blooit Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) I was raised by a biblical scholar, and grew up reading the Bible every bit as much as the Book of Mormon. I must admit, though, that I am just finishing the Bible for the first time, cover to cover. I always studied it topically or chronologically.One of my strong impressions as I've read the Bible is something that I've heard Pastor Chuck from Calvary Chapel Radio agree with me on. There is clearly some balance between works and faith in salvation. Yes, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and by grace alone. Not even Mormons disagree with this if you really understand their teachings IMHO. However, clearly works can play a role.I guess what I am getting at is that Mormons and Evangelicals frequently caricaturize each other, when they really aren't that far apart. But based on just my readings of the Bible, the explanation that we are "saved by grace, after all we can do" seems to be the most biblical statement of the balance between faith and works I have ever heard. Edited December 31, 2011 by blooit 1
bluebell Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 Some day i'm going to get through the whole bible. I've read the NT a few times and most of the OT, but there are a few books in there that I still have left to go.So far, i agree with your assessment though. I see a focus on both grace and works throughout the bible in regards to becoming joint-heirs with Christ.
blackstrap Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 Reading the Bible or Book of Mormon from cover to cover quite rapidly is a valuable exercise .It can produce a broad overview that helps when studying specific topics later.
BCSpace Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 However, clearly works can play a roleYes. They determine what degree of salvation. If you also want to say degree of faith, it's the same thing to me.
Maidservant Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) The other bit of confusion is the understanding of "works". That there is a challenge to works at all, was once really a challenge to "sacraments" or even more precisely the priestcrafts that were introduced to sacraments, such as money given in order to receive atonement or forgiveness on specific guilty acts. The challenges to works never really ever were about living the commandments (which is a recent introduction into the understanding/confusion of the argument). Paul uses the word "faith" precisely to evoke the necessity of living/action. He wanted to avoid any "vending machine" relationship to God, he wanted to convey that it was dynamic and it was about Becoming. Thinking that if we obey a certain commandment, say, attending church or not smoking, and imagining that as coin for our reconciliation or reward with God is also incorrect and is the same problem Paul hopes to avoid; rather we must walk with God and become sanctified, which does require living, including of course attending church and not smoking, so there is a framework challenge the believer must come to terms with here.Both evangelicals and LDS (and other religions) have their sacraments. I am not an expert on evangelical belief, so please correct me, but if they imagine themselves as free of sacrament (works), they are not. They have a simple sacrament/work that is or can unfortunately operate as "coin" for salvation--the confession of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saint religion is, of course, replete with sacrament (works) beginning with baptism, the weekly Sacrament, and our temple covenants. The challenge, again, for all believers whether evangelical or LDS or other is not to consider these things as coin for salvation, but rather to live in faith (which is creative) (faith is NOT here defined as conviction of the tenets of one's religion), to live in adherence to commandments or righteousness . . . and our opportunity and ability to do so is given us by our Savior, and he administers this through his sacraments (whichever sacrament you understand as necessary . . . confession for the evangelical, baptism by immersion for the Latter-day Saint).Again, to repeat a little different: sacraments (original understanding of 'works'), living the commandments (or Becoming; original understanding of 'faith' but now being understood as 'works'), and the FREE gift of the atonement of Jesus Christ as accessed through sacraments and faith (=living the commandments) are ALL part the believers life and relationship to God/Savior. But we must not counterfeit these very same things into coin for salvation or even earning salvation (we cannot earn it or deserve it; "becoming" and "earning" ought not to be conflated, in my opinion and as I understand the scriptures). (And faith being defined as 'a conviction that God exists or that any idea is correct' makes no sense here upon which to argue by anyone as one half of the faith-works tussle; faith is living according to principle--mustard seed to mustard tree). Edited January 1, 2012 by Maidservant
Palerider Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) I was raised by a biblical scholar, and grew up reading the Bible every bit as much as the Book of Mormon. I must admit, though, that I am just finishing the Bible for the first time, cover to cover. I always studied it topically or chronologically.One of my strong impressions as I've read the Bible is something that I've heard Pastor Chuck from Calvary Chapel Radio agree with me on. There is clearly some balance between works and faith in salvation. Yes, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and by grace alone. Not even Mormons disagree with this if you really understand their teachings IMHO. However, clearly works can play a role.I guess what I am getting at is that Mormons and Evangelicals frequently caricaturize each other, when they really aren't that far apart. But based on just my readings of the Bible, the explanation that we are "saved by grace, after all we can do" seems to be the most biblical statement of the balance between faith and works I have ever heard.Having read the Old Testament 4 times and the New Testament in excess of 12 My own conclusions are that some evangelicals (not all by any means) misinterpret some of Paul's teachings to rationalize doing no works whatsoever.On the other hand, Mormons have created a legalistic structure of works, both ordinance and service oriented that are used as criteria for righteousness and worthiness through which exclusively, one may acheive exaltation.One is just as incorrect as the other.The reason "after all you can do" doesn't work is because no one does "all they can do" all of the time. We're all human. Therefore Grace becomes emminently and critically more important than the "earning salvation" aspect emphasized by Mormons. Edited January 2, 2012 by Palerider
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I can't read the Bible cover-to-cover. I much prefer chronological reading. I need some story to break up the prophetic books.
