What exactly is a 'work'?

[Hughes]

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?

I think that in Mark 10 Jesus implies that is why, since he used the example of the Gentiles and how they operate.

Only God knows the motives of peoples hearts.

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?

It's an interesting question that I've heard a lot since signing up here. Do LDS have a thing with obedience?

As far as the Biblical text, everyone is different. God judges the heart not like man judges.

Of course the bible teaches that obedience will be a fruit of those who believe, but is that a requirement for salvation? Not at all. No one is saved by doing anything (aka works).

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 appreciate your candor.

First is Jesus a liar? We'd both agree he isn't. Then the next question. Did he really say that to the Thief on the cross next to him? I think we'd still both agree he did.

So, what happened? "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus said.

Now, the Jewish concept of the after life included two sides of one place called hades. Paradise was one side, and Torments (Luke 16:23) was the other. Also referred to as, "spirits in prison."

Jesus and the thief on the cross dwelt together in paradise (or Abrahams bosom Luke 16:22) that same day.

So, did Jesus promise eternal life to the thief or not?

Question. How did the thief take it? How did he interpret that statement?

Seems to me that if Jesus said to him - "you will be with me... " no matter where/when/how that means eternal life. By also using the Jewish term for paradise, there is no other way to look at it. He was promised eternal life right then and there. No baptism or rites of a priesthood or anything.

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

Only if it didn't contradict previous revelations.

[James Banta]

Feel free to post them and we can discuss.

1. Pentacost.. A mighty rushing wing and tongues of fire... (Acts 2:2-3)

2. Laying on of the Apostles hands... (Acts 8:14-17)

3. While Peter was teaching "no touching involved" (Acts 10:44-47)

These were all accompanied by the gift of tongues and prophecy as eveidence.. IHS jim

[bluebell]

1. Pentacost.. A mighty rushing wing and tongues of fire... (Acts 2:2-3)

2. Laying on of the Apostles hands... (Acts 8:14-17)

3. While Peter was teaching "no touching involved" (Acts 10:44-47)

These were all accompanied by the gift of tongues and prophecy as eveidence.. IHS jim

Sounds right to me.

[Hughes]

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.

The bible never describes the Holy Spirit as being given by anyone but by God himself. No servants gave it to anyone. Not even Paul.

[Hughes]

Yes, i believe that Christ has declared that one must be baptised to be saved.

So you believe that one must "work" as in be baptized, in order to be saved. I would call it a work? Would you?

[bluebell]

It's an interesting question that I've heard a lot since signing up here. Do LDS have a thing with obedience?

As far as the Biblical text, everyone is different. God judges the heart not like man judges.

Of course the bible teaches that obedience will be a fruit of those who believe, but is that a requirement for salvation? Not at all. No one is saved by doing anything (aka works).

You misunderstand.

No one has said that we are saved BY our obedience. Only that Christ requires us to covenant that we will be obedient to Him as a condition of our salvation.

Think of it this way-does your faith save you? OR, does having faith allow Christ to save you?

Now, the Jewish concept of the after life included two sides of one place called hades. Paradise was one side, and Torments (Luke 16:23) was the other. Also referred to as, "spirits in prison."

Jesus and the thief on the cross dwelt together in paradise (or â??Abrahamâ??s bosom â?â??Luke 16:22) that same day.

I'm certainly no scholar, but i don't think that's correct. I'm sure that that is one jewish interpretation but i don't think it's the only one. I believe there was the Jewish belief that paradise was a place where the righteous awaited to resurrection and NOT 'heaven' as well.

So, did Jesus promise eternal life to the thief or not?

Not.

Question. How did the thief take it? How did he interpret that statement?

We aren't told. I would guess, in his physical and emotional state, he took it to mean the equivalent of 'don't worry, everything will be alright.'

Seems to me that if Jesus said to him - "you will be with me... " no matter where/when/how that means eternal life.

Why? Christ was in the spirit prison that day-if He tells someone, 'you'll be with me', why would we assume that He doesn't actually mean that?

By also using the Jewish term for paradise, there is no other way to look at it.

I disagree. I'm guessing that Jesus spoke to the man in hebrew or arimaic(sp)-since the NT was written in greek-we don't know what exact word Jesus used, do we?

He was promised eternal life right then and there. No baptism or rites of a priesthood or anything.

Only according to your interpretation.

Only if it didn't contradict previous revelations.

How did Joshua explain the revelation from God to kill to obtain the land of promise which contradicted the earlier revelation from God which said that they were not to kill, if the mere presence of a contradiction indicates something isn't of God?

[bluebell]

The bible never describes the Holy Spirit as being given by anyone but by God himself. No servants gave it to anyone. Not even Paul.

Acts 8-

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostlesâ?? hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

[James Banta]

Sounds right to me.

Intresting that the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) doesn't REQUIRE anyone to touch you IHS jim

[Hughes]

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'.

Interesting. I believe the bible: 1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

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.

