Evangelical Grace Vs The Atonement

[ELF1024]

In the (now closed) Grace In Sacrament Meeting thread, consiglieri, suggested that we do not teach Grace enough or do not emphasize Grace enough. Now, in his defense, it doesn't appear that Grace is a word that gets thrown around alot in our worship. A seach of the Gospel Principles Manual only turned up THREE references to Grace.

Now in our defense, we don't seem to talk about Grace as such, but we talk about The Atonement.

The Savior

[CV75]

Now in our defense, we don't seem to talk about Grace as such, but we talk about The Atonement.

While I agree the Atonement is at the center of all we teach, and therefore Grace also, there are also many places where the Church teaches about Grace specifically. See:

http://lds.org/study/topics/grace?lang=eng

http://lds.org/study/topics/grace?lang=eng

http://lds.org/scriptures/gs/grace?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/grace?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/grace?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/grace-man-may-fall-from?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/gracious?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/grace?lang=eng&letter=g

http://lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/gracious?lang=eng&letter=g

[SeattleGhostWriter]

In the (now closed) Grace In Sacrament Meeting thread, consiglieri, suggested that we do not teach Grace enough or do not emphasize Grace enough. Now, in his defense, it doesn't appear that Grace is a word that gets thrown around alot in our worship. A seach of the Gospel Principles Manual only turned up THREE references to Grace.

Now in our defense, we don't seem to talk about Grace as such, but we talk about The Atonement.

Now IMHO this appears to cover what I understand to be the Evanglical concept of Grace. Do you agree? Or Disagree? and Why?

According to the many encounters that I have had with evangelical Christians (both, inside and outside of the Church), the concept of Grace is based upon the Cross. It begins and ends at the Cross. While many evangelicals agree that Christ made the great priestly intercessory prayer in the Garden of Gethsemene, and that he was tortured. They teach and strongly believe that it was the blood he had shed on the cross that is by which we are saved, if we just cast our eyes upon him.

Now, here is the division within modern evangelical Christianity.

standard Christian definition of Grace: Man is saved by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - His shed blood on the Cross of Calvary and if we accept Him into our hearts, we are born again.

Calvinist/Reformed Christian definition of Grace: Man can in no way choose for himself to turn to the Cross, but the Holy Spirit that reveals to man his depravity and by which man is naturally drawn to the cross and therefore is chosen to partake in the Grace of God, for it is God that chooses to save us and not man who chooses to believe on Christ.

Pentecostal Christian/Charismatic Christian: Man is saved by the grace of God because of Christ having died on the Cross for man's sins. Man is fully redeemed when he not only is baptized by water but he also is baptized by fire and is fully redeemed when he is able to speak in tongues.

These are the three main categories that I have come to understand in representing the concept of Grace, Christ, and the salvation of Humanity. Almost all Christians that I have spoken with over the years have this idea and concept that Christ shed his blood on the Cross and it was that Shed blood by which we were saved - some even suggesting that the Church was born out of the water spewing from the side of Christ when he was pierced with the sword.

Yet, when I am asked how I can claim to be Christian when I reject Christ and the Reality of the Cross, I explain that I do not reject the reality of the Cross, I just understand it much differently than the narrowly defined and accepted modern understanding of the Grace of Christ and the Crucifixion.

It is here that I walk them through the events that happen prior to, the crucifixion, and then the resurrection. Many are unable to explain, or rebut what I present because it is all based on Biblical Authority.

Here is how I present it in a nutshell.

Hebrews calls Christ a Prophet, and not only a Prophet, but a High Priest. One of the duties of the High Priest in Israel is to go into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and pray for the nation of Israel. They are to pray for the redemption of Israel's Sin and seek the forgiveness of God. Thus, when we come to Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemene, we discover that Christ was acting in his Priesthood Authority as a High Priest and Presenting himself as a Sacrifice for the Atonement of mankind. This is how Christ is also referred to as the Great Mediator. I then point to John 17 and go through very carefully the nature of Christ's prayer in how he fits the office of a High Priest and how his intercessory prayer is that of a High Priest in the Holy of Holies. It is here that Christ begins to really take upon himself the sins of the world.

From here, we move to his betrayal and arrest that fulfills Messianic prophecies. Christ is then tortured by Flogging. Here is where I ask simple questions. When someone is whipped with shards of metal and glass attached to leather straps, what will that do to their skin? And will there be bleeding as a result of this? Of course. Then how can you say that Christ only shed his blood on the cross for the sins of Mankind when at the end of the torture, Christ was already bleeding so profusely that in medical terms, he ought to have been dead long before being nailed to the cross? While we don't know how much blood he had loss during the torture, we do know that it is a significant amount that a normal person would have fainted and possibly died (see Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, which is good to have on hand or read for this kind of discussion).

