Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What exactly is a 'work'?


bluebell

Recommended Posts

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. :P

Hang with me please bluebell, it seemed that this thread was directed to those of us who are non-LDS Christians (non-Mormons) which is why I responded. Mormonism came to me both publicly and privately in part over the years since I began inquiring into it. The basic premise of Mormonism I discovered was that I was wrong, heretical, and that I had pagan belief and Greek philosophy as part of my belief system:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)â??and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â? (POGP, JOSEPH SMITHâ??HISTORY 1:18, 19)

Heresy, See APOSTASY, DOCTRINE, ORTHODOXY, TRUTH. In the true gospel sense, any opinion or doctrine in opposition to the revealed word of the Lord as recorded in the standard works of the Church as taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an heresy. The issue is not how many people believe a teaching; it is whether the doctrine is true or false (2 Peter 2:1). . .There is no salvation in a false doctrine. (Mormon Doctrine,p.352)

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its placeâ??a religion that professed to be Jesus Christâ??s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, â??having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â?. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiahâ??s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)â?

The Scripture that is my source for what I believe says the following:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)

Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

In the following LDS "scripture" Mormons are admonished (along with the Mormon missionary training manual, the mindset of missionaries just before I became engaged in having discussions with them):

To meet the opponents of the church, both in public and in privateâ??

Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you in public and private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. (D&C 71:7-eight)

A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS (August 1961)

TEACHING THE INVESTIGATOR- Our hope in teaching the Gospel is to convert people and baptize them. . . . (p.3)

FIRST DISCUSSION

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST

I. OUTLINE

B. Joseph Smith story [*]

A. Create need for prophet [*]

1. Nature of Godhead

2. Importance of Joseph Smith

C. Apostasy

1. Set up church (Eph. 2:19-20.)

2. Collapse church on flannel board

3. Compare churches

D. Baptismal date

E. Restoration

1. Divine messengers (Matt. 17:11-13.)

2. Total restoration

F. Secure commitments

1. Baptism

2. Study, pray, attend church

BASIC CONCLUSIONS*

1. We need a prophet today.

2. The Father and the Son have bodies.

3. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

4. The church must be the same as it

was at the time of the Savior.

5. Apostles and prophets are necessary in the

Church today.

6. The priesthood is necessary to act for God.

7. There is no priesthood today without

apostles.

8. I agree the Church must be like this today.

9. There was a complete apostasy and my church

is false.

10. I will be baptized as I come to believe the

restoration.

11. There was a complete restoration of the priesthood

and the true church.

12. I will study, pray, and attend church to

meet a specific baptismal date.

* Conclusions given in bold face at end of each section (p.9) [the bold above is mine]

I made the attempt to clear up your stated confusion from my perspective (Christian, Lutheran, Missouri Synod). This would be classified as Protestant/Evangelical and is known historically as the Protestant Reformation in reaction to certain Roman Catholic dogma (selling of indulgences).

Iâ??m including this for clarification for you from where Iâ??m coming from:

THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS

A better term for â??Lutheran spirituality is â??evangelicalâ? spirituality. The term â??evangelicalâ? is simply a term derived from the Greek word for â??Gospel,â? which in turn literally means â??good news.â? â??Evangelicalâ? means someone who focuses on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the good news that Christ, through His death and resurrection, has won forgiveness for sinful human beings and offers salvation as a free gift.

Today the term â??evangelicalâ? is used to refer to a wide variety of more-or-less conservative Protestants. For all the differences, Baptists, charismatics, Calvinists, Wesleyans, and the various non-denominational â??para-church ministriesâ? do stress salvation through Christ and emphasize â??evangelism,â? so the term is apt. But originally, the word â??evangelicalâ? meant â??Lutheranâ?.

