What exactly is a 'work'?

[Hughes]

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.

As I said before, it's rather ambiguous. As in, there isn't a lot of detail given.

Your point?

[Hughes]

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.

While faith and repenting are not physical actions. Baptism is.

Why is this point important? Not only does it violate the principle of saved by faith. But also, consider that many people who are unable to follow those works.

[bluebell]

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

If your belief about it were true, then there would be no reason for people to wait until those authorized to give the gift of the Holy Ghost could come and give it to them. The very fact that the apostles and other church leaders believed taht that was specifically how God wanted it to be done, supports my interpretation over yours.

The Holy Ghost is promised to all who believe-but automatically getting it the moment of belief isn't promised, nor is it the 'rule' on how the early saints received it.

[bluebell]

Where is this instruction found?

The bible.

In all seriousness, i explained in the other pose WHY one could conclude that (i did not suggest that there was definitive proof-only that it was a logical conclusion that was as supported by the scripture as the other interpretation is), so i'm not going to do so again.

[bluebell]

While faith and repenting are not physical actions. Baptism is.

What does it matter if it's a physical act or not?

Why is this point important? Not only does it violate the principle of saved by faith. But also, consider that many people who are unable to follow those works.

It doesn't violate the principle of saved by faith-it supports the principle that only 'living' faith saves and living faith is faith AND works.

And LDS believe God has a plan that allows everyone, no matter when they lived on the earth, to learn about the gospel of Christ and partake of the ordinances that are 'physical'. God is merciful (provides a way to obtain what we don't deserve) and just (is not arbitrary)-to everyone.

[Hughes]

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.

Of course any sort of self deception is possible. However, it's interesting to note that John is teaching us not only that we know we have eternal life, but also that we know we have Eternal life right now. Not sometime in the future. At the moment we believe, we Eternal life. To have the Son is to have life.

I disagree.

Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will isâ??his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Notice the sequence taught here in Romans. First you are "in christ" then you are transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you do good works.

The opposite sequence doesn't work (first works then new creature), because the law is powerless because it depends on the flesh or sinful nature which cannot do the things commanded.

[Mudcat]

He was not authorized to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Yes, you've said as much, for the sake of discussion I will assume your position on this. However, I will say that your making a bit of a stretch to say that he couldn't, because he didn't.

He was obviously authorized to baptize, since he performed the ordinance.

Ok

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.

So what do you make of that? Since as you say, the gift of the HG is the "mark" of a complete baptism, then what actual use is there in someone being able to render an incomplete work? Also, what of this poor eunuch... do you suppose he ever wound up becoming a Christian?

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

How does all this square with Peter not giving the gift of the HG and Cornelius' house and them being baptized after God had given it to them?

[Hughes]

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

Why did the blind man see after Jesus laid hands on him? Why did the crippled man walk after he took his hand?

Why is there instruction to lay hands on someone when praying for them?

The power of prayer, and the power of touch. It's a mystery for sure, but it's not an ordinance or commanded, nor is it needed, nor is it necessary, nor can one human give another human the gift of the spirit. Only Jesus gives the spirit.

[bluebell]

However, it's interesting to note that John is teaching us not only that we know we have eternal life, but also that we know we have Eternal life right now. Not sometime in the future. At the moment we believe, we Eternal life. To have the Son is to have life.

I know, isn't it AWESOME!

Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will ishis good, pleasing and perfect will.

Notice the sequence taught here in Romans. First you are "in christ" then you are transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you do good works.

What i'm seeing is-

When we join with Christ, we are justified because of His righteousness and this means that we, in our sinfulness, now meet the righteous requirements of the law, through Him. This justification is possible because even though we are not perfect, we no longer have the desire to live according to 'the natural man', who is an enemy to God, but now have the desire to live according to the spirit. A mind that is still 'natural', who does not submit to the laws of God, is not justified.

Stop being the 'natural man' and be transformed-then God's will will be your will.

I don't really see that as teaching that being obedient to the commandments of God doesn't help us change into new creatures who's will is the same as His.

The opposite sequence doesn't work (first works then new creature), because the law is powerless because it depends on the flesh or sinful nature which cannot do the things commanded.

Justification and sanctification are processes and don't happen in an instant. There is no justification without faith and repentance, for example-those processes must be gone through FIRST before justification takes place.

Sanctification likewise is the process of becoming sanctified, or holy, and it is not instaneous the moment we are justified.

[Hughes]

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.

Thanks for the analogy. However, it fails to persuade. Receiving the salvation from God requires no physical action on our part. None.

I'm ok if the LDS disagrees. That's ok.... it doesn't bother me. But don't be surprised when I refer to that as salvation by works.

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

Yes and no. the principles of interpretation are applicable to any document. Secular or religious. The Spirit can help us understand, but again, if that "understanding" is in contradiction with previous revelation, then that "understanding" is in error.

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.

It's ok to disagree.

