Aaron Shafovaloff and 2 Nephi 25:23

[Vance]

The most consistent answer that I can find in Scripture simply says to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31), or rather, exhibiting a faith in Jesus Christ, which, noted, is not merely believing that God exists or that there was a Jesus. Rather, that Jesus atoned for your sins and that through him you can be saved by Grace, even though you don't deserve it.

?????

How do you "exhibit" something that is internal ({believing} that Jesus atoned for your sins and that through him you can be saved by Grace, even though you don't deserve it)?

[WalkerW]

rather I see your doctrine of exaltation (which isn't in the BoM, granted) to be the primary difference.

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one" (3 Nephi 28:10).

If this is not exaltation, I don't know what is.

[WalkerW]

No, I would say that the only condition for salvation is faith

Which, as I've explained elsewhere, was loyalty, commitment, engagement, etc. This is action.

No, I'm saying that a true Christian - one who has been baptized into Christ Jesus - will make these decisions because "God disciplines the ones that He loves" (Hebrews 12) for "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10) It's the same principle as a father and son; the father is going to do everything he can to compel his son to be obedient and to grow up to be a man of character; it's not an infringement on that child's free will to influence his thinking. He's a child and needs to be shown the right path to walk on.

The point is that you believe in eternal security. No good works are required prior to being saved. No human effort is required prior to being saved. And the only reason good works happen is because you've been "saved." This, I believe, is what makes the Protestant understanding of salvation arbitrary to Maklelan.

The Mormon understanding recognizes salvation as a process, not an event from which you are eternally secure.

Salvation is given to those who have faith in Jesus Christ

But what is faith? Is it just belief? If faith comes before salvation and good works come after, you have separated the two. Faith becomes a mere intellectual assent. Do you have to believe in things like the Trinity, creatio ex nihilo, etc. to have the "true" Jesus and thus "true" faith?

I think these are some of the things Maklelan is getting at.

[WalkerW]

Random bit of information: The terms "grace" and "faith" had roots in the client-patron system. To borrow from my paper:

Grace (Greek charis) in New Testament times was not a uniquely religious term, but one of secular usage also. In the Greco-Roman world, reciprocity was a key component to society and operated by means of client-patron systems. When one was unable to access a particular need, individuals who did have access were petitioned. David DeSilva, Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland University, provides this overview:

If the patron granted the petition, the petitioner would become the client of the patron and a potentially long-term relationship would begin. This relationship would be marked by the mutual exchange of desired goods and services, the patron being available for assistance in the future, the client doing everything in his or her power to enhance the fame and honor of the patron

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one" (3 Nephi 28:10).

If this is not exaltation, I don't know what is.

I stand corrected. I forgot about this verse. I will state the BoM does not teach it as much as the bible does.

[volgadon]

nevermind.

[TAO]

IT is true that it is really not in the BoM however it is every were in the bible.

This will be rather off topic but... you know I can show you several places where it is in the BoM... just talked of rather obscurely =).

'Nother thread perhaps?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This will be rather off topic but... you know I can show you several places where it is in the BoM... just talked of rather obscurely =).

'Nother thread perhaps?

Yeah, I corrected my statement. It is just more talked about in the bible.

[TAO]

Yeah, I corrected my statement. It is just more talked about in the bible.

Na, what I meant was would you like me to post some of them in another thread? Because I notice many think they aren't in the BoM (I knew you already knew there were), and it might be helpful.

Should I create a thread for it? (I'm asking your opinion on whether it's a good idea )

[WalkerW]

Na, what I meant was would you like me to post some of them in another thread? Because I notice many think they aren't in the BoM (I knew you already knew there were), and it might be helpful.

Should I create a thread for it? (I'm asking your opinion on whether it's a good idea )

Go for it.

[Brad]

Sorry Brad, but I think you need to reword these statement because there is an internal conflict.

Compulsion is the opposite to "free will". Either you freely chose to be obedient or the obedience was compelled. It can't be both.

I wasn't meaning that God "compels" in the sense that makes us mindless robots who do whatever they're programmed to do. Rather I was meaning more so that God influences and persuades his own to live a godly life. That is what I meant by "compel". I can see why you thought that though, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10)

[Brad]

"And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one" (3 Nephi 28:10).

If this is not exaltation, I don't know what is.