In the years following the Reformation, â??Evangelicalsâ? were those who followed Luther, as opposed to â??reformedâ? who followed Calvin. (A later attempt to bring the two factions together resulted in the â??Evangelical and Reformed Church,â? today an American denomination.) Even today in Europe, churches that follow a Lutheran theology call themselves not â??Lutheranâ?â??a term Luther himself hated, not wanting Christâ??s Church to be named after himâ??but â??Evangelical.â? The American usage of the term for any Bible-believing, salvation-preaching Christian is starting to catch on in Europe also, but American tourists at times get confused when they go into a German or Scandinavian church with â??evangelischeâ? on the sign, expecting revival songs and alter calls, only to find chorales and liturgy.

Though others are entitled to call themselves â??evangelicals,â? Lutherans are at least the first evangelicals. Keeping in mind the fact that Christians have always focused on the Gospel, from the New Testament days through the early Church and even through the Middle agesâ??a time when, Protestants contend, the emphasis on the Gospel and its implications became somewhat confusedâ??Lutherans were the first to be called evangelical. They were also the first to emphasize the Gospel to such an extant that it became central to every level of their doctrine and practice. This evangelical focus, made over against medieval Catholicism, opened the door to every other Protestant expression that came later. But evangelical Lutheranism remains distinct.

As something of a spiritual wandererâ??drifting from religion, church to church, from the very liberal to the very conservativeâ??I myself finally discovered the Gospel and its implications. I found that I had become Lutheran. This book is partly a record of that pilgrimage, but only partly. It is mainly an account of what Iâ??as a modern or perhaps post-modern Americanâ??have found to be of inestimable help and value in the Lutheran spiritual tradition.

This tradition has been somewhat obscured and is little known in the United Statesâ??sometimes, I regret to say, even among American Lutheransâ??but deserves consideration. Among other reasons, the teachings of the first evangelicals prove to be particularly relevant to problems now vexing American Christianity, and they speak in a powerful way to the needs and cravings of todayâ??s generations. (pp.12-13)

Mormonism historically comes out of what is known as Restorationism:

In the United States, Restorationism, sometimes called Christian primitivism, refers to the belief held by various religious movements that pristine or original Christianity should be restored, while usually claiming to be the source of that restoration. Such groups teach that this is necessary because Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians introduced defects into Christian faith and practice, or have lost a vital element of genuine Christianity.

Specifically, restorationism applies to the Restoration Movement and numerous other movements that originated in the eastern United States and Canada and grew rapidly in the early and mid 19th century in the wake of the Second Great Awakening. The term restoration is also employed by the Latter Day Saint movement.

This of course leads to differences in approaches to Scripture and what it teaches and how it relates to whom really has the correct understanding of what it means on any given topic. With me so far?

Link to comment

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

While they "believe" and their faith produces action (trembling) they are in rebellion against God.

In other words, their faith (or trust) isn't in God, but in something else (not sure what they think they are trusting, if they think they will defeat God, that seems insane, I don't know. Bottom line they aren't using their faith to trust God.)

Link to comment

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.

Exaltation as taught by the LDS is a bit more than that, or am I mistaken?

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.

It's based on human psychology. Doing things for a reward is the wrong motive.

For example James and John in Mark 10

36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.

37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

39"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."

41When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Notice, that Jesus replied to the idea of "rewards" [sitting at his right hand] with a scolding of how the world [gentiles] does things (lord it over them), and admonished his followers to reject the way the world does things, and take his example. "Who ever wants to be first must be slave of all."

Now, I'll ask you. Is it the focus of LDS members to be the slave of all for the simple love of Christ or is it the focus of LDS members to gain a higher Exaltation when they follow the many rules laid out by the teachings of the church?

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:"

Or "lift you up..." the difference between the Doctrine of Exaltation and the ambiguous term of exalt or lift up as used in Peter and James is huge. So, unequivocally no. The Doctrine of Exaltation is not taught in the Bible.

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.

If true, then Jesus couldn't have said to the thief, "today you will be with me in paradise."

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.
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?

I was answering the part in bold. "why is it that only mormons who following 'another gospel'."

Many within Christendom hold different opinions about minor doctrinal issues, But they don't disagree on the major doctrinal issues (Nature of Christ/Man/salvation/God etc).

JS used extra biblical sources to come up with his "another gospel". By which he diverged on the major doctrinal issues with all of Christendom. That's why.

Link to comment

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!

