Has The Church'S View Of Grace/Works Changed?

[Storm Rider]

Two clarifying questions;

Do you believe the Spirit inspired the words of the Apostles and Prophets. In other words when, for example, Paul wrote his original (lets not argue about what we have today) copy of Romans did the Spirit inspire his words and grammar in order to communicate a specific idea?

In your view can the Spirit give people different intreprations of the same verse?

Paul was inspired; God does not dictate grammar, punctuation, etc. In LDS teaching God gives revelations, actually talks to his prophets and apostles. This is not the case in Protestantism, etc. There is another thread that is discussing this very issue.

The Spirit only reveals truth. We may misunderstand him, we may understand only part of what he is revealing; but when the Holy Spirit speaks, he only reveals truth. Are we ready to listen or hear the Spirit when he speaks?

[djholmess]

Paul was inspired; God does not dictate grammar, punctuation, etc. In LDS teaching God gives revelations, actually talks to his prophets and apostles. This is not the case in Protestantism, etc. There is another thread that is discussing this very issue.

So Paul was inspired but his written words were not?

[CASteinman]

So Paul was inspired but his written words were not?

At least some of them weren't.

[djholmess]

At least some of them weren't.

I was talking specifically about his original writings, so you believe some of his original letter to the Romans was inspired and some wasn't? How could his first readers know which is which?

Edited July 24, 2012 by djholmess

[CASteinman]

I was talking specifically about his original writings, so you believe some of his original letter to the Romans was inspired and some wasn't? How can you know which is which?

I was talking about his original writings as well -- as far as we can tell. As I recall, sometimes he even says that he is not talking for God, but of himself.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

I was talking specifically about his original writings, so you believe some of his original letter to the Romans was inspired and some wasn't? How could his first readers know which is which?

Just like his readers now, the witness of the Spirit.

Stormrider answered your other questions but this one I will:

In your view can the Spirit give people different intreprations of the same verse?

Since I cannot judge for myself any communication the Spirit has with someone else, only their communication of that witness and that involves not only their interpretation but how good they are at communicating it, I do not believe I can make any sort of valid judgment about others' subjective experiences with the Spirit. Edited July 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

In your view can the Spirit give people different intreprations of the same verse?

I think it might be possible -- I would not feel qualified to tie God's hands. In addition, I know that the Bible teaches that God will deceive some people. I don't actually believe that -- but it is at least a biblical concept.

[djholmess]

I was talking about his original writings as well -- as far as we can tell. As I recall, sometimes he even says that he is not talking for God, but of himself.

So apart from the one time (I think) that he says what he is saying is from him and not directly from God how could his readers know which was inspired and wasn't?

[CASteinman]

So apart from the one time (I think) that he says what he is saying is from him and not directly from God how could his readers know which was inspired and wasn't?

I would suppose that many of them might not. This is a good reason that scripture is not for private, unauthorized interpretation and that the help of Prophets of God is useful.

[djholmess]

Since I cannot judge for myself any communication the Spirit has with someone else, only their communication of that witness and that involves not only their interpretation but how good they are at communicating it, I do not believe I can make any sort of valid judgment about others' subjective experiences with the Spirit.

I wasn't asking you to judge anyone else, I meant that is this something you think the spirit actually does. Lots of people can read a single sentence and think it means different things and even think their understanding is from the Spirit.

But if the Spirit inspired the original words of the author (and therefore knows their meaning) does the Spirit then give someone an understanding of the meaning of a verse that is different for the original meaning?

[CASteinman]

But if the Spirit inspired the original words of the author (and therefore knows their meaning) does the Spirit then give someone an understanding of the meaning of a verse that is different for the original meaning?

I do not think anyone knows this to be the case but it appears that it might be plausible.

[djholmess]

I would suppose that many of them might not. This is a good reason that scripture is not for private, unauthorized interpretation and that the help of Prophets of God is useful.

