Honest question for my evangelical friends

[Vance]

So I am now asking you to explain what you think my understanding of "grace" is that you claim you cannot find in the teachings of Jesus.

You have said,

When Paul says

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I think you're close. I'm not sure what you mean by "place ourselves in a position of receiving grace." For example, you could argue that attending a meeting where the gospel is being preached is an act that in some sense "places ourselves in a position of receiving grace." I wouldn't want to exclude that such pre-conversion actions have some relevance in positioning individuals to receive the grace of God. But such acts would not be "works" by which a person merits, earns, or shows worthiness to receive grace.

You have said,

Well, let's add just enough context to get to the standard Evangelical position, but no more.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

And let's not forget this,

Rom. 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Now throw this into the Evangelical blender, mix it well, and this is what you get.

Grace is a totally unmerited, unworked for, unearn gift from God. We can do absolutely NOTHING to place ourselves in a position of receiving grace other than accepting it.

Now some I have interacted with even have claimed that we can't accept it because that would be "doing" something. They try to explain that they simply don't reject it and that not rejecting it is not doing anything to receive it. I don't think that you go to such silliness, but I could be wrong.

Am I close?

[David T]

But such acts would not be "works" by which a person merits, earns, or shows worthiness to receive grace.

Might you say then, that they are works which may prepare someone to choose to accept graces?

[Thunderfire]

I do not think that the LDS restoration has anything to do with the belief that Christ is with us always. Christians seek and experience him in this life and do not believe a restoration was necessary.

Heartleap...

Thank you for the response!

We must be honest with ourselves in that most Evangelicals/Protestants preach a message of salvation when we die. While I have encountered a few which preach the Eternal Christ who is with us always, the main message (which is coming out in this thread) is salvation through Jesus and not a life long relationship with Jesus.

When we understand what the scriptures speak as the "work of restoration", we begin to see how vital it is and necessary. One important aspect of "restoration" is lost to many Gentiles and that is the concept of the "House of Israel". Many in this movement are from the tribe of Ephraim. We are not Jews (they are from the tribe of Judah), rather we are Ephraimites. Our lineage and future is mentioned in many passages of scripture.

This by no means makes us better than anyone. It only means we have a task and a work. For that matter, the scriptures speaks of a day where our "iniquity will lead to unbelief" and how our tables will be covered with vomit. Yet the promise is that we will still accomplish what has been laid out for the "Tribe of Ephraim" for the benefit of the entire world.

Most Gentiles have no understanding regarding the "House of Israel", so they do not understand the nature of restoration. Please do not see this as a slam, that is not the case. Yet it is a truth regarding the nature of restoration!

[Vance]

Vance,

I think you're close. I'm not sure what you mean by "place ourselves in a position of receiving grace." For example, you could argue that attending a meeting where the gospel is being preached is an act that in some sense "places ourselves in a position of receiving grace." I wouldn't want to exclude that such pre-conversion actions have some relevance in positioning individuals to receive the grace of God. But such acts would not be "works" by which a person merits, earns, or shows worthiness to receive grace.

I meant any activity that would be associated with obedience to God or righteousness, such as acts of charity, kindness, brotherly love, repentance, prayer, church attendance or baptism.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Might you say then, that they are works which may prepare someone to choose to accept graces?

I'm puzzled by the way you worded this. Did you mean to use the plural form "graces"? The Bible never speaks of God's "graces" in the plural like this (I just checked).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I meant any activity that would be associated with obedience to God or righteousness, such as acts of charity, kindness, brotherly love, repentance, prayer, church attendance or baptism.

Okay, it would seem that your statement is satisfactory.

I'll respond as soon as I can.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The Gospels do not report Jesus using the word "grace" in any context. However, the Gospel of John does report Jesus promising eternal life to those who put their trust (faith) in him, with no condition of works mentioned:

• "...That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:15-16).
• "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36).
• "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" (John 5:24).
• "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:40).
• "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47).

There you go: now you have found those verses you said you couldn't find.

[LeSellers]

This is a test. Please consider this message and the following two as one, because the computer refuses to count to two correctly.

Most Christians do not agree that Jesus is literally the Father's "only begotten in the flesh." That is, they (we) do not believe that the Father is a being with a literal physical body of flesh and bones and that Jesus is his literal physical offspring.

Then in what sense is He "the Son of God"? More particularly, how is He "the Only Begotten of the Father", in contradistinction with "the Firstborn of every creature"?

It has always been a puzzle to me that most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of a Father, but who deny that He actually is a son, and that the Father is actually a father.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

"Only Begotten" means there was a fusion of gametes, one from Mary, His mother, and one from God, Who is, according to both your belief and mine, His Father. The problem is that you do not believe, against all evidence, that God, the Father has gametes. It also demands that that there are no other such offspring: He is, after all, the Only Begotten".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

This is a test. Please consider this message, the preceding one, and the following one as one, because the computer refuses to count to two correctly.