Once Christ was beaten and whipped to a bloody pulp, he had to walk along a path of those who mocked and scorned him. He probably had stones thrown at him, most likely was spat upon. By the time we get to the Cross and Christ was nailed to the Cross, he was still bleeding. Finally, Christ commits his spirit into the hands of the Father and dies. He is buried and then three days later, he rises from the grave as he prophesied. He now possess a body of flesh and bone, that is resurrected, but not yet glorified.

I then ask my question: By what symbolic means do we as believers in Jesus Christ use in conjunction with his Death, Burial, and Resurrection? Some may answer, others may not. I then turn to Romans 6 and point out that the reason why Baptism is important is because we make our first covenant with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and follow him in his exact likeness of his Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Baptism holds two significant symbolic meanings. The first is the covenant we make. We are identifying with Christ by putting to death the natural man. All of our sins, all of our old ways, we, in a sense, crucify ourselves just as Christ was crucified. We then are buried by being immersed into the water. This symbolizing our going down into the grave. As we come up out of the water, we are now freed from sin, the bondage of the adversary, and we are a New Creation in Jesus Christ. In essence, we are respectfully referred to as anointed ones - and have made our covenant with Christ.

The second symbolism of baptism is that of what will happen to everyone of us. We all will die. We all will be buried in the grave. We all will be resurrected with a body of flesh and bone.

Then, I ask this question to my Christian friends. If Christ had not come into the world, or even if he had but not fulfilled his divine mission and call, would we be able to rise up with bodies of flesh and bone at the time we are called forth from the grave? Most do not know how to answer that question because they don't realize that the resurrection of man is linked to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the atonement. Many have attempted to reason away this argument by saying that the Resurrection of mankind is not part of the salvation from Sin.

I then ask to what extent Christ came to save mankind? They say Sin. I then turn to Romans and have them read the passage that says by one man [Adam] sin and death entered into the world. I then ask them why does the Bible say that Sin and Death came into the world because of Adam's transgression in the Garden? Some are able to answer, others are not. I point out that we are not able to save ourselves from Sin by not providing the appropriate sacrifice necessary, and that we are not able to rise up from the grave by our own will, desire and power. It is here that I emphasize Christ did not come to just be a sacrifice and redeem humanity from Sin, but to redeem fallen man from bondage of Sin and Death.

I go back to show that Christ not only died on the Cross and that not only does His shed blood provide the ultimate sacrifice that redeems us from our fallen nature, but that the gates of hades [grave] will no longer prevail against us in that we also will rise up from the grave at his Command and call. We are saved from the effects of mortality and Sin and Death.

Everyone of us will rise up with bodies of flesh and bone. Despite how we have lived our lives. However, it is the covenant we make at Baptism where we will have our names written in the Book of Life because we make a covenant that we will follow, obey, and live our lives according to Christ and His teachings. This is where we are now saved by Grace, and then walk in the righteousness of enduring to the end and working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Many walk away still confused because they do not fully comprehend the full capacity of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that is provided for all. This is why Christ said that many are called, but few are chosen because many will heed the call to repent, but few will actually walk in humility and enter into the waters of baptism and make that important covenant to walk in obedience with Jesus Christ and truly become Born Again.

[Vanguard]

In the (now closed) Grace In Sacrament Meeting thread, consiglieri, suggested that we do not teach Grace enough or do not emphasize Grace enough. Now, in his defense, it doesn't appear that Grace is a word that gets thrown around alot in our worship. A seach of the Gospel Principles Manual only turned up THREE references to Grace.

Now in our defense, we don't seem to talk about Grace as such, but we talk about The Atonement.

The Savior

[Calm]

"I'm a temple recommend holder and served a faithful mission and have done all expected of me to live with the Savior again" .

I have never heard anything remotely approaching this idea from any LDS member I've known. Is this your interpretation of what someone has said or acted like or have you actually heard LDS members (and enough that you see this as a commonly held belief) state this.

It just seems very remarkable to me that any LDS would say something like this....even if they believed it, lol.

[ELF1024]

I have never heard anything remotely approaching this idea from any LDS member I've known. Is this your interpretation of what someone has said or acted like or have you actually heard LDS members (and enough that you see this as a commonly held belief) state this.

It just seems very remarkable to me that any LDS would say something like this....even if they believed it, lol.

If they did say it, they would be missing the whole "endure to the end" clause...

[Vanguard]

I agree though it seems more a matter of differing emphasis. The more traditional evangelical position would emphasize "salvation despite one's actions" while IMO the more traditional stance from the LDS community would emphasize "salvation combined with leadership prescribed actions (i.e., mission service, temple attendance, accepting callings, and so on)". The unsavory elements of both positions in the watered down versions might sound something like, "I've accepted the Savior's grace in my life and now can look forward to the eternities in his presence" (the evangelical position) or "I'm a temple recommend holder and served a faithful mission and have done all expected of me to live with the Savior again" (the LDS position). Both seem to miss the mark.

