Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Vance]

I think this is cheap, and mostly inaccurate,

Cheap? Perhaps, but certainly less "cheap" than the caricatures of LDS doctrine by Rob.

Mostly inaccurate? Not at all. Their entire doctrine of grace, as they understand it, seems to totally ignore the numerous clear and plain statements of Jesus, (Paul and the other apostles,) regarding the function of obedience in receiving eternal life. Even on this thread, Rob hasn't acknowledged the statements of Jesus.

I don't have a problem with them having their doctrine, but to come here and excoriate the "Brethren" for using similar language to Jesus? What is up with that?

Most in the Christian world would turn to the 'clear and plain teachings of Jesus' as reported by the Gospel writers, to teach that there is no marriage in the eternities.

I have seen this sloppy approach before. As usual, people see what they want, not what is actually there.

There are certainly writings of Paul that could be used to support that understanding.

I will acknowledge that scripture can be twisted/wrested to support just about anything.

With all the accusations going towards Rob and Evangelicals of twisting and distorting our own views and doctrines, there are many LDS here who do a pretty good job of doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing.

True. So does that excuse Rob doing it here?

If he wants to do it (and he does) over on IRR, then I wouldn't and don't care. When he does it here, I will respond, God willing.

We all interpret scripture according a world-view. If one is convinced that mankind are finite creatures, with God creating 100% of their essence ex nihilo, that is a completely different view than LDS who hold the world-view that mankind has, at their essence, an uncreated nature co-eternal with God.

That alone colors so much, not the least of what is an appropriate and reverence-worthy relationship or behavior between God and Man.

This I agree with 100%.

To truly understand LDS doctrine, one needs to understand the nature of God and man as we understand it.

And if Rob doesn't want to believe it, he doesn't have to. And if he wants to make an argument that we are in error in a respectful manner, and support it with scripture, that is fine too. I will respond.

LDS doctrinal approach to the Bible begins with the clear statements in Modern Revelation, which we believe are clear statements that communicate the will and word of Christ. Statements attributed to Christ in more ancient scripture are interpreted in that light.

True, and it is so wonderfully phenomenal to see how it aligns with the Bible in so many ways.

It's not fair to judge and expect non-LDS Christians to share an interpretative standard that is not reinforced or 'made clear' by scripture that they accept as such.

I don't expect Rob to share my "interpretive standard". I do expect him to acknowledge things that are rather obvious.

The best we can do is ask, "Does not this appear to be at least as plausible interpretation given as this and that?"

We don't need to "ask" any such thing. It is rather OBVIOUS that it is a plausible interpretation, even if Rob doesn't want to acknowledge that fact.

You believe it, I believe it, and many others believe it. It IS plausible.

Acknowledging it's plausibility would NOT hurt Rob, or any one else, in fact it might actually help him.

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

I had stated that keeping the commandments is not a precondition of salvation. You wrote:

Then what is the point of the commandments?

From my perspective, this is a very telling question. It is as if you are asking, "If keeping the commandments is not a precondition of salvation, then why should I bother keeping the commandments?" We should keep the commandments because we love God and want to please him, not because we suppose that by doing so we "do our part" to secure salvation.

You wrote:

You seem to see the atonement of Christ as an end in itself, the whole purpose is not to change us from disobedient children into obedient children.

While I would not put the matter quite this way, I actually agree that the purpose of salvation is to change us into obedient children. I certainly don't see salvation as merely a "get out of hell free card" that leaves the individual unchanged. The Protestant evangelical doctrine of salvation is that we are saved by grace alone unto good works, that is, with the result that we become transformed people who do good works. The classic biblical passage that lays this out perhaps most directly is Ephesians 2:8-10:

"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith.

And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

10 For we are his workmanship,

created in Christ Jesus for good works,

which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

This passage makes the following points:

• We are saved by grace through faith.
• Our salvation through faith is not our own accomplishment but God's gift.
• Salvation by grace is incompatible with claiming that we are saved as a result of our works.
• As the result of our salvation by grace, we become new creatures in Christ.
• Good works are the original divine intention and the practical end result of our salvation.

