Need Direction From Knowers

[mfbukowski]

Well, since predestination is in the Bible, that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I don't like the way he put it, but overall, I'd say Zerinus was right.

Edited to add quote

[zerinus]

CFR. I don't mind a non-evangelical disputing what I, an evangelical scholar, say is the evangelical doctrine, but if you're going to do so, you should provide evidence from recognized evangelical sources for your understanding of evangelical doctrine. This you did not do. (Even though I am an evangelical, I provided quotations from Luther and Calvin showing that what I said was representative of evangelical theology.) Therefore, I am officially issuing a CFR to you to show that what I said misrepresents evangelical doctrine.

Well, the impression I get is that the OP is himself confused about the kind of question he is asking. I agree that the doctrine of grace itself is not incompatible with a “works-oriented” theology—nor is it incompatible with scripture. The Catholics also believe in the efficacy of grace, and in the necessity or importance of voluntary good works. Catholicism is a grace based theology—although the Protestants have tried to paint them otherwise.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, are recognized as being primarily a “faith-oriented” theology. In spite of their belief in the “five solas,” it is “faith alone” that distinguishes their theology primarily from the rest; and that is what is incompatible with scripture, because the scriptures emphasize the necessity and importance of voluntary good works in God’s scheme of salvation. So it appears that the real question that the OP is puzzling over is how to reconcile a “faith alone” theology with “sola scriptura,” not how to reconcile “works-oriented” theology with “sola gratia,” because the latter is not an issue that is in dispute as far as I know, either by Catholics or by Protestants (or Mormons for that matter).

Furthermore, it is obvious that you had also realized his mistake, and proceeded to answer the question that he had failed to articulate properly, rather than the one which he had actually asked. The two quotes you gave from Luther and Calvin do not address the question he had asked, but the one that he apparently meant to ask, but failed to articulate:

"If works and love do not blossom forth, it is not genuine faith, the gospel has not yet gained a foothold, and Christ is not yet rightly known" (Martin Luther).

"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion)

This doesn’t answer the question that the OP had asked, but the question that he apparently meant to ask. It answers the question of how to reconcile the scripture emphasis of good works with the Evangelical doctrine “faith alone”. And of course, it is a typical Evangelical answer. It teaches what I said it does, that good works is not something that you need to do in order to meet the criteria of salvation; but something that happens to your if you just have faith. If you fail in the “works” department, according to the Evangelical theology, it means that you didn’t really have faith in the first place, otherwise the works would have automatically followed. “Faith” is the only thing that really matters in the end. If you have that, then you are guaranteed salvation.

And why do I say that your post misrepresents the Evangelical position? Because it doesn’t make that clear. It makes it sound as if the Evangelicals believe in efficacy of voluntary good works in the process of salvation, which of course they don’t. Now if your rally want me to find you quotes to prove that, I am sure I can; but I don’t think I need to, because it is already well understood.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

It took until the very end of your rambling reply to get around to answering the question of just what I am supposed to have misrepresented in evangelical doctrine. You wrote:

And why do I say that your post misrepresents the Evangelical position? Because it doesn’t make that clear. It makes it sound as if the Evangelicals believe in efficacy of voluntary good works in the process of salvation, which of course they don’t. Now if your rally want me to find you quotes to prove that, I am sure I can; but I don’t think I need to, because it is already well understood.

I do not see how anyone could reasonably think I had misrepresented the evangelical position. I clearly stated that "the historic evangelical doctrine of sola gratia insists on good works as the fruit of God's grace in salvation." The term "fruit" made it quite clear that our good works do not have any "efficacy...in the process of salvation," i.e., good works do not help to effect or bring about salvation.

[zerinus]

I do not see how anyone could reasonably think I had misrepresented the evangelical position. I clearly stated that "the historic evangelical doctrine of sola gratia insists on good works as the fruit of God's grace in salvation." The term "fruit" made it quite clear that our good works do not have any "efficacy...in the process of salvation," i.e., good works do not help to effect or bring about salvation.

I will tell you why it does. It misleading because it is evasive and does not really address the OP question. As I said, the OP appears to be utterly confused about the kind of question he is asking; but once you have peeled back all the confusion, and got to the core of his question (which you have done), it becomes obvious that the real question he is asking is the very thing that you are taking for granted—i.e. that good works is the “fruit” of faith and not a requirement of salvation. His reading of the scriptures (and one that I agree with) is that good works is not just a fruit of faith, or something that just happens to you because you have faith; but something that you must be pro-actively engaged in, in order to be saved. To answer his question honestly, you need to explain to him why you believe that core Evangelical doctrine is scriptural, which you haven’t done. You have merely stated it as a fact, which doesn’t really answer the OP question.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Good grief. The author of the opening post seemed to think I had addressed his question, or at least the question he intended to ask. He did not find my answer evasive (and he often takes issue with things I say!). He asked how evangelicals understand the passage in Matthew 25 in relation to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, and I answered that question. That you don't agree with my understanding of the passage does not mean I evaded the question.