I have never heard anything remotely approaching this idea from any LDS member I've known. Is this your interpretation of what someone has said or acted like or have you actually heard LDS members (and enough that you see this as a commonly held belief) state this.

It just seems very remarkable to me that any LDS would say something like this....even if they believed it, lol.

Yes, it is my interpretation - an interpretation not exclusively gathered from LDS folks who have come to receive therapy services from me either through LDS Family Services or through more secular channels. I have recollections of commentary that sounded much like, "I can't understand why my life is a shambles. I have done everything expected of me (i.e., attended church every week, got my patriarchal blessing, payed my tithing, etc) and yet I am still not blessed and am wondering whether the Lord even approves of me". In other words, they have gone through the prescribed motions of what they were told reflected a true saint in the finest sense of the word only to be left feeling that something was not right. While this example may be more a composite of commentary it nonetheless strikes a cord with me. I am also reminded of the occasion when I hear at the pulpit words to the effect, "All my sons served honorable missions and all my children have been endowed in the temple of the Lord". Again, IMO there seems to be a strain of thought that has some folks emphasizing not the finest aspects of what the Savior did for us or of what our role is in the equation.

[ELF1024]

Yes, it is my interpretation - an interpretation not exclusively gathered from LDS folks who have come to receive therapy services from me either through LDS Family Services or through more secular channels. I have recollections of commentary that sounded much like, "I can't understand why my life is a shambles. I have done everything expected of me (i.e., attended church every week, got my patriarchal blessing, payed my tithing, etc) and yet I am still not blessed and am wondering whether the Lord even approves of me".

Still not blessed? What do you/they mean by that? What are they expecting?

Life is never easy, there are hills to climbs, and valleys to traverse. We run into all kinds of problems and issues we didn't expect. Some of us have handicapped children. Some of us have parents with health issues, or health issues of our own. None of us, I would hazard to guess, is exactly were we wanted to be when we dreamed of growing up as a young child.

Life is what happens while you are making plans. You can either roll with the punches and recognize your blessings for what they are; or you can get myopic and focus on what your life is not.

In other words, they have gone through the prescribed motions of what they were told reflected a true saint in the finest sense of the word only to be left feeling that something was not right. While this example may be more a composite of commentary it nonetheless strikes a cord with me. I am also reminded of the occasion when I hear at the pulpit words to the effect, "All my sons served honorable missions and all my children have been endowed in the temple of the Lord". Again, IMO there seems to be a strain of thought that has some folks emphasizing not the finest aspects of what the Savior did for us or of what our role is in the equation.

Just because all of your kids went on mission and were endowed doesn't mean that it will last. We have at least one person on the board who did both, and has since left the church.

Job's family "did every thing right" and look what happened to him. Just because life doesn't meet your expectation doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you, other than your expectations.

[Calm]

Yes, it is my interpretation - an interpretation not exclusively gathered from LDS folks who have come to receive therapy services from me either through LDS Family Services or through more secular channels. I have recollections of commentary that sounded much like, "I can't understand why my life is a shambles. I have done everything expected of me (i.e., attended church every week, got my patriarchal blessing, payed my tithing, etc) and yet I am still not blessed and am wondering whether the Lord even approves of me". In other words, they have gone through the prescribed motions of what they were told reflected a true saint in the finest sense of the word only to be left feeling that something was not right. While this example may be more a composite of commentary it nonetheless strikes a cord with me. I am also reminded of the occasion when I hear at the pulpit words to the effect, "All my sons served honorable missions and all my children have been endowed in the temple of the Lord". Again, IMO there seems to be a strain of thought that has some folks emphasizing not the finest aspects of what the Savior did for us or of what our role is in the equation.

Okay, now I understand and agree that this is a thread in many LDS's understandings.

[Vanguard]

Yes, it is my interpretation - an interpretation not exclusively gathered from LDS folks who have come to receive therapy services from me either through LDS Family Services or through more secular channels. I have recollections of commentary that sounded much like, "I can't understand why my life is a shambles. I have done everything expected of me (i.e., attended church every week, got my patriarchal blessing, payed my tithing, etc) and yet I am still not blessed and am wondering whether the Lord even approves of me".

Still not blessed? What do you/they mean by that? What are they expecting?

Life is never easy, there are hills to climbs, and valleys to traverse. We run into all kinds of problems and issues we didn't expect. Some of us have handicapped children. Some of us have parents with health issues, or health issues of our own. None of us, I would hazard to guess, is exactly were we wanted to be when we dreamed of growing up as a young child.

Life is what happens while you are making plans. You can either roll with the punches and recognize your blessings for what they are; or you can get myopic and focus on what your life is not.