This is what Protestant evangelical theology historically confesses and teaches. So, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love" (11.2).

The Confession also states:

[David T]

If you don't like the wording "trying to save yourself," how about "trying to earn your individual salvation" or "trying to merit eternal life"? These ways of wording the point are practically direct quotations from LDS general authorities, after all.

Rob, I'd be interested in your thoughts on my response to your response in this post., were I discuss an LDS understanding of Justification (Salvation), and Sanctification, and how I feel this is relevant in the discussion, and in the terms being used.

[David T]

Also, for the record, here's the complete record of the word 'merits' in the LDS Canon of scripture.

2 Ne. 2: 8

Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

2 Ne. 31: 19

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Mosiah 2: 19

And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

Alma 22: 14

And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

Alma 24: 10

And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.

Hel. 14: 13

And if ye believe on his name ye will repent of all your sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his merits.

Moro. 6: 4

And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

D&C 3: 20

And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

[Vance]

I have always understood that in LDS theology Jesus does his part and human beings do their part, as you put it.

And how is this different from your approach?

Even you acknowledge that you have to "obey" the gospel, as you understand it, to be saved.

If you don't like the wording "trying to save yourself," how about "trying to earn your individual salvation" or "trying to merit eternal life"?

Each of those phrases could be applied to you and your understanding. By accepting Jesus aren't you "trying to save yourself," or "trying to earn your individual salvation" or "trying to merit eternal life"?

These ways of wording the point are practically direct quotations from LDS general authorities, after all.

And they are similar to the numerous quotes of Jesus (and others) that I have posted. So, as I see it, when you deride the "Brethren" for such language, you are also deriding the Savior. Have you ever considered that?

I would be happy to discuss the interpretation of Romans 2:6-9, but I need to know first if it matters. That is, I need to know if it matters to you what these verses mean in the larger context of Paul's argument in Romans, or if you will prefer to read them through the lens of LDS doctrine regardless of what they might seem to mean within the context of Romans itself.

You are assuming a false dichotomy there Rob. What those verses really mean can only be understood through the lens of LDS doctrine as revealed from God.

The same thing goes for statements that Jesus made in the Gospels: shall we discuss these statements in their own historical and literary contexts, or in the end will you simply argue that LDS revelation "clarifies" what these biblical passages mean?

Another false dichotomy.

If the latter, discussing the exegesis of a biblical text with you would be a waste of time.

A discussion is a two way street. If you just want to preach to me, then indeed, it would be a waste of time.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I really don't see the point of continuing exchanges with you. The problem is not that you are LDS; the problem is the manner in which you defend your position and attack mine. I've put up with a lot from you and put a lot of effort into responding numerous times as thoughtfully and accurately as I could, and your responses have been almost uniformly akin to this one. Too bad.

And how is this different from your approach?

Even you acknowledge that you have to "obey" the gospel, as you understand it, to be saved.

Each of those phrases could be applied to you and your understanding. By accepting Jesus aren't you "trying to save yourself," or "trying to earn your individual salvation" or "trying to merit eternal life"?

And they are similar to the numerous quotes of Jesus (and others) that I have posted. So, as I see it, when you deride the "Brethren" for such language, you are also deriding the Savior. Have you ever considered that?

You are assuming a false dichotomy there Rob. What those verses really mean can only be understood through the lens of LDS doctrine as revealed from God.

Another false dichotomy.

A discussion is a two way street. If you just want to preach to me, then indeed, it would be a waste of time.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

I will attempt to do so.

Rob, I'd be interested in your thoughts on my response to your response in this post., were I discuss an LDS understanding of Justification (Salvation), and Sanctification, and how I feel this is relevant in the discussion, and in the terms being used.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[Magyar]

In all these posts, I have never once seen anyone actually define what it means to be saved.

