Faith alone

[Hoops22]

You just quoted it for me.

As I said before:

The words of Paul are the words of Paul explaining and applying the words of Jesus, which he learned from Study, from the Apostles who were with Jesus, and by Personal Revelation from the Risen Lord, sometimes quoting the words of Jesus.

Don't think he ever claimed the letters he dictated were a redaction of Jesus' words.

Paul's letters are not the Gospel. His letters explain and apply the Gospel.

[Zakuska]

But let's note that this is POST-atonement, POST resurrection. Surely, even LDS will grant that Jesus' death and resurrection was a game-changing event. So, because of this verse, it is not that we became Israel, it is more that Israel become subject to the church age/age of grace. The point of this verse is that Israel should have known who Jesus is, but did not (or chose not to). And that we (gentiles) have no reason to believe other than that God has chosen us to believe (see verses below this one). By God drawing us to Him via church age/age of grace we become children of the promise.

I see nothing about "Chruch age/age of grace" in the text. I also agree that they should havr known Jesus.

I also see the fulfillment of the prophecies given to Hosea...

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

That still doesn't explain the fact that even all these Gentiles are now part of Israel.

[Zakuska]

11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

I guess we'll have to disagree. Seems clear to me that Paul is saying that he is preaching a gospel separate, different, then what has been previously preached. Given that he was preaching primarily to a gentile audience.

And what was the Gospel that Paul received from Jesus Christ and preached to the Gentiles?

Acts 26

11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

12 Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.

Hmmm sounds more like the Mormon gospel than what Evangelicals preach?! It also sounds like he preached the same exact thing to Both Jew and Gentile.

[jkfrost]

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.

Amen Bluebell, Faith alone without works is indeed dead!

Here is how I have explained it in the past:

It is through the grace of the Lord Jesus, made possible by his atoning sacrifice,

that mankind will be raised in immortality, every person receiving his body from

the grave in a condition of everlasting life. It is likewise through the grace

of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ

and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works

that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means.

This grace is an ENABLINE POWER that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal

life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

LDS Bible DIC

James tells me that a person can not have true faith if he is not

doing the works of God. He gives us examples.

I will show you my Faith BY MY WORKS.

What is your answer to the question James poses here:

Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith,

and have not works? can faith save him?

Can faith save a man if he does not have works?

Yes or no?

Here is the example of what kind of works that come from a man

that does not have a living faith:

Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;

notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body;

what doth it profit?

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

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:

shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

mear belief is not enough:

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:

the devils also believe, and tremble.

Abraham had a living faith Abraham was Justified by his works because of his faith.

If Abraham had not offered his Son he would not have been justified by his works.

Both Faith AND works are essential.

Abraham made the choice that he would believe God and do what God had given him to do.

Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works,

when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought WITH his works,

and by works was faith made perfect?

Jam 2:23 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.

By works a man is justified and NOT BY FAITH ONLY!

Faith AND works are needed for justification from God.

Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had

received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead,

so faith without works is dead also.

Do you think that we teach that we can be saved in heaven

without Christ's Atonement?

Both faith and the works God commands us to do are inseparable if either is to have any power!!!

[Pahoran]

I'm simply drawing a reasonable conclusion from the information given in the post. The only way mormonism's unique doctrine(s) can stand is by making the Bible into something that has been rejected for thousands of years - something it is not.

I am having difficulty parsing that sentence. What exactly are you asserting there?

In any event, the real only way Mormonism's unique doctrines can stand is by accepting the Bible as holy writ.

Well, we know of one at least, don't we? My memory seems to recall other examples as well.

Really? Who?

I know of none.

I'll let you know when I actually resort to such tactics. Fortunately, not necessary.

Actually the tactic of bearing false witness against the Latter-day Saints seems to be indispensible to you. Fortunately, the commandment against that was most conveniently delivered "to Israel," which probably explains why you've decided that such commandments are not binding upon you.

Well, here's a simple game plan to follow. When the passage/book is addressed to Israel, that kinda narrows the scope down a smidge. It's really not that tough.

So when Jesus said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel," was he saying he was not sent for any non-Jews?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

Oh good, I had thought you were done making an idiot out of yourself.

Let me educate you. First: Lutheran Private School. Second, tops in my Catechism Class. Third, One Scholarship for Bible/Catechism Knowledge, second, another scholarship because I was chosen by my pastor to participate in a week-long Catechism Workshop due to my knowledge where I won the Scholarship. One was to Concordia Lutheran College, one was to Texas Lutheran College.

I have no doubt you are unable to see the connection.

And nice dodge on my question.

You are dismissed.

Hi Atticus:

Anyone who can write, with a straight face, such utterly ahistorical bilge as this...

Faith Alone was a Martin Luther invention. It is made espacially for Sunday-Only Christians who want the easy way to Salvation. It allows them to do whatever they want.

...has already lost any sort of credibility with me, in terms of being familiar with what Luther taught about Christian duty.

If your history is to be believed, and your posting above certainly isn't consistent with it, I suppose what it might show is that your competition was pretty lax.

You really won tops in your Catechism class and can write: "It is made espacially for Sunday-Only Christians who want the easy way to Salvation. It allows them to do whatever they want"?

(I'd suggest that your Sunday-only Luther was, during his prime, one the busiest men in all of Europe--seven days a week.)

But, can you do me the favor of showing me where Luther advocated anything at all even approaching the nonsense position you've stated? Let's go through his publications from 1520, for starters.

Sound and fury, Atticus. Your grasp of Luther is woefully inadequate. You must have a bone to pick with the faith of your fathers. I don't know how one who claims to be knowledgeable about Luther on works could possibly have written what you have. What is your religious affiliation?

Agnostic? Atheist?

cks