Parable of Sheep and Goats and salvation requirements

[WalkerW]

Study the rest of the chapter!

Matt 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

. . .

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

. . . (Or)

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

. . .

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Edited to add respect!

If we were to ignore (as FormerLDS has done) the material I have presented that demonstrate pistis ('faith') to mean not only trust, but reliability, integrity, loyalty, commitment, and treaty/covenant, these Matthew verses alone are fairly sufficient to logically determine the meaning of pisitis ('faith'). 'Faithful' is the Gk pistos: an adjective. 'Faith' is pistis: a noun. They both come from the root peitho. If pistos is the adjective for the noun pistis and pistos is understood and translated as 'faithful', then wouldn't pistis technically mean...I don't know, say, 'faithfulness'?

This is discernable from the English text, in my opinion. But when the Greek, Hebrew, and even Latin are reviewed as well as the cultural context, to separate faith from works in any fashion in my mind is preposterous. Faith in and of itself implies works done for the proper reasons. This is why "faith, if it hath not works, is dead." (James 2:17) It is contradictory. One cannot be loyal and do nothing. One cannot be committed and do nothing. One cannot be considered reliable and do nothing. One cannot keep a covenant or treaty and do nothing. James also describes faith without works as "barren, useless, lazy, unprofitable, unfruitful" (KJV reads "dead", as do most manuscripts. Other evidences cause most modern translations (ex. NRSV, NET) to favor "barren"). Peter taught us that we must abound in diligence, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity if we did not want to be "barren or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" [2 Peter 1:5-8]. "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26) A dead body does nothing. It cannot be or be considered productive, fruitful, or useful. Faith without works cannot be considered productive, fruitful, or useful. Faith without works means nothing because to lack works is to reject the entire concept of faith: reliability, loyalty, commitment, integrity, covenant keeping. Vs. 23 makes it very clear that Gen. 15:6 was fulfilled after Abraham's attempted sacrifice. It was when his faith (loyalty, commitment) was "made perfect" (or complete; vs. 22) by his works that he was called the "Friend of God." (vs. 23) Only after. This is why James explicitly declares, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (vs. 24) The covenant alone does justify. The pledge does not justify. The reputation of being reliable does not justify. The claim that one is loyal ("though a man say he hath faith..."; vs. 14) doesn't justify. Keeping the covenant justifies. Living up to the pledge justifies. Being reliable justifies. Being loyal justifies. Talking the talk does nothing unless you can walk the walk. This is why James (referencing the man who claims faith, but lacks works) asks, "Can faith save him?" (vs. 14) The Greek is actually "the faith", the anaphoric article referencing the man's supposed faith mentioned just previously. The Greek also implies that the answer is 'no'. You know why? Because to claim loyalty is not the same as being loyal. To claim faithfulness is the not the same being faithful. To be a covenant maker is not the same as being a covenant keeper.

The excuses made to turn this chapter into "justification before men" or a dichotomy of "dead faith" and "living (saving) faith" is nothing more than intellectual suicide and attempts to cling to theological biases. It takes a very plain text, even for modern readers, and tortures it until it confesses a post-Reformation concept that it never intended to convey. 'Faith' is not a magical term or an instantaneous bestowal. It is not a spiritual button that, when pushed, begins the conveyor belt of good works. It is a mindset and a lifestyle. It is a loyalty that requires the love of "all thy heart" and "all thy mind." (Mark 12:30) It is a loyalty that requires "all thy strength" (Ibid.) so that you might labor in the Master's vineyard. It is a loyalty that was/is expected in the days of Adam and Eve, in the days of Noah, in the days of Moses, in the days of Christ, in the days of Paul, and in these last days.

My fellow Christians: Do not rape the meaning of 'faith' and rob it of its virtue. Do not twist the words of the Lord and the Lord's anointed.