I never said there weren't allusions to it, but certainly you would agree that there is not enough information present here that would be able to fortify the entire doctrine. That is what I meant when I said that exaltation wasn't taught in the Book of Mormon.

[WalkerW]

I never said there weren't allusions to it, but certainly you would agree that there is not enough information present here that would be able to fortify the entire doctrine. That is what I meant when I said that exaltation wasn't taught in the Book of Mormon.

I guess it depends on how you are defining "exaltation" because I don't see how the statement "ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father" is not enough to determine the deification of man.

[erichard]

I would never argue this. Honestly, believing in the Book of Mormon is not what causes me to see such a difference in worldview between LDS and Evangelicalism, rather I see your doctrine of exaltation (which isn't in the BoM, granted) to be the primary difference. To an evangelical worldview, this idea is so foreign that it causes many people to cringe upon hearing it. But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Hi Brad,

Just a quick question about your comment. How do you, as an Evangelical, feel about the fourth century trinity creeds?

I can see how a believer in the immaterial God of the creeds cannot believe that becoming "Joint Heirs with Christ" actually means what it says. But I was not sure the Evangelicals completely bought into such Catholic understanding.

My faith, by the way, is that salvation does not come capriciously, but one must qualify for salvation. But the works and words that qualify one for salvation do not in any way replace the need for the atonement of Christ. Thus, salvation truly is by the grace of God, and not by any works.

I find the Prophet Joseph's "Articles of Faith" reflect what I read in the Bible. The 4th article says:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Richard

[Brad]

Which, as I've explained elsewhere, was loyalty, commitment, engagement, etc. This is action.

All of these things demonstrate faith externally and are evidence that one has faith, however, faith in itself is a simple trust/reliance. That is the most consistent definition of "pistis" that I have found among Greek scholars. Some do support your definition as well, but as with anything, it all depends on which scholars you want to believe.

The point is that you believe in eternal security. No good works are required prior to being saved. No human effort is required prior to being saved. And the only reason good works happen is because you've been "saved." This, I believe, is what makes the Protestant understanding of salvation arbitrary to Maklelan.

This is what the Scriptures compel me to believe; if you want to call it arbitrary you can. When one is "saved by Grace", they are given pre-ordained works that God prepared for them to walk in beforehand. This is what Scripture teaches.

The Mormon understanding recognizes salvation as a process, not an event from which you are eternally secure.

And this is a primary difference between LDS and my viewpoint (I note that it is my viewpoint because not all Protestant sects believe in eternal security). I believe I've explained myself on this before; anyone that "falls from grace" simply means that the seed of the Gospel was not planted in good soil.

But what is faith? Is it just belief?

It's not simply believing that God exists or that there was a Jesus, but rather putting your trust in Jesus to fully cover your sins.

If faith comes before salvation and good works come after, you have separated the two.

The idea of faith and works is separate, though. Although they cannot be separated in practice (True faith has the characteristic of faithfulness) they bring about different results. Faith brings justification. We are made righteous through our faith in Christ, not our faithfulness to Christ. If it were the latter, you would be left to guess whether or not you were "faithful" enough to merit Christ's righteousness. In my honest opinion, this idea just seems foreign to what I read in Scripture. Our works bring about "sanctification", which, granted, is a process. Both are parts of salvation, so I guess you could say that part of salvation is a process. Our justification, however, is not a process. The moment we have faith in Christ, we are justified.

And in response to the patron/client system you referred to, I believe you must view that in light of Scripture. I understand your argument, and my primary concern with it, in my own opinion, is that we can never return the kind of grace or favor to God that he truly deserves. God is in need of nothing. "...nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." (Acts 17:25)

This is why I believe Christ's act of grace by dying on the cross was so different than the traditional patron/client system: because it was conditioned by agape rather than by reciprocity. This is why this act of grace surpassed all other forms of the beneficence that was common of the time. Simply put, the unworthiness of those who Christ died for proposes a serious problem if you are choosing to compare this system of grace to the client/patron system of the time. While a patron would usually study the potential beneficiaries in order to anticipate whether a worthy response was possible or not, Christ never did this. In fact, thank God He didn't - because who then could be saved? We are all unprofitable servants, unable to "return grace" unto him, because everything we have was given to us by him.

[Brad]

Hi Brad,

Just a quick question about your comment. How do you, as an Evangelical, feel about the fourth century trinity creeds?