If it means to go to heaven, then the LDS position is that every human being, in the Premortal Life, did in fact confess Christ, and will therefore go to heaven -- except for the Sons of Perdition, whoever they are.

And this whole discussion is moot.

Once across the borders into heaven, so to speak, the LDS position is that in the Father's House are many mansions. We call them Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. There will be different responsibilities and expectations in each, but it is all a part of heaven,no?

[Vance]

. . . the problem is the manner in which you defend your position and attack mine.

WOW!!!!

Physician, heal thyself.

As I see it, I have simply used an approach similar to yours.

You don't like it, and I can understand why.

Some context.

Ephesians was written to members of the church. Such members would have heard the gospel and responded with faith, repented of their sins, been baptized by water and the spirit.

We are saved by grace through faith.

As stated I agree, but saved from what? The context indicates that Paul is talking about their pre-faith sins. I don't see "saved" as referring to "eternal life" in this context.

Our salvation through faith is not our own accomplishment but God's gift.

No problem here, especially if one considers that salvation here is being saved from pre-faith sins.

Salvation by grace is incompatible with claiming that we are saved as a result of our works.

I agree. The results of our works don't save us, Jesus does, after we have done what we are supposed to do.

As the result of our salvation by grace, we become new creatures in Christ.

In this case "salvation" is being saved from past sins. And we "become new creatures in Christ" by obedience. We become by doing, and as we become we do better.

Good works are the original divine intention . . .

TRUE!!! Because as we do, we become.

. . . and the practical end result of our salvation.

Naw! Good works are the "practical end result" of our conversion.

[David T]

In all these posts, I have never once seen anyone actually define what it means to be saved.

If it means to go to heaven, then the LDS position is that every human being, in the Premortal Life, did in fact confess Christ, and will therefore go to heaven -- except for the Sons of Perdition, whoever they are.

And this whole discussion is moot.

Once across the borders into heaven, so to speak, the LDS position is that in the Father's House are many mansions. We call them Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial. There will be different responsibilities and expectations in each, but it is all a part of heaven,no?

This is somewhat addressed in my comments here, and I agree an understanding of what is meant by each on the subject is key to the discussion.

[Lightbearer]

From my perspective, this is a very telling question. It is as if you are asking, "If keeping the commandments is not a precondition of salvation, then why should I bother keeping the commandments?" We should keep the commandments because we love God and want to please him, not because we suppose that by doing so we "do our part" to secure salvation.

You have misunderstood my question. I am not asking why bother to keep the commandments (meaning refraining from sin) and I find it just a tad sanctimonious to assume that LDS want to keep the commandments to "buy our salvation," of course we do it because we love God and want to please Him. Why do you suppose it pleases Him for us to keep His commandments? Do you think it is because He wants us to be like Him? Then could it not be said that the whole reason for the atonement is so we can become like Him? To change our nature so that we will desire to conform our will to His?

While I would not put the matter quite this way, I actually agree that the purpose of salvation is to change us into obedient children. I certainly don't see salvation as merely a "get out of hell free card" that leaves the individual unchanged. The Protestant evangelical doctrine of salvation is that we are saved by grace alone unto good works, that is, with the result that we become transformed people who do good works. The classic biblical passage that lays this out perhaps most directly is Ephesians 2:8-10:

As I see it the primary difference here is one of conditions rather than motivations. The LDS doctrine also teaches that we are saved by the grace of Christ and that eternal life or salvation is a gift of God. The difference is the conditions upon how this grace is obtained. If there were no conditions then faith would not even be required. So obviously some type of conditions are required to obtain this grace. For LDS the following conditions are necessary:

(Alma 34:14) "And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption."