[WalkerW]

There is a reason James says, "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." [James 4:8] This alludes to Psalms 24: "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation." (vs. 3-5)

We are to draw near to God, cleanse our hands (actions), and purify our hearts (motives). The psalm tells us that those whose hands are clean and hearts are pure shall stand in holy places, receive blessings from the Lord, and receive righteousness.

It is easy to have good works, but improper motives. Jesus condemned this type of vanity. One may have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Faith is defined by the combination of these two elements: clean hands and pure hearts. This is the honorable loyalty expected of covenant participants.

[Zakuska]

There is a reason James says, "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded." [James 4:8] This alludes to Psalms 24: "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation." (vs. 3-5)

We are to draw near to God, cleanse our hands (actions), and purify our hearts (motives). The psalm tells us that those whose hands are clean and hearts are pure shall stand in holy places, receive blessings from the Lord, and receive righteousness.

It is easy to have good works, but improper motives. Jesus condemned this type of vanity. One may have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Faith is defined by the combination of these two elements: clean hands and pure hearts. This is the honorable loyalty expected of covenant participants.

I think that Idea falls right inline with what John is saying right here...

1 John 3

1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Every man that "Hopes" to be called a son of God, purifies himself, stops sinning and DOES righteousness.

Also notice verse 6 contradicts what FormerLDS said earlier that he could continue to sin and it wouldn't matter. Jesus would still save him. If FormerLDS continues sinning after being introduced to the Lord of Life, then he never KNEW him and niether did the Lord.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Suppose you were drowning in the middle of a vast ocean.

Which would you rather have:

Trust that someone would save you.

or

Someone actually saving you.

It's easy to say I "trust that Jesus will save me from my sins", but do you have eternal life?

Only those who HAVE eternal life are in the lifeboat.

You are moving the goal posts FLDS. Do I or do I not need to trust in Jesus 100% for salvation? Is something else required?

"The end" with respect to "endure to the end" refers to "the end" of time when Christ returns to Earth.

My question is simple. How long does it take for someone to choose to believe?

A minute?

An hour?

A year?

A lifetime?

or one single instant?

"For he saith , I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold , now is the accepted time; behold , now is the day of salvation." 2 Cor 6:2

Again this is a red herring. "I have heard thee in a time accepted" That "time" is not defined. Yes, now is the time to repent for if we procrastinate the day of our repentance it will be to late.

[volgadon]

"The end" with respect to "endure to the end" refers to "the end" of time when Christ returns to Earth.

Then how were the people then supposed to endure to the end if they would not live to see it? Empty rhetoric, don't you agree?

[FormerLDS]

You are moving the goal posts FLDS. Do I or do I not need to trust in Jesus 100% for salvation? Is something else required?

When you say "salvation", which six+ forms are you referring?

Sure, as an LDS Christian I could easily say "I trust Jesus 100% for my salvation", and be truthful, but I did not have eternal life (nor could I).

Had I died without eternal life, I would have been sent to outer darkness forever.

Again this is a red herring. "I have heard thee in a time accepted" That "time" is not defined. Yes, now is the time to repent for if we procrastinate the day of our repentance it will be to late.

The scripture tells us exactly how long the salvation decision takes.

John 5:24 says "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Again, how long would you say it takes to "hear" then "believe"?

[WalkerW]

The scripture tells us exactly how long the salvation decision takes.

John 5:24 says "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Oh...my...goodness...

This is getting beyond pathetic. I have given an explanation to this passage already. You see that "-eth" at the end of "hear" and "believe" and "hath" instead of "has"? Pretty much any time you see that in the KJV, you can determine that it is present tense Greek. This means a continual, habitual action. Therefore, "He that continues to hear my word, and continues to believe on him that sent me, continues to have everlasting life." Should you cease this habit, you know longer possess the security of salvation or "everlasting life." I have given the connection between "hear" and "obey": Akouo (Greek "hear") is also at the root of hupakouo (Greek "obey"). "Hear" was often a synonym for "obey" (hence the NET commentary says "or obey" in the footnote for "hear"). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew shama meant much more than passively hearing, but denoted an attentive, effective listening and adherence. The Septuagint uses akouo in place of shama. I have rather extensively given the meaning of 'faith' (Gk pistis; 'believeth' is the verb form pisteuo). Shall I give the reference again? Here is just one specifically aimed at pistis:

