Is Sola Fide Consistent With Mormonism?

[seriously honestly]

But nonLDS in my experience often talk about "mansions" in heaven in much the same way we talk about the different kingdoms, and these mansions are a result of one's good works.

just for fun: http://www.rapturere...s/mansions.html

Oh I know. But in Christianity, everyone's "mansion" will be in one heaven (it would be like if you erase the idea of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms). No one with faith will be denied living with God in his Kingdom, but your rewards will vary when you get there.

btw, had I been drinking anything when I got down to the "Spiritually Immature Mansion", I'd be asking you for a new keyboard

Edited October 7, 2011 by seriously honestly

[Calm]

Oh I know. But in Christianity, everyone's "mansion" will be in one heaven (it would be like if you erase the idea of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms). No one with faith will be denied living with God in his Kingdom, but your rewards will vary when you get there.

btw, had I been drinking anything when I got down to the "Spiritually Immature Mansion", I'd be asking you for a new keyboard

I was debating whether to mention the difference or not, couldn't decide if it was relevant or not to my comment, I do agree with you that it is a significant difference. When at times a fellow LDS states that other Christians describe heaven the same way we describe the terrestrial kingdom, I always disagree and point out that we are missing what they view as the most important characteristic of heaven and that is the presence of the Father.

Yeah, I enjoyed that site. Who knew Evangelicals had a sense of humor.

Edited October 7, 2011 by calmoriah

[Doctrine 612]

I think "saved by grace" is a little bit different than sola fide. I know a lot more Mormons who are willing to agree that we are saved by the grace of Jesus, but they add on the unscriptural "after all we can do" part,.

what do you mean unscriptural it is found in 2nephi 25:23

[Anakin7]

what do you mean unscriptural it is found in 2nephi 25:23

Read in context within the few verses before and after 2Nephi 25:23 why is it 'unsriptural" ?

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive - http://strongreasons...r-all-we-can-do-

IN His Debt/Grace

ANAKIN7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited October 10, 2011 by Anakin7

[BCSpace]

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Superficially, a person who does God's will, will also know God's doctrine. But for a person to do God's will their is an underlying presumption that they know what God's will is. To know what God's will would require belief in God, ergo faith in God in some respect.

Sure, there is a desire to believe or to know, but in this case, doing the works produces faith no matter what the starting point.

[Cobalt-70]

what do you mean unscriptural it is found in 2nephi 25:23

2 Nephi 25:23 actually says the opposite of the idea that "all we can do" is part of what saves us. From the context it is saying that we are saved by grace, all we can do notwithstanding. Many Mormons, however, ignore the critical comma and the context to turn this on its head. They say that we are saved: (1) by grace, and (2) by doing all that we can do. This is what is unscriptural. The latter view is exemplified by this article by John A. Tvedtnes: http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Is_There_Salvation_by_Grace_Alone.html

[CV75]

2 Nephi 25:23 actually says the opposite of the idea that "all we can do" is part of what saves us. From the context it is saying that we are saved by grace, all we can do notwithstanding. Many Mormons, however, ignore the critical comma and the context to turn this on its head. They say that we are saved: (1) by grace, and (2) by doing all that we can do. This is what is unscriptural. The latter view is exemplified by this article by John A. Tvedtnes: http://www.fairlds.o...race_Alone.html

I think that both interpretations apply in light of the commandments to be perfect and turn to / serve / love God with all our heart, might mind and strength. As one becomes more justified and sanctified, the focus may be more on will than works, but they are ultimately inseparable.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that both interpretations apply in light of the commandments to be perfect and turn to / serve / love God with all our heart, might mind and strength. As one becomes more justified and sanctified, the focus may be more on will than works, but they are ultimately inseparable.

But in Mormonism, as in Protestantism, there is a distinction between justified and sanctified. I'm talking about justification, which is solely a matter of undeserved grace. Justification gets you into the kingdoms of glory, and even the most wicked people will be justified (except the sons of Perdition), because eventually "every tongue will confess" their faith in the afterlife. Sanctification comes gradually to those who have been justified, and results in holiness or perfection. Through sanctification you might achieve Celestial glory. Like justification, sanctification is a product of grace (see Moroni 10:33). However, the process of sanctification requires more than just faith. It requires works and "enduring to the end."

[CV75]

I'm talking about justification, which is solely a matter of undeserved grace.

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/j/50

“To be pardoned from punishment for sin and declared guiltless. A person is justified by the Savior’s grace through faith in him. This faith is shown by repentance and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Jesus Christ’s atonement enables mankind to repent and be justified or pardoned from punishment they otherwise would receive.”

