What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[thews]

That's fine. But Latter-day Saints try to see the truth in other people's religions. I've never worshiped in a synagogue, but I would have no problem doing so. They are praising God and I would be more than happy to join them if I were invited. You didn't answer my question, though: since you think we worship God differently than you do, are we not invited to join you in your worship services?

I fail to understand your point. If I were to worship in a church that discounts Jesus Christ, I would feel compromised in doing so. To worship in a church that uses the doctrine of Joseph Smith, it would be the same thing IMO. Your opinion is different and that's fine, but my convictions are what they are.

All I said was that I can't think of any Latter-day Saint who rejects D&C 132. So no, I'm not speaking for others.

OK, but understand my opinion is based on conversations with LDS people who do reject polygamy/polyandry.

What D&C 132:4 says is that you will be damned by rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, which is eternal marriage, not polygamy. I feel my opinion is consistent with LDS doctrine, or at least my understanding of it.

I think this is your opinion and not based on what the doctrine states, which is the basis for my question.

Data to support my stance:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

D&C 132:4 -

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.19?lang=eng

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting ^acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye ^bdamned; for no one can ^creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

This is a very specific condition and (IMO) not up to interpretation. It clearly states that rejecting D&C 132:4 will damn a person and that person will not be permitted to enter God's glory.

I wasn't trying to make it sound like a one-way street. I meant to talk about what my personal beliefs are and I didn't mean to imply that it's a "universal Christian theology."

OK. I respect your personal beliefs, but also understand that through the Book of Mormon, the concept that the words are belonging to Jesus Christ are specific to the LDS faith.

[KevinG]

And who is covenanted to practice plural marriage today Thews?

[Gervin]

You mean besides many plain and precious things?

What does that mean, that the Bible is missing "many plain and precious things"? What "plain and precious" things are most apparently lacking in the Bible?

They are missing, so no one knows what they said or how many there were. We do have reason to believe that at least 4 epistles of Paul are among them.

The first Epistle to Corinth reference in 1 Cor 5:9.

The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced in 2 Cor 2:4 & 7:8-9.

The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced in Eph 3:3-4.

The Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced in Col 4:16.

You don't know what these letters contain but on basis of their potential existence you assume they would constitute scripture? A pretty weak argument, in my estimation.

[altersteve]

I fail to understand your point. If I were to worship in a church that discounts Jesus Christ, I would feel compromised in doing so. To worship in a church that uses the doctrine of Joseph Smith, it would be the same thing IMO. Your opinion is different and that's fine, but my convictions are what they are.

This still doesn't answer the question. Is a Mormon invited to worship with you in your church?

I think this is your opinion and not based on what the doctrine states, which is the basis for my question.

Like I said, it's based on my understanding of the doctrine.

Data to support my stance:

https://www.lds.org/...132.19?lang=eng

Section headings are not canonized scripture, although the "and also" part actually reinforces what I'm saying.

This is a very specific condition and (IMO) not up to interpretation. It clearly states that rejecting D&C 132:4 will damn a person and that person will not be permitted to enter God's glory.

It states that rejecting the new and everlasting covenant will damn a person. And now that I think about it, I was wrong in saying that the new and everlasting covenant is eternal marriage. It's actually the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and encompasses all the gospel's laws and ordinances, restored through Joseph Smith in modern times (see D&C 66:2, 133:57). In that context, D&C 132:4 makes much more sense.

OK. I respect your personal beliefs, but also understand that through the Book of Mormon, the concept that the words are belonging to Jesus Christ are specific to the LDS faith.

I completely understand that. I never suggested otherwise (not intentionally, anyway).

Edited August 10, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

What does that mean, that the Bible is missing "many plain and precious things"? What "plain and precious" things are most apparently lacking in the Bible?

You don't know what these letters contain but on basis of their potential existence you assume they would constitute scripture? A pretty weak argument, in my estimation.

Also, Gervin, you didn't respond to my last post to you, so in case you didn't see it, please see post #425 on page 22 of this thread.

[djholmess]

Intresting that Paul would quote a Psalm about "Godly" people receiving Gods mercy, in support of God Justifying "Ungoldy" people!!!?

Psalm 32

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.

4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.

8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.

9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about.

11 Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

I thought God justified the "Ungoldy" apart from their works? Yet here David performs a work, (ie "repentance") or the second principle of the Gospel.

LDS - Articles of Faith

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

PS. Verse 6 throws a wrench in your interpretation of Romans 4:5-6. I thought everyone, at least according to you was "ungodly". Yet David is saying that the Godly people confess their sins?

Well of course there are Godly people who do good works, evangelicals have never said there isn't. However the question is how did these people become godly. As the NT clearly presents God must do a work in their heart first. Without this work all men are ungodly by nature as Paul explains in Romans 1:18-3:18, therefore they cannot be declared righteous on account of their works Romans 3:19-20, but are declared righteous on account of the righteousness of God received through faith Romans 3:21-22

Then, as Ephesians 2:8-10 lays out, those that have been 'created in Christ Jesus' are the ones that then do the good works prepared for them. But as Ephesians make clear there is an order involved, men are saved by grace through faith apart from any works so that they then may do good works.

[Gervin]

It's not good to put words in the Lord's mouth. Again, He said the Christian creeds are an abomination in His sight, not you, and they're not an abomination because of what they say, necessarily, but because of what they do.