"It is worth noting at this point that faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and frienship relations...In one sense, faith meant "dependability." The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to "keep faith" as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is "trust": the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response." (David DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000)

In light of the information I've provided: "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that obeyeth my word, and is loyal to him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Again, how long would you say it takes to "hear" then "believe"?

All this demonstrates is that you have no idea what those words mean in their original language or culture.

[Vance]

The scripture tells us exactly how long the salvation decision takes.

John 5:24 says "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Again, how long would you say it takes to "hear" then "believe"?

Still dizzy and confused from the smack down I see.

Repeating the same old (and thoroughly debunked) theory over and over again won't move your agenda forward, nor will it move Mormonism (that is, the work of God) backward.

But keep it up if you like!

Edited to add more respect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When you say "salvation", which six+ forms are you referring?

The most common version, which is living with God in heaven through out eternity.

Sure, as an LDS Christian I could easily say "I trust Jesus 100% for my salvation", and be truthful, but I did not have eternal life (nor could I).

Oh, why is that? Are you saying that what you claimed earlier in this thread is now not true? That is that I must "trust in Jesus 100% for my salvation, and have 100% faith"?? Is something eles required for salvation more than just faith??

I am not merely just "saying" it, I 100% believe and have 100% faith that Jesus will save me from my sins. Are you calling me a liar? Are you clamming that more is required than what you previously claimed?

Had I died without eternal life, I would have been sent to outer darkness forever.

I agree, that is what will happen when God's children don't receive any portion of eternal life.

The scripture tells us exactly how long the salvation decision takes.

John 5:24 says "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Again, how long would you say it takes to "hear" then "believe"?

No it doesn't. "Heareth" and " believeth" denote a present tense, something that must be done continually until you have "endured to the end".

Stop with this red herring. IF you keep it up we will be done here.

[Tanyan]

Last night I visited a local Calvery Chapel here in my home town, I am friends with the head Pastor and some of the associate Pastors there [and yes they know I am LDS and treat me with Christlike Love, Charity, Respect]. In conversation with a couple of the Pastors there I inquired them about this Jesus having faith in us concept that FormerLDS is promoting and the first words pretty much out of there mouths was "Calvinism". They refered me to a book [Which I already am in possession of] entitled - The Dark Side Of Calvinism, The Calvinist Caste System by George Bryson. Imprinted on the cover is - A biblicaly based examination, evaluation and refutation of the Reformed Doctrine of Redemtion and Reprobation. Put out by Calvery Chapel Publishing, 398 pages.

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[clairc829]

The scripture tells us exactly how long the salvation decision takes.

John 5:24 says "Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

Again, how long would you say it takes to "hear" then "believe"?

In act when people were taught the Gospel and were pricked in their hearts they asked Peter what to do and what was his reply? Acts chapter 2

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37

[GingerRed]

WalkerW....I agree...this IS realy getting pathetic!!

I always read these kind of threads because I find them amusing..

FormerLDS.....I worry about you! I can't believe someone went from being LDS to accepting that kind of Calvinistic theology, SO far the other extreme from the true Gospel, is flabbergasting. Just how much of an LDS were you? To have your head so easiliy turned, seems to me you weren't very LDS to begin with and had no witness from the Holy Ghost. ( If you HAD a strong witness from the Holy Ghost that the LDS gospel is true in the past, and you now reject it, you DO know that's coming close to being a Son of Perdition, you DO realise that, yes? You really want to take that chance?) You will be held far more accountable then a non-mormon, a person of another Christian faith or even an atheist!