Actually the bible teaches that Christ makes us a new creature in him, and then good works follow. Not the other way around.

[bluebell]

So you believe that one must "work" as in be baptized, in order to be saved. I would call it a work? Would you?

Sure, i'm fine calling it a work.

But then again, i agree with C.S. Lewis-"Regarding the debate about faith and works: It's like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important."

As i've said to mudcat-the baptism has no power to save-it is the way that Christ has said we covenant with Him and it's that covenant and His applying of the Atonement to our sins that saves us. I don't see baptism as any more, or less, of a 'work' than having faith in Christ or repenting of my sins.

[Hughes]

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.

I don't believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of Exaltation.

[bluebell]

Intresting that the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) doesn't REQUIRE anyone to touch you IHS jim

I think that might be a forced interpretation.

We have two incidents where the gift of the HOly Ghost is given without 'touch'. The first time is when the apostles receive it as well, so before that moment, there was no one on the earth who could 'touch' and give the gift, so it obviously would have to show up through miraculous means.

The second time is when Jesus is showing the jewish Christians that the gentiles were acceptable to Him. Another time when it could be said that miraculous measures were needed to bring about God's will.

Every other instance that we know of (unless i'm forgetting one, which i could be) it is done through 'touch' be those authorized to do so and following baptism.

This all seems to imply that God has a way He wants things done, but that there are exceptions to that rule when doing it a miraculous way brings about something God is trying to accomplish. One could then conclude that unless a miraculous way is needed, God will not deviate from the order He has instructed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of Exaltation.

Um jumping the gun a little fast are we? Here is what I said

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

What does that mean to you?"

Were did I say exaltation. And why does the scripture teach us that God will "exalt" us, if it isn't taught? Never mind this last part, just answer to what I asked.

[bluebell]

Interesting. I believe the bible: 1 John 5:13 "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

Well, we have that much in common, because i believe it too.

Obviously though, we know that there will be people who will be surprised when Jesus comes and they find out He 'never knew them'. They must have believed they were 'saved', even though they weren't. John teaches that it is possible for us know that we have eternal life. He doesn't teach that it's impossible for us to believe we have it, when we don't.

Actually the bible teaches that Christ makes us a new creature in him, and then good works follow. Not the other way around.

I disagree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Intresting that the Gift of the Holy Spirit (Ghost) doesn't REQUIRE anyone to touch you IHS jim

Why then when the aposltes laid their hands on people did they recieve the HG as laid out in Acts?

[Mudcat]

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.

Sure.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

I bolded 10:47, since this verse seems to set a precedent that it is possible to receive the Holy Ghost prior to a physical baptism.

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

I agree, it isn't lucid enough of itself to say to much either way.

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.

Your fine Bluebell. If you came off short last night, I didn't notice, I was to busy being grumpy .

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Hughes]

You misunderstand.

No one has said that we are saved BY our obedience. Only that Christ requires us to covenant that we will be obedient to Him as a condition of our salvation.

Think of it this way-does your faith save you? OR, does having faith allow Christ to save you?

Here's where I get confused. You say that one must be baptized to be saved. Then you say that we aren't saved by our obedience. Which is it?

I'm certainly no scholar, but i don't think that's correct. I'm sure that that is one jewish interpretation but i don't think it's the only one. I believe there was the Jewish belief that paradise was a place where the righteous awaited to resurrection and NOT 'heaven' as well.

Not.

We aren't told. I would guess, in his physical and emotional state, he took it to mean the equivalent of 'don't worry, everything will be alright.'

Why? Christ was in the spirit prison that day-if He tells someone, 'you'll be with me', why would we assume that He doesn't actually mean that?

I disagree. I'm guessing that Jesus spoke to the man in hebrew or arimaic(sp)-since the NT was written in greek-we don't know what exact word Jesus used, do we?

Only according to your interpretation.

It's a vitally important principle in interpretation of anything. Asking the question, "How did the original recipient interpret the message?"

Now, you say that you think the thief on the cross next to Jesus, interpreted, "today you will be with me in Paradise." as 'don't worry, everything will be alright.'

Now, knowing that it's a Jewish context. Jesus is a Jew. He's probably talking to a Jew (but we don't know), and Luke is using Jewish ideas and terms to describe events that happened to his audience, who is greek.

Now. Given the context, the thief can only be understanding that he will be with Jesus today in paradise. There's simply no way around that.

HOwever....

IF your interpretation is correct, then Jesus lied to him. Because no one in their right mind would describe "prison" as "Paradise" No matter what greek or hebrew or what ever language you want to use.

How did Joshua explain the revelation from God to kill to obtain the land of promise which contradicted the earlier revelation from God which said that they were not to kill, if the mere presence of a contradiction indicates something isn't of God?

You'll have to give me scripture references to look up because I don't recall this situation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First is Jesus a liar? We'd both agree he isn't. Then the next question. Did he really say that to the Thief on the cross next to him? I think we'd still both agree he did.

So, what happened? "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Jesus said.