Now repentance is a change of heart, it being necessary to abandon our sins and to look unto Christ for a remission of our sins. Now there is also the commandment to be baptized, as here stated:

(Alma 7:14-16) "Now I say unto you that ye must repent, and be born again; for the Spirit saith if ye are not born again ye cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore come and be baptized unto repentance, that ye may be washed from your sins, that ye may have faith on the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sins of the world, who is mighty to save and to cleanse from all unrighteousness. Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism. And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, the same will remember that I say unto him, yea, he will remember that I have said unto him, he shall have eternal life, according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which testifieth in me."

This is also stated here as well, even more plainly:

(2 Nephi 31: 10-20) "And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism

[Flyonthewall]

Faith alone through grace alone saves us but if we don't keep (You called it "disregard for or unrepentant rebellion against God's commandments") God's commands (good works) then we are not showing the right kind of faith and thus were not really saved.

Any one else see the problem here? It sounds as though we must show those good works to be saved otherwise we really aren't saved. How then can we be saved with out including our works into the equation first?

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about how one obtains salvation. So far using the scriptures has not done much to sway the other side. And I don't know what else can be gained on this particular subject.

I see the problem...

it seems like this is what is being said - If one is saved and produces good works, then we know they are saved. But if one is saved and does not produce good works...then the salvation that person was given is....what happened to it?

Perhaps the salvation one receives with mere faith is not complete? Just a place holder for the real salvation that is to come later based on one's...works?

I'm really trying to follow here, but I think I'm going in circles. Works are not needed to be saved, but without works, you're not really saved.

There has been a lot of words thrown out to try and explain how this is different than the LDS point of view but it just doesn't add up.

As has been stated before, we are saved by grace through faith...LDS believe good works are a part of faith...faith without works is dead...we will not be saved by grace through dead faith. Our faith only means something when we put it into practice.

[Vance]

I see the problem...

it seems like this is what is being said - If one is saved and produces good works, then we know they are saved. But if one is saved and does not produce good works...then the salvation that person was given is....what happened to it?

Perhaps the salvation one receives with mere faith is not complete? Just a place holder for the real salvation that is to come later based on one's...works?

I'm really trying to follow here, but I think I'm going in circles. Works are not needed to be saved, but without works, you're not really saved.

There has been a lot of words thrown out to try and explain how this is different than the LDS point of view but it just doesn't add up.

As has been stated before, we are saved by grace through faith...LDS believe good works are a part of faith...faith without works is dead...we will not be saved by grace through dead faith. Our faith only means something when we put it into practice.

It appears to me that (on the part of anti-Mormons) it is making a mountain out of (less than) a mole hill in an effort to make the LDS look unchristian and "poisoning the well".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I see the problem...

it seems like this is what is being said - If one is saved and produces good works, then we know they are saved. But if one is saved and does not produce good works...then the salvation that person was given is....what happened to it?

Perhaps the salvation one receives with mere faith is not complete? Just a place holder for the real salvation that is to come later based on one's...works?

I'm really trying to follow here, but I think I'm going in circles. Works are not needed to be saved, but without works, you're not really saved.

There has been a lot of words thrown out to try and explain how this is different than the LDS point of view but it just doesn't add up.

As has been stated before, we are saved by grace through faith...LDS believe good works are a part of faith...faith without works is dead...we will not be saved by grace through dead faith. Our faith only means something when we put it into practice.

You stated what I was thinking very well.

[cdowis]

Lightbearer,

I seldom compliment anyone here, but you have given us an excellent explanation of the LDS doctrine of salvation and grace.

Very nicely done.

Keeping the commandments is not to earn salvation, but to have that change in heart, to become more like Christ. "Born again" is a process, not a one-time event, which is not only in this mortal life, but continues into the next life.

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

Thanks for your reply. You wrote:

You have misunderstood my question. I am not asking why bother to keep the commandments (meaning refraining from sin) and I find it just a tad sanctimonious to assume that LDS want to keep the commandments to "buy our salvation," of course we do it because we love God and want to please Him. Why do you suppose it pleases Him for us to keep His commandments? Do you think it is because He wants us to be like Him? Then could it not be said that the whole reason for the atonement is so we can become like Him? To change our nature so that we will desire to conform our will to His?