The only "some" who would think that would be LDS....

Link to comment
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.

This is confusing. You believe that one must be baptized to be saved?

Link to comment

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.

Forgive me for jumping in on your conversation.

So there is no way to know if you're saved or not if your LDS? No guarantee?

Someone can do all the things required by the LDS and still die in their sins?

Link to comment

I wanted to just answer the question in the OP of this thread.. I haven't been here in a while so I am not sure how I can jump in unless I just start from scratch..

What is a work in the lines of Eph 2:8-9? A work would be anything a person could try to do that would be an attempt to make himself acceptable to God... Only God can make a person acceptable to Himself.. Only the Blood of Jesus has the power to cleanse a person of their sins. The Holy Spirit has taught me this as I read that passage and therefore has as much authority as an interpretation of the passage as anyone else has.. IHS jim

Link to comment

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.

Yes.

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?

Not under normal circumstances.

LDS believe that God places a great deal of emphasis in His house being a 'house of order' and that there are specific ways He wants things done (as Paul says in 1Cor. 14: 40). There is precendent that God once did things in a different order, but that was done of Himself and not be any of His servants and it was it seems an exception and not the rule.

It also seems LDS feel these two components must be enacted by a priest of appropriate authority within the CoJCoLDS.

It must be done by someone who has the authority to act in the name of God, yes, LDS believe that.

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?

Are you speaking of Philip and the Eunuch? I don't remember anything about Philip and an Ethiopian.

Also, i'm not sure i understand your question. Are you suggesting that Philip had no authority to baptize in the name of God so his bapism of the eunuch wasn't done with the proper authority according to LDS belief?

From what i read, it seems that philip had the authority to perform that ordinance so nothing was amiss with his baptism of the eunuch-again though, maybe i'm thinking of the wrong event and there is an ethiopian somewhere that i'm just not remembering.

I think the difference mainly lies in that I believe water baptism is a post salvation work.

So you believe that a person is saved BEFORE they are baptized, is that what you are saying?

In regards to the baptism of the Spirit I see it as a one step process that occurs after acceptance of Christ in faith.

Does the bible support this belief? Do we have any evidence that any of the servants of the Lord gave anyone the Holy Ghost before they were baptized? I'm just wondering where your belief comes from.

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

LDS believe that baptism, along with confirmation (receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost) is how we enter into the saving covenant with Christ-it is that step that adopts us into the family of Christ, making us His children and from that moment on, an heir to all the Father has.

We believe there is no saving outside of that covenant and that God has decreed that the covenant is made through baptism and the receipt of the Holy Ghost.

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 agree.

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.

I would never argue with your personal experience.

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.

How many different ways does the bible show a person can receive the Holy Ghost?

:P

Link to comment

In the following LDS "scripture" Mormons are admonished (along with the Mormon missionary training manual, the mindset of missionaries just before I became engaged in having discussions with them):

I made the attempt to clear up your stated confusion from my perspective (Christian, Lutheran, Missouri Synod). This would be classified as Protestant/Evangelical and is known historically as the Protestant Reformation in reaction to certain Roman Catholic dogma (selling of indulgences).

Iâ??m including this for clarification for you from where Iâ??m coming from:

Mormonism historically comes out of what is known as Restorationism:

This of course leads to differences in approaches to Scripture and what it teaches and how it relates to whom really has the correct understanding of what it means on any given topic. With me so far?

Yes.

Link to comment

Exaltation as taught by the LDS is a bit more than that, or am I mistaken?

No, becoming a joint-heir with Christ to gain all that the Father has pretty much sums it all up completely.

It's based on human psychology. Doing things for a reward is the wrong motive.

I agree.

But where does the bible say that that's the reason God does not tell anyone what the exact rewards are, and how does God telling us that there ARE rewards NOT cause some people to do good things for the wrong motives?

Now, I'll ask you. Is it the focus of LDS members to be the slave of all for the simple love of Christ or is it the focus of LDS members to gain a higher Exaltation when they follow the many rules laid out by the teachings of the church?

