Faith alone

[bluebell]

I don't know of a better analysis of this topic than Stephen E. Robinson's book Believing Christ. If you haven't read it, put it at the top of your reading list. Here is an excerpt:

I love that book. I think it should be required reading for all members and any non-members who want to talk to members about our beliefs about grace, works and salvation.

[handys003]

I know this topic has been done to death-especially lately-but there is one thing that keeps being said by many non-LDS Christians that i want some clarification on. I'd like to stick specifically to this arguement since there are so many other threads right now where every other aspect of the issue is being discussed.

Basically, many non-LDS Christians keep telling me that salvation is through faith alone. They say, specifically, that LDS aren't saved because we do not believe that salvation is through faith alone.

My question is, isn't teaching that salvation comes through faith alone contradictory to what the bible says about it? The bible teaches that faith, being alone, is dead.

James 2:17-Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And as a part of that question i want to know, can dead faith save anyone?

I would really like all those who have used the 'salvation through faith alone' arguement against LDS to share their thoughts on this, because from my understanding, such a teaching is anti-biblical.

Thanks.

We believe that faith alone is not enough. You must repent, atone, baptise, and confirm the HG by the laying of the hands. These are "works".

Acts8:14-17

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the aword 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 alaid they their hands on them, and they received the bHoly Ghost.

Why would Peter need to 'lay on the hands" if faith alone was sufficient?

Let's look at baptism:

Matthew 3:16

16 And Jesus, when he was abaptized, went up bstraightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the cSpirit of God descending like a ddove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:5

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all abaptized of him in the river of Jordan, bconfessing their sins

There are more verses, but why would Christ himself participate in the "works" of ordinances of immersion into the water for baptism?

Merely ahving faith as some churches require doesn't cut it by the works given by Christ and the disciples themselves. They did not talk the talk, but walked the walk. Asking Christ to come into your life by prayer is only the first step toward repenting, and is not atonement, nor baptism, nor laying of the hands as the works illustrated need to be done.

[Balzer]

I am always facinated by this topic, and whenever it comes up three issues come to mind. 1) How do we reconcile the "faith without works is dead" stuff with the "works are as dirty rags" stuff? 2) What about the thief that died on the cross next to Jesus? 3) Previously it was made very clear that, for LDS, works were not at all required/related to salvation, rather, works were required/related to exhaltation. This thread has me confused about that. Again.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[handys003]

I am always facinated by this topic, and whenever it comes up three issues come to mind. 1) How do we reconcile the "faith without works is dead" stuff with the "works are as dirty rags" stuff? 2) What about the thief that died on the cross next to Jesus? 3) Previously it was made very clear that, for LDS, works were not at all required/related to salvation, rather, works were required/related to exhaltation. This thread has me confused about that. Again.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Because as the church doctrine teaches, they will have their oppurtunity to do these ordinances in the Spirit Paradise, before the ressurection. Only the pure in evil will not make Spirit Paradise but Spirit Prison.

[Balzer]

Because as the church doctrine teaches, they will have their oppurtunity to do these ordinances in the Spirit Paradise, before the ressurection. Only the pure in evil will not make Spirit Paradise but Spirit Prison.

I'm sorry but was this meant to be a response to something I said? If so I totally don't get it.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Flyonthewall]

I am always facinated by this topic, and whenever it comes up three issues come to mind. 1) How do we reconcile the "faith without works is dead" stuff with the "works are as dirty rags" stuff? 2) What about the thief that died on the cross next to Jesus? 3) Previously it was made very clear that, for LDS, works were not at all required/related to salvation, rather, works were required/related to exhaltation. This thread has me confused about that. Again.

Respectfully,

Balzer

1) Think of who said the "works are as dirty rags" quote, and who they were speaking to. I believe it was Isaiah speaking to an apostate House of Israel...and it wasn't going to matter how many sacrifices they performed, or what face they put on, they were still apostate, and it wasn't going to do anything for them....simplistically speaking.

2)It has been explained on this board before, that Jesus did not promise the thief on the cross salvation, but to merely be with him in Paradise that day. Jesus had not been to His Father 3 days later when He was resurrected, so it is safe to say that Paradise is not where the Father is, and thus not heaven.