"Firstborn of every creature" (from Col 1:15). It is clear that "firstborn" implies, even demands, that there were/are additional borns. We might also look at Jesus' message to Mary:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Mary's Father was also Jesus' Father. Obviously, they did not have the same physical fathers, but they did share One Father, "the Father of spirits".

[LeSellers]

This is a test. Please consider the preceding two messages and this one as one, because the computer refuses to count to two correctly.

In fact, most Christians who hear this idea reject it as a false doctrine (as I do). From your point of view, then, it seems that most Christians (including me) do not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" in the sense that you understand it. Isn't that correct/ Doesn't your position entail the conclusion that most Christians do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God?

I, speaking only for myself, can accept (but cannot understand) that you all believe what is nothing short of an oxymoron regarding the paternal Parentage of Jesus Christ.

Lehi

[bluebell]

Vance,

The Gospels do not report Jesus using the word "grace" in any context. However, the Gospel of John does report Jesus promising eternal life to those who put their trust (faith) in him, with no condition of works mentioned:

This is actually inaccurate.

Jesus DOES mention certain works in conjuction with being saved.

John 6:54-"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Mat. 7:21-"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

And of course there are other verses where someone else speaks of the importance of works, such as when James specifically says that faith without works is dead.

I know that these verses can be interpreted different ways but it seems ingenuous for you to attempt to imply that they don't exist.

[Rob Bowman]

Bluebell,

In John 6:54, Jesus uses the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood as a figurative way of referring to believing (trusting) in him as the true Lamb of God (John 1:29), the true Manna that will never leave us spiritually hungry. He is not referring to some good work or ritual obligation (none is mentioned in the passage).

I understand that people read many of Jesus' statements in the Synoptic Gospels as teaching that works are prerequisites for salvation. I don't agree, but in any case I was simply responding to Vance's claim that he could not find any statements by Jesus that taught salvation by grace as evangelicals understand it. So I found some for him. I was not being disingenuous.

The basic problem as I see it with regard to texts such as Matthew 7:21 is that they are often misunderstood as prerequisites rather than statements of what evidences or demonstrates genuine faith. The wicked person to whom Jesus refers in Matthew 7:21 is not someone who has faith but no works. Indeed, he has works, or at least claims he does (miracles, exorcisms, etc.). Jesus did not say, "Not everyone who has faith in me shall enter the kingdom of heaven." Rather, he said, "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven." And we evangelicals absolutely agree with this statement. A lot of people call Jesus "Lord" and claim to be his followers who will not be saved. Those who do the will of the Father are those who show by their behavior that they have genuine faith in Jesus as Lord.

Similarly, James 2:14 does not speak of someone who has faith but no works, but of someone who says he has faith but has no works. That's a big difference. Evangelicals do not think that everyone who says he has faith will be saved. To the contrary, many people who claim to have faith are still lost.

This is actually inaccurate.

Jesus DOES mention certain works in conjuction with being saved.

John 6:54-"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Mat. 7:21-"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

And of course there are other verses where someone else speaks of the importance of works, such as when James specifically says that faith without works is dead.

I know that these verses can be interpreted different ways but it seems ingenuous for you to attempt to imply that they don't exist.

[Rob Bowman]

LeSellers,

I will respond to your three posts when I get a chance.

[LeSellers]

LeSellers

Please call me Lehi, as Presidents Carter and Clinton did, and as my mother-in-law does. I honor my grandfather by using his name, the one my father gave me.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Okay, Lehi, you name-dropper!

Please call me Lehi, as Presidents Carter and Clinton did, and as my mother-in-law does. I honor my grandfather by using his name, the one my father gave me.

Lehi

[jmordecai]

Mat. 7:21-"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

And of course there are other verses where someone else speaks of the importance of works, such as when James specifically says that faith without works is dead.

I'd like to chime in that Jesus stated what the will of the Father is...

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:40

[jmordecai]

This is a test. Please consider this message and the following two as one, because the computer refuses to count to two correctly.

Then in what sense is He "the Son of God"? More particularly, how is He "the Only Begotten of the Father", in contradistinction with "the Firstborn of every creature"?

In the sense that the wife of the President is called the "first lady."

It has always been a puzzle to me that most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of a Father, but who deny that He actually is a son, and that the Father is actually a father.

"Only Begotten" means there was a fusion of gametes, one from Mary, His mother, and one from God, Who is, according to both your belief and mine, His Father. The problem is that you do not believe, against all evidence, that God, the Father has gametes. It also demands that that there are no other such offspring: He is, after all, the Only Begotten".

What evidence do you have that God the Father has gametes?

Christ is the only begotten of the Father, as Christ is the only one to have come from within the Father. As John put it: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Jn 1:18. The Fifth Lecture on Faith explained it this way: "The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father..." You and me were created by God, but we were not of God and come from within God, as Christ did. That's the difference.