Former LDS.....WHY are you here???? You refuse to answer direct questions or you anwser questions with a question! You keep repeating yourself, same scriptures...you won't debate, you don't listen to other posters, you just keep spouting off the same thing over and over. This is dead end conversation! You will get no converts to your way of thinking. Give it up ,dude....

[WalkerW]

Just how much of an LDS were you? To have your head so easiliy turned, seems to me you weren't very LDS to begin with and had no witness from the Holy Ghost. ( If you HAD a strong witness from the Holy Ghost that the LDS gospel is true in the past, and you now reject it, you DO know that's coming close to being a Son of Perdition, you DO realise that, yes? You really want to take that chance?) You will be held far more accountable then a non-mormon, a person of another Christian faith or even an atheist!

While I too am taken back how anyone with a good grasp on the gospel could turn to Calvinistic theology, let us not get carried away by throwing out the son of perdition label.

I doubt there are many of us on this board that could qualify for that if we were to leave. I don't think 'deny the Holy Ghost' is as easy as that.

Beside the point. I don't want to derail the thread.

[GingerRed]

While I too am taken back how anyone with a good grasp on the gospel could turn to Calvinistic theology, let us not get carried away by throwing out the son of perdition label.

I doubt there are many of us on this board that could qualify for that if we were to leave. I don't think 'deny the Holy Ghost' is as easy as that.

Beside the point. I don't want to derail the thread.

Oh I know, WalkerW I said CLOSE to that defeniton, not IS one. I didn't mean to 'label' anyone. His words remind me of who they are. That's why I said STRONG witness...as in over and above the norm, as in seeing in a vision, etc. My bad for not clarifing...

Sorry, FormerLDS is kinda scary to me, is all. I feel bad for him.

[WalkerW]

Oh I know, WalkerW I said CLOSE to that defeniton, not IS one. I didn't mean to 'label' anyone. His words remind me of who they are. That's why I said STRONG witness...as in over and above the norm, as in seeing in a vision, etc. My bad for not clarifing...

Sorry, FormerLDS is kinda scary to me, is all. I feel bad for him.

I got your back.

We take care of scary Calvinist anti-Mormons properly here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In an ongoing dialogue between those of the Mormon faith and those of the Christian faith, there is a general disagreement on what is required for salvation. Mormons will reference to the story of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25:31-46 as proof that a person will be judged by their works in order to enter into heaven. I would like to take a further look into that passage.

Sounds good. I am glad you started this thread. I few other posters tried to answer this question and they did a bang up job and complelty ignored the text. Lets see how you did.

In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, Jesus is continuing to talk to his disciples about the end of the age. He tells them three stories or parables for the purpose of teaching central truths. The parables of the foolish virgins and unfaithful servants sets the stage for the story of the sheep and the goats. In the first two parables, we find out that 1) we need to be prepared and 2) we need to have a faithful use of our talents.

I agree, I think that is what faith is, is to be faithful to Christ. That includes more than a mer belief.

Theses parables tell us that not everybody is going to heaven. There will be a separation also known as the

[Vance]

From the OP

Jesus is telling us that those who receive grace, become gracious.

It would appear that you have it backwards.

In other words those who become or are gracious will receive grace.

Lets look at the pattern of teaching that Jesus often used.

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit (gracious): for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (grace).

4 Blessed are they that mourn (gracious): for they shall be comforted (grace).

5 Blessed are the meek (gracious): for they shall inherit the earth (grace).

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness (gracious): for they shall be filled (grace).

7 Blessed are the merciful (gracious): for they shall obtain mercy (grace).

8 Blessed are the pure in heart (gracious): for they shall see God (grace).

9 Blessed are the peacemakers (gracious): for they shall be called the children of God (grace).

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness

[merganzerman]

I have been away from the discussion for awhile and would like to contribute to the last several posts. The discussions have certainly had some interesting twists and turns from my original post on the sheep and the goats.

