeling that I should do this, it was actually a few months before I increased my giving. So there was a period that I was rejecting what God had instructed me to do. My increased giving didn't do much to bring me closer to God.

I kept thinking, that I knew I should be doing this a few months ago and didn't. It wasn't until I decided to backtrack my finances to that point and structured a plan to fund the money that I had not tithed over a 12 month period that I actually received a spiritual benefit from it.

As the book of mormon teaches, the grace of Christ is sufficient to save. Our works (which i define as things we can do to 'reach that rope' you spoke of) do not save us, they give us access to His grace-because that is how Jesus has declared we gain access to it.

To use your analogy. No man, who was in the predicament you described, would ever say "i saved myself because i grabbed the rope!" and no bystander would ever say "He saved himself because he grabbed the rope"-both would acknowledge that the rope, and the person on the end of it, saved the man-the man's 'work' of grasping it only allowed him access to that salvation, nothing more.

This is why i don't understand non-LDS Christians who say that LDS believe we are saved by our works. They take a situation in which no reasonable person would ever describe the process as 'saving oneself' and yet do exactly that. An LDS person says, we aren't saved by baptism but we must grasp the rope of baptism offered us by the Savior to be saved, for example, and the non-LDS Christian replies "Then you believe you are saved by your own works." That's not a logical deduction of what is taking place, as your analogy shows, but that's how they characterize it anyway.

I think the key difference is our perception of what this rope we are grabbing is.

I believe that the saving baptism we receive is the baptism of the Spirit. The concept is addressed in the all the Gospels.. Matt 3:11 comes to mind, and is also stated in Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

There seems to be distinction between two sorts of baptisms. One is a physical water baptism and the other is a spiritual one.

I consider the spiritual baptism that is attributed to Christ as the thing we can not do for ourselves and in that respect, is the baptism that has salvific impact. I certainly don't want to say that water baptism is unimportant.. Afterall, Christ commanded his Apostles to go teach and baptize. There are a number or places that discuss its important such as Acts 2:38.

However, I see water baptism as the first and most significant "good work" a Christian can do. By virtue of that, its not a far stretch to say that from my perspective, you are attributing salvation to a good work.

This sort of discussion is usually where I see mischaracterizations occur. In an effort to discuss the differences that do actually exist between our beliefs, we have to magnify certain aspects of our beliefs beyond how we actually perceive them. I find that I am more guilty of taking my own beliefs out of context in order to explain, than most people are of taking me out of context in general.

[bluebell]

I think the key difference is our perception of what this rope we are grabbing is.

I believe that the saving baptism we receive is the baptism of the Spirit. The concept is addressed in the all the Gospels.. Matt 3:11 comes to mind, and is also stated in Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

There seems to be distinction between two sorts of baptisms. One is a physical water baptism and the other is a spiritual one. I consider the spiritual baptism that is attributed to Christ as the thing we can not do for ourselves and in that respect, is the baptism that has salvific impact.

It's interesting that you say this, because LDS believe the same thing.

LDS believe that baptism is not complete-that there is no saving power in it-unless it is confirmed by the Holy Ghost. In fact, if someone is baptized but not confirmed, they are not seen as members of teh church, because as you said, there is no saving power in the physical act of baptism-baptism is only the gate we must go through to get access to that power. If someone 'goes through that gate' but then does not recieve the Holy Ghost, the baptism is no more beneficial to him than if he dunked himself in the tub one saturday morning and called it good.

That is why there is no guarantee that someone is saved, in the LDS church, just because they've done all the oridinances-those ordinances, such as baptism and those of the temple, are useless unless they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise-it is that sealing by the spirit that grants grace to a person-that saves, not the ordinances themselves. Someone could have done ALL of them and still not be saved. It seems like that LDS belief right there-that a person can do all the 'works' and still not be saved-should keep anyone from suggesting that LDS believe we are saved by our works.

Does knowing LDS believe that impact the way that you see our belief in works and salvation? Why is what you believe different than what we believe, given that we both believe that it is the Spirit that has salvific impact and not the physical acts?

Thanks Mudcat.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is a proper response to what God commands. If one wasn'tspiritually regenerated, then one wouldn't care about what God commands. After one comes to the knowledge of the truth, then one does what God has laid out for us to do.

It is not a work as we are saved by grace through faith, not by works. Non-LDS Christians do not deny having good works. But the works don't save us, the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. That is what saves us. Works are a testimony to the faith one has as a result of believing God (period).

So what is your problem with the LDS? Why are we not saved again? Since LDS care and we do what God commands and we do what God has laid out for us. No LDS has ever claimed that works by them slef saves them.

Coolrok7 what happens if I confess Jesus and show 0 good works? Am I still saved?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm sorry coolroc, i really am trying to understand what you are saying but it's coming out like it's all semantics. Baptism is a commandment that one must obey but is not a work, simply because....it's not?