I can see how a believer in the immaterial God of the creeds cannot believe that becoming "Joint Heirs with Christ" actually means what it says. But I was not sure the Evangelicals completely bought into such Catholic understanding.

My faith, by the way, is that salvation does not come capriciously, but one must qualify for salvation. But the works and words that qualify one for salvation do not in any way replace the need for the atonement of Christ. Thus, salvation truly is by the grace of God, and not by any works.

I find the Prophet Joseph's "Articles of Faith" reflect what I read in the Bible. The 4th article says:

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Upon my study of the scriptures, I am convicted to believe in what is referred to as the Trinity. Not necessarily what people misunderstand it to be, however. I think many LDS mistake my beliefs for modalism, which says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate persons, but merely one acting in three different roles. Such is a heretical and laughable doctrine, as I do not believe Jesus was merely displaying some sort of divine ventriloquist act during his Baptism in which the Father said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

I do believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate persons. However, I do not believe this means we have three different Gods. I believe all three persons are fully and co-equally God. Notice I did not say that the son is co-equally God the Father or God the Spirit. They are all equally and fully God; the same in essence, but not in person. Or in other words, three "who's" and one "what". "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4). Now, this is not to say that they are are equal in terms of role. The Son answers to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. (Luke 22:42)

I believe this to be the scriptural interpretation of what is known as the Trinity. I understand many people misunderstand it and make it into something similar to Modalism, which absolutely makes no sense at all when viewed in light of the entirety of Scripture.

Hope that helps friend!

[TAO]

Go for it.

Erm... sorry it's not gonna be happening.

I started... but he wishes for me to study the so-said verse privately for now.

So maybe another time.

[maklelan]

No, I would say that the only condition for salvation is faith, in which God uses as an agent to credit Christ's perfect life unto the believer. This is what "justifies" him or her before God. Any attempts at righteousness of our own do not contribute to our right standing with the Father.

Would it be accurate to say that faith is the work that earns us salvation? If not, why not?

No, I'm saying that a true Christian - one who has been baptized into Christ Jesus - will make these decisions because "God disciplines the ones that He loves" (Hebrews 12) for "we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10) It's the same principle as a father and son; the father is going to do everything he can to compel his son to be obedient and to grow up to be a man of character; it's not an infringement on that child's free will to influence his thinking. He's a child and needs to be shown the right path to walk on.

But the child will occasionally stray from that path, just as the true Christian will not be perfect in following God's example. God does not force us to walk in good works. We must choose to do it. Either that choice influences our salvation or it does not. If it does, then works play a role in earning salvation. If it does not, then salvation will come to who it will come to absolutely irrespective of anything we do, say, or believe.

I sure hope not. If I have to earn my own salvation, I am in dire trouble. Salvation is not something to be earned, rather it is given to us even though we do not deserve it. Such is the meaning of grace. See Mosiah 2:21: "I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://www.greaterthings.com/Parallels/Commentary/2Nephi7v2Par2Ne25v23.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2010/11/evolution-of-faith.html

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Robert F. Smith]

Does he [ Or any LDS critic ] get it ?. Let the discussion begin - http://mrm.org/2-nephi-25-23

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Unfortunately, I think he nails it. There are different ways to interpret the verse, the grace oriented way that Stephen Robinson does, which I think is the more logical reading. But by far the most frequent interpretation of the verse, especially by GA's in conference or in official church publications, is the works oriented view. You really have no response to Shafovaloff if you take that interpretation. Very unfortunate.

The thing that is most remarkable about the comments of Shafovaloff and of others in this thread is the lack of citation of the Gospels.

Jesus' theology in his own words doesn't square at all with the doctrinaire approach of Shafovaloff, and this applies as well to the theology of Jesus' brother James the Just, whose epistle angered Martin Luther. For, faith without works is dead as a body without a soul. See Thorwald Lorenzen, "Faith Without Works Does Not Count Before God! James 2.14-26," Expository Times, 89/8 (May 1978), 231-235.

Jesus was a man of action who fully expected his followers to act in particular ways as proof of their love for him. This not only included specific ordinances which all (even Jesus himself) had to perform, along with acts of repentance and charity, but it entailed deep, sincere faith accompanied by private prayer. He offered a way of life based on full commitment. Jesus preached that full Gospel, which denominational churches ignore, offering instead warmed-over, selected aspects of Pauline theology, according to their individual tastes and proclivities. That was why a restoration of all things was so necessary.