While your position is admirable it seems to miss the point. I did not suggest folks are justified in taking these positions only that there seems to be a noticeably high incidence in this way of thinking. I believe it is in part a symptom of how the church collective goes about speaking of the atonement and principles of salvation. I am also not suggesting a total reworking of the gospel doctrine manual as it were though I do hope for more emphasis on the role that grace plays and more importantly on what our "contribution" must be.

Just because all of your kids went on mission and were endowed doesn't mean that it will last. We have at least one person on the board who did both, and has since left the church.

Again, you seem to be addressing a different scenario? I am in virtual absolute agreeement with you yet I hear these kinds of things said at the pulpit with regular frequency. In a better world, salvation never should have been about these prescribed behaviors. IMO, it runs too great a risk of setting people up to believe that either they are "salvation justified" for successfully doing all of the prescribed behaviors or conversely, "salvation damned" because they didn't. These notions are not how I envision the power of the gospel in my life.

[ELF1024]

While your position is admirable it seems to miss the point. I did not suggest folks are justified in taking these positions only that there seems to be a noticeably high incidence in this way of thinking. I believe it is in part a symptom of how the church collective goes about speaking of the atonement and principles of salvation. I am also not suggesting a total reworking of the gospel doctrine manual as it were though I do hope for more emphasis on the role that grace plays and more importantly on what our "contribution" must be.

Again, you seem to be addressing a different scenario? I am in virtual absolute agreeement with you yet I hear these kinds of things said at the pulpit with regular frequency. In a better world, salvation never should have been about these prescribed behaviors. IMO, it runs too great a risk of setting people up to believe that either they are "salvation justified" for successfully doing all of the prescribed behaviors or conversely, "salvation damned" because they didn't. These notions are not how I envision the power of the gospel in my life.

It would appear I am preaching the choir.... (which means I am showing my posterior to the congregation) Whoops!

[Calm]

I think part of the problem is that the LDS culture tends to be a very practical one, focused on actions and their results. Rather than focusing on discussion of philosophy or even theology, we are taught to go out and live the gospel. It comes across as a very concrete instruction and it is understandable that many tend to assume that concrete measurements are an appropriate part of not only how we do things, but why we do them (the measurements too often becoming an end in themselves). Couple that with the way God's instructions are most often coupled with an accompanying blessing in the scriptures (though not always concrete), we begin to see the gospel as a linear progression of a contract (rather than a covenant) with God where God does 'this' for us (gives us our bodies and families starting out the whole thing), then we do 'that' (something along the lines of accepting his covenant through baptism), then God does his thing (teaching us line upon line but also blessing us), and then we respond, etc. etc. Many figure if we've done everything we've been told to do (by our prophets...which is a big assumption to equating that with everything God has told us to do; of course, this is also only the concrete things the prophets have instructed us in and not the more important but also more nebulous things such as changing our hearts, loving our neighbours, etc), that must mean that God has done his part as promised....but then some people look around and don't see the expected blessings. Pointing out that the Lord's timeline isn't ours or that a specific blessing isn't always guaranteed just shifts that attitude into a different space-time so to speak rather than actually having any impact of the actual concept or attitude that provides the motivation for attempting to align our wills with the Lord's Will. Changing that contractual attitude to aligning our wills with the Lord's Will because we love him and we don't really care what we get out of it besides the chance to express that love and gratitude can be very difficult when we are required by the limitations of the world to continue to use concrete measurements in order to communicate and coordinate our efforts with others because it is so easy to slip back into that way of measuring our own lives.

[CV75]

Yes, it is my interpretation - an interpretation not exclusively gathered from LDS folks who have come to receive therapy services from me either through LDS Family Services or through more secular channels. I have recollections of commentary that sounded much like, "I can't understand why my life is a shambles. I have done everything expected of me (i.e., attended church every week, got my patriarchal blessing, payed my tithing, etc) and yet I am still not blessed and am wondering whether the Lord even approves of me". In other words, they have gone through the prescribed motions of what they were told reflected a true saint in the finest sense of the word only to be left feeling that something was not right. While this example may be more a composite of commentary it nonetheless strikes a cord with me. I am also reminded of the occasion when I hear at the pulpit words to the effect, "All my sons served honorable missions and all my children have been endowed in the temple of the Lord". Again, IMO there seems to be a strain of thought that has some folks emphasizing not the finest aspects of what the Savior did for us or of what our role is in the equation.

It makes sense that there is a correlation between those requiring therapy services and those needing a better understanding of grace, or that someone in the throes of discouragement would forget what they did know of grace, or tend to compare themselves as less than someone who happily witnesses or boasts of their blessings. A boaster also forgets about grace, as does the list-checker. But we are taught how not to be discouraged, how not to boast, and how not to list-check. These lessons my not be easy to remember, but they do abound in the Church.