Xioneye Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I can't read the Bible cover-to-cover. I much prefer chronological reading. I need some story to break up the prophetic books.Hey Nehor, what's up? I am running around trying to stay alive in this place. The scholars are chasing me and banning me if I dare speak to them. NL
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Hey Nehor, what's up? I am running around trying to stay alive in this place. The scholars are chasing me and banning me if I dare speak to them. NLI thought it might be you. Life is mostly good. Left the "board that shall not be named" a few months back. Might go back if things calm down a little. I doubt it.I expect they are mostly annoyed that you are breaking the rules. Your posting style is usually direct preaching and calling down calamities on the 'apostate' LDS. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone's scholarly aspirations. You would get the same reaction from uneducated LDS.What is the latest news from the Apocalrock? What has Utah snowfall revealed in the stone cut out of the mountain without hands?
Xioneye Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I thought it might be you. Life is mostly good. Left the "board that shall not be named" a few months back. Might go back if things calm down a little. I doubt it.I expect they are mostly annoyed that you are breaking the rules. Your posting style is usually direct preaching and calling down calamities on the 'apostate' LDS. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone's scholarly aspirations. You would get the same reaction from uneducated LDS.What is the latest news from the Apocalrock? What has Utah snowfall revealed in the stone cut out of the mountain without hands?This is the latest, if the link works.....http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=241009405972090&set=a.207245122681852.50267.100001890972926&type=1&ref=nf
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 This is the latest, if the link works.....http://www.facebook....6&type=1&ref=nfWhy does the Whore of Babylon have three heads?
Xioneye Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Why does the Whore of Babylon have three heads?You got the main whore who is the bawdy lady sitting down. then you got the fallen bride, apostasy, who fell down and lost her crown, committing whoredoms with her and in front the king uncovering his nakedness showing that he is committing fornication with the pride of the world. You know scripture, come on.
Xioneye Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Why does the Whore of Babylon have three heads?If this link works you see the seated Satan, on the sides of the North of the Apocalrock.http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296521_207245126015185_100001890972926_495043_1649910591_n.jpg
Mudcat Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I was raised by a biblical scholar, and grew up reading the Bible every bit as much as the Book of Mormon. I must admit, though, that I am just finishing the Bible for the first time, cover to cover. I always studied it topically or chronologically.One of my strong impressions as I've read the Bible is something that I've heard Pastor Chuck from Calvary Chapel Radio agree with me on. There is clearly some balance between works and faith in salvation. Yes, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and by grace alone. Not even Mormons disagree with this if you really understand their teachings IMHO. However, clearly works can play a role.I guess what I am getting at is that Mormons and Evangelicals frequently caricaturize each other, when they really aren't that far apart. But based on just my readings of the Bible, the explanation that we are "saved by grace, after all we can do" seems to be the most biblical statement of the balance between faith and works I have ever heard.Hi Blooit,Bold mine. I agree with you here, in some respects. I think the primary reasons for this, it that when a person tries to explain what is different about what they believe from another persons beliefs they oft times actually overemphasize a point of doctrine to the point that it is "Super sized" beyond what it really is and the other person is left with distorted view. Sadly this distortional view gets promulgated through the other believers group as an accurate view.LDS seem to line up quite closely with Methodists on the issue of works and grace than any other EV group. IIRC JS's background exposure to Christianity was primarily Methodist. Or am I wrong on that?Why does the Whore of Babylon have three heads?To get to other side? 4
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 You got the main whore who is the bawdy lady sitting down. then you got the fallen bride, apostasy, who fell down and lost her crown, committing whoredoms with her and in front the king uncovering his nakedness showing that he is committing fornication with the pride of the world. You know scripture, come on.I do which convinces me the Apolcalrock has nothing original to say. Also, still don't see it. Invited a friend over last night to see the whore of babylon in the rock. Couldn't see it either.
