Is Sola Fide Consistent With Mormonism?

[Log]

CASt, would you not agree that we are saved by Jesus on the condition of repentance?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

CASt, would you not agree that we are saved by Jesus on the condition of repentance?

That is absolutely one of the conditions He has expressed. There are more. Some people kick against His demands. But ... He is Lord. I am hopeful of His Mercy.

[Cobalt-70]

CFR on the notion that there is a "modern version".

By "modern version," I was just making a distinction between the "grace + works" theology of Bruce R. McConkie and the church's 19th century "grace + works" theology, also known as blood atonement.

[Cobalt-70]

cobalt70:

"It's just that thanks to Bruce R. McConkie, most of us now believe that salvation comes through works also."

It is a concept right out of the Bible.

James 2:14-26

James 2:14-26 talks about the relationship between works and faith, not works and grace. It does not argue with sola gratia--it does not say that anybody is saved by anything other than the grace and atonement of Christ.

On the issue of faith vs. works, there could be some tension between the book of James and the writings of Paul. The author of the James epistle said that Abraham was justified by his faith and his works, whereas Paul said that Abraham was justified by his faith only, and not by his works. (Rom. 4:1-5).

The way that most Protestants understand this apparent contradiction is to look contextually at the language of James. It says that "faith without works is "dead." It notes, "Seest thou how faith wrought with [Abraham's] works, and by works was faith made perfect?" It also says, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without they works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." So the author of James is teaching in these verses that works is what perfects, or completes, faith. Works, in the Protestant view, are a demonstration of faith, and if you do not show good works, you do not have a "living" or "saving" faith.

Catholics, on the other hand, understand this apparent contradiction by limiting the term "works," whenever Paul says the word, only to works under the law of Moses. Yet Catholics still understand salvation to come through the grace of Jesus alone. But Catholics do not go so far as McConkie, in saying that Christ's grace alone cannot save us, and that grace + works is required. You might say that Catholics believe in "faith + works," but disagree strongly with "grace + works." As far as I am aware, no Christian faith believes in grace + works, other than Youngist and McConkieist Mormonism.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

That is interesting. In context, Brigham was teaching there might be a way out for them who had committed the unpardonable sin. It's quite acceptable, I suppose, if you wish to contradict him - though I'm not sure why you, of all posters, would want to.

Like Smith, Young believed that once you commit the unpardonable sin, all is lost. Rather, Young envisioned that blood atonement might save someone before they got to the point of committing the unpardonable sin. There is a list of sins that Young and his First Presidency taught were unreachable by the atonement of Jesus. They included adultery, murder, breaking temple covenants, and miscegenation. As Christ's atonement did not cover these sins, a human sacrifice was required.

Well, I went looking at the Bible Dictionary to see if your characterization could be supported. It doesn't appear so.

The Bible Dictionary says that grace is a "divine means of help or strength," and that it is "through the grace of the Lord that individuals...receive strength and assistance to go good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means," and it thus "allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own [total] best efforts."

So in other words, it is saying that grace is the "little helper" that gives us strength, and the push we need, to do the works we need to lay hold on our own salvation. It is a "works only" theology, which is even more radical than what McConkie taught.

Since you don't cite any such statements, it is difficult to evaluate the truth of this claim. I would quite expect you, of all people on this board, to agree that the gift of grace through the atonement cannot be given without demonstrating repentance, through exercising mighty faith and calling upon the name of the Lord in prayer for forgiveness - which itself may quite well be classed a "work," requiring our total effort, no?

I don't have the citation, but I remember James E. Talmage ranting against sola fide in one of his books, using terms that might be confused with sola gratia. But it is clear what he meant. Mormons are not often known for using precise or accurate theological language, even when criticizing the theologies of other religions.

So you are saying that "exercising mighty faith and calling upon God for forgiveness is a "work," rather than faith. That is the complete opposite of what Protestants do. They say that repentance and mighty changes of heart are part, or a manifestation of, saving faith. You are flipping that around and saying that faith is a manifestation of saving works. So your theology ignores everything that Paul wrote on the subject, but it is very consistent with the "works only" theology of the LDS Bible Dictionary.

[CASteinman]

By "modern version," I was just making a distinction between the "grace + works" theology of Bruce R. McConkie and the church's 19th century "grace + works" theology, also known as blood atonement.

As far as I am concerned, the whole issue is invented hooey.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt70:

See 2 Timothy 4:7

also

The Lord doesn't want or expect us to be lumps on a log with our faith. He expects us let our light shine forth that men may see our good works and glorify our father in heaven.

[CASteinman]

There is a list of sins that Young and his First Presidency taught were unreachable by the atonement of Jesus. They included adultery, murder, breaking temple covenants, and miscegenation. As Christ's atonement did not cover these sins, a human sacrifice was required.

This is bogus. You are trying to claim that a very very few speeches, sometimes not all that clear or well recorded, over the course of at most a decade (and really more like two years), constitutes the entire span of doctrine until McConkie. Never mind that even in these few cases, the speeches do not actually say what you claim.

I say ... Nonsense.

Edited May 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

You are flipping that around and saying that faith is a manifestation of saving works. So your theology ignores everything that Paul wrote on the subject,

Not everything that Paul wrote. And it lines up directly with what Jesus taught.

If I have to choose between Paul and Jesus... I choose Jesus. Paul was nothing compared to Him and Paul would agree.

Edited May 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[Log]

Like Smith, Young believed that once you commit the unpardonable sin, all is lost.

Christ agreed with them. I know you disagree with all three.

Rather, Young envisioned that blood atonement might save someone before they got to the point of committing the unpardonable sin. There is a list of sins that Young and his First Presidency taught were unreachable by the atonement of Jesus. They included adultery, murder, breaking temple covenants, and miscegenation. As Christ's atonement did not cover these sins, a human sacrifice was required.