[ebeddoulos]

According to the many encounters that I have had with evangelical Christians (both, inside and outside of the Church), the concept of Grace is based upon the Cross. It begins and ends at the Cross. While many evangelicals agree that Christ made the great priestly intercessory prayer in the Garden of Gethsemene, and that he was tortured. They teach and strongly believe that it was the blood he had shed on the cross that is by which we are saved, if we just cast our eyes upon him.

Now, here is the division within modern evangelical Christianity.

standard Christian definition of Grace: Man is saved by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - His shed blood on the Cross of Calvary and if we accept Him into our hearts, we are born again.

Calvinist/Reformed Christian definition of Grace: Man can in no way choose for himself to turn to the Cross, but the Holy Spirit that reveals to man his depravity and by which man is naturally drawn to the cross and therefore is chosen to partake in the Grace of God, for it is God that chooses to save us and not man who chooses to believe on Christ.

Pentecostal Christian/Charismatic Christian: Man is saved by the grace of God because of Christ having died on the Cross for man's sins. Man is fully redeemed when he not only is baptized by water but he also is baptized by fire and is fully redeemed when he is able to speak in tongues.

These are the three main categories that I have come to understand in representing the concept of Grace, Christ, and the salvation of Humanity. Almost all Christians that I have spoken with over the years have this idea and concept that Christ shed his blood on the Cross and it was that Shed blood by which we were saved - some even suggesting that the Church was born out of the water spewing from the side of Christ when he was pierced with the sword.

Yet, when I am asked how I can claim to be Christian when I reject Christ and the Reality of the Cross, I explain that I do not reject the reality of the Cross, I just understand it much differently than the narrowly defined and accepted modern understanding of the Grace of Christ and the Crucifixion.

It is here that I walk them through the events that happen prior to, the crucifixion, and then the resurrection. Many are unable to explain, or rebut what I present because it is all based on Biblical Authority.

Here is how I present it in a nutshell.

Hebrews calls Christ a Prophet, and not only a Prophet, but a High Priest. One of the duties of the High Priest in Israel is to go into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and pray for the nation of Israel. They are to pray for the redemption of Israel's Sin and seek the forgiveness of God. Thus, when we come to Christ praying in the Garden of Gethsemene, we discover that Christ was acting in his Priesthood Authority as a High Priest and Presenting himself as a Sacrifice for the Atonement of mankind. This is how Christ is also referred to as the Great Mediator. I then point to John 17 and go through very carefully the nature of Christ's prayer in how he fits the office of a High Priest and how his intercessory prayer is that of a High Priest in the Holy of Holies. It is here that Christ begins to really take upon himself the sins of the world.

From here, we move to his betrayal and arrest that fulfills Messianic prophecies. Christ is then tortured by Flogging. Here is where I ask simple questions. When someone is whipped with shards of metal and glass attached to leather straps, what will that do to their skin? And will there be bleeding as a result of this? Of course. Then how can you say that Christ only shed his blood on the cross for the sins of Mankind when at the end of the torture, Christ was already bleeding so profusely that in medical terms, he ought to have been dead long before being nailed to the cross? While we don't know how much blood he had loss during the torture, we do know that it is a significant amount that a normal person would have fainted and possibly died (see Lee Strobel's Case for Christ, which is good to have on hand or read for this kind of discussion).

Once Christ was beaten and whipped to a bloody pulp, he had to walk along a path of those who mocked and scorned him. He probably had stones thrown at him, most likely was spat upon. By the time we get to the Cross and Christ was nailed to the Cross, he was still bleeding. Finally, Christ commits his spirit into the hands of the Father and dies. He is buried and then three days later, he rises from the grave as he prophesied. He now possess a body of flesh and bone, that is resurrected, but not yet glorified.

I then ask my question: By what symbolic means do we as believers in Jesus Christ use in conjunction with his Death, Burial, and Resurrection? Some may answer, others may not. I then turn to Romans 6 and point out that the reason why Baptism is important is because we make our first covenant with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and follow him in his exact likeness of his Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Baptism holds two significant symbolic meanings. The first is the covenant we make. We are identifying with Christ by putting to death the natural man. All of our sins, all of our old ways, we, in a sense, crucify ourselves just as Christ was crucified. We then are buried by being immersed into the water. This symbolizing our going down into the grave. As we come up out of the water, we are now freed from sin, the bondage of the adversary, and we are a New Creation in Jesus Christ. In essence, we are respectfully referred to as anointed ones - and have made our covenant with Christ.

The second symbolism of baptism is that of what will happen to everyone of us. We all will die. We all will be buried in the grave. We all will be resurrected with a body of flesh and bone.

Then, I ask this question to my Christian friends. If Christ had not come into the world, or even if he had but not fulfilled his divine mission and call, would we be able to rise up with bodies of flesh and bone at the time we are called forth from the grave? Most do not know how to answer that question because they don't realize that the resurrection of man is linked to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the atonement. Many have attempted to reason away this argument by saying that the Resurrection of mankind is not part of the salvation from Sin.