Although you say that I misunderstood your question, I don't see any clarification as to what that question meant. I fully expected that you would affirm that LDS obey God's commandments because they love him and want to please him. Yet it is puzzling that you would ask what the point of the commandments is if they are not preconditions of salvation. Perhaps you could try to clarify what you were asking.

You wrote:

As I see it the primary difference here is one of conditions rather than motivations. The LDS doctrine also teaches that we are saved by the grace of Christ and that eternal life or salvation is a gift of God. The difference is the conditions upon how this grace is obtained. If there were no conditions then faith would not even be required. So obviously some type of conditions are required to obtain this grace.

I have already responded to this line of reasoning. There is a fundamental difference between faith as an act of accepting a gift and works as acts one must perform as conditions for receiving the (so-called) gift. I must insist that it is only "so-called" if there are conditions of works to be performed before the "gift" may be received. Confirming the problem is the fact that LDS authorities routinely affirm that a person must "earn" or "merit" this individual salvation. I'm sorry, but it is axiomatic that if you have to earn or merit something, it's not a gift. This is true not only definitionally but also biblically. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due" (Romans 4:4 NRSV). If God gives us salvation as a gift, as an act of grace on his part, then it is not something we can earn or merit by our works. Again, Paul says so explicitly: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6). To try to overturn this point by claiming that even evangelicals agree that we must have faith to be saved completely misses the point. Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvation; it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

Let's say Mary hears her Daddy come home from work. Daddy comes up to her and says, "Mary, I have a gift for you." It would not make any sense for him to tell her, "Now, in order for you to get this gift, you must earn it. You will get this gift when you merit it. So if you can keep your room clean and neat, get straight As in school, keep away from any trouble with boys, consistently talk respectfully to your mother and me and all other adults, keep a journal with at least two entries a week, and cook dinner once a week, after a year you will be rewarded with this gift." Sorry, that's not really a gift. It would not be a valid rebuttal to argue that Mary could not have obtained this "gift" unless her Daddy bought it for her. Yes, we understand that, but it's still not a gift, because it's something she has to earn by hard work. Asserting that "Daddy does his part and Mary does her part for her to get the gift" doesn't make it a gift. If she has to "do her part," meaning perform chores and reach and maintain certain standards of behavior, in order to obtain the item, then it is not a gift. It would also not be a valid rebuttal to argue that if we agree that Mary must reach out her hand and accept the gift from her Daddy that we have conceded that she "has to do something to get the gift" and therefore we might just as well concede that she has to do all those works to get it. This is a category mistake, pure and simple. Accepting a gift is not a work that one does to earn or merit the gift.

You then go on to state that for LDS the necessary conditions for individual salvation are (1) repentance, (2) looking to Christ for remission of sins, and (3) baptism. In support of this explanation, you quoted at length from several passages of the Book of Mormon. The problem here is that your list is incomplete; your quotations of the Book of Mormon do not represent the complete LDS teaching on this matter. The LDS Church teaches that in addition to these three things, one must (4) accept the LDS Church, its scriptures, prophets, and ordinances, (5) be endowed and married in a temple, (6) keep the commandments (again, as a precondition), including such commandments as not drinking coffee and tea, (7) do genealogical research, (8 ) perform proxy ordinances for the dead, (9) tithe, and (10) attend Church meetings as often as possible. Again, the LDS doctrine is that these things must be done to "earn" or "merit" eternal life. And that simply cannot reasonably or biblically be interpreted to be consistent with the idea that eternal life is a gift.