The focus of the LDS members as a whole (individually there are all kinds of members, just as there are all kinds of members in every belief system) is to 'love God with all our might mind and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

There is no true love of God without obedience to His commands. Do non-LDS Christians believe one can love Christ without doing the will of the Father?

Or "lift you up..." the difference between the Doctrine of Exaltation and the ambiguous term of exalt or lift up as used in Peter and James is huge. So, unequivocally no. The Doctrine of Exaltation is not taught in the Bible.

No it's not.

If true, then Jesus couldn't have said to the thief, "today you will be with me in paradise."

Jesus promises the thief that He woud be with Him in paradise-He did not promise him that he would be granted eternal life that day.

We know from the bible that upon His death, Christ did not go directly to His Father-He went and preached to the spirits in prison, and we read that after the resurrection Christ proclaims that even three days after His death, He had not yet been to His Father.

Knowing all that, how can one interpret Christ's words to the thief as a promise of eternal life received that day?

I was answering the part in bold. "why is it that only mormons who following 'another gospel'."

Many within Christendom hold different opinions about minor doctrinal issues, But they don't disagree on the major doctrinal issues (Nature of Christ/Man/salvation/God etc).

JS used extra biblical sources to come up with his "another gospel". By which he diverged on the major doctrinal issues with all of Christendom. That's why.

Would direct revelation from God be an appropriate 'extra biblical' source?

:P

Link to comment

Forgive me for jumping in on your conversation.

So there is no way to know if you're saved or not if your LDS? No guarantee?

What i meant was there is no 'checklist' that one can go through that will guarantee salvation. This is because LDS believe that salvation is not 'doing' but 'becoming'.

Someone can do all the things required by the LDS and still die in their sins?

You bet-someone can do all the 'right' things for all the 'wrong' reasons and thus they would die in their sins because they were never born again.

To be saved the bible teaches that one must be 'born again' and become a 'new creature'. The reason that Christ spoke so adamantly about the evil of hypocrisy is because it is so dangerous to our souls. It is the act of people pretending to be something they are not, most of the time pretending to the extent that even fool themselves, and Christ taught that no amount of pretending to be a 'new creature' will make up for not actually becoming a new creature through His Atonement.

In short-'works' are only important as they help us to change into new creatures through Christ. No change, no matter what works have been done,=no becoming joint-heirs with Him.

:P

Link to comment

I wanted to just answer the question in the OP of this thread.. I haven't been here in a while so I am not sure how I can jump in unless I just start from scratch..

What is a work in the lines of Eph 2:8-9? A work would be anything a person could try to do that would be an attempt to make himself acceptable to God... Only God can make a person acceptable to Himself.. Only the Blood of Jesus has the power to cleanse a person of their sins. The Holy Spirit has taught me this as I read that passage and therefore has as much authority as an interpretation of the passage as anyone else has.. IHS jim

So as long as a person believed that some 'work' was required for salvation, but did NOT believe that the work was an 'attempt to make himself acceptable to God' then it's not a work-is that what you are saying?

And how does 2 Cor. 5:9-"Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him."-fit in with what you said?

Thanks.

:P

Link to comment

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.

Hi Lehi,

In regards to your close. I appreciate your efforts... seems I have a bit of off and on trouble myself.

Sorry if the word "botched" hit you a bit awry. Emphasis mine, I am curious, on what basis do you find that Philip wasn't authorized?

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Link to comment

Yes.

Next.

By the way the quote I used earlier concerning the "THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS" was from a book entitled, "The spirituality of the cross" by a Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

The basic understanding of what Scripture teaches concerning works and where they fit in relation to salvation is the distinction to be made between Justification and Sanctification (Lutheran perspective).

Justification is a legal standing before God as being righteous by having oneâ??s sins absolved for it is sin that separates us from God which affects us in our relationship to Him (as descendents of Adam and Eve) both temporally and spiritually speaking.

This initially took place in the garden with Eve being first approached by the serpent, a disguised form later identified as the devil or Satan. Adam and Eve together violated Godâ??s command to not eat the fruit of a specific tree after being tempted by the devil. This is how he is spoken of in the New Testament in relation to the fall:

You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies. (John 8:44)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:4-eight)

There were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This indicates God was well aware of something that had already taken place with His other created beings (angelic beings) before the world was created.