I then ask to what extent Christ came to save mankind? They say Sin. I then turn to Romans and have them read the passage that says by one man [Adam] sin and death entered into the world. I then ask them why does the Bible say that Sin and Death came into the world because of Adam's transgression in the Garden? Some are able to answer, others are not. I point out that we are not able to save ourselves from Sin by not providing the appropriate sacrifice necessary, and that we are not able to rise up from the grave by our own will, desire and power. It is here that I emphasize Christ did not come to just be a sacrifice and redeem humanity from Sin, but to redeem fallen man from bondage of Sin and Death.

I go back to show that Christ not only died on the Cross and that not only does His shed blood provide the ultimate sacrifice that redeems us from our fallen nature, but that the gates of hades [grave] will no longer prevail against us in that we also will rise up from the grave at his Command and call. We are saved from the effects of mortality and Sin and Death.

Everyone of us will rise up with bodies of flesh and bone. Despite how we have lived our lives. However, it is the covenant we make at Baptism where we will have our names written in the Book of Life because we make a covenant that we will follow, obey, and live our lives according to Christ and His teachings. This is where we are now saved by Grace, and then walk in the righteousness of enduring to the end and working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

Many walk away still confused because they do not fully comprehend the full capacity of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that is provided for all. This is why Christ said that many are called, but few are chosen because many will heed the call to repent, but few will actually walk in humility and enter into the waters of baptism and make that important covenant to walk in obedience with Jesus Christ and truly become Born Again.

I like that! Thank you.

[consiglieri]

In the (now closed) Grace In Sacrament Meeting thread, consiglieri, suggested that we do not teach Grace enough or do not emphasize Grace enough.

In the now closed thread, I argued that the typical LDS definition takes the grace out of grace, making it something received in exchange for something we give.

It is a quid pro quo.

But a quid pro quo is not grace.

Grace is something given freely. It is given gratis.

I think Mormons tend to exalt the importance of works at the expense of grace, much as they extol the separateness of God at the expense of his unity.

And both are likely responses to what are perceived as heterodoxy in other religions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Vanguard]

Well said. Just a couple of comments though...

I think part of the problem is that the LDS culture tends to be a very practical one, focused on actions and their results. Rather than focusing on discussion of philosophy or even theology, we are taught to go out and live the gospel. It comes across as a very concrete instruction and it is understandable that many tend to assume that concrete measurements are an appropriate part of not only how we do things, but why we do them (the measurements too often becoming an end in themselves). Couple that with the way God's instructions are most often coupled with an accompanying blessing in the scriptures (though not always concrete),we begin to see the gospel as a linear progression of a contract (rather than a covenant) with God where God does 'this' for us (gives us our bodies and families starting out the whole thing), then we do 'that' (something along the lines of accepting his covenant through baptism), then God does his thing (teaching us line upon line but also blessing us), and then we respond, etc. etc. Many figure if we've done everything we've been told to do (by our prophets...which is a big assumption to equating that with everything God has told us to do; of course, this is also only the concrete things the prophets have instructed us in and not the more important but also more nebulous things such as changing our hearts, loving our neighbours, etc), that must mean that God has done his part as promised....but then some people look around and don't see the expected blessings. Pointing out that the Lord's timeline isn't ours or that a specific blessing isn't always guaranteed just shifts that attitude into a different space-time so to speak rather than actually having any impact of the actual concept or attitude that provides the motivation for attempting to align our wills with the Lord's Will. Changing that contractual attitude to aligning our wills with the Lord's Will because we love him and we don't really care what we get out of it besides the chance to express that love and gratitude can be very difficult when we are required by the limitations of the world to continue to use concrete measurements in order to communicate and coordinate our efforts with others because it is so easy to slip back into that way of measuring our own lives.

I believe the "instruction-coupled-with-a-blessing-as-a-result" mindset is overrated. As you seem to have suggested there is not necessarily a concrete relationship nor is there always a guarantee. I agree with this. We are given general promises as a result of obeying certain commandments and such. The general nature of these "rewards" makes it virtually impossible to know when the blessing results. For that matter, I believe the emphasis is not in the best place. Our bodies and minds are God's engines. He has prescribed a maintenance regimen for these "engines" to run at peak capacity. Keep this baby oiled and the tires inflated and she'll run more smoothly (i.e., blessings will result). In other words, don't fill the tires so as to obligate the Lord into blessing you on your trip but rather fill the tires because the car wlll always run more efficiently and safely than if you rarely filled them. Do you see the emphasis shift?