[WalkerW]

Jesus was a man of action who fully expected his followers to act in particular ways as proof of their love for him. This not only included specific ordinances which all (even Jesus himself) had to perform, along with acts of repentance and charity, but it entailed deep, sincere faith accompanied by private prayer. He offered a way of life based on full commitment. Jesus preached that full Gospel, which denominational churches ignore, offering instead warmed-over, selected aspects of Pauline theology, according to their individual tastes and proclivities. That was why a restoration of all things was so necessary.

Here is an excerpt from my paper on love:

Returning to Robinson, he further explains,

[Ahab]

ik87j

All of these things demonstrate faith externally and are evidence that one has faith, however, faith in itself is a simple trust/reliance.

I understand you to be saying someone MUST have faith in Jesus Christ as a condition for salvation.

Am I understanding you correctly?

In my perspective,if there is ANYTHING someone must to do to be saved, then there are conditions to salvation, so even if ALL someone has to do is have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, they are doing what it takes to "EARN" their salvation... even if earning it is that easy.

[WalkerW]

All of these things demonstrate faith externally and are evidence that one has faith, however, faith in itself is a simple trust/reliance. That is the most consistent definition of "pistis" that I have found among Greek scholars. Some do support your definition as well, but as with anything, it all depends on which scholars you want to believe.

This is why I believe Christ's act of grace by dying on the cross was so different than the traditional patron/client system: because it was conditioned by agape rather than by reciprocity. This is why this act of grace surpassed all other forms of the beneficence that was common of the time. Simply put, the unworthiness of those who Christ died for proposes a serious problem if you are choosing to compare this system of grace to the client/patron system of the time. While a patron would usually study the potential beneficiaries in order to anticipate whether a worthy response was possible or not, Christ never did this. In fact, thank God He didn't - because who then could be saved? We are all unprofitable servants, unable to "return grace" unto him, because everything we have was given to us by him.

Maklelan addressed the rest, so I'll address this. The latest movement in New Testament studies incorporates the social sciences and many recognize that conversion from one deity to another has little to do with what passes as conversion today. To repent was to change loyalties/covenants or return to being loyal/the covenant. Faith was also a covenant term. Not only were you to trust and rely on your covenant partner, you were expected to be trustworthy and reliable to your own obligations. Herodotus used pistis to mean a military pledge, covenant, or treaty. Aesychylus recognized it as the credibility of an oath based on the integrity of the person. Plato used it as a pledge of loving friendship. Xenophon used it as faithfulness and fidelity. Aelian used it to mean faithful. Diodorus used it to mean the loyalty of 10,000 courageous kinsmen to Darius. Arrian wrote of Artabazus and sons receiving "honorable positions" due to their "loyalty" (pistis) to Darius. It is not so much "faith" as it is "faithfulness." That is action.

As for your comments on grace, grace was not some new thing discovered by Paul or Christians. Judaism was quite aware of it. Regarding agape, the New Testament not only uses patronal language, but that of kinship (e.g. household, marriage, etc.). Children anciently were understood to have incurred a debt from their parents that they could never repay, but it was considered virtuous and it was expected that they "repay the favors" of their childhood. They were to honor their parents in word and deed, remain loyal to them, and take care of them in their old age. Also, like father, like son goes back to ancient times. A child was expected to adopt the traditions and customs of his parents. A child of God was expected to adopt the attributes of God (see DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity, Chs. 5-6). Remember, Christ said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Reciprocity was foundational to ancient society (technically, it still is). It crossed boundaries, from family life to treaties. Gifts were expected to be reciprocated anciently.

[WalkerW]

Also, stating that grace and faith were terms rooted in the patron-client relationship is not necessarily meant to imply that our relationship with God is one of patron and client (though that seems to be the case in some instances of the New Testament). Other analogies are offered, including that of parent and child, bride and groom.

The point is that grace was a secular as well as religious term. It had a meaning that was known to the readers of the New Testament. It didn't magically change definitions once Jesus came. It didn't suddenly become, as one CARM poster put it-and I'm not making this up, "Christian grace." It had a meaning and was employed for that very reason. To try to make it into something else is to be unfaithful to the text and cultural context.