I would say it's more likely that the Thief understood Jesus to mean that he would be with him "in the after life" what ever that was. And the term Paradise is a Jewish term.

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.

As the The Rich Man and Lazarus story/analogy in Luke 16 describes, there is no such place to repent later of all his sins, you are in error. There is no place in the bible where that doctrine is taught. Sorry.

As the conclusion to that story goes, 27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'

29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'

30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

As the story goes, the thief on the cross defended Jesus, he repented there on the cross. He had a change of heart. He believed in Christ. And that's all that's necessary for salvation and eternal life. Praise God!

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.

Please give me a citation. It's important to not ignore context.

[Hughes]

The Holy Ghost is promised to all who believe-but automatically getting it the moment of belief isn't promised, nor is it the 'rule' on how the early saints received it.

IF you are correct. What spirit do you receive the moment you believe?

[Hughes]

What does it matter if it's a physical act or not?

It doesn't violate the principle of saved by faith-it supports the principle that only 'living' faith saves and living faith is faith AND works.

And LDS believe God has a plan that allows everyone, no matter when they lived on the earth, to learn about the gospel of Christ and partake of the ordinances that are 'physical'. God is merciful (provides a way to obtain what we don't deserve) and just (is not arbitrary)-to everyone.

Why did you call it "living" faith? Where did that come from? Have you ever seen a dead faith?

The LDS believe that people can repent after they die. This isn't in the bible either.

I do believe that God makes a righteous judgement of everyone, as he sees everyone's heart.

I do think it's rather small minded to think that everyone has to go through "ordinances that are physical" in order to be saved. And I don't mean this to be mean so please to take it that way. But, as it is written, God is spirit, and those who worship him must do so in Spirit and truth.

[LeSellers]

Why did you call it "living" faith? Where did that come from? Have you ever seen a dead faith?

Don't know that I've seen one, but I believe it was that to which the scripture refers when we read "The devils know and tremble" or whatever it is.

The LDS believe that people can repent after they die. This isn't in the bible either.

Well, yes, it is. But since you know the Bible so well, I'll leave that to you. [Hint: it's in 1 Peter.]

Lehi

[bluebell]

Why did you call it "living" faith? Where did that come from? Have you ever seen a dead faith?

Faith without works is dead. Therefore, faith WITH works is living, right?

The LDS believe that people can repent after they die. This isn't in the bible either.

The bible doesn't teach against it.

I do believe that God makes a righteous judgement of everyone, as he sees everyone's heart.

That's not in the bible, though, is it? Where does the bible say that God will judge people based on their 'hearts'?

I do think it's rather small minded to think that everyone has to go through "ordinances that are physical" in order to be saved. And I don't mean this to be mean so please to take it that way. But, as it is written, God is spirit, and those who worship him must do so in Spirit and truth.

It's alright, i'm not offended. I think it's small minded to believe that God teaches taht you must accept Christ to be saved and then either will save some people who never accepted Christ anyway (making HIs words in the bible lies, it would seem), or will damn people who never had the chance to even hear his name (which doesn't seem just), so we obviously see things differently.

Gaining understanding of each other's perspectives though is what i'm really after so hopefully we're doing good in that regard.

[bluebell]

Thanks for the analogy. However, it fails to persuade.

Mostly i'm concerned with you understanding-that you don't agree is secondary.

Receiving the salvation from God requires no physical action on our part. None.

So you say-i disagree. I think it's kind of odd that you are hung up on 'physical'. Where in the bible is the idea coming from that something is a 'work' if it's physical in nature? I'm not really following you here.

But don't be surprised when I refer to that as salvation by works.

Can i refer to your belief then as 'cheap grace', no matter whether you believe it's 'cheap grace' or not?

Yes and no. the principles of interpretation are applicable to any document. Secular or religious. The Spirit can help us understand, but again, if that "understanding" is in contradiction with previous revelation, then that "understanding" is in error.

OR, the previous interpretation of revelation is what is in error and the Spirit is trying to get you straightened out.

Coming from a religion that believes the Jews are in error because they refuse to accept beliefs that they claim contradict their own scriptures, it seems like you wouldn't be as adamant about 'contradiction proves something's not of God' as you are, but i do get what you are saying.

I would say it's more likely that the Thief understood Jesus to mean that he would be with him "in the after life" what ever that was. And the term Paradise is a Jewish term.

I agree, it's o.k. to disagree.

As the The Rich Man and Lazarus story/analogy in Luke 16 describes, there is no such place to repent later of all his sins, you are in error.

I disagree.

The parable teaches that there is no repentance in the next life for those who 'knew the law'. LDS agree. The parable of the pharisee and lazarus doesn't address the doctrine we are speaking about because the pharisee had his chance during mortality. You are trying to make this parable say more than it actually does because you haven't correctly understood the LDS belief about being able to accept Christ in the next life for those who never had the chance in this one.

As the story goes, the thief on the cross defended Jesus, he repented there on the cross.

Where does the bible say he repented?