In justification, grace follows faith, which is shown by repentance and obedience (works). The grace is evident in the atonement which allows that we can repent at all, so as to be pardoned at all, showing that the “after” in “after all we can do” carries both prepositional (conditional) and non-conditional (“notwithstanding”) meanings. The non-conditional part is that the atonement is universal and the only way out; the condition part is in the submission of the will to the Father. Justification is not solely by grace; but the role of the atonement in justification certainly came by grace.

Even those in the lowest kingdom of glory are justified to that degree, having submitted their will to the Father to that degree (knees bowing, tongues confessing).

[CV75]

...P.S. At any rate, either mode of understanding the verse will not keep anyone from progressing as the Lord intends since either mode will lead the pure in heart to the understanding and appreciation of the other.

[Cobalt-70]

In justification, grace follows faith, which is shown by repentance and obedience (works). The grace is evident in the atonement which allows that we can repent at all, so as to be pardoned at all, showing that the “after” in “after all we can do” carries both prepositional (conditional) and non-conditional (“notwithstanding”) meanings. The non-conditional part is that the atonement is universal and the only way out; the condition part is in the submission of the will to the Father. Justification is not solely by grace; but the role of the atonement in justification certainly came by grace.

At the point of being born again (i.e., the moment of true faith), nobody has done "all they can do." Likewise, at the moment when a person in the spirit world consents to follow Christ, this person has not yet done "all they can do." Therefore, I disagree with the "conditional" part.

To prove that something is not a condition, all you have to do is find one counterexample. Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon are filled with examples of people undergoing a true conversion (Alma the Younger, for example, or Paul) who have not yet "done" anything. That doesn't mean they are not justified. If it had turned out that Alma, for example, had reverted back to his wicked ways then we would know that he either did not really have faith and that his repentance was false, or that he had "fallen from grace." Also, at the moment of his conversion, Alma was justified, but he was not yet sanctified. His sanctification was something he worked out for the rest of his life.

[CV75]

At the point of being born again (i.e., the moment of true faith), nobody has done "all they can do." Likewise, at the moment when a person in the spirit world consents to follow Christ, this person has not yet done "all they can do." Therefore, I disagree with the "conditional" part.

There are two perspectives on these ideas.

Let’s say the point of being born again is the moment of true faith--though I disagree; it can be argued that it is not, as there are moments and a buildup of faith preceding this that are no less true, and increased faith must follow the knowledge gained from acting in faith. But for the sake of discussion (and speaking of grace in the delivery of blessings beyond the physical resurrection):

At the point of being born again (i.e., the moment of true faith), of course everyone has done "all they can do" as evidenced that they have indeed done all that they have done thus far, whether it appears to be much or little. Likewise, at the moment when a person in the spirit world consents to follow Christ, this person has also done "all he can do" (thus far).

I addressed this in posts #16 and #23. Every person that becomes born again or consents to follow Christ (in this life or the next) at one time or another experienced the light of Christ and acted upon it so that no matter how sinful they have become, the opportunity is still there to exercise faith. We even could go so far back as the pre-mortal existence and say that our birth into the fallen world is evidence that we did something beforehand to qualify us for a mortal life and a resurrection, even little children and others that cannot do much acting on the light of Christ unto exercising faith in this life.

Some may call responding to or acting upon the light of Christ a form of faith, but I believe it is more fundamental than faith, and serves as the basis/catalyst/fulcrum for faith in Christ and His commandments, but only after He is revealed, which is after one hears the authoritative preaching of the Gospel.

Because everyone is born with the light of Christ, and every accountable person has tasted and acted upon the light of Christ at some moment in their life, and this action precedes saving faith in Christ (and grace becomes evident to the recipient only after such actions have taken place and faith in Christ is developed,), grace saves us both after and notwithstanding all we can do.

"After" -- at a minimum, we have acted upon the light of Christ sufficiently to develop faith in Him and receive His grace (beyond the resurrection).

"Notwithstanding" -- we never could do do anything without divine strength/help/mercy/love, which in this world is expressed through the Atonement.

[DBMormon]

With all the talk of differentiating between Salvation and Exhaltation, It might be good to keep the following quote in mind

“Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek.”- Bruce R McConkie

Edited May 16, 2012 by reelmormon

[Anakin7]

WE Are Saved By True Grace [charis] Alone through True Faith [pistis] alone.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited May 16, 2012 by Anakin7

[CASteinman]

Sola Fide is a false doctrine that emerges from both hatred of certain observed Works and from an ignorance, long developing by centuries of spiritual darkness, regarding the full nature of Faith.

[Cobalt-70]

Sola Fide is a false doctrine that emerges from both hatred of certain observed Works and from an ignorance, long developing by centuries of spiritual darkness, regarding the full nature of Faith.