Of course, this dovetails back to the whole notion of prescribed steps to merit the kingdom. At the risk of radically shifting away from the OP, I would say that it is those very prescribed steps that will also be automatically provided us. These steps pale in comparison to the real litmus for entrance beyond "the pearlies". There can be no prescribed steps to get in other than to follow God's directives as much and as frequently as our God-given capacities allow - nothing more nothing less. Within the evangelical perspective, this means that simply vocalizing an acceptance of the Savior is not enough but rather that act coupled with a committment to behave as one's capacity would allow is the necessary ingredient. The clencher for the LDS community is that this behavior may look nothing like what is expected of another and certainly not prescribed for the entire group at all.

God's grace freed us all from the very reality that would have all of us outside of his presence. With his grace, we are now all capable of extending ourselves sufficiently to live with him again. He watches us to see if we honor our individual-unlike-any-other capacity to make that return a reality.

[Calm]

Well said. Just a couple of comments though...

God's grace freed us all from the very reality that would have all of us outside of his presence. With his grace, we are now all capable of extending ourselves sufficiently to live with him again. He watches us to see if we honor our individual-unlike-any-other capacity to make that return a reality.

Agree with everything you state here.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

In the now closed thread, I argued that the typical LDS definition takes the grace out of grace, making it something received in exchange for something we give.

It is a quid pro quo.

But a quid pro quo is not grace.

Grace is something given freely. It is given gratis.

I think Mormons tend to exalt the importance of works at the expense of grace, much as they extol the separateness of God at the expense of his unity.

And both are likely responses to what are perceived as heterodoxy in other religions.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I disagree.

There are two types of grace that we speak of. Grace that is traditionally understood as the Free Gift of Salvation. In general, Salvation (and the root word Save) has one significant meaning of either to save from sins (common Christian usage of the term) and also defined as to deliver or rescue from peril.

Now, if we go by the Traditional Christian teaching, we see that the concept and doctrine of Grace applies to the fact that Jesus came to save mankind from their sins, and freeing humanity from the effects of the fall that had transpired with Adam. Man could not save himself from his own sins, no matter how faithful he is to the commandments of God.

However, there is much more to the concept, doctrine, and Biblical teaching of Grace that many modern evangelical Christians refuse to understand, or are ignorant of and unable to understand.

Latter-day Saints agree - without Christ, there would be no salvation from Sin. However, as previously discussed in my earlier post, there also would not be salvation from death - both physical and spiritual.

Keep in mind how you traditionally understand the term from the traditional Christian perspective.

Let us now consider the Mormon perspective and interpretation and see how it is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Romans 5:12, the Apostle Paul states that by one man, Sin entered into the world. Calvinists teach that because of Adam's transgression, humanity became depraved and unable to rightly choose to follow and believe in God. Despite this, what we see is Paul making a profound observation. When Adam sinned against God, it was because he transgressed the law. So, what we have to do is look at the context of the fall and see exactly how it affected humanity. Unlike the Calvinists, Paul does not say that Sin reigned from from Adam to Moses, but that Death reigned from Adam to Moses. We have to carefully understand Paul's words in the context of how he was using them and developing his argument. It is when we understand Paul's true message of Grace, Justification, and Faith, we are able to understand the full intent of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Paul further states that because of Adam, all were made sinners, meaning that humanity has the propensity to sin. A volition of Will. The ability to choose obedience and righteousness over wickedness and depravity.

What is important here is that Paul equates that because of Adam's sin, death entered into the world. Death is the peril and result of sin. Whether this result is from a physical perspective or a spiritual perspective, sin causes death. One example would be the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona. The shooter used his moral agency to commit a heinous crime that took a handful of lives. His volition caused death to come upon those people he murdered. This is physical death. Cain exercised his moral agency where he murdered his brother. A final example is mortality where every person born into this world will eventually die. Death is no respecter of persons. Even the Bible says that our days are numbered from the time our mortal life begins, to the time we finally close our lives.

The second part of death is that of spiritual death. This one was immediately followed after Adam's transgression. Christians and Latter-day saints agree that Spiritual death is the separation of humanity from God. Mormon's call this the second death.

Now, if Christ had not come to provide the necessary sacrifice, humanity will face physical and spiritual death - in that he will cease to exist. No hope for immortality. No hope for Eternal Life.

It is when we understand this that we come to see that when grace is applied in the context of salvation, we are delivered or rescued from the perils of sin and death. This is where grace is applied. Since we are unable to provide the necessary sacrifice for our sins, and since we do not possess the power to lay down our lives and take it up again in resurrection form, then it is by this means we understand the true meaning of grace. The Grace of God saves us from the effects of Sin and Death, more specifically, it is the means by which we are saved from the perils and rescued from the cause of spiritual death.

Therefore, when we look at the Greek word "atonement" that Paul uses in Romans 5 is defined in two forms - one of monetary understanding, and the other of being reconciled to God. The second definition is referring to one having a difference adjusted, restored to favor, and reconciled.