So why would Paul bother writing Romans for example? He didn't know if he would ever get there to explain his own writings so why write to them and run the risk of causing so much confusion by including revelation from God and from his own thoughts in the same

letter without giving and indication as to which is which?

[CASteinman]

So why would Paul bother writing Romans for example?

I think, in the case of Romans, he wanted to encourage them in their Faith and let them know that even without the Jewish members among them, that they were still acceptable before God.

He didn't know if he would ever get there to explain his own writings so why write to them and run the risk of causing so much confusion by including revelation from God and from his own thoughts in the same

letter without giving and indication as to which is which?

Because he did not realize people would canonize his writings and scrutinize them so much. He was doing what he felt was the right thing to do... Testify of Jesus and encourage the Saints of God.

[djholmess]

I was talking about his original writings as well -- as far as we can tell. As I recall, sometimes he even says that he is not talking for God, but of himself.

Doesn't this view also contradict your own articles of faith?

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Surely this implies the whole Bible is the word of God? The issue isn't with what made up the original written documents but with their translation.

[CASteinman]

Doesn't this view also contradict your own articles of faith?

I don't actually like the Articles of Faith. I don't think we should have elevated them to canon. Unfortunately, they are the only statement we have that outlines beliefs in a form that the worldly Churches like to see. But this was not meant by Joseph Smith to be scripture. It was an answer to a news reporter as I recall.

However, given that we accept it as official doctrine, your point must be addressed. And here is the answer:

Translating the Bible correctly includes:

1. the notion that the "Word of God" is a phrase that is not meant to be literally true -- in that the Bible contains the words of men and of satan and even of animals.

2. throwing out the parts that are not of God

3. a correct understanding of the remaining parts

4. realizing that a "correct understanding" is not necessarily the same thing at different ages. It may relate to a message required for the day that is not the same message required at the time the passage was written. Isaiah 7:14 might be an example.

Surely this implies the whole Bible is the word of God? The issue isn't with what made up the original written documents but with their translation.

The man who penned the Wentworth Letter from which the Articles of Faith are taken was very clear --even before the Wentworth letter that not all of the Bible is the Word of God. He wrote that letter for public consumption, speaking in generalities and not specifics. But yes, his issues included the fact that the original documents used in the Bible compilation were sometimes not inspired by God.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

I don't actually like the Articles of Faith. I don't think we should have elevated them to canon. Unfortunately, they are the only statement we have that outlines beliefs in a form that the worldly Churches like to see. But this was not meant by Joseph Smith to be scripture. It was an answer to a news reporter as I recall.

However, given that we accept it as official doctrine, your point must be addressed. And here is the answer:

Translating the Bible correctly includes:

1. the notion that the "Word of God" is a phrase that is not meant to be literally true -- in that the Bible contains the words of men and of satan and even of animals.

2. throwing out the parts that are not of God

3. a correct understanding of the remaining parts

4. realizing that a "correct understanding" is not necessarily the same thing at different ages. It may relate to a message required for the day that is not the same message required at the time the passage was written. Isaiah 7:14 might be an example.

The man who penned the Wentworth Letter from which the Articles of Faith are taken was very clear --even before the Wentworth letter that not all of the Bible is the Word of God. He wrote that letter for public consumption, speaking in generalities and not specifics. But yes, his issues including the fact that the original documents used in the Bible compilation included things not inspired by God.

So basically in this article 'Word of God' doesn't mean what the phrase would typically have meant and 'translate' didn't actually mean translate but 'edit and translate'

[CASteinman]

So basically in this article 'Word of God' doesn't mean what the phrase would typically have meant and 'translate' didn't actually mean translate but 'edit and translate'

The phrase "Word of God" probably does not mean what you think it ought to mean and yes, translate in the early 1800's had a different meaning that you are giving it. You might review the definition of the word in the 1828 dictionary to see what I mean:

http://1828.mshaffer.../word,translate

You will notice that the notion of translation being the rephrasing from one language to another is almost the last definition of the day and that right next to it is the idea that translation includes "explanation".