3)Again, simplistically speaking, to LDS, there is more than one definition of "salvation". Salvation from a physical death is given to all as all will be resurrected, but from there on comes our reward, granted after the judgment according to our works. Our reward, depending on what it is, can also be called "salvation", especially if it is in the Celestial Kingdom

hope that helps...

[Paloma]

I know this topic has been done to death-especially lately-but there is one thing that keeps being said by many non-LDS Christians that i want some clarification on. I'd like to stick specifically to this arguement since there are so many other threads right now where every other aspect of the issue is being discussed.

Basically, many non-LDS Christians keep telling me that salvation is through faith alone. They say, specifically, that LDS aren't saved because we do not believe that salvation is through faith alone.

My question is, isn't teaching that salvation comes through faith alone contradictory to what the bible says about it? The bible teaches that faith, being alone, is dead.

James 2:17-Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And as a part of that question i want to know, can dead faith save anyone?

I would really like all those who have used the 'salvation through faith alone' arguement against LDS to share their thoughts on this, because from my understanding, such a teaching is anti-biblical.

Thanks.

Hi Bluebell,

I don't like being partisan, and I don't use the 'salvation through faith alone' argument against LDS, and I certainly don't presume to say who is saved or not, especially when it means lumping a whole group of people together (e.g. LDS in this instance). But I think I understand something about the way that non-LDS Christians understand this matter of the kind of faith 'alone' that's salvific, and the faith 'alone' that's dead.

The first kind of faith 'alone' comes from Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

In this context, the "works" are understood to be human attempts to win God's favour by our own merit or rituals. Before Christ, we approached God through rituals and sacrifices, 'ordinances' that were meant to show us our sinfulness and need for appeasing a Holy God, but which were never truly efficacious.(The book of Hebrews makes this very clear ... that the 'old' ways were always meant to point to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, and were never meant to be an end in themselves. Also, Galatians points out that the Law was meant to be our teacher, showing us our sin and illustrating that we could never perfectly keep the commandments on our own.)

Looking at the verses that follow Ephesians 2:8-9 are these words that I believe refer to what I've mentioned above:

Ephesians 2:13_15: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..."

(The Law and ordinances in the Old Testament were both our teacher and guide, as well as our 'enemy' because they condemned our inability to perfectly obey, and 'save' ourselves.)

So when we non-LDS Christians talk about 'faith alone' saving us, we're referring to the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection on our behalf, and our total inability to 'help' or 'save' ourselves. God justifies us because of Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice, not because of anything we've done or can do.

To my mind, the 'faith alone is dead' in James 2:17-20 is an entirely different conversation and context. James is not talking about how we are justified or 'made right' with God. He's talking about how people act and whether people truly have faith or not. I think his subtext is that true faith is experiential rather than just intellectual. True faith isn't just knowing that God exists, but following Him because we trust Him and have entrusted our lives to him. He talks about 'dead faith', and I infer from James' words about 'dead' faith that true faith is 'living' faith ... faith that's acted upon, because it's real and because the believer really trusts God. The two illustrations he immediately gives from the Old Testament, Abraham and Rahab, show they acted on their faith because they trusted God would be there for them.

James 2:21-26: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

The way that the 'faith alone' from Ephesians 2 and 'faith cannot be alone' from James 2 come together is that James' 'living faith' illumines what true faith looks like.

The idea that we are saved and justified by 'faith alone' does NOT mean that we don't do anything. Yes, we do accept Christ as our Saviour; we do repent of our sins and commit to being 'new creatures' in Christ; we do surrender our lives and wills to Him.

Rather, 'faith alone' means that all our attempts to win God's favour on our own are worthless, and we wholly trust on Jesus' sacrifice for God's forgiveness and His acceptance of us into His family. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't live obedient, holy lives (as James implores) and that we can't please Him by our loving obedience.

[justdreamin]

Paloma,

I think the explanation you have given is the most succinct I have heard. True faith is evidenced by works. After reading through the posts, now I wonder if there is a problem with the definition of works between LDS and EV.

[Paloma]

Paloma,

I think the explanation you have given is the most succinct I have heard. True faith is evidenced by works. After reading through the posts, now I wonder if there is a problem with the definition of works between LDS and EV.