He had a change of heart.

Where does the bible say he had a change of heart?

He believed in Christ.

Where does the bible say he believed in Christ?

Aren't you reading quite a bit in between the lines here?

Please give me a citation. It's important to not ignore context.

Numbers 31

[bluebell]

IF you are correct. What spirit do you receive the moment you believe?

What spirit did Paul receive the moment he believed?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why did the blind man see after Jesus laid hands on him? Why did the crippled man walk after he took his hand?

Why is there instruction to lay hands on someone when praying for them?

The power of prayer, and the power of touch. It's a mystery for sure, but it's not an ordinance or commanded, nor is it needed, nor is it necessary, nor can one human give another human the gift of the spirit. Only Jesus gives the spirit.

Why is there? You tell me? I see that you have assumed quite abit. If the bible has all of Gods words in it that he will ever reveal, why is this so ambigous. You cannot say for certainty taht "but it's not an ordinance or commanded, nor is it needed, nor is it necessary, nor can one human give another human the gift of the spirit" Were is this taught in the bible. You are assuming way to much here. The LDS have other revelations that back up what we believe because "for surely the Lord God will do nothing but He revealeth His secerts to His servants the prohpets". Why is what you claim not found in the bible?

[Calm]

Thanks for the analogy. However, it fails to persuade. Receiving the salvation from God requires no physical action on our part. None.

Is faith or belief a thought?

[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.

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples by blowing on them (John 20:22).. He had plenty of opportunity to put His hands on these men but instead He breathed on them.. So saying that touch is the preferred way is "a forced interpretation". IHS jim

[bluebell]

Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His disciples by blowing on them (John 20:22).. He had plenty of opportunity to put His hands on these men but instead He breathed on them.. So saying that touch is the preferred way is "a forced interpretation". IHS jim

True-but that still a little confusing because it seems that Apostles didn't actually receive the Holy Ghost until the day of pentacost.

[Tanyan]

True-but that still a little confusing because it seems that Apostles didn't actually receive the Holy Ghost until the day of pentacost.

[/quote

[bluebell]

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.

Got it.

I think i mentioned this already to another poster-that while i completely agree that this example shows that baptism does not HAVE to come first, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not HAVE to be given by the laying on of hands, i think this examples shows an exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

It was done to help convince the jewish Christians that the gentiles were as accepted by God as they were. It seems to be an example of God doing something miraculous to bring about an important purpose that was above and beyond creating a covenant relationship with the gentiles.

Again though-there is probably room for other interpretations.

[Mudcat]

I think i mentioned this already to another poster-that while i completely agree that this example shows that baptism does not HAVE to come first, and that the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not HAVE to be given by the laying on of hands, i think this examples shows an exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

In some respects I find that all Christians are exceptions to the rule.

So do you think, aside from Pentecost, that this was the only exception to "the rule", that God has made?

[bluebell]

So do you think, aside from Pentecost, that this was the only exception to "the rule", that God has made?

I don't know that it's possible to say, since the bible record seems to be incomplete in this respect. Sometimes we are just told that someone received the Holy Ghost, but not how it was received and other times it's just never mentioned that they received the gift of the Holy Ghost at all, though it's likely that they did sometime.

Certainly, i think, believing it to be the 'exception' that i do, that if those two examples aren't the only two, there aren't many more than that. If 'the laying on of hands' is indeed doctrine as Paul says it is, then that would seem to mean it is important and necessary, for the early saints and for us as well.

[Hughes]

Faith without works is dead. Therefore, faith WITH works is living, right?

Not exactly. I'm not sure it's a point we need to focus on (as in I don't know where it gets us), but Faith with works is faith. There is no such thing as faith without works. That was the point that James was making. Even demons believe and have works (trembling). There is no such thing as dead faith. Rather, its faith in something else other than God that leads to death.

The LDS believe that people can repent after they die. This isn't in the bible either.

The bible doesn't teach against it.

Indeed it does. The Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 or Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I do believe that God makes a righteous judgement of everyone, as he sees everyone's heart.

That's not in the bible, though, is it? Where does the bible say that God will judge people based on their 'hearts'?

Oh my. There are over 600 references to the heart. I don't want to bore you so I'll only reference a couple:

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Galations 2:6 As for those who seemed to be importantwhatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance

I would say it even stronger. God only judges the heart.

It's alright, i'm not offended. I think it's small minded to believe that God teaches taht you must accept Christ to be saved and then either will save some people who never accepted Christ anyway (making HIs words in the bible lies, it would seem), or will damn people who never had the chance to even hear his name (which doesn't seem just), so we obviously see things differently.

Gaining understanding of each other's perspectives though is what i'm really after so hopefully we're doing good in that regard.

And certainly that's what I'm here for (learning about what others believe).

As for damning people who've never heard. That is patently false and not taught in the bible. Everyone is judged based on the revelation God has given them.

As for "then either will save some people who never accepted Christ anyway? Huh? what did you mean here?