I appreciate the thoughts from Former LDS. However, I might add that as a Christian, I do not adhere to Calvinist theology. I don't think the Bible supports the notion of "once saved always saved". It is to this point, along with the sacraments, where Luther and Calvin departed. I think the parable of the seed (beginning at Matthew 13:3) is probably the most powerful teaching that conveys the point that a person can lose his or her faith.

To this end, I agree with WalkerW with some his word choices in describing faith. I believe he used terms like being loyal or honorable to the faith. Personally, one of the terms I like to use is commitment. This is a term that one of my religion professors used and could be an accurate translation from the Greek texts. (Though my favorite term for faith is trust.) Throughout Paul's epistles you see terms such as "hold on" and "press on" and "cling" (these are terms I am using from the NIV Bible). We live in a fallen world of sin and live in bodies soiled by sin -- the temptations are great and we are easily swayed by pride, lust and false teachings. For this reason, we need to "hold on" to our faith or it can be easily lost. And to that end, I agree that faith without works is a dead faith. Works gives evidence to faith. However, faith alone is what saves and that is not only a clear Biblical understanding (as I have stated in previous posts), but also a consensus among Christian theologians. It is one of those essential doctrines that define Christianity and there are many books written on that subject alone. Even Calvinists agree with me on that one!

I liked WalkerW thorough examination of Scriptures and appreciate the time he spent on his post. I thought it was well-written. I agreed with his interpretation on faith and how faith without works is dead. I think where we depart is on the understanding of justification. I think you wrote something along the lines that "keeping the convenant justifies". In other words, our actions or our works is what justifies our faith. (This is a very brief summary as I am attempting to grab the gist of you post -- correct me if I am wrong).

To justify is a legal term which means to be declared "not guilty" or aquitted of all charges. Justification or to be justified a powerful term that Paul uses in his epistle (Greek root of "dikaioo") God declares us not guilty on the basis of Christ's completed work on the cross. The book of Romans and Galatians offer the clearest texts on justsification by faith alone. In Romans chapter three (v. 24), we read, "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Here, we come across another amazing word and that is redemption. To redeem means to pay back in full. In Romans 3:28 we read, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Now we can make the conclusion that Christ died on the cross to pay our debt of sin. Our sins have been redeemed and forgotten. Our debt has been forgiven, because Jesus perfect life and his death paid the penalty for all of our sins. Faith alone is what justifies us, not our deeds. Faith alone is what saves us, but faith is never alone. Once saved, we "cling", "hold on" and "press on" toward the prize that awaits us in heaven based on the trust we have in God's promises. We are not justified by our commitment or loyalty or any other work, but by faith alone. This one of several key points that separates Mormonism from the Christian faith. And I define "Christian" as a saving faith taught by Scriptures since the time of the Apostle Paul that points to Christ's completed work on the cross as our basis for being fully forgiven and righteous before God. Because of this important and different understanding of justification, I fear for the souls of those who follow the teachings of Mormonism.

(Other support verses for justification by faith alone (Romans 4:2, 4:25, 5:1, 5:9, 10:10, Galatians 2:16-17, 3:11, 5:4)

[WalkerW]

To this end, I agree with WalkerW with some his word choices in describing faith. I believe he used terms like being loyal or honorable to the faith.

More like being loyal and honorable is faith. We are faithful to Christ.

Personally, one of the terms I like to use is commitment. This is a term that one of my religion professors used and could be an accurate translation from the Greek texts. (Though my favorite term for faith is trust)

Trust, though, was to be understood in the context of a treaty or covenant. You trusted the one you had covenanted with to be committed, while you were to be trustworthy and committed yourself. It was a two-way street.

Works gives evidence to faith.

It doesn't just evidence faith. It is incorporated in it. It is inseparable.

However, faith alone is what saves and that is not only a clear Biblical understanding

If you understand 'faith' to mean 'faithfulness' or 'loyalty' or 'commitment', sure. But these include works.

but also a consensus among Christian theologians.