Shelama Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Finishing the Bible cover to cover, how do the concepts of sin, atonement, forgiveness and salvation vary within the Old Testament, and how do they compare with those concepts in the New Testament?Including, for instance, when the Psalmist says, "The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart," how does that relate to the Levitical code in which blood sin offerings seem mostly to relate to inadvertent sins and violations of purity code? Or when the Israelite is too poor to offer the prescribed blood sacrifice and a grain sacrifice is acceptable instead?And the prophetic vs. the priestly/Levitical/legal views?And compared to Jesus in (with variations) Mark, Matt & Luke, where all sacrifice is demoted in relationship to Shema and loving your neighbor? And to the author of Hebrews, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins"? And with Micah: "what does Yahweh require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"Or Jeremiah, "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Yahweh, I will put my Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts... for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more"?And the very concept of "Salvation" itself?Is it reasonable and rational to conclude that maybe the Bible, cover-to-cover, understandably does not have a consistent, coherent view? Both within and between both the OT and the NT and the various groups therein? Edited January 3, 2012 by Shelama
volgadon Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 And the prophetic vs. the priestly/Levitical/legal views?Is a false construct heavily derived from the traditional protestant antinomian climate in which the early critical scholars of the Bible were raised. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 You know scripture, come on.LOLThis is why I love this guy. It's all so obvious to him!In limited doses of course!!
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I would wager that everyone who has the time to post here has the time to read 7 pages of scripture a day.If you do that, you could read all the standard works in 1 year.If you can do that, you could read all the standard works, cover to cover every year for the rest of your life. Do you think you would know them better if you did?I highly recommend trying- it's not that hard!
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Is it reasonable and rational to conclude that maybe the Bible, cover-to-cover, understandably does not have a consistent, coherent view? Both within and between both the OT and the NT and the various groups therein?Why should it? It is only fragments of the truth.
altersteve Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I would wager that everyone who has the time to post here has the time to read 7 pages of scripture a day.If you do that, you could read all the standard works in 1 year.If you can do that, you could read all the standard works, cover to cover every year for the rest of your life. Do you think you would know them better if you did?I highly recommend trying- it's not that hard!Haha, that's actually not a bad idea.
Duncan Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Haha, that's actually not a bad idea.if you think that's nuts read this talk by Elder William R. Bradfordhttp://lds.org/ensign/1979/11/the-governing-ones?lang=eng
Libs Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) A year ago last summer, the church I was attending did a "read the Bible in 90 days" program, over the summer. You really had to do a lot of reading each day, to keep up, but it was a different experience than I had ever had, reading the Bible over longer periods of time. This is going to sound strange to some, maybe, but reading the Old Testament in such big chunks, was really depressing. I didn't realize how much warring and violence was really in there, until I was reading many chapters, every single day. It really kind of put me off the Old Testament. I love the New Testament, though....and even though I am no longer practicing LDS, I still enjoy the Book of Mormon (certain parts of it). But, the Old Testament? Ugh. Edited January 3, 2012 by Libs
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 if you think that's nuts read this talk by Elder William R. Bradfordhttp://lds.org/ensig...g-ones?lang=engI really want to thank you for that link. I was baptized in Sept 1979 and that was the first conference I had ever heard in my life- and though I only vaguely remembered that I learned that from a conference talk, the habit stuck, but I had pretty much totally forgotten that talk! Thanks again!We have so many ways to waste time and time is so precious. I'm gonna go read right now! 1
Duncan Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I really want to thank you for that link. I was baptized in Sept 1979 and that was the first conference I had ever heard in my life- and though I only vaguely remembered that I learned that from a conference talk, the habit stuck, but I had pretty much totally forgotten that talk! Thanks again!We have so many ways to waste time and time is so precious. I'm gonna go read right now!hey, no problem!!!
Recommended Posts