[David T]

You then go on to state that for LDS the necessary conditions for individual salvation are (1) repentance, (2) looking to Christ for remission of sins, and (3) baptism. In support of this explanation, you quoted at length from several passages of the Book of Mormon. The problem here is that your list is incomplete; your quotations of the Book of Mormon do not represent the complete LDS teaching on this matter. The LDS Church teaches that in addition to these three things, one must (4) accept the LDS Church, its scriptures, prophets, and ordinances, (5) be endowed and married in a temple, (6) keep the commandments (again, as a precondition), including such commandments as not drinking coffee and tea, (7) do genealogical research, (8 ) perform proxy ordinances for the dead, (9) tithe, and (10) attend Church meetings as often as possible. Again, the LDS doctrine is that these things must be done to "earn" or "merit" eternal life. And that simply cannot reasonably or biblically be interpreted to be consistent with the idea that eternal life is a gift.

I am very much looking forward to your response to my earlier post, for it addresses this. There's a great deal of talking past one another. We need to make sure concepts under discussion are understood from each point of view. There is a significant difference in LDS thought between Salvation (Justification) and Sanctification and Exaltation.

[Vance]

There is a fundamental difference between faith as an act of accepting a gift and works as acts one must perform as conditions for receiving the (so-called) gift.

"so called"?

I quess the continued classification of it as "a gift" doesn't mean what it says?

And you wonder why we claim that you don't understand our doctrine?

I must insist that it is only "so-called" if there are conditions of works to be performed before the "gift" may be received.

So if I promise my children that if they clean their rooms, I will give them candy, the candy isn't really a gift?

Really?

Without the promise, would cleaning their room "merit"/"earn" the candy?

No!

So then, the only way that "merit"/"earn" can be applied to the candy is ONLY IF THERE IS A PROMISE attached to it.

Confirming the problem is the fact that LDS authorities routinely affirm that a person must "earn" or "merit" this individual salvation.

And this has been explained to you many times, but apparently you just don't want to understand.

I'm sorry, but it is axiomatic that if you have to earn or merit something, it's not a gift.

Only in the recesses of a closed and darkened mind.

And now comes the appeal (again) to the easy to misunderstand words of Paul.

This is true not only definitionally but also biblically. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due" (Romans 4:4 NRSV).

And he said that AFTER he said this,

Rom 2:6 [God] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

There is the PROMISE!!

Again, the problem is the lack of understanding.

NO MATTER HOW HARD WE WORK, IT IS BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO WORK OUR WAY TO HEAVEN ON OUR OWN!!!!

What is available, THROUGH THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, is the promise of eternal life.

And the promise is to the obedient.

If God gives us salvation as a gift, as an act of grace on his part, then it is not something we can earn or merit by our works.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE.

All, we can merit is the promise of the gift.

Again, Paul says so explicitly: "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).

And he said that AFTER he said this,

Rom 2:6 [God] Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

[Vance]

Faith, in this context, is not doing something to earn or merit salvation; . . .

False!!! Faith in this context is OBEDIENCE, as I have shown above.

. . . it is humbly and gratefully accepting the gift of what God has done for us that we cannot earn or merit.

That IS part of it.

Let's say Mary hears her Daddy come home from work. Daddy comes up to her and says, "Mary, I have a gift for you." It would not make any sense for him to tell her, "Now, in order for you to get this gift, you must earn it. You will get this gift when you merit it. So if you can keep your room clean and neat, get straight As in school, keep away from any trouble with boys, consistently talk respectfully to your mother and me and all other adults, keep a journal with at least two entries a week, and cook dinner once a week, after a year you will be rewarded with this gift." Sorry, that's not really a gift.

Yes it is, because it is above and beyond what she ACTUALLY "earned" by obedience.

It would not be a valid rebuttal to argue that Mary could not have obtained this "gift" unless her Daddy bought it for her.

And this is where your analogy breaks down.

The gift of eternal life IS BEYOND our ability to "earn" on our own. NO MATTER HOW HARD WE WORK we cannot "earn" eternal life on our own merits.

The ONLY WAY for us to get eternal life is for God to GIVE it to us.

Yes, we understand that, but it's still not a gift, because it's something she has to earn by hard work.

It is still a gift, because it is above and beyond the natural "wages" she would receive for obedience.

