Grace Alone Heresy

[Zakuska]

The final nail in the Grace Alone Heresy is in the following verse.

1 Jn. 3: 23

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

No matter how hard they try and wriggle out of it they cannot escape the fact that the very thing that engages Gods grace. (ie grace THROUGH faith - Eph 2:8-9) Is infact a commandment and thus their pet proof text should read.

Eph 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through [keeping the commandment of] faith;

[RBoylan]

The response would be that the emphasis on doing good works is not prescriptive, but descriptive, that is, one does not keep the commandments to be saved or keep one's salvation, but as a vindication or demonstration of their (true, saving) faith, per the historical interpretation of James 2:14ff by Protestants.

It is, without doubt, a death-knell to the antinomian, no-Lordship crowd, however.

Have you ever read Chris Vanlandingham's book, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006)? Just curious. He shows that Paul viewed works as being salvific, and does a brilliant, convincing job at it, too.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If the required "belief" is given to a person as a gift of grace (ie, Calvinist election) then it can't be considered a work, from what I understand. What sets a work apart from a gift of grace is human volition. If humans are utterly depraved they cannot begin to believe anyway because nothing they do is correct; all their works, the things they choose to do (if they have such choice, depending on the Calvinist you talk to) are evil. But God elects some to salvation, granting them the belief necessary for salvation, so these verses can be interpreted through a different lens to get a different conclusion.

[Zakuska]

The response would be that the emphasis on doing good works is not prescriptive, but descriptive, that is, one does not keep the commandments to be saved or keep one's salvation, but as a vindication or demonstration of their (true, saving) faith, per the historical interpretation of James 2:14ff by Protestants.

It is, without doubt, a death-knell to the antinomian, no-Lordship crowd, however.

Have you ever read Chris Vanlandingham's book, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006)? Just curious. He shows that Paul viewed works as being salvific, and does a brilliant, convincing job at it, too.

Thanks for the heads up on the book. I'll have to look into it.

The answer I got back was this...

1 Jn. 4: 19 19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Which goes without saying because he also first created us in the first place.

But he also gave us the freedom to choose.

[Zakuska]

If the required "belief" is given to a person as a gift of grace (ie, Calvinist election) then it can't be considered a work, from what I understand. What sets a work apart from a gift of grace is human volition. If humans are utterly depraved they cannot begin to believe anyway because nothing they do is correct; all their works, the things they choose to do (if they have such choice, depending on the Calvinist you talk to) are evil. But God elects some to salvation, granting them the belief necessary for salvation, so these verses can be interpreted through a different lens to get a different conclusion.

A very cloudy lens.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A very cloudy lens.

Still, the "control beliefs" dictate how the scripture is interpreted. I have different control beliefs so I see such an interpretation as incorrect, or lacking, as they see mine.

[WalkerW]

Nice reference, Boylan. I'll have to check that out. I've been taking a look at Zeba Crook's Reconceptualising Conversion: Patronage, Loyalty, and Conversion in Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean (Walter de Gruyter, 2004), though I haven't had tons of time with school and all. I think placing grace and faith in the context of patronage and kinship pretty much kills the traditional understanding of sola fides. I wrote on the subject a few months ago. It can be found here.

[maklelan]

The response would be that the emphasis on doing good works is not prescriptive, but descriptive, that is, one does not keep the commandments to be saved or keep one's salvation, but as a vindication or demonstration of their (true, saving) faith, per the historical interpretation of James 2:14ff by Protestants.

Which, of course, begs the question.

[maklelan]

N.T. Wright just published an article about C.S. Lewis and his theology. His discussion on Lewis' perspective on faith/works is interesting. I link to it on my blog.

[maklelan]

If the required "belief" is given to a person as a gift of grace (ie, Calvinist election) then it can't be considered a work, from what I understand. What sets a work apart from a gift of grace is human volition. If humans are utterly depraved they cannot begin to believe anyway because nothing they do is correct; all their works, the things they choose to do (if they have such choice, depending on the Calvinist you talk to) are evil. But God elects some to salvation, granting them the belief necessary for salvation, so these verses can be interpreted through a different lens to get a different conclusion.

In my opinion, it all boils down to works or arbitrary salvation. I've been unsuccessful trying to get anyone with a good grasp of the issue to engage me on it.

[WalkerW]

In my opinion, it all boils down to works or arbitrary salvation. I've been unsuccessful trying to get anyone with a good grasp of the issue to engage me on it.

I completely agree with this. And if one embraces a form of Calvinistic predestination, it makes God rather, shall we say, immoral.

If I mention patronage or kinship in a dispute over faith and works, it is completely ignored. The argument attacks the root of sola fides and the question begging that accompanies it. It becomes a dialogue of what 'faith' and 'grace' actually mean within the cultural context rather than the assumptions of 21st century Protestants.

[RBoylan]

Which, of course, begs the question.

I agree. James' use of the noun form of ??????? _dikaioO_, in a soteriological context, chows at the idea James is discussing anything but salvific justification.

I agree also with the Council of Trent--the Protestant Reformers' understanding of Justification is nothing short of a legal fiction.

[RBoylan]

I completely agree with this. And if one embraces a form of Calvinistic predestination, it makes God rather, shall we say, immoral.

If I mention patronage or kinship in a dispute over faith and works, it is completely ignored. The argument attacks the root of sola fides and the question begging that accompanies it. It becomes a dialogue of what 'faith' and 'grace' actually mean within the cultural context rather than the assumptions of 21st century Protestants.