Each of these is, or was considered, unpardonable when committed by them who have been sufficiently enlightened.

The Bible Dictionary says that grace is a "divine means of help or strength," and that it is "through the grace of the Lord that individuals...receive strength and assistance to go good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means," and it thus "allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own [total] best efforts."

So in other words, it is saying that grace is the "little helper" that gives us strength, and the push we need, to do the works we need to lay hold on our own salvation. It is a "works only" theology, which is even more radical than what McConkie taught.

That's not what the dictionary says - but that you think it does is enlightening.

So you are saying that "exercising mighty faith and calling upon God for forgiveness is a "work," rather than faith.

I will leave that confused statement as is.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

Each of these is, or was considered, unpardonable when committed by them who have been sufficiently enlightened.

Almost (but not quite) no one receives the ordinances required (as I understand it) for these conditions to exist in these days. I do not know the precise number for recent years, but a some years ago (I will not say how many) the number was reported as a number significantly less than 100 individuals. It is possible that even among these individuals, the full measure of the requirements for this sort of penalty do not exist. And, the penalty, is not *necessary* even then, in most cases.

[Cobalt-70]

See 2 Timothy 4:7

also

The Lord doesn't want or expect us to be lumps on a log with our faith. He expects us let our light shine forth that men may see our good works and glorify our father in heaven.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is regarding 2 Timothy 4:7. I interpret it as saying that Paul had endured in faith to the end, and he expected to become sanctified with an eternal crown of righteousness in the afterlife, along with all those who longed for the appearance of Jesus.

I don't think any Christian, be they Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, would disagree with your latter statement. Sola fide. is not the negation of that statement.

[Cobalt-70]

Christ agreed with them. I know you disagree with all three.

It's not that I disagree in the idea of eternal sin. It's just that I don't really believe it is something you can do once, and then no matter what you do for the rest of your life or throughout eternity, you are incapable of repenting and returning to the grace of God. I think that if you can repent of the sin, or even want to repent of the sin, you didn't really commit it in the first place. And you may have to wait an eternity to determine whether a person has actually committed the eternal sin.

Each of these is, or was considered, unpardonable when committed by them who have been sufficiently enlightened.

Young believed that apostasy was the unpardonable sin. So part of his theology was the idea that if a near-apostate was "sacrificed" prior to actual apostasy, they would be saved and therefore avoid the unpardonable sin. (J.D. 4:220; J.D. 4:375.)

[Cobalt-70]

f I have to choose between Paul and Jesus... I choose Jesus. Paul was nothing compared to Him and Paul would agree.

If you think Paul was misguided on some issues, I'm not going to disagree with you. (Take celibacy, for example.) But Jesus' teachings were inclusive enough that it was possible for Paul to have his particular "take" on the meaning of Jesus, which formed the basis for traditional Christianity and much of early Mormonism. But Mormons have to be careful about which parts of Paul we throw away, because in doing so, we also throw away parts of the Book of Mormon.

[Log]

It's not that I disagree in the idea of eternal sin. It's just that I don't really believe it is something you can do once, and then no matter what you do for the rest of your life or throughout eternity, you are incapable of repenting and returning to the grace of God. I think that if you can repent of the sin, or even want to repent of the sin, you didn't really commit it in the first place. And you may have to wait an eternity to determine whether a person has actually committed the eternal sin.

As I said, I already knew you disagreed with Joseph, Brigham, and Christ.

Young believed that apostasy was the unpardonable sin. So part of his theology was the idea that if a near-apostate was "sacrificed" prior to actual apostasy, they would be saved and therefore avoid the unpardonable sin. (J.D. 4:220; J.D. 4:375.)

Do you have some specific quotes in mind, or shall I read them all?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

If you think Paul was misguided on some issues, I'm not going to disagree with you. (Take celibacy, for example.) But Jesus' teachings were inclusive enough that it was possible for Paul to have his particular "take" on the meaning of Jesus, which formed the basis for traditional Christianity and much of early Mormonism. But Mormons have to be careful about which parts of Paul we throw away, because in doing so, we also throw away parts of the Book of Mormon.

I'm not throwing away any of Paul. I am, however, throwing away the false doctrines that have emerged out of pedantic readings of Paul's words which were written to move to aggressively teach the Gospel, win converts to Christ and correct the apostasy that was underway, but NOT written for the purpose of centuries of intellectual dissection.

[Cobalt-70]

As I said, I already knew you disagreed with Joseph, Brigham, and Christ.

My mistake. I thought you were making a serious point, and not just insulting me.

Do you have some specific quotes in mind, or shall I read them all?

Brigham Young, p. 220 (early 1857):

"I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force."

His counsellor Heber C. Kimball, p. 375 (summer of 1857):

"I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants."

[Log]

My mistake. I thought you were making a serious point, and not just insulting me.

It is a serious point. Explaining why you disagree with them changes not the fact that you disagree with them.

Brigham Young, p. 220 (early 1857):

"I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance (in the last resurrection there will be) if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up—conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle's being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force."

His counsellor Heber C. Kimball, p. 375 (summer of 1857):

"I have not a doubt but there will be hundreds who will leave us and go away to our enemies. I wish they would go this fall: it might relieve us from much trouble; for if men turn traitors to God and His servants, their blood will surely be shed, or else they will be damned, and that too according to their covenants."

I'm sorry - I don't see them as saying "if they had been slain before leaving." Heber, for example, seems to be saying quite the opposite. Brigham appears to be speaking of men now dead in the first instance, and does not appear to be saying "if they had been slain before leaving" in the second.