There are some people here who understand that it is possible to disagree with someone's viewpoint without viewing them as lying, deceiving, evasive, or otherwise dishonest. I will try to focus my energies on dialogue with such reasonable people.

I will tell you why it does. It misleading because it is evasive and does not really address the OP question. As I said, the OP appears to be utterly confused about the kind of question he is asking; but once you have peeled back all the confusion, and got to the core of his question (which you have done), it becomes obvious that the real question he is asking is the very thing that you are taking for granted—i.e. that good works is the “fruit” of faith and not a requirement of salvation. His reading of the scriptures (and one that I agree with) is that good works is not just a fruit of faith, or something that just happens to you because you have faith; but something that you must be pro-actively engaged in, in order to be saved. To answer his question honestly, you need to explain to him why you believe that core Evangelical doctrine is scriptural, which you haven’t done. You have merely stated it as a fact, which doesn’t really answer the OP question.

[mfbukowski]

Mr Bowman

What I don't understand is why does the expression of faith it takes to "Accept Christ as savior" not itself count as a "good work"?

It seems to be a decision taken on freely- indeed if one does not make this decision, your belief is.... whatever it is- clearly there will be negative consequences if the individual is not "saved". (Hellfire I guess?)

So it is a positive action which could have negative consequences if not done, but somehow it does not count as a "good work" if it IS done?

To me, any voluntary act like this would be a "good work", thereby making "good works" somehow a prerequisite for being saved.

I honestly don't get it at all.

[Vance]

I thought that is what I did. The OP asks a question that relates to Evangelical doctrine. The question is framed to refer to Evangelical theology. Rob gives a misleading answer. He portrays Evangelical theology other than what it is. I wrote to correct his misrepresentation. I am not aware that I broke any rules in doing so.

CFR. I don't mind a non-evangelical disputing what I, an evangelical scholar, say is the evangelical doctrine, but if you're going to do so, you should provide evidence from recognized evangelical sources for your understanding of evangelical doctrine.

Well, to paraphrase Bowman, "There is substantial basis in the teachings of LDS Church prophetsEvangelical preachers and websites to support that characterization.

[zerinus]

Good grief. The author of the opening post seemed to think I had addressed his question, or at least the question he intended to ask. He did not find my answer evasive (and he often takes issue with things I say!). He asked how evangelicals understand the passage in Matthew 25 in relation to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, and I answered that question. That you don't agree with my understanding of the passage does not mean I evaded the question.

Given his confused questioning, I am not surprised that he doesn't realize that his question has not been answered. I have also expressed my views on both his questions and your answers, and why I don’t think you have answered his question. How you want to take it forward from there is up to you. It is an open forum, and other people are reading our posts, and can make up their minds about the exchanges.

There are some people here who understand that it is possible to disagree with someone's viewpoint without viewing them as lying, deceiving, evasive, or otherwise dishonest. I will try to focus my energies on dialogue with such reasonable people.

I don’t really care how you choose to respond to my posts—or whether you chose to respond to them at all. But if you thought you were going to scare me off with these kinds of tactics, you have another thing coming. I don’t get intimidated by your kind of bombastic talk. I will continue to respond to your posts from time to time whether you like it or not, or whether you choose to reply to them or not—which most of the time you don’t, because you have no answer to them. I will respond to your posts for the benefit of others, not necessarily yours; and I couldn't care less whether you choose to reply to them or not.

[Vance]

Mr Bowman

What I don't understand is why does the expression of faith it takes to "Accept Christ as savior" not itself count as a "good work"?

It seems to be a decision taken on freely- indeed if one does not make this decision, your belief is.... whatever it is- clearly there will be negative consequences if the individual is not "saved". (Hellfire I guess?)

So it is a positive action which could have negative consequences if not done, but somehow it does not count as a "good work" if it IS done?

To me, any voluntary act like this would be a "good work", thereby making "good works" somehow a prerequisite for being saved.

I honestly don't get it at all.

Around and around they go.

As far as I can tell, and I have interacted with many evangelicals, they want to flatter the Lord by saying that He does it ALL (and they say and mean ALL) (as if the Lord is susceptible to flattery) and all we have to DO (there is that word again) is simply accept His gift of salvation. But even then, He doesn't do it ALL because He doesn't make us choose to accept His gift, we must DO (there is that word again) it.

Well, either the Lord does it all or He doesn't. You can't have it both ways. If He does it ALL, then it is a WASTE OF TIME for any Evangelical to "spread" the gospel. Presenting the gospel to someone is a WASTE OF TIME because the Lord does it all for them.

If He doesn't do it ALL, then the individual MUST DO SOMETHING (there is that word again), so then we are left to quibbling over what that effort (implying a work) must be.

[zerinus]

The problem arises when a religion teaches that you must "follow" the lifeguard by swimming the English Channel behind him in order to make it back to the King's Country.

But of course I know of no religion which would require that. Another one of your little slaps I suppose.

There is substantial basis in the teachings of LDS Church prophets to support that characterization.