Now, the Jewish concept of the after life included two sides of one place called hades. Paradise was one side, and Torments (Luke 16:23) was the other. Also referred to as, "spirits in prison."

Jesus and the thief on the cross dwelt together in paradise (or Abrahams bosom Luke 16:22) that same day.

So, did Jesus promise eternal life to the thief or not?

Question. How did the thief take it? How did he interpret that statement?

Seems to me that if Jesus said to him - "you will be with me... " no matter where/when/how that means eternal life. By also using the Jewish term for paradise, there is no other way to look at it. He was promised eternal life right then and there. No baptism or rites of a priesthood or anything.

This is quite a leap. Abraham's Bosom was not known as recieving eternal life to the Jews.

I post a response to this in another thread.

[Hughes]

Acts 8-

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostlesâ?? hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Notice it doesn't say that the Apostles gave the Spirit to them.

Holy Spirit (Ghost) is only given by Jesus himself.

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Notice it doesn't say that the Apostles gave the Spirit to them.

Holy Spirit (Ghost) is only given by Jesus himself.

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

That isn't what any one has claimed. Only taht after they laid their hands on them did the recieve it, why was taht?

[LeSellers]

on what basis do you find that Philip wasn't authorized?

He was not authorized to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. He was obviously authorized to baptize, since he performed the ordinance.

But notice that Philip did not bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost because he was carried away immediately after the baptism. He had no chance to perform that ordinance.

We know, however that receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost is mandatory since Paul laid his hands on the twelve men (and their families) to give that gift and it was precisely because that was the "mark" of a complete baptism.

Lehi

[bluebell]

Here's where I get confused. You say that one must be baptized to be saved. Then you say that we aren't saved by our obedience. Which is it?

I'll use an analogy to help clarify.

I'm lost in the desert, about to die of thirst. I look over and see there is a fountain of water next to me. I go through the phyiscal act of bending down and taking a drink and i am saved.

Which saved me, the physical act of bending over to the fountain, or the water?

Hopefully that will help explain what i'm saying.

It's a vitally important principle in interpretation of anything. Asking the question, "How did the original recipient interpret the message?"

I agree, but hopefully 'the Spirit' would be first in the list of what we need to do to interpret scripture, right?

Now, you say that you think the thief on the cross next to Jesus, interpreted, "today you will be with me in Paradise." as 'don't worry, everything will be alright.'

That's a logical possibility.

Now. Given the context, the thief can only be understanding that he will be with Jesus today in paradise. There's simply no way around that.

I disagree. We don't even know if the thief was jewish or had ANY understanding of eternal life. To say 'this MUST be the interpretation', given what we don't know, seems very short sighted.

HOwever....

IF your interpretation is correct, then Jesus lied to him. Because no one in their right mind would describe "prison" as "Paradise" No matter what greek or hebrew or what ever language you want to use.

I disagree. If Jesus was describing a place where there was no more pain or fear or sorrow-a place where the thief would have the opportunity to learn about the gospel, have faith in Christ and repent of His sins allowing him the opportunity to be saved-that could definitely be described as 'paradise' to a man hanging on a cross about to die.

You'll have to give me scripture references to look up because I don't recall this situation.

My fault-i was actually thinking of when moses was leading to people and the Lord commands the armies of Israel to kill all male children and all the mothers and women who weren't virgins. This comes just a short while after the Lord commands Israel not to kill.

[bluebell]

Notice it doesn't say that the Apostles gave the Spirit to them.

Holy Spirit (Ghost) is only given by Jesus himself.

Luke 24:49 "And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."

No one has claimed otherwise, so i'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[James Banta]

I think that might be a forced interpretation.

We have two incidents where the gift of the HOly Ghost is given without 'touch'. The first time is when the apostles receive it as well, so before that moment, there was no one on the earth who could 'touch' and give the gift, so it obviously would have to show up through miraculous means.

The second time is when Jesus is showing the jewish Christians that the gentiles were acceptable to Him. Another time when it could be said that miraculous measures were needed to bring about God's will.

Every other instance that we know of (unless i'm forgetting one, which i could be) it is done through 'touch' be those authorized to do so and following baptism.

This all seems to imply that God has a way He wants things done, but that there are exceptions to that rule when doing it a miraculous way brings about something God is trying to accomplish. One could then conclude that unless a miraculous way is needed, God will not deviate from the order He has instructed.

You asked for different ways.. No where does God indicate that he couldn't send the Holy Spirit to believes anyway He has decide to do so... Since the Holy Spirit is promised to all who believe in the true God of the Bible, I say unless you can show me that somehow I am outside that definition I must say that I have the Holy Spirit with me as my constant companion. The Holy Spirit Given to me as a promise of Jesus to all who Believe on His name.. For if we have eternal life by this means we are one with God through His Holy Spirit.. 1 John 5:13 IHS jim

[Hughes]

One could then conclude that unless a miraculous way is needed, God will not deviate from the order He has instructed.

Where is this instruction found?