Yes, I wonder that too, justdreamin'.

I see a distinction between the ineffectual and even offensive works of self-justification on the one hand, and of the kind of works that are related to charitable attitudes and kindness, hospitality, humility, other-centredness, etc. on the other.

It seems to me that the works of self-justification and self-advancement are potentially offensive because they can be prideful and self-righteous and neglectful of Jesus' completely efficacious suffering and sacrifice on our behalf.

[Hoops22]

I truly don't mean to nitpick or start out the conversation by disagreeing, but because i know this is a big point in a lot of your arguements, i have to point out that first, LDS believe that when one covenants with Christ through baptism they become adopted into the house of israel,

I'm aware of the theory. I find it lacking. James is specific in his audience - we can't get around that.

and second, since timonthy teaches that all scripture is profitable, i don't think we can rightfully suggest that the entire book of james does not apply to us today because of the first verse.

I don't recall writing that, nor do I know anyone who believes that. However, since Israel and gentiles are treated differently at this time - that is until the destruction of the temple - audience is important. James is important to a gentile because we get a further glimpse into the character of God and we better understand the relationship between God and His chosen people. That is profitable.

However, from your point of view, which is what i want to understand, it's interesting to see that the way you approach the book of james is to begin with the assumption that he's not speaking to you.

I have no choice. Is he not specific regarding his audience?

Can we really assume that about 'scattered Jews'? Jesus preached in a pretty small area. I don't know that it's logical to assume that james' audience heard Jesus speak or have any stronger grasp of Jesus' teachings than the gentiles who converted.

I think we can. They are, after all, believing jews. And since the Kingdom is what was preached, it's safe to say that they were anticipating the Kingdom.

I'm not seeing that, but alright.

I'm not sure why you can not. James is preaching works to a jewish audience. Paul is preaching the age of grace/church age. They are perfectly reconciled to each other. All of these disputes vanish when one see it this way.

O.k., that i can completely agree with.

First, i think you are missing james' point. He's deliverying a sermon to believers, yes, but it obviously still applies to them. James isn't teaching that one can lose salvation if they don't do good works, he's teacing that one isn't truly saved if works (not good works, just works) isn't a part of their belief in Christ.

Okay, show me where James is teaching to someone under grace that one can lose salvation. See, there is a difference at this time still between believing jews and believing gentiles.

And i specifically said that he's not saying 'good works' but just 'works' because i think, for our discussion, that's an important thing to understand. When i hear the phrase 'good works' i usually think of works as in being kind or giving service, ect. I don't think that the terms 'works' and 'good works' are interchangeble in the scriptures.

Okay. I'm not sure of the difference but it will probably come up somehow.

'Works', to me, are doing what Christ has said we must do to access His grace, as opposed to the parts that Christ does-the works of faith, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Im confused.

It seems clear to me that it is THAT kind of work that james is speaking of-obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel such as baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and whatever else specific commandments that Christ gives to us.

That is exactly my point. Can you tell me where Christ commanded these things to US (not the U.S. but gentiles)

I believe james is speaking of those kinds of works, and not 'good works' because of what he says about them-

~James specifically states that a man is justfied by works and not faith alone (there again he teaches specifically against the 'saved by faith alone' doctrine),

Because he was writing to a jewish audience still under the "law" viewpoint. While it is true that Christ had already began laying the groundwork for the church, Israel still had an opportunity to accept His Messiah/Kingship and usher in the Kingdom. Mathew becomes much clearer when one sees that the destruction of the temple in 70 is what was prophesied. Acts 2-3 was a continuation of Jesus' preaching - given to Peter (the keys, btw)

~he teaches that it was only through a work that abraham's faith was made perfect,

~he teaches that the scripture was fulfilled (that abraham 'believed') when work was added to his faith.

You will note that abraham also received imputed righteousness.

We know we are justified when we enter into the Covenant with Christ and He imputes His righteousness to us. Therefore, the only way that works could be a part of the justification process is if they were a part of either making that Covenant, or keeping it.

From where?

Why do atheists do good works?

Yes, they do. Which is really the point of the sermon on the mount. And, if atheists do good works, why doesn't that save them?

We aren't discussing whether or not works are important, we are discussing whether or not works have a part in our salvation.

