Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[WalkerW]

I thought I provided some pretty good sources that indicate 'grace' is a reciprocal system within a partronage or kinship context. LDS scripture supports this concept:

For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. (D&C 93:20)

And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good. (Alma 41:3)

And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works. (Hel. 12:24)

[The] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God; Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also. (D&C 20:28-34)

[Vance]

I thought I provided some pretty good sources that indicate 'grace' is a reciprocal system within a partronage or kinship context. LDS scripture supports this concept:

For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. (D&C 93:20)

And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good. (Alma 41:3)

And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works. (Hel. 12:24)

[The] Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God; Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also. (D&C 20:28-34)

That sheds light on this verse.

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

If grace is given for grace received, then the Evangelical definition of grace (in the theological sense) is incorrect.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

You wrote:

I wasn't intending to claim you used those words, but what was your intent? You stated in the OP "Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23". Such a statement does seem to indicate you are going to do an overall description, rather than focus on one aspect. It is true that I am guessing as to your purpose, and I would be pleased to have you prove me wrong. If you meant otherwise I will gladly retract those statements and you can respond to the remainder of my post.

If you had responded by saying "that is one LDS understanding but not the only one," you might have had a point. But let us review what you said. You complained that the specific words "save ourselves" were "loaded language" and took issue with the statement, offering what you claimed was a "more correct" explanation. Yet those were not my words, but Harold B. Lee's words. You claimed that the explanation I gave was "impossible" and "against reason." You asserted that my words (which were not my words, as you now know) "paint a completely different picture" than the one you thought was correct. What I said (which again was not my thought) was, you stated, "foreign to me." Another sentence that I took from a Mormon source you claimed was a "mischaracterization." Only after I revealed the source of my statements did you decide that the problem was that I reported only one of two somewhat different LDS views of the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23.

I am quite happy to revise my statement from the OP to say, "Let me see if I can state correctly what 2 Nephi 25:23 means from a Mormon point of view," or some such minor revision. But if you really want to press this point, then you will have to concede that LDS leaders/teachers have not all held to the same understanding of the verse. Do you concede this point?

To get to your main objection, you wrote:

It just seems that reading that paragraph one must perform perfectly before receiving grace

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

That sums it up nicely. The Evangelicals want to have it the easy way. They teach that all you have to do is say I believe, and you are done. No further action on your part is required. It is basically an excuse to go on committing sin. It is a way of papering over the cracks. Well, they will find out their mistake when the day of reckoning comes, when they are

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

I had several on my mission quote to me the verse in Romans, that all I had to do was confess with my mouth that Jesus is the Christ and believe in my heart that he was the savior. And from then on out you were saved and never could be plucked from the Fathers hand. There was no sin that you could commit that would remove you from Eternal Security.

Now, I have not had any on this board ever claim to believe in this doctrine but I have had several 1st hand exerpiances with this very doctrine being taught in Lynchburg, and Roanoke VA.

[Lightbearer]

I had several on my mission quote to me the verse in Romans, that all I had to do was confess with my mouth that Jesus is the Christ and believe in my heart that he was the savior. And from then on out you were saved and never could be plucked from the Fathers hand. There was no sin that you could commit that would remove you from Eternal Security.

Now, I have not had any on this board ever claim to believe in this doctrine but I have had several 1st hand exerpiances with this very doctrine being taught in Lynchburg, and Roanoke VA.

I still await a response to this very question on Post #13 of this thread. I repeat it here for convenience:

Hello Rob,

While I think you are straining at nats here, the verse is very plain if you read the scripture in context. It still shows a deliberate misunderstanding on your part. You still insist on LDS trying to "work our way" into heaven with no regard for the atonement. You did leave one post unanswered on the old thread which I now repeat here:

Thanks for answering my post. But I still wonder what you are trying to say, you still insist that we LDS are trying to "earn our salvation" just because we believe that righteousness is a requirement for having our names in the book of life, but I think the problem is one of perspective. If, by your point of view, a person is already saved does it mean that after their "saved" experience or being born again, does that mean that they will not commit sin after that? If so, or if they do sin are they still saved? Is this rebirth possible if they sin again or are you saying that their rebirth was not real? Or if they commit sins after being saved that they do not have to repent but it is automatically forgiven by the virtue of their saved status? In LDS theology repentance and the resultant salvation is a process by which we perfect our lives. We repent after we have faith in Christ, because without faith we cannot repent. The ordinance of baptism is required as well, and it is also part of the process of salvation and is a sign of our acceptance of Christ as our savior. Since Christ said we must be baptized it is part of "obeying Christ" as are all other requirements of the Gospel. If abandoning sin is not part of obeying Christ, then what is repentance? You view all these "lists of commandments" like they are not required by Christ, that is where we differ. I really believe that Christ requires these things of those who would be saved. It may be nice to say that these are fruits of salvation and not requirements, but in the real world people sin after conversion and that is where we disagree. What is the means of retaining a remission of sins?

[Vance]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

Well I have been told different by evangelicals. Although I don't have the best examples of this readily available.