There is no such “evidence”. Mormonism teaches as a top priority the doctrine of repentance, as Jesus and His disciples did. It is a prerequisite for salvation, without a shadow of a doubt. And to repent means to stop doing whatever you are doing wrong, and start doing whatever you should be doing right. That is repentance, and that is what Mormonism teaches. It is a biblical doctrine 100%.

[3DOP]

I appreciate you pointing this out about Catholicism, but what I don't understand, and what I think goes to the heart of the OP, is that if indeed even if we receive faith as a free gift from God, which as you say, "initiates our justification", how can we be responsible for anything we do?

If we require God's grace to do anything praiseworthy- why should we be praised at all, since it is grace working in us anyway?

It is almost as if we are "graced" automatons programmed to do whatever is right while at the same time, inheriting original sin.

The image that occurs to be is that if this is correct, we are like little balls in a great cosmic pinball game between Grace and original sin, and really cannot be praised or blamed much for anything we do, and if that is the case, one wonders what place, if any, "free will" has at all.

I know you don't want to argue about it, and frankly neither do I.

I am just wondering if you would like to modify your characterization of Catholic doctrine, or correct my understanding if I am off base.

Hi mfbukowski.

Good questions. I don't think I know the answers. Nonetheless, no modifications.

I can not explain how we believe. I can defend it scripturally, but I don't know how it works. I suppose you could check out the Summa of St. Thomas but I doubt you'd be satisfied. I am sure it has been discussed. I just guarantee what we think has been revealed about grace and freedom. Don't we all have "how questions" regarding our theologies that seem difficult to reason about anyway? Maybe Mormons don't. I dunno. Good on you if that is the case. You have to hand it to us though, at least we aren't "hellenizing" this time!

Regards,

Rory

[USU78]

]Well, the impression I get is that the OP is himself confused about the kind of question he is asking.

z, you have no idea what I do and don't understand nor, apparently, the purpose of my OP. I'll thank you to knock off the headshrinking/mindreading.

Keep it civil, please. I have invited our guests to interact on a crucial question with far-reaching implications for us all. This is an area that has frequently spawned knife fights. Let's not be egging the other guy on into drawing his Arkansas toothpicker.

[Bernard Gui]

USU78,

The doctrine of sola gratia is not opposed to "doing." It does not discourage believers from doing. In fact, the historic evangelical doctrine of sola gratia insists on good works as the fruit of God's grace in salvation:

"If works and love do not blossom forth, it is not genuine faith, the gospel has not yet gained a foothold, and Christ is not yet rightly known" (Martin Luther).

"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion)

Do believers choose to do the good works that are the fruit of God's grace in salvation?

The root of the unfaithful servant's problem was that he did not trust the Lord. He regarded him as a hard taskmaster and actively chose not to serve him. Anyone professing faith in Christ but having such a hard heart toward him is fooling himself.

If the unfaithful servant actively chose not to serve the Lord, did the faithful servant actively choose to serve him?

Note that the consequence for this fellow's unbelieving attitude and behavior was not a consolation prize of life in a lower kingdom, but banishment to the outer darkness, where he will be wailing and gnashing his teeth (Matt. 25:30). Jesus' parable, consistent with the rest of the Bible, pictures two destinations for human beings: God's kingdom, and some other place where you definitely do not want to go.

Are you saying the servants chose where they wanted to go...heaven or ****? If so, how did they demonstrate that choice? Did they choose the elements of their demonstration?

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

Given his confused questioning, I am not surprised that he doesn't realize that his question has not been answered.

You are just plain obnoxious. You don't know who you are dealing with here. USU has more brains.... nevermind.

[mfbukowski]

Hi mfbukowski.

Good questions. I don't think I know the answers. Nonetheless, no modifications.

Fair enough, no problem, Bro!

[LeSellers]

The root of the unfaithful servant's problem was that he did not trust the Lord. He regarded him as a hard taskmaster and actively chose not to serve him. Anyone professing faith in Christ but having such a hard heart toward him is fooling himself.

It is illustrative to note that the master in this parable not only does not contradict his slothful servant, but corroborates his assessment.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

Usury, btw, was against the Law of Moses, as I recall.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Seems to me that the Lord was saying that He fully expected the servants, all three of them, to do something with the talents the master allotted them during his absence. It was not a matter of not trusting the master, it was genuine fear that he, the third servant, would be punished if he failed to deliver at least the talent with which he had been entrusted.

The other two servants were not, in their turn, rewarded equally, either. In fact the one who received the greatest reward for his own diligence was also super rewarded by the receipt of the slothful servant's talent (and presumably, his city, too).

30 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

This parable does not support the sola gratia error at all, rather much the contrary.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

You are just plain obnoxious. You don't know who you are dealing with here. USU has more brains.... nevermind.

z, you have no idea what I do and don't understand nor, apparently, the purpose of my OP. I'll thank you to knock off the headshrinking/mindreading.

Keep it civil, please. I have invited our guests to interact on a crucial question with far-reaching implications for us all. This is an area that has frequently spawned knife fights. Let's not be egging the other guy on into drawing his Arkansas toothpicker.

Sorry. I responded before I saw that other post.