They are not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm aware of the theory. I find it lacking. James is specific in his audience - we can't get around that.

I find this lacking. James is speaking to the 12 tribes of Isreal. Not just the Jews. When we become saved or believers or accpet Christ we are adopted into the house of Isreal. And since these words come after Jesus finished his work and fulfilled the law you have no case Hoops. I see that you like to toss out scripture as being "not applicaple" to you if it disagrees with your theology.

"Okay, show me where James is teaching to someone under grace that one can lose salvation. See, there is a difference at this time still between believing jews and believing gentiles. "

THis is a red hearing. Jews even under the law of Moses were under grace as only Gods grace can save some one. James is teaching after Christ's works are finished. That means that even accourding to your theology it is the "age of grace" as Christ had fulfilled the law. Are we to believe that if a jew converts today that they are still udner the law of moses? When is the law of moses going to go away for a Jew Hoops?

I love how you conviently try to make these verses of scritpure go away. It won't work.

Thank's though for posting your thoughts it is most insightful.

Eph. 2: 7

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding ariches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

I cannot find a single verse of scripture that says anything about "age of grace". THis is the closest scripture I could find to it however this is not stating that there is an "age of grace".

This just states that in the ages to come grace will be shown. However it never says that grace wasn't given in the past.

[mnn727]

They 'faith alone' group is usually also the 'inerrant Bible' group, inerrant as long as they can ignore what they don't like that is.

[thesometimesaint]

mnn727:

Too true, but we have a concurrent problem in Mormonism that some still believe we can work our way into Heaven, despite all the Prophets telling us otherwise.

[Vance]

Eph. 2: 7

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

I cannot find a single verse of scripture that says anything about "age of grace". THis is the closest scripture I could find to it however this is not stating that there is an "age of grace".

Another instance where "sola scriptura" is thrown out the window by those who claim it is a true doctrine.

I guess all those promises God made to Abraham are null and void to the likes of Hoops.

Promises like this one.

Luke 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, AND TO HIS SEED FOR EVER.

. . .

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

No worries I guess, because Hooops isn't of Abraham's seed these verses don't apply to him.

AND

Neither does this one apply to Hoops.

Abraham 2:10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;

And neither do these.

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham?s children, ye would DO THE WORKS OF ABRAHAM.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

I guess to Hoops, these verses also mean nothing.

ROMANS 1:7 To ALL THAT BE IN ROME, beloved of God, called to be saints:

. . .

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, OR TO HIS SEED, through the law (of Moses), but through the righteousness of faith. (In other words Abraham had the Gospel of Jesus Christ AKA "the faith").

. . .

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure TO ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law (of Moses), but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL,

Or this one.

1 Pet. 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (in other words to the members of the Church, whether Jew or Gentile)

. . .

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

. . .

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: WHOSE DAUGHTERS YE ARE, as long as ye do well (DO WELL? did he really write DO WELL?), and are not afraid with any amazement.

Obviously those who join the true Church are Abraham's seed, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

Hoops' rejection of Abraham and the epistle of James is telling.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

They 'faith alone' group is usually also the 'inerrant Bible' group, inerrant as long as they can ignore what they don't like that is.

True that. I would say rationalize instead of ignore.

That seems to be what is going on here.

Consider this.

"Atheists do good works"

Yes, they do. Which is really the point of the sermon on the mount. And, if atheists do good works, why doesn't that save them?

Doesn't this fly in the face that only those that are saved can do good works. I love the EV proof text of a certain verse of scripture in Isaiah about "our works are but filthy rags".

And who cares about the sermon on the mount Jesus was talking to Jews who were not yet under the "age of grace". So it doesn't apply to us.

Tell me Hoops when are the Jews going to be under the "age of grace"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess to Hoops, these verses also mean nothing.

ROMANS 1:7 To ALL THAT BE IN ROME, beloved of God, called to be saints:

. . .

13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, OR TO HIS SEED, through the law (of Moses), but through the righteousness of faith.

. . .

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure TO ALL THE SEED; not to that only which is of the law (of Moses), but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL,

Silly, you have taken this out of context, you see Paul was talking to the Romans and since Hoops is not a Roman this doesn't apply. See how easy that was.