I, speaking only for myself, can accept (but cannot understand) that you all believe what is nothing short of an oxymoron regarding the paternal Parentage of Jesus Christ.

My interpretation of Mosiah 15 is that the labels "Son" and "Father" were applied to the manifestation

God himself shall come down v.1

Because he dwells in the flesh he shall be called the Son v.2 (so the label "Son" is applied to God, manifest in the flesh)

So verse 5 clarifies the labels...

The flesh subject to the Spirit, or rather

The Son subject to the Father v.5

The flesh = son

The spirit = father

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd like to chime in that Jesus stated what the will of the Father is...

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:40

This appears to be a contradiction in the bible. So which is it, those that do the will of the father or those that just believe?

[bluebell]

I'd like to chime in that Jesus stated what the will of the Father is...

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:40

But what does it mean to 'believe' in Jesus Christ? What does James teach works did for Abraham that belief alone could not do?

[bluebell]

Bluebell,

In John 6:54, Jesus uses the language of eating his flesh and drinking his blood as a figurative way of referring to believing (trusting) in him as the true Lamb of God (John 1:29), the true Manna that will never leave us spiritually hungry. He is not referring to some good work or ritual obligation (none is mentioned in the passage).

So you say. Where you have get this from, i have no idea because despit what you have claimed, Christ does specifically speak of obligation or commandment in regards to eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Regardless of the merits of your interpretation though, my point was only that it was inaccurate to claim that Jesus never spoke of 'doing' something in connection with salvation.

I understand that people read many of Jesus' statements in the Synoptic Gospels as teaching that works are prerequisites for salvation. I don't agree, but in any case I was simply responding to Vance's claim that he could not find any statements by Jesus that taught salvation by grace as evangelicals understand it. So I found some for him. I was not being disingenuous.

I think the claim that Jesus NEVER mentioned works in connection with being saved, which has been demonstrated as false, is where the disingenuous aspect of the post came into play.

Similarly, James 2:14 does not speak of someone who has faith but no works, but of someone who says he has faith but has no works. That's a big difference. Evangelicals do not think that everyone who says he has faith will be saved. To the contrary, many people who claim to have faith are still lost.

James teaches that there is no salvation without works.

[Storm Rider]

It would seem that hope plays a role in salvation. Scripture tells us that we each of been blest with a diverse set of blessings. Some of us can believe the words of others whereas some of us not. Hope matures into faith, but having hope in Christ is sufficient to follow the Savior.

I suspect that Rob is hung up on the literal Son of God statement i.e. that God the Father and Mary, the mother of Jesus, had sex. Some think that BY inferred such a belief. What we know is that the scriptures state that Mary was a virgin. We also know that the Holy Spirit came upon here resulting in her pregnancy. BY's comments, or inferences, are not doctrine. We do not know the exact process of insemination, but we do know that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of the Father. This is all scriptural and the doctrine of the LDS Church.

[LeSellers]

In the sense that the wife of the President is called the "first lady."

This is not quite as crisp as you'd like to pretend, because the "First Lady" (as the wife of the president) in not "the first lady of the president", but "the first lady of the united States". There are many, many other ladies of the united States. So, your example supports my position, not yours.

Christ is the Firstborn of the Father, and this name-title indicates that there are many others born to Father.

What evidence do you have that God the Father has gametes?

As I understand it, Jesus was born to a woman (who had gametes herself), and Jesus was "fully man". This last means He had a human body. Thus, He had 23 pairs of chromosomes, 23 from each parent. Mary supplied 23, and His Father supplied the other 23. The gamete (ovum) from Mary included one "X" chromosome, the gamete from Father (spermatozoon) provided the "Y" chromosome that made Jesus male.

Christ is the only begotten of the Father, as Christ is the only one to have come from within the Father. As John put it: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Jn 1:18. The Fifth Lecture on Faith explained it this way: "The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father..." You and me were created by God, but we were not of God and come from within God, as Christ did. That's the difference.

The Lectures on Faith, as good as they were in their time, have been superseded by more correct instruction. Just as Jesus grew from grace to grace, we Saints (including Joseph Smith and his contemporaries) have grown in our understanding of the nature of God. The fifth lecture is one that reflected a poorer understanding of this nature than the others.

My interpretation of Mosiah 15 is that the labels "Son" and "Father" were applied to the manifestation

You are interpreting our scripture for our benefit? How gracious of you.

Lehi

[coolrok7]

To recap, this is an explanation of an honest answer in response to an honest question.

This thread opened in the context of Mormons (blooit and missionaries) teaching an evangelical neighbor and his wife,

[jmordecai]

Christ is the Firstborn of the Father, and this name-title indicates that there are many others born to Father.

Christ is the only begotten. The statement of