Asserting that "Daddy does his part and Mary does her part for her to get the gift" doesn't make it a gift.

Correct!

What makes it a gift is that it is above and beyond the natural law of the harvest so to speak.

If she has to "do her part," meaning perform chores and reach and maintain certain standards of behavior, in order to obtain the item, then it is not a gift.

False. If it is above and beyond the natural results of those labors then it is indeed A GIFT.

It would also not be a valid rebuttal to argue that if we agree that Mary must reach out her hand and accept the gift from her Daddy that we have conceded that she "has to do something to get the gift"

Actually it is a valid rebuttal, inspite of your denying it.

and therefore we might just as well concede that she has to do all those works to get it.

In a very real sense you admit exactly that. To "show" salvation, you believe that one must do those works. But back to your analogy.

This is a category mistake, pure and simple.

Only in the closed minded.

Accepting a gift is not a work that one does to earn or merit the gift.

TRUE, Just as the obedience is not a work that she does to ACTUALLY earn or merit the gift, but only the work done to merit the PROMISE of the gift.

You then go on to state that for LDS the necessary conditions for individual salvation are (1) repentance, (2) looking to Christ for remission of sins, and (3) baptism. In support of this explanation, you quoted at length from several passages of the Book of Mormon. The problem here is that your list is incomplete; your quotations of the Book of Mormon do not represent the complete LDS teaching on this matter.

True but irrelevant.

I would also not that those thing are BIBLICAL!!!!

The LDS Church teaches that in addition to these three things, one must (4) accept the LDS Church, its scriptures, prophets, and ordinances, (5) be endowed and married in a temple, (6) keep the commandments (again, as a precondition), including such commandments as not drinking coffee and tea, (7) do genealogical research, (8 ) perform proxy ordinances for the dead, (9) tithe, and (10) attend Church meetings as often as possible. Again, the LDS doctrine is that these things must be done to "earn" or "merit" eternal life.

Again, only in the sense that we "earn" or "merit" the promise of the gift.

And that simply cannot reasonably or biblically be interpreted to be consistent with the idea that eternal life is a gift.

Again, your failure to see it, doesn't make it untrue. LDS doctrine is reasonably biblical, accept to the unreasonable.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

If I may try to summarize your post, hopefully without oversimplifying it, your make the following points:

• We can do nothing to merit either justification nor sanctification.
• Justification refers to the forgiveness of sins, the initial aspect of our salvation, that one receives through faith as expressed in baptism.
• Sanctification refers to the process, continuing aspect of salvation, that changes our nature (with our complete, willing cooperation) to feel at home in God's presence.
• LDS ordinances are tools that help develop sanctification.

Before I respond, please let me know if this is an adequate summary.

[Vance]

What Rob would have us believe is that the fruit of the harvest is not a gift from God.

After all, we worked to prepare the soil. We planted the seeds. We watered and fertilized. We weeded. We picked the produce. We prepared it for consumption.

So we EARNED/MERITED it.

So we have no business thanking God for our food, because it isn't a gift from Him, because we earned it.

Thanks Rob for clarifying that.

I disagree with you though.

Edited to add,

With that, I am done for the day.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Since you are unwilling to be held to whatever Romans 2:6-10 means within the context of the epistle, I see no value in trying to explain it to you.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

If I may try to summarize your post, hopefully without oversimplifying it, your make the following points:

• We can do nothing to merit either justification nor sanctification.
• Justification refers to the forgiveness of sins, the initial aspect of our salvation, that one receives through faith as expressed in baptism.
• Sanctification refers to the process, continuing aspect of salvation, that changes our nature (with our complete, willing cooperation) to feel at home in God's presence.
• LDS ordinances are tools that help develop sanctification.

Before I respond, please let me know if this is an adequate summary.

I believe it is a good and succinct summary of the key points of my post.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Cool. I'll reply when I can (I'm going out the door now.) Thanks.

I believe it is a good and succinct summary of the key points of my post.