I guess the bible doesn't apply to most of us unless we are descendants of people in Rome or Galatia, or Ephisias, or..... of the house of Israel.

Who is the house of Israel Hoops? The Jews are one tribe of the house. How can we tell who is of the house of Israel?

[Vance]

Silly, you have taken this out of context, you see Paul was talking to the Romans and since Hoops is not a Roman this doesn't apply. See how easy that was.

[Vance]

The problem I have with this "age of grace" gibberish is this concept.

What Jesus taught is preeminent!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (even to the teachings of Paul, when you think there is a conflict).

Deu 18:15 ? The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

. . .

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; HIM SHALL YE HEAR IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU.

23 And it shall come to pass, that EVERY SOUL, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that IN ALL THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE THE PREEMINENCE.

Sorry Hoops but the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

2) What about the thief that died on the cross next to Jesus?

[...]

Others have given the LDS view. The kooky speculative Steussite view is that since the title on the cross (i.e. "thief") was often applied to the politically non-subservient, and those who attempted to usurp Roman authority (or excite the Jews with crazy Messiah talk); the individual whom Christ told He would see in Paradise may have simply been a Messianic Jew, and a preacher of Christ's kingship.

[Edited to add missed prefix]

[Scottie]

Others have given the LDS view. The kooky speculative Steussite view is that since the title on the cross (i.e. "thief") was often applied to the politically non-subservient, and those who attempted to usurp Roman authority (or excite the Jews with crazy Messiah talk); the individual whom Christ told He would see in Paradise may have simply been a Messianic Jew, and a preacher of Christ's kingship.

Or maybe he was a thief.

[Doctor Steuss]

Or maybe he was a thief.

But that wouldn't be speculative, or kooky, now would it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The problem I have with this "age of grace" gibberish is this concept.

What Jesus taught is preeminent!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (even to the teachings of Paul, when you think there is a conflict).

Deu 18:15 ? The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

. . .

18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; HIM SHALL YE HEAR IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU.

23 And it shall come to pass, that EVERY SOUL, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that IN ALL THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE THE PREEMINENCE.

Sorry Hoops but the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul.

Brilliant. So much for the "age of grace". That is why I was always confused when Hoops brought that up. He would always tell me taht Jesus was talking to the Jews who were not under grace. Accpet that even the Jews under the law of Moses were saved by Grace. How could they not be under grace yet that is the only way for them to be saved was by Christ's atonement. Now we learn that "HIM SHALL YE HEAR IN ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER HE SHALL SAY UNTO YOU.

23 And it shall come to pass, that EVERY SOUL, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

[bluebell]

Hi Bluebell

Hey Paloma!

But I think I understand something about the way that non-LDS Christians understand this matter of the kind of faith 'alone' that's salvific, and the faith 'alone' that's dead.

Great, i'm all eyes.

The first kind of faith 'alone' comes from Ephesians 2: 8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

In this context, the "works" are understood to be human attempts to win God's favour by our own merit or rituals. Before Christ, we approached God through rituals and sacrifices, 'ordinances' that were meant to show us our sinfulness and need for appeasing a Holy God, but which were never truly efficacious.(The book of Hebrews makes this very clear ... that the 'old' ways were always meant to point to Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, and were never meant to be an end in themselves. Also, Galatians points out that the Law was meant to be our teacher, showing us our sin and illustrating that we could never perfectly keep the commandments on our own.)

I'm following you so far and agree.

Looking at the verses that follow Ephesians 2:8-9 are these words that I believe refer to what I've mentioned above:

Ephesians 2:13_15: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..."

(The Law and ordinances in the Old Testament were both our teacher and guide, as well as our 'enemy' because they condemned our inability to perfectly obey, and 'save' ourselves.)

O.k.

So when we non-LDS Christians talk about 'faith alone' saving us, we're referring to the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection on our behalf, and our total inability to 'help' or 'save' ourselves. God justifies us because of Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice, not because of anything we've done or can do.

Here's where i get confused.

You said-"God justifies us because of Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice, and not because of anything we've done or can do". And james teaches-"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only".

It appears that you and james are teaching contradictory things, doesn't it?