I was able to quickly find this.

When Christians talk about faith in Jesus, however, they are not talking about accepting His will as our law or even His words as our guide in life. The first and primary things Christians think about when faith comes up are not Jesus

[LeSellers]

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

Your statement is simply false. That are a number of Evangelicals who do claim precisely that. Here's one:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be Saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be Saved.

"The Sinners Prayer"

Heavenly Father:

I come to you in prayer asking for the forgiveness of my Sins. I confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Jesus is your Son, And that he died on the Cross at Calvary that I might be forgiven and have Eternal Life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Father, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and I ask you right now to come in to my life and be my personal Lord and Savior. I repent of my Sins and will Worship you all the day's of my Life!. Because your word is truth, I confess

with my mouth that I am Born Again and Cleansed

by the Blood of Jesus! In Jesus Name, Amen.

If you read the Sinners Prayer and truely believe the words you read, then Praise the Lord as you have been saved and your name will appear in the

"Lambs Book of Life!".......The Sinner's Prayer

Your brother Bell is not alone:

Say the following prayer out loud, believe it from your heart, and you will become saved and born again.

Dear Father,

I now believe that Jesus Christ is Your only begotten Son, that He came to our earth in the flesh and died on the cross to take away all of my sins and the sins of this world. I believe that Jesus Christ then rose from the dead on the third day to give all of us eternal life.

Lord Jesus,

I now confess to You all of the wrong and sinful things that I have ever done in my life. I ask that You please forgive me and wash away all of my sins by the blood that You have personally shed for me on the cross. I am now ready to accept You as my personal Lord and Savior. I now ask that You come into my life and live with me for all of eternity.

Father, Jesus

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

You wrote:

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

In practice that is what it amounts to, in spite of what you (and they) protest.

[Vance]

No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

If it isn't being taught then why does this post found here, http://biblestudy.churches.net/base/TRU_DISC.TXT

Say this,

How does one become a disciple of Jesus Christ? A common response from

many who claim to be Chris tians is that "all you have to do is

believe."

If it isn't being taught, how did it become so prevalent?

And this link, http://blackwellcoc.com/index_files/Page859.htm

says this,

In regards to salvation:

Some teach that all you have to do is believe to be saved, while others believe that God expects a believer to openly respond with an outward expression, like baptism.

So someone is teaching it, I doubt it's the Catholics.

[JDave]

If you had responded by saying "that is one LDS understanding but not the only one," you might have had a point. But let us review what you said. You complained that the specific words "save ourselves" were "loaded language" and took issue with the statement, offering what you claimed was a "more correct" explanation. Yet those were not my words, but Harold B. Lee's words. You claimed that the explanation I gave was "impossible" and "against reason." You asserted that my words (which were not my words, as you now know) "paint a completely different picture" than the one you thought was correct. What I said (which again was not my thought) was, you stated, "foreign to me." Another sentence that I took from a Mormon source you claimed was a "mischaracterization."

In a certain sense you are right. I was reading the paragraph as being your words, and was inserting previous comments you had made as an undergirding meaning. Maybe I should take a step back and ask whether you think your constructed paragraph can be supported from the Bible and if not, then how not. Edit: I think that the previous request would be more off-topic than I originally thought. What would be better would be to ask you to construct a new paragraph using a more complete set of LDS quotes on the subject that show a better overall view of the subject. If all you were doing was setting a trap, then yay you set a trap. If you sincerely want to describe the LDS view on that verse then show it by being more complete with your quote selection and paragraph construction.

Only after I revealed the source of my statements did you decide that the problem was that I reported only one of two somewhat different LDS views of the meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23.

I never made such an objection. I complained you were constructing the paragraph is such a way as to purposefully neglect vital aspects of the entire LDS view on the verse, thus skewing the reading and IMO distorting the authors intent. I was not worried that you didn't include some alternate descriptions such as Millet's.

My first argument was that one should understand the verse in the context of the whole chapter. That is an important point that has gone unaddressed, however it is tangential to the OP in that you are describing the LDS understanding (and therefore usages) of the verse.

My second argument was looking at the several portions of the paragraph. I need to revisit that, and will do so in a subsequent post.

My third post was pointing out recent usages of the verse in General Conference, which would address the OP quite directly. That has also gone unaddressed.

I am quite happy to revise my statement from the OP to say, "Let me see if I can state correctly what 2 Nephi 25:23 means from a Mormon point of view," or some such minor revision.

Maybe "Let me see if I can point out some statements from LDS leaders that emphasize a certain aspect of the Mormon point of view regarding 2 Nephi 25:23"

But if you really want to press this point, then you will have to concede that LDS leaders/teachers have not all held to the same understanding of the verse. Do you concede this point?

Why would it be important that LDS leaders have had the same understanding of the verse? Was there any effort to claim a unified voice from LDS leaders regarding this verse?

Then to be blunt you did not read the paragraph carefully, because it included the statement,

[zerinus]

If it isn't being taught then why does this post found here, http://biblestudy.churches.net/base/TRU_DISC.TXT

Say this,

If it isn't being taught, how did it become so prevalent?