Too true. Ulrich Zwingli once referred to God as the "sinless author of sin." If one accepts such a predestinerian theology, coupled with creatio ex nihilo, such is an apt description of God.

I am aware of the proof-texts the likes of White, Sproul and others use, but, IMO, the likes of Greg Boyd (Satan and the Problem of Evil) have refuted the appeal to texts like Proverbs 16 and Romans 8, 9-11 for both determinism and compatibilism.

[WalkerW]

Too true. Ulrich Zwingli once referred to God as the "sinless author of sin." If one accepts such a predestinerian theology, coupled with creatio ex nihilo, such is an apt description of God.

I am aware of the proof-texts the likes of White, Sproul and others use, but, IMO, the likes of Greg Boyd (Satan and the Problem of Evil) have refuted the appeal to texts like Proverbs 16 and Romans 8, 9-11 for both determinism and compatibilism.

Romans 11 I find to not only refute the idea that works are not needed, but also "once saved, always saved." I don't see any way around the verses speaking of unfaithful Israelites being cut off (with the potential to be grafted in again should they exercise faith) and faithful Gentiles being grafted in.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Romans 11 I find to not only refute the idea that works are not needed, but also "once saved, always saved." I don't see any way around the verses speaking of unfaithful Israelites being cut off (with the potential to be grafted in again should they exercise faith) and faithful Gentiles being grafted in.

Totally refudiates it.

[maklelan]

Totally refudiates it.

Refudiation is a difficult thing to achieve.

[USU78]

Refudiation is a difficult thing to achieve.

Nice eskeletation.

[Zakuska]

Refudiation is a difficult thing to achieve.

Thats what Sarah Pallin said.

[3DOP]

Hi all,

Do Mormons deny that salvific good works are a product of grace? Can Mormons keep the commandments without God's help? Do Mormons need grace for faith, but not for saving works?

If I am not making myself clear with my questions, I am trying to illustrate that there is a position that denies faith alone, but still asserts grace alone. Grace and faith are not synonyms. The Catholic Church unequivocably teaches grace alone, while rejecting faith alone. I had thought we would be in agreement with the LDS on this question but perhaps not?

3DOP

[maklelan]

Hi all,

Do Mormons deny that salvific good works are a product of grace?

"Salvific" means having the intent or power to redeem or save. Do the works save, or are they the byproduct of salvation? If the latter then they are not salvific. I personally believe that good works and salvation are symbiotic. Works are the stepping stones to developing faith, as well as the product of unity with Christ.

Can Mormons keep the commandments without God's help? Do Mormons need grace for faith, but not for saving works?

I personally believe faith is built on works. Both require our effort and God's grace.

If I am not making myself clear with my questions, I am trying to illustrate that there is a position that denies faith alone, but still asserts grace alone. Grace and faith are not synonyms. The Catholic Church unequivocably teaches grace alone, while rejecting faith alone. I had thought we would be in agreement with the LDS on this question but perhaps not?

But doesn't this render salvation entirely arbitrary? Is there a requirement hidden somewhere in "grace alone," or is salvation, in your view, something that is entirely God's prerogative to either give us or not?

[paulhadik]

phrases like God's being immoral or salvation becoming arbitrary are troubling when they come from the LDS as often the LDS church hollers loudest when their faith is trimmed down to catchy mischaracterizations.....

Can I sum up that the LDS view of works and grace is "we keep the commandments and build our faith and God chips in some grace along the way as we need it"?

I think rory points to the crux.

If grace is to be defined as an undeserved gift of God how does that become compatible with works being rewarded by grace?

(but I do not deign to speak for my catholic friend...roars, apologies for misconstruing if I do)

[JDave]

Do Mormons deny that salvific good works are a product of grace? Can Mormons keep the commandments without God's help? Do Mormons need grace for faith, but not for saving works?

If I am not making myself clear with my questions, I am trying to illustrate that there is a position that denies faith alone, but still asserts grace alone. Grace and faith are not synonyms. The Catholic Church unequivocably teaches grace alone, while rejecting faith alone. I had thought we would be in agreement with the LDS on this question but perhaps not?

I think that most Mormons would say that salvific good works are not initiated by the grace of God, that is, that God does not cause us to do what we do. Rather we have a situation where God enables us, much like your second question -- we do need God's help. Here is a great scripture from the Book of Mormon that describes how our actions are dependent upon God in order to make them salvific.

2 Nephi 32:9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

[WalkerW]

Can I sum up that the LDS view of works and grace is "we keep the commandments and build our faith and God chips in some grace along the way as we need it"?

I think we can sum up the LDS position this way:

And remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. (2 Ne. 10:24)

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. (2 Ne. 2:

I say, if ye should serve [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast? (Mosiah 2:20-24; vs. 34 describes us as

[volgadon]

If grace is to be defined as an undeserved gift of God how does that become compatible with works being rewarded by grace?

Why should it be defined as such?

[WalkerW]

I think that most Mormons would say that salvific good works are not initiated by the grace of God, that is, that God does not cause us to do what we do. Rather we have a situation where God enables us, much like your second question -- we do need God's help. Here is a great scripture from the Book of Mormon that describes how our actions are dependent upon God in order to make them salvific.

2 Nephi 32:9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.

E.P. Sanders pointed out decades ago,