Is there a more concise way you could answer the question of 'what is a work' without trying to show why LDS are wrong? Your posts are really hard to follow a lot of the time. Thanks.

I was going to respond to some fo these "issues" raised. I noticed that you did a great job in responding and there is nothing more I could add. Esp the part about exaltation not being biblical.

Pooned. Good job.

[Mudcat]

It's interesting that you say this, because LDS believe the same thing.

LDS believe that baptism is not complete-that there is no saving power in it-unless it is confirmed by the Holy Ghost. In fact, if someone is baptized but not confirmed, they are not seen as members of teh church, because as you said, there is no saving power in the physical act of baptism-baptism is only the gate we must go through to get access to that power. If someone 'goes through that gate' but then does not recieve the Holy Ghost, the baptism is no more beneficial to him than if he dunked himself in the tub one saturday morning and called it good.

That is why there is no guarantee that someone is saved, in the LDS church, just because they've done all the oridinances-those ordinances, such as baptism and those of the temple, are useless unless they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise-it is that sealing by the spirit that grants grace to a person-that saves, not the ordinances themselves. Someone could have done ALL of them and still not be saved. It seems like that LDS belief right there-that a person can do all the 'works' and still not be saved-should keep anyone from suggesting that LDS believe we are saved by our works.

Does knowing LDS believe that impact the way that you see our belief in works and salvation?

Bluebell, thanks for such an informative response. To answer your question, in some respects it does. There are still some fairly significant differences in how we view things. From my viewpoint, I don't believe the differences amount to much, but for the sake of discussion I'll give you my thoughts on those.

If I am understanding you correctly, the LDS water baptism is not efficacious without the confirmation of the Spirit. I know LDS do this by the laying on of hands. So in a sense, the Spirit is what saves and makes the baptism valid. So it would seem LDS think it takes both elements, baptism and confirmation of the Spirit to save.

In contrast to my own beliefs, this still places a great deal of emphasis on the water baptism itself and the Spirit can only be confirmed contingent upon it. Hopefully I got that right. Do LDS believe that a priest could confirm the Spirit on a person, without that person being baptized?

It also seems LDS feel these two components must be enacted by a priest of appropriate authority within the CoJCoLDS. In respect that, what do you believe about the Ethiopian that Philip baptized? IIRC, I think I was talking with Lehi once and he seemed to portray it as a bit of a botched effort in some respect. Do you think the Ethiopian saved?

Why is what you believe different than what we believe, given that we both believe that it is the Spirit that has salvific impact and not the physical acts?

I think the difference mainly lies in that I believe water baptism is a post salvation work. In regards to the baptism of the Spirit I see it as a one step process that occurs after acceptance of Christ in faith.

It seems LDS believe it is a work prior to salvation, or might be better described as one part of a two part process.

We both seem to believe that the reception of the Spirit is absolutely necessary and that is a good thing. I know people get hung up in process and sequence and so forth when it come to salvation. Maybe they should. Maybe its just one way, or the other way and contradictions can't exist on the matter.

I don't doubt that I received the Spirit upon belief. But you know, I think that it is quite possible that it occurred in such a manner because that is what I had faith in God that he would do.

Could it happen in a different order, sequence or something for someone who had faith in God that he would do it that way? Given the number of different accounts of people coming to Christ in the Bible and the varying specifics about the process, I would say it seems to be the case.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[LeSellers]

Do LDS believe that a priest could confirm the Spirit on a person, without that person being baptized?

There are two issues here.

1. Priests cannot confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost
2. It must be in that order.

Baptism must come first.

Only the Melchizedek Priesthood has the authority to confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Even then, however, the ordinances of Baptism and conferring of the Gift of the Holy Ghost are not authorized unless the presiding authority, a Bishop or mission President, do so. I, a High Priest, cannot baptize my granddaughter without her Bishop's permission. I cannot ordain my grandson without his stake president's approval.

what do you believe about the Ethiopian that Philip baptized? IIRC, I think I was talking with Lehi once and he seemed to portray it as a bit of a botched effort in some respect. Do you think the Ethiopian saved?

He was not "saved" until he was baptized because baptism is a requisite for salvation.

However, as I have said many times before in regards to the Ethiopian, the manifestation of the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost are entirely separate things. One may have the Holy Ghost come upon him before baptism, but he cannot receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost until after baptism.

It was not a "botched" effort in any way. The issue is that Philip apparently did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, and could not confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost due to that lack. You will recall that Paul asked the Ephesians who thought themselves baptized and called themselves believers whether they had received the Holy Ghost. Apollos was not even authorized to baptize in Paul's mind, so he rebaptized them, a fact that seems lost on many non-LDSs, before conferring the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Lehi

By the way, this is the third time I've tried to post this.