Thus as long as the Bible is "explained" correctly, it is the Word of God.

LDS have explained this in many various ways over the years. It is not some "hidden" thing.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[Vance]

Hold on a minute, your conclusions do not follow at all,

You seem to not want to see the obvious difference that is in the Greek that is used by the author. I can't help you with that. But don't expect to ignore it and have your explanation be convincing.

The author CLEARLY intended a different meaning between "work out" in verse 12 and "worketh" in verse 13. So the whole premise of your argument is without foundation.

The object of Gods operations/work/power is your will and your doing.

Again, missing the important distinction.

The object of God's effort is to work for one/aid one/show one's self operative in you bring your will and your doing into alignment with His.

How can you possibly comes to a conclusion that this reaches beyond the bounds of our agency? ONLY because you want it to be so. NOTHING in the verse requires it.

Further look at the form of each Greek word, your 'work' is in the middle or passive sense yet Gods 'working' is in the active sense.

Actually it is just the opposite.

Your work is,

1) to perform, accomplish, achieve

2) to work out i.e. to do that from which something results

a) of things: bring about, result in

3) to fashion i.e. render one fit for a thing

His work is,

1) to be operative, be at work, put forth power

a) to work for one, aid one

2) to effect

3) to display one's activity, show one's self operative

This is directly opposite to your interpretation where man gets no agency and God is in total control. If Paul wanted to say what you think he says he would have switched which word was active and which was passive.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain away the teachings of Jesus in Matt 25:31-46. And explain away these verses,

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Deut 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Please explain how they don't mean what they say.

[Vance]

Regarding 1 I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Well, there is plenty evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible. We have had several threads on that topic.

The problem I have is that there is NO evidence that the Bible is inerrant. Whatever happened to "sola scriptura"?

2-4; I am not presuming my (haven't read Calvin on any of the verses we have talked about) interpretation is correct,

The above post would indicate otherwise.

I am trying to establish the correct interpretation of what Paul actually meant to communicate within the context, grammar and words of his writings.

Why start with Paul?

Why not start with Jesus? Why not let the teachings of Jesus take preeminence (as Paul suggests)? Why not make Paul's teachings conform to Jesus' instead of the other way around?

5; I am not presuming they take precedence I am assuming that because the Bible is the inspired word of God it will present consistent teaching.

Then you presume WRONG. The Bible is NOT univocal. It comes to us THROUGH MEN and is therefore imperfect, even though inspired.

I am glad that you have taken the time to dialogue with us.

[CASteinman]

I am glad that you have taken the time to dialogue with us.

Not only that, he has been polite and intelligent.

[Vance]

Not only that, he has been polite and intelligent.

YES!! He has, and he is to be commended for it.

[djholmess]

You seem to not want to see the obvious difference that is in the Greek that is used by the author. I can't help you with that. But don't expect to ignore it and have your explanation be convincing.

The author CLEARLY intended a different meaning between "work out" in verse 12 and "worketh" in verse 13. So the whole premise of your argument is without foundation.

The difference is that Paul is talking to the people he is commanding to do this, so obviously they are to 'work out' their salvation. But this does not preclude (unless you assume total free agency) the fact that at the same time God is also at work within your willing and within you doing.

This is directly opposite to your interpretation where man gets no agency and God is in total control. If Paul wanted to say what you think he says he would have switched which word was active and which was passive.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain away the teachings of Jesus in Matt 25:31-46. And explain away these verses,

Gen 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Deut 11:27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day:

Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Please explain how they don't mean what they say.

Your verses mean exactly what they say they mean just as I have been saying all along; man has the ability to make choices and he is held accountable for those choices.

You specifically ignored the tenses of the Greek words in Philippians 2:13, I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. The word translated ‘work’ in verse 12 is in the middle or passive voice whilst the word translated ‘worketh’ for God is in the active voice. This actually means that the word cannot be translated 'aid' or 'entice.' Even though the word may sometimes carry this meaning because it is in the active voice it means God is the one actually doing the work of willing and doing.