Before Adam and Eve sinned by partaking of the fruit they were in a state of perfection as far as the creation was concerned. You could say that it was at that point of temptation and giving in to it that they fell caused by a â??workâ?, a behavior forbidden by God.

Adam was told the following (before Eve was created):

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:15-18)

Notice what Eve here says (she added the words â??neither shall ye touch itâ? which was not part of the original command given to Adam (possibly further instruction from Adam):

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-50

â??Worksâ? are what we do in a faith response (Sanctification- being set apart for works of service) to what God has already done in which He saved all those who come to Him in faith from an eternal punishment in hell (in Greek, gehenna). This would also include those who have lived their life in accordance with the knowledge of God they had (Romans 1&2), in faith, without ever hearing the Gospel message. Both are held accountable to God based on what was known and faithfulness to that knowledge.

Justification- a legal state of not being guilty, comes first before Sanctification. A Lutheran distinction in the approach to our standing with God is whether a particular verse is either Law or Gospel. Anything that is Law was accomplished for us by Christ in His death on the cross which is Justification met all the conditions of us being imperfect sinful beings:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2:8-15)

What we now do in a faith response is due to the Gospel and because we are now a new creature in Christ. This is the sanctified life. We still have the old man inside which we have to die daily to by taking up the cross we bear (as Jesus did) by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit's work is the following:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. (John 16:7-11)
Link to comment

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.

To which you replied.

Exaltation as taught by the LDS is a bit more than that, or am I mistaken?

Actually we must define what it means to have all that the Father has.

What does that mean to you? To me it mean just that, it mean that we have All that he has.

Link to comment

Next.

By the way the quote I used earlier concerning the "THE ORIGINAL EVANGELICALS" was from a book entitled, "The spirituality of the cross" by a Gene Edward Veith, Jr.

The basic understanding of what Scripture teaches concerning works and where they fit in relation to salvation is the distinction to be made between Justification and Sanctification (Lutheran perspective).

Justification is a legal standing before God as being righteous by having oneâ??s sins absolved for it is sin that separates us from God which affects us in our relationship to Him (as descendents of Adam and Eve) both temporally and spiritually speaking.

This initially took place in the garden with Eve being first approached by the serpent, a disguised form later identified as the devil or Satan. Adam and Eve together violated Godâ??s command to not eat the fruit of a specific tree after being tempted by the devil. This is how he is spoken of in the New Testament in relation to the fall:

There were two trees, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This indicates God was well aware of something that had already taken place with His other created beings (angelic beings) before the world was created.

Before Adam and Eve sinned by partaking of the fruit they were in a state of perfection as far as the creation was concerned. You could say that it was at that point of temptation and giving in to it that they fell caused by a â??workâ?, a behavior forbidden by God.

Adam was told the following (before Eve was created):

Notice what Eve here says (she added the words â??neither shall ye touch itâ? which was not part of the original command given to Adam (possibly further instruction from Adam):

â??Worksâ? are what we do in a faith response (Sanctification- being set apart for works of service) to what God has already done in which He saved all those who come to Him in faith from an eternal punishment in hell (in Greek, gehenna). This would also include those who have lived their life in accordance with the knowledge of God they had (Romans 1&2), in faith, without ever hearing the Gospel message. Both are held accountable to God based on what was known and faithfulness to that knowledge.

Justification- a legal state of not being guilty, comes first before Sanctification. A Lutheran distinction in the approach to our standing with God is whether a particular verse is either Law or Gospel. Anything that is Law was accomplished for us by Christ in His death on the cross which is Justification met all the conditions of us being imperfect sinful beings:

What we now do in a faith response is due to the Gospel and because we are now a new creature in Christ. This is the sanctified life. We still have the old man inside which we have to die daily to by taking up the cross we bear (as Jesus did) by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit's work is the following:

Alright.

Most of that (aside some of the things about the fall of adam and eve) sounds like what LDS believe about justification and sanctification.