After the Protestant Reformation. The consensus of Old Testament scholarship is that Israel was a monolatrous cult that believed in a divine council of gods. Are you going to accept that since it is the consensus? It fits with my theology.

It is one of those essential doctrines that define Christianity and there are many books written on that subject alone. Even Calvinists agree with me on that one!

'Faith alone' as defined by Luther and Calvin is not to be found anywhere in Christian thought prior to the Reformation.

I think where we depart is on the understanding of justification. I think you wrote something along the lines that "keeping the convenant justifies". In other words, our actions or our works is what justifies our faith.

Well, let us see: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) Yep, that is what I said. You should take note that this is the only place in the New Testament that says "faith alone/only." And it says, "not by..."

Faith alone is what justifies us, not our deeds.

And you just admitted to 'faith' meaning 'commitment' and you slip back into this sola fides nonsense. Our deeds are incorporated in faith. 'Faith' means 'faithfulness' and you can't be faithful without deeds. It is an oxymoron.

Faith alone is what saves us, but faith is never alone.

Then you agree that works are necessary.

We are not justified by our commitment or loyalty or any other work, but by faith alone.

What? 'Faith' means 'commitment'. It means 'loyalty'. You just said it did and now you are going back on it.

And I define "Christian" as a saving faith taught by Scriptures

"Saving faith" isn't taught in the scriptures. It is nowhere to be found. That is a Protestant invention.

Because of this important and different understanding of justification, I fear for the souls of those who follow the teachings of Mormonism.

Our understanding of justification is the same, at least the way you defined it. And you mentioned 'deeds of the law' in Romans. I had a post on 'works of the law' in relation to what was found at Qumran.

[GingerRed]

. And I define "Christian" as a saving faith taught by Scriptures since the time of the Apostle Paul that points to Christ's completed work on the cross as our basis for being fully forgiven and righteous before God. Because of this important and different understanding of justification, I fear for the souls of those who follow the teachings of Mormonism.

(Other support verses for justification by faith alone (Romans 4:2, 4:25, 5:1, 5:9, 10:10, Galatians 2:16-17, 3:11, 5:4)

Merganzerman...

With all due respect..I appreciate your concern for our souls. However...as you feel you are not 'lost', neither are we. I don't fear for you soul as much as FormerLDS...you were never a Mormon, yes? You still have a chance to be taught in the next life. FormerLDS I worry about, because it is our belief that if you had the Gospel and then totally reject it and preach against it, THAT is something to be concerned about!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think where we depart is on the understanding of justification. I think you wrote something along the lines that "keeping the convenant justifies". In other words, our actions or our works is what justifies our faith.

Well, let us see: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24) Yep, that is what I said. You should take note that this is the only place in the New Testament that says "faith alone/only." And it says, "not by..."

Faith alone is what justifies us, not our deeds.

And you just admitted to 'faith' meaning 'commitment' and you slip back into this sola fides nonsense. Our deeds are incorporated in faith. 'Faith' means 'faithfulness' and you can't be faithful without deeds. It is an oxymoron.

Here comes the break down. This is exactly what he did with my post. He is equivocating terms.

Faith alone is what saves us, but faith is never alone.

Then you agree that works are necessary.

We are not justified by our commitment or loyalty or any other work, but by faith alone.

What? 'Faith' means 'commitment'. It means 'loyalty'. You just said it did and now you are going back on it.

And I define "Christian" as a saving faith taught by Scriptures

"Saving faith" isn't taught in the scriptures. It is nowhere to be found. That is a Protestant invention.

Because of this important and different understanding of justification, I fear for the souls of those who follow the teachings of Mormonism.

Our understanding of justification is the same, at least the way you defined it. And you mentioned 'deeds of the law' in Romans. I had a post on 'works of the law' in relation to what was found at Qumran.

I am confused.

[merganzerman]

With all due respect -- WalkerW -- I disagree with every one of your comments. All of my rebuttals are found in the post you are quoting from. I believe you are familiar with all the creeds that were written in the 2nd and 3rd century -- those were the basis of the Christian faith until the middle ages.