For example:

NIV

for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose

ASV

for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure

ESV

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Some go even further:

GNT

because God is always at work in you to make you willing and able to obey his own purpose.

NLT

For God is working in you, giving you the desire to obey him and the power to do what pleases him.

NRS

for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Check out this link for a slightly fuller explanation of the difference between passive and active Greek verbs (scroll down to the Voice of Verb section)

http://www.preceptaustin.org/new_page_40.htm

[CASteinman]

YES!! He has, and he is to be commended for it.

I have noticed a paradoxical nature in Religion and in Religious adherents. The adherents will often be entirely faithful in word and spirit to their Religion and yet, when their acts are examined -- they behave differently. (Mormons are not different by the way). I won't go into details, but as it relates to Calvinists --- although I despise the doctrines of Calvinism, I find that Calvinists are often the most earnest people in striving for good, despite the fundamental aspect of their religion involved in predestination and the utter and total sovereignty of God. This striving would seem to be contradictory to the beliefs, and yet there it is. I have found, over time, that whatever problems I have with doctrines that people believe -- good people find a way to shine through!

Didn't Joseph Smith say something to the effect that erring in doctrine may not be a sin? I notice that God revealed that there is a difference between error and sin in D&C 1:

"Inasmuch as they erred it might be made known, … And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent"

Calvinists have followed an unfortunate doctrine -- but it does not make the Calvinists bad people and djholmess has shown a good and generous spirit in his discourses. I like his presence here.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

Not only that, he has been polite and intelligent.

As have you guys. It is nice to see that people can still disagree and yet have a civil conversation (for the most part).

As I have said before I have just recently encountered Mormonism but I am finding it intresting trying to understand your beliefs

[Vance]

The difference is that Paul is talking to the people he is commanding to do this, so obviously they are to 'work out' their salvation.

Which they can only do if they have agency.

But this does not preclude (unless you assume total free agency) the fact that at the same time God is also at work within your willing and within you doing.

Why would you NOT assume total agency? What evidence in the real world is there against total agency?

Your verses mean exactly what they say they mean just as I have been saying all along; man has the ability to make choices and he is held accountable for those choices.

Good.

You specifically ignored the tenses of the Greek words in Philippians 2:13,

Please provide a reference that supports this claim.

How can you really help ("to aid") someone (to change their will and actions) while restricting their agency?

What is that saying? Something to the affect that "a person forced against his will is of the same opinion still".

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "to aid"/"to work FOR one" (not against one's agency).

Why do you think these indicate more forceful action than "to perform"/"to accomplish"/"to achieve"?

The word translated ‘work’ in verse 12 is in the middle or passive voice whilst the word translated ‘worketh’ for God is in the active voice.

Please provide a reference, other than your opinion, because to me it is very clear that it is opposite.

This actually means that the word cannot be translated 'aid' or 'entice.'

And yet Strong's indicates otherwise.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible. (a Non-LDS source)

For it is God that worketh in you - This is given as a reason for making an effort to be saved, or for working out our salvation. It is often thought to be the very reverse, and people often feel that if God works "in us to will and to do," there can be no need of our making an effort, and that there would be no use in it. If God does all the work, say they, why should we not patiently sit still, and wait until He puts forth His power and accomplishes in us what He wills? It is of importance, therefore, to understand what this declaration of the apostle means, in order to see whether this objection is valid, or whether the fact that God "works in us" is to be regarded as a reason why we should make no effort. The word rendered "worketh" - ἐνεργῶν energōn - working - is from a verb meaning to work, to be active to produce effect - and is that from which we have derived the word "energetic." The meaning is, that God "produces a certain effect in us;" he exerts such an influence over us as to lead to a certain result in our minds - to wit, "to will and to do." Nothing is said of the mode in which this is done, and probably this cannot be understood by us here; compare John 3:8. In regard to the divine agency here referred to, however, certain things, though of a negative character, are clear:

(1) It is not God who acts for us. He leads us to "will and to do." It is not said that he wills and does for us, and it cannot be. It is man that "wills and does" - though God so influences him that he does it.