And this link, http://blackwellcoc.com/index_files/Page859.htm

says this,

So someone is teaching it, I doubt it's the Catholics.

"Justification by faith alone without works," articulated by Martin Luther and adopted by all the Protestant Reformers, is the most central tenet of Protestantism.

[coolrok7]

"Justification by faith alone without works," articulated by Martin Luther and adopted by all the Protestant Reformers, is the most central tenet of Protestantism.

The verse that gave Luther a sense of peace with God was "the just shall live by faith".

Works are a testimony that one has faith. Biblical faith has works as Luther says here (in agreement with James) in which we don

[wenglund]

Can we all agree that works are a necessary part of salvation, whether as a manifestation of salvation and/or by way of working out our salvation with fear and trembling? In other words, don't we all except that faith without works is dead?

If so, then, to underscore my earlier point, what really matters isn't the semantic debates over works, but our actually doing the faith-based works. The hungry aren't feed nor the naked clothed by arguing about salvation and works, but only by doing the work of feeding and clothing. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sevenbak]

In another thread, Vance has insisted that I have misunderstood 2 Nephi 25:23. Since that thread has already gone off the track of its original subject, I thought it would be helpful to start a new thread on this specific topic. Here is the verse:

"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

Vance claims that this verse does not mean "that we HAVE to do ALL we can DO." He claims:

Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23. Please tell me if anything I say here is incorrect.

As I understand it, according to LDS teaching, what 2 Nephi 25:23 means is that Jesus' blood, his atonement, will save us, but only after we have done all we can to save ourselves by keeping His commandments. We are saved by grace, but that grace of God comes only "after all we can do." Grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. "After all we can do" means a maximum of individual effort and includes extending our best effort; that is, grace is a supplement to our best efforts. In the plan of salvation as the LDS Church teaches it, God does for human beings only what they cannot do for themselves. No mortal

[Vance]

You stated in the OP "Let me see if I can state correctly the LDS understanding of 2 Nephi 25:23". Such a statement does seem to indicate you are going to do an overall description, rather than focus on one aspect.

This is an utter fabrication. No evangelical teaches "that all you have to do is say I believe." This is a common LDS misrepresentation of evangelical belief. And Mormons complain about us misconstruing their beliefs!

It appears that Rob has fled the scene.

[zerinus]

The verse that gave Luther a sense of peace with God was "the just shall live by faith".

Works are a testimony that one has faith. Biblical faith has works as Luther says here (in agreement with James) in which we don

[JDave]

It appears that Rob has fled the scene.

And that after Sevenbak added that wonderful quote from Bruce R. McConkie. (I really need to read that book!) I was hoping to see that quote integrated into a more fleshed out paragraph.

But then I also need to that Robert J. Matthews book "A Bible! A Bible!" as well, to understand where he is coming from with his statement that God only does for man what we cannot do for ourselves. I think he is saying that we have to do our part, that we can't just sit back and watch God change our lives. But that one sentence seems odd to me without reading the context around it.

[Zakuska]

Jude and John sure seem to follow the line of thinking that we must DO all we can do so the mercy and grace kick in...

Jude 1

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. <A name=24> 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

1 Jn. 5: 2-3

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Ex. 20: 6

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

Please notice that by your own account the evangelicals that said this to you agreed that something more was needed than merely SAYING that one believes. The person's faith must be genuine ("in your heart").

I had several on my mission quote to me the verse in Romans, that all I had to do was confess with my mouth that Jesus is the Christ and believe in my heart that he was the savior. And from then on out you were saved and never could be plucked from the Fathers hand. There was no sin that you could commit that would remove you from Eternal Security.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had written:

"No evangelical teaches 'that all you have to do is say I believe.'"

You produced several quotes and concluded:

In other words, all you have to do is believe that you are trusting in Jesus.

Not the same thing at all. One must actually, genuinely trust in Jesus, not merely SAY that you trust in Jesus. Even your restatement is not the evangelical view: believing that you are trusting in Jesus is not the same thing as trusting in Jesus.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

It is a mystery how anyone can claim that "No Evangelical says all you have to do is say, 'I Believe," to be saved. Many Evangelicals say exactly that.

Your own quotations prove I am correct. They all make it clear that you must sincerely, genuinely trust in Jesus Christ, not merely SAY that you believe in him. Go back and read your quotes and you'll see what I mean.

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

The bottom line is that you fell into the trap of accusing me of deliberately misrepresenting LDS teaching when in fact I did no such thing. Everything I said was taken straight from recognized LDS authorities. Was it a complete, comprehensive statement of LDS doctrine? No single paragraph could be, so that is an unfair standard of criticism--as well as a new criticism that implicitly acknowledges that your original criticism was erroneous.

[Rob Bowman]

You mean, it's still okay to quote McConkie?

I think Bruce R. hit it on the head.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

It appears that Rob has fled the scene.

Nope. But I've been dealing with a personal health emergency the past several days and this is my first chance to post online here.