You mentioned the James verse as a proof that faith and works is necessary. And when you read that verse, you can certainly come to that conclusion. However, when you read that verse in comparison to all the other verses -- that one verse -- that state something completely different -- than that isn't good interpretation. I suggest that you read the dozen verses I referenced in the previous post that specifically talks about justification by faith alone. All your comments are opinion without frame of reference.

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Sorry, but for you to continue to regurgitate the same old teachings derived from the misinterpretation of the words of Paul won't further your agenda here.

PS. I noticed that you didn't provide a single quote from Jesus (or any one other than Paul) to support your supposition that "faith alone" is sufficient for salvation.

The law of witnesses comes to mind.

Matt. 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2 Cor. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

[Vance]

All of my rebuttals are found in the post you are quoting from.

Your post was internally inconsistent. So your rebuttal conflicts with itself. Fix it, then we can talk.

I believe you are familiar with all the creeds that were written in the 2nd and 3rd century -- those were the basis of the Christian faith until the middle ages.

So, you are admitting that the "Christian faith" isn't based upon the teachings of Jesus but upon the creeds of men?

I suggest that you read the dozen verses I referenced in the previous post that specifically talks about justification by faith alone.

Been there, done that. What you exhibit here is the approach that I find totally without Biblical merit. The Bible is perfectly clear that Jesus and His words are PREEMINENT to ALL others, including the words of Paul.

Instead of making the words of Jesus subordinate to your misunderstood words of Paul, you should approach it the other way around.

The words of Paul must be reconciled and subordinate to the words of Jesus, and NOT the other way around, as you are wont to do.

All your comments are opinion without frame of reference.

Actually the frame of reference is clear and built upon the firm foundation of the words of Jesus and not upon the misunderstood words of Paul.

Edited to add respect.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

With all due respect -- WalkerW -- I disagree with every one of your comments. All of my rebuttals are found in the post you are quoting from. I believe you are familiar with all the creeds that were written in the 2nd and 3rd century -- those were the basis of the Christian faith until the middle ages.

You disagree because you stated

Personally, one of the terms I like to use is commitment. This is a term that one of my religion professors used and could be an accurate translation from the Greek texts. (Though my favorite term for faith is trust)

This denotes more than "I believe 100%that Jesus will save me from my sins". Which is what faith alone doctrine always leads too.

Then you state latter.

Faith alone is what saves us, but faith is never alone.

To which I would repond with " I agree with you, as faith and works go hand in hand other wise faith alone is not faith". Then you equivocate here

We are not justified by our commitment or loyalty or any other work, but by faith alone.

So which is it? Are we saved by faith alone or is faith never alone? You can't have it both ways dude.

Then you go on to back pedal even more.

We are not justified by our commitment or loyalty or any other work, but by faith alone.

So if you define faith as a "commitment or trust" and then state that taht commitment or trust doesn't save you, you might as well just state that that faith doesn't save. In essance what you are claiming is that faith doesn't save you but faith alone saves you.

Do you see the inconisitance arguements that you are making?

You mentioned the James verse as a proof that faith and works is necessary. And when you read that verse, you can certainly come to that conclusion. However, when you read that verse in comparison to all the other verses -- that one verse -- that state something completely different -- than that isn't good interpretation. I suggest that you read the dozen verses I referenced in the previous post that specifically talks about justification by faith alone. All your comments are opinion without frame of reference.

That is becuase it is clear that faith with out works is dead. Works have nothing what soever to do with being "justified" before men. One needs to ask, why do I need to be justified before men?

Works are what makes our faith alive. That is why I like the parable of the sheep and the goats. The sheep exersized their fatih by doing certain things. Can you list for me what the sheep did do that the goats didn't do. Similarly the goats are damned because they did not exersized their faith. Faith with out works is dead. You cannot be saved at the moment of mer belief according to this parable.