:P

Link to comment

Alright.

Most of that (aside some of the things about the fall of adam and eve) sounds like what LDS believe about justification and sanctification.

:P

It is precisely at this point where we don't really agree as is changed in Mormon doctrine, beginning with the fall as recorded in Genesis.

Link to comment

Are you speaking of Philip and the Eunuch? I don't remember anything about Philip and an Ethiopian.

Also, i'm not sure i understand your question. Are you suggesting that Philip had no authority to baptize in the name of God so his bapism of the eunuch wasn't done with the proper authority according to LDS belief?

From what i read, it seems that philip had the authority to perform that ordinance so nothing was amiss with his baptism of the eunuch-again though, maybe i'm thinking of the wrong event and there is an ethiopian somewhere that i'm just not remembering.

The eunuch happened to be Ethiopian. Sorry for the confusion. As a side note, IIRC the Ethiopian Orthodox Church attributes that this particular eunuch converted their Queen and started the church in Ethiopia. Which now has about 42 million members, I think.

Anyways, bold mine, thanks for answering this. I was under the assumption that all LDS thought this. It's a fault of mine, but normally when an LDS tells me something I didn't know about, I attribute it to .. "all LDS think this". I suppose it has to do with the consistency of doctrine on a number of levels that you have.

So you believe that a person is saved BEFORE they are baptized, is that what you are saying?

I believe they can be saved before a water baptism, in fact.. at least as far as Baptists go, that is pretty much how we believe it works. But not before a baptism of the spirit. You believe, are baptized in the spirit then go and be baptized with water.

Does the bible support this belief? Do we have any evidence that any of the servants of the Lord gave anyone the Holy Ghost before they were baptized? I'm just wondering where your belief comes from.

I think it does support it.

As to evidence of servants confirming the Holy Ghost, this sort of thing always seems to follow water baptism. However, given the early church's propensity to baptize with all haste, the two events are in most cases near simultaneous.

As for that support. At Pentecost and with the house of Cornelius, there are two examples of God giving this himself, instead of being given by any servant at all. These instances certainly gives a very literal impetus to John's statement that Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Also, I have found the question that Paul asks in Acts 19:2 interesting. "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Now Paul actually goes on and lays hands on these fellows after baptism and the HG comes upon them. But the question itself seems to links belief and reception of the Spirit.

I certainly can't question someone who believes they will recieve the HG by the laying on of hands... there is evidence for it.

How many different ways does the bible show a person can receive the Holy Ghost?

I hope this isn't a quiz. Off the top of my head, there seems to be two at least two. God gives it via laying on of hands or God gives it directly.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Link to comment

I think it does support it.

As to evidence of servants confirming the Holy Ghost, this sort of thing always seems to follow water baptism. However, given the early church's propensity to baptize with all haste, the two events are in most cases near simultaneous.

As for that support. At Pentecost and with the house of Cornelius, there are two examples of God giving this himself, instead of being given by any servant at all. These instances certainly gives a very literal impetus to John's statement that Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost.

Pentacost, i agree with, but with Cornelius-could you give the exact reference you are referring to that shows that God gave Cornelius the gift of the Holy Ghost. I want to make sure i'm talking about the same verses as you are.

Also, I have found the question that Paul asks in Acts 19:2 interesting. "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Now Paul actually goes on and lays hands on these fellows after baptism and the HG comes upon them. But the question itself seems to links belief and reception of the Spirit.

Perhaps. But i think that the following verses could equally support a different interpretations. Paul seemed to assume that these people had already been baptized and just had not had a chance to be given the gift of the Holy Ghost yet. He seems to be surprised that they professed belief but did not know about the gift of the Holy Ghost and which causes him to probe a bit deeper and discover that they weren't ready to receive the Holy Ghost yet.

I agree though that it's not clear and your interpretation could be supported.

I hope this isn't a quiz. Off the top of my head, there seems to be two at least two. God gives it via laying on of hands or God gives it directly.

Gosh no! I would never pass my own quiz! I just wanted to be able to discuss the references. It was late when i was responding last night so sorry if i came off short.

:P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...