Hatred and ignorance? Those are strong words for a doctrine that was taught from the pulpit at General Conference as late as 1899: "When we are in favor of the doctrine of Christ we manifest our faith by our works, and consequently are saved by grace and are justified by faith, because we manifest our faith by our works." (George Teasdale).

[CASteinman]

Hatred and ignorance? Those are strong words for a doctrine that was taught from the pulpit at General Conference as late as 1899: "When we are in favor of the doctrine of Christ we manifest our faith by our works, and consequently are saved by grace and are justified by faith, because we manifest our faith by our works." (George Teasdale).

Well, if only George Teasdale had been preaching Sola Fide (oh so long ago) you might have some smidgen of a point. But that is not Sola Fide. It is not the Sola Fide of modern protestantism, nor is it the Sola Fide of Luther.

[Cobalt-70]

Well, if only George Teasdale had been preaching Sola Fide (oh so long ago) you might have some smidgen of a point. But that is not Sola Fide. It is not the Sola Fide of modern protestantism, nor is it the Sola Fide of Luther.

"Modern Protestantism" is a very large tent, and not everybody agrees with Martin Luther. Elder Teasdale was teaching something more like what John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) taught: "But we all maintain, we are not saved without works; that works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of Him."

Edited May 17, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

"Modern Protestantism" is a very large tent, and not everybody agrees with Martin Luther. Elder Teasdale was teaching something more like what John Wesley (the founder of Methodism) taught: "But we all maintain, we are not saved without works; that works are a condition (though not the meritorious cause) of salvation. It is by faith in the righteousness and blood of Christ that we are enabled to do all good works; and it is for the sake of these that all who fear God and work righteousness are accepted of Him."

Again, that is not Sola Fide. :: Shrug :: I don't know what to say.

[Cobalt-70]

Again, that is not Sola Fide. :: Shrug :: I don't know what to say.

Ask a Methodist whether John Wesley believed in sola fide, and tell me what they say.

[CASteinman]

Ask a Methodist whether John Wesley believed in sola fide, and tell me what they say.

I don't care about that. I am responding to your quotes. Which are not expressing "sola fide", regardless of what some benighted Methodist Minister may say.

Moreover, it is quite clear that Wesley re-interpreted the word "Sola" (or Solus) differently from Luther -- or even from the classical meaning of the word. His version is not really "Sola". It is, rather, "Prima". He taught "Prima Fide" but was willing, for whatever reason, to use words that people expected to hear on the somewhat rare instances where this term came up for him.

[CV75]

God's plan is that all His children are saved in the highest kingdom. In execution, not all are exalted because it (the plan) hinges on a covenant in which not all, upon fair testing, choose to place their full faith. If this is sola fide, then maybe the basis of that is "sola agency" and the basis of that "sola Christ" -- so I find it hard to view Mormonism as segragting any one principle by which we are saved from the others.

I suppose if one's personal view of sola fide fits with Mormonism, then they would happily join the Church.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't care about that. I am responding to your quotes. Which are not expressing "sola fide", regardless of what some benighted Methodist Minister may say.

Moreover, it is quite clear that Wesley re-interpreted the word "Sola" (or Solus) differently from Luther -- or even from the classical meaning of the word. His version is not really "Sola". It is, rather, "Prima". He taught "Prima Fide" but was willing, for whatever reason, to use words that people expected to hear on the somewhat rare instances where this term came up for him.

There is a very subtle distinction that I don't think you are recognizing between sola fide and prima fide. John Wesley taught sola fide because it was ultimately faith that he believed was the cause of the receipt of God's grace. Works were necessary only because "faith without works is dead"--in other words, anyone who has received God's grace, through faith, will perform good works. If you don't perform good works, then you did not truly have faith. He was not being disingenuous when he said "faith alone."

Besides, this is not different from what Martin Luther taught. Luther said, "We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." He also said, "Faith changes us and makes us to be born anew of God....Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him his grace; and thus it is impossible to separate works from faith; quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires."

[CASteinman]

There is a very subtle distinction that I don't think you are recognizing between sola fide and prima fide. John Wesley taught sola fide because it was ultimately faith that he believed was the cause of the receipt of God's grace. Works were necessary only because "faith without works is dead"--in other words, anyone who has received God's grace, through faith, will perform good works. If you don't perform good works, then you did not truly have faith. He was not being disingenuous when he said "faith alone."

Besides, this is not different from what Martin Luther taught. Luther said, "We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." He also said, "Faith changes us and makes us to be born anew of God....Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him his grace; and thus it is impossible to separate works from faith; quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires."

I don't know how it is me who is missing the distinction, when I am the one who actually mentions it and brought it up.

And Wesley did not teach Sola Fide -- except that he (almost never) sometimes used the phrase.

What do you think Sola Fide is?