(2) he does not compel or force us against our will. He leads us to will as well as to do. The will cannot be forced; and the meaning here must be that God exerts such an influence as to make us willing to obey Him; compare Psalm 110:3.

(3) it is not a physical force, but it must be a moral influence. A physical power cannot act on the will. You may chain a man, incarcerate him in the deepest dungeon, starve him, scourge him, apply red-hot pincers to his flesh, or place on him the thumb-screw, but the will is still free. You cannot bend that or control it, or make him believe otherwise than as he chooses to believe. The declaration here, therefore, cannot mean that God compels us, or that we are anything else but free agents still, though He "works in us to will and to do." It must mean merely that he exerts such an influence as to secure this result.

To will and to do of his good pleasure - Not to will and to do everything, but "His good pleasure." The extent of the divine agency here referred to, is limited to that, and no man should adduce this passage to prove that God "works" in him to lead him to commit sin. This passage teaches no such doctrine. It refers here to Christians, and means that he works in their hearts that which is agreeable to him, or leads them to "will and to do" that which is in accordance with his own will. The word rendered "good pleasure" - εὐδοκία eudokia - means "delight, good-will, favor;" then "good pleasure, purpose, will;" see Ephesians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:11. Here it means that which would be agreeable to him; and the idea is, that he exerts such an influence as to lead people to will and to do that which is in accordance with his will. Paul regarded this fact as a reason why we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling. It is with that view that he urges it, and not with any idea that it will embarrass our efforts, or be a hindrance to us in seeking salvation. The question then is, how this fact can be a motive to us to make an effort? In regard to this we may observe:

(1) That the work of our salvation is such that we need help, and such help as God only can impart. We need it to enable us to overcome our sins; to give us such a view of them as to produce true penitence; to break away from our evil companions; to give up our plans of evil, and to resolve to lead different lives. We need help that our minds may be enlightened; that we may be led in the way of truth; that we may be saved from the danger of error, and that we may not be suffered to fall back into the ways of transgression. Such help we should welcome from any quarter; and any assistance furnished on these points will not interfere with our freedom.

(2) the influence which God exerts on the mind is in the way of help or aid. What He does will not embarrass or hinder us. It will prevent no effort which we make to be saved; it will throw no hindrance or obstacle in the way. When we speak of Gods working "in us to will and to do," people often seem to suppose that His agency will hinder us, or throw some obstacle in our way, or exert some evil influence on our minds, or make it more difficult for us to work out our salvation than it would be without His agency. But this cannot be. We may be sure that all the influence which God exerts over our minds, will be to aid us in the work of salvation, not to embarrass us; will be to enable us to overcome our spiritual enemies and our sins, and not to put additional weapons into their hands or to confer on them new power. Why should people ever dread the influence of God on their hearts, as if he would hinder their efforts for their own good?

(3) the fact that God works is an encouragement for us to work. When a man is about to set out a peach or an apple tree, it is an encouragement for him to reflect that the agency of God is around him, and that he can cause the tree to produce blossoms, and leaves, and fruit. When he is about to plow and sow his farm, it is an encouragement, not a hindrance, to reflect that God works, and that he can quicken the grain that is sown, and produce an abundant harvest. What encouragement of a higher order can man ask? And what farmer is afraid of the agency of God in the case, or supposes that the fact that God exerts an agency is a reason why he should not plow and plant his field, or set out his orchard? Poor encouragement would a man have in these things if God did not exert any agency in the world, and could not be expected to make the tree grow or to cause the grain to spring up; and equally poor would be all the encouragement in religion without his aid.