Thus, when Mormon's refer to the Atonement of Christ, we are referring to the restoration of mankind to his previous favor. What was his previous favor? We only go back to the context of the Garden of Eden. Man existed with an immortal body that comprised of both physical and spiritual matter. Thus, the atonement of Christ, and the doctrine of Grace mean that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ delivers and rescues humanity from the perils of sin and death by restoring humanity's favor in God's eyes. The atonement becomes two-fold - reconciling of humanity through the sacrifice of Christ and saving mankind from the perils of physical and spiritual death. Physical death meaning that mankind will be resurrected in the same manner that Christ was resurrected, and that humanity has the capacity to overcome spiritual death.

Thus, Atonement and the doctrine of Grace are a couplet. And, the Christian traditional understanding is only a partial understanding of this, whereas the Mormon teaching is the full picture of how the Atonement works, why the atonement is necessary, and to what extent the atonement is applied to when it concerns the salvation of humanity.

[CV75]

something received in exchange for something we give.

Grace is something given freely.

Grace is both: on one hand, it is expressed by the resurrection as a free gift regardless of what we do; on the other, it is expressed by spiritual life on the condition of gospel principles (which is still a free gift from God because Jesus

[Hughes]

Matthew 10:8 "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

It is the free nature of what we have received, that makes it remarkable and engenders true inner change in our selves.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

The world always expects a return or payment on what it gives. Jesus gives to us because of his unconditional love for us. He gives us peace, not as the world gives (expecting something in return), but freely with no strings attached.

We see this same principle at work in life. He gives us air to breath, and food to eat, whether we follow him or praise him or not.

The Gospel is good news, because it's exactly the same principle applied. He saved us, while we were yet sinners, he died for us. We did nothing to earn and in fact could do nothing to earn it.

[coolrok7]

ELF1024:

In the (now closed) Grace In Sacrament Meeting thread, consiglieri, suggested that we do not teach Grace enough or do not emphasize Grace enough. Now, in his defense, it doesn't appear that Grace is a word that gets thrown around alot in our worship. A seach of the Gospel Principles Manual only turned up THREE references to Grace. . . .Now in our defense, we don't seem to talk about Grace as such, but we talk about The Atonement. . . .Now IMHO this appears to cover what I understand to be the Evanglical concept of Grace. Do you agree? Or Disagree? and Why?

In light of the desire of the board moderators in their design for these board discussions, I

[ElfLord]

Matthew 10:8 "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

It is the free nature of what we have received, that makes it remarkable and engenders true inner change in our selves.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

The world always expects a return or payment on what it gives. Jesus gives to us because of his unconditional love for us. He gives us peace, not as the world gives (expecting something in return), but freely with no strings attached.

We see this same principle at work in life. He gives us air to breath, and food to eat, whether we follow him or praise him or not.

The Gospel is good news, because it's exactly the same principle applied. He saved us, while we were yet sinners, he died for us. We did nothing to earn and in fact could do nothing to earn it.

If there are "no strings attached".... why do all the Apostles attach so much string?

Romans 10

9 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.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

What exactly is "believing unto righteousness"?

Heres another string attached by Paul...

Romans 12:1

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Why is Paul requiring service in return for Gods grace? If there are no strings attached?

Jesus also attaches strings...

Mark 13:13

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name

[jadams_4242]

Matthew 10:8 "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

It is the free nature of what we have received, that makes it remarkable and engenders true inner change in our selves.

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you."

The world always expects a return or payment on what it gives. Jesus gives to us because of his unconditional love for us. He gives us peace, not as the world gives (expecting something in return), but freely with no strings attached.

We see this same principle at work in life. He gives us air to breath, and food to eat, whether we follow him or praise him or not.

The Gospel is good news, because it's exactly the same principle applied. He saved us, while we were yet sinners, he died for us. We did nothing to earn and in fact could do nothing to earn it.

ssssooo arent we leaving a few things out? like all the things we have been instructed even if only in the bible? if it were nothing more than grace, there would be no need for the hundreds of other instructions,, am i right or am i right?

[Zakuska]

ssssooo arent we leaving a few things out? like all the things we have been instructed even if only in the bible? if it were nothing more than grace, there would be no need for the hundreds of other instructions,, am i right or am i right?

You are spot on.

Do you know what "grace-alone" preaching begets?

It breeds non-god-fearing sinners prancing all over the Holy Throne of God who don't fear judgtment day, they are covered in his holy blood after all, and they think he can't see them. As evidenced by this post from another board.

You do not understand the different judgements. The Bema Seat Judgment of Christ takes place in Heaven right after the Rapture and is to award crowns to Church Age believers for the things we

[Hughes]

If there are "no strings attached".... why do all the Apostles attach so much string?

Romans 10

9 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.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

What exactly is "believing unto righteousness"?

Heres another string attached by Paul...

Romans 12:1

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Why is Paul requiring service in return for Gods grace? If there are no strings attached?

Jesus also attaches strings...

Mark 13:13

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name