To my mind, the 'faith alone is dead' in James 2:17-20 is an entirely different conversation and context. James is not talking about how we are justified or 'made right' with God.

You know i love ya paloma, and i'm really grateful that you jumped in here, but i have to take issue where you say that james is not talking about how we are justified because in verse 24 he says straight out how justification occures.

I promise i'm not trying to be contrary-it just seems like a giant disconnect when someone says that james isn't talking about justification when it's right there in the chapter.

Does that make sense?

He's talking about how people act and whether people truly have faith or not. I think his subtext is that true faith is experiential rather than just intellectual. True faith isn't just knowing that God exists, but following Him because we trust Him and have entrusted our lives to him. He talks about 'dead faith', and I infer from James' words about 'dead' faith that true faith is 'living' faith ... faith that's acted upon, because it's real and because the believer really trusts God. The two illustrations he immediately gives from the Old Testament, Abraham and Rahab, show they acted on their faith because they trusted God would be there for them.

I'm in total agreement with you here.

The way that the 'faith alone' from Ephesians 2 and 'faith cannot be alone' from James 2 come together is that James' 'living faith' illumines what true faith looks like.

Alright.

I agree that james is teaching what true faith looks like-to me it seems that he's saying that true faith HAS to have works or you will not be saved because you have dead faith.

And if that's what he's saying, then wouldn't that mean that teaching that works have no part in being saved isn't correct? Maybe i'm not understanding you though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

that teaching that works have no part in being saved isn't correct? Maybe i'm not understanding you though.

This is the problem, there is not a verse of scripture that says "works have no part in being saved". Some people interpret certain verse of scripture to mean that but they simply do not say that. It does appear that there is a huge contradiction between what Paul says and what James says. Infact they appear to by at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[bluebell]

I don't recall writing that, nor do I know anyone who believes that. However, since Israel and gentiles are treated differently at this time - that is until the destruction of the temple - audience is important.

Can you provide a reference that says that at the time that james wrote this, the gentiles were being treated differently than Israel? I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

James is important to a gentile because we get a further glimpse into the character of God and we better understand the relationship between God and His chosen people. That is profitable.

If i'm understanding you right, james is important only as it teaches us about God and His relationship with others-it has absolutely no bearing on His relationship with us. Is that what you mean?

I think we can. They are, after all, believing jews. And since the Kingdom is what was preached, it's safe to say that they were anticipating the Kingdom.

They are jews who believe in Christ, but being scattered, how can we say that they heard the gospel message any differently than the gentiles did? There isn't any evidence that peter and the apostles were teaching one thing to the jews and another to the gentiles, after all.

I'm not sure why you can not. James is preaching works to a jewish audience. Paul is preaching the age of grace/church age.

But paul was ALSO preaching to a jewish audience, right?

They are perfectly reconciled to each other. All of these disputes vanish when one see it this way.

I completely agree that they are perfectly reconciled to each other. I think paloma explained it pretty well on how paul and james aren't teaching contradictory things. My question is how the 'saved by faith alone' crowd isn't teaching something contradictory to james though. That's where i get confused.

Okay, show me where James is teaching to someone under grace that one can lose salvation.

Where he teaches that faith alone is dead. He doesn't qualify that that only applies to people who aren't saved yet-he's teaching it to his entire audience.

See, there is a difference at this time still between believing jews and believing gentiles.

I know you believe that.

Im confused.

Sorry.

Where did i lose you?

That is exactly my point. Can you tell me where Christ commanded these things to US (not the U.S. but gentiles)

When Christ told peter in a vision that it was time that the gentiles were taught-Christ doesn't give a separate message to be taught to them-it's the same thing the unbelieving jews were being taught. Same message commanded to be taught to both groups seems to be a pretty good indication.

Because he was writing to a jewish audience still under the "law" viewpoint.

But again, so was paul, right?

While it is true that Christ had already began laying the groundwork for the church, Israel still had an opportunity to accept His Messiah/Kingship and usher in the Kingdom.

Where is this in the bible?

You will note that abraham also received imputed righteousness.

Yes, abraham was justified-i agree.

From where?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

And, if atheists do good works, why doesn't that save them?

Because works, being alone, are dead as well.

They are not.

And James disagrees.

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.