Christ is purported to have said that the churches "were all wrong" and "that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight." If I am a part of the Christian tradition that wrote the creeds that are all an abomination in the sight of the Lord, and if I affirm the creeds that are all an abomination in the sight of the Lord, and I am a member of the wrong church in which these abominable creeds are believed in and acted upon how then, exactly, is my belief not also an abomination in the sight of the Lord?

Once again, they leave no room for continuing revelation, which means that with these creeds, one's understanding of His doctrine cannot be revised or expanded.

I think there is plenty of room for continuing revelation. I am a witness to continuing revelation and would pray that my life is an example of continuing revelation. Specifically: how does each creed, since Christ specifically said that "all their creeds were an abomination", disallow continuing revelation?

And continuing revelation does not refer to personal revelation, which has never gone away, so your earlier example about George Muller (to whom the Lord did indeed give an incredible calling) is irrelevant. All people, whether they are Christian or not, are able to receive promptings and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

It appears that Christ did have a problem with personal revelation: "those professors were all corrupt, that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of me, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."" So, what exactly were these professors professing, teaching and denying?

Also, you said earlier that Christ's condemnation of the post-biblical creeds is the same thing as condemning those who believe in them. That's a huge leap of logic by anyone's standards, but for the sake of argument, that means your obvious condemnation of the Book of Mormon is equal to condemning us Latter-day Saints. Would you agree?

No, I don't agree. I'm not judging ... I'm trying to understand your claimed Christ-judgement of me.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Gervin

[Zakuska]

Well of course there are Godly people who do good works, evangelicals have never said there isn't.

You sure about that?

Total depravity (also called total inability or total corruption) is a biblical doctrine closely linked with the doctrine of original sin as formalized by Augustine and advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, especially in Calvinism. The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3, ESV)

http://www.theopedia...Total_depravity

However the question is how did these people become godly. As the NT clearly presents God must do a work in their heart first. Without this work all men are ungodly by nature as Paul explains in Romans 1:18-3:18, therefore they cannot be declared righteous on account of their works Romans 3:19-20, but are declared righteous on account of the righteousness of God received through faith Romans 3:21-22

Then, as Ephesians 2:8-10 lays out, those that have been 'created in Christ Jesus' are the ones that then do the good works prepared for them. But as Ephesians make clear there is an order involved, men are saved by grace through faith apart from any works so that they then may do good works.

And yet Paul speaks of Gentiles who do good works and are godly "by Nature" and show them self just before God.

Romans 2

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Edited August 10, 2012 by Zakuska

[bluebell]

bluebell,

Hi. You wrote:

No apology needed. No problem.

You wrote:

It's a lot more than three, but in any case the real issue here is the methodological principles involved. Kurt and Barbara Aland, two of the most renowned scholars in textual criticism, offered a memorable analogy to explain the reasoning here:

“If a fragment preserves a passage where there is any variation in the tradition, it is quite sufficient to signal the textual character of the whole manuscript. There is no need to consume a while jar of jelly to identify the quality of its contents—a spoonful or two is quite adequate!” The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 58.

To give you some idea how respected these two scholars are, Kurt Aland is the "Aland" of the standard Greek New Testament edition known as Nestle-Aland, currently in its 27th edition, used by the United Bible Societies.

The point is that a manuscript "fragment" can provide enough information about the character of the manuscript as a whole that one can be reasonably confident what the rest of the manuscript would look like (not every word, of course). This is why scholars can generally classify manuscript fragments from the second century as belonging in a particular "family" of manuscripts for which fourth-century codices are the principal representatives. It works because scholars have been able to examine thousands of manuscripts of all kinds of lengths, from scraps containing only a few words to books containing every book of the Bible, and everything between those two extremes, and have learned enough about scribal practices and tendencies that they can draw reasonably reliable conclusions even from partial evidence. The same sort of reasoning is used in forensic sciences all the time.

You asked:

Think of the extant manuscripts in Greek as well as in other languages translated from Greek as arranged in a tree with the latest medieval manuscripts at the very top of the tree, the great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries as the large branches close to the trunk, and the earliest fragments as pieces of bark from areas of the tree close to where the trunk branches out. Scholars can trace the development of the text backwards in time, or downward on the "tree," and see what has happened. The evidence has reached the point where scholars now generally agree that most of the significant variants (i.e., other than spelling mistakes, though a lot of those too) originated in the second century. That means we are actually looking at the lowest branches of the tree and pieces of the bark close to the trunk when we examine those earliest fragments and codices. It's not difficult to complete the tracing of the development of the text down a bit further into the "trunk," or the original text.

You wrote:

These are entirely different issues. The biblical scholars who think that three to six of Paul's letters were written by someone other than Paul are engaged in a different type of study than textual criticism. They are not trying to establish the earliest or original text of 1 Timothy, for example, but are rather arguing that Paul didn't write it at all.

Virtually all biblical scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 in the KJV was added to Mark by someone in the second century or so. This is one of the two passages I mentioned in my previous post. The other one was John 7:53-8:11 (about the woman caught in adultery). Each of these two passages happens to be twelve verses long. No other text in the NT thought by scholars to be a later addition is longer than a single sentence or so (most of them are one verse in length; a couple are one and a half verses). There are no such passages in 1 Corinthians. Occasionally some scholars will argue that a verse or two that appears in all of the extant manuscripts was added to the text within a few years or so of the original writing. The basis for these claims is the scholar's opinion that the verse in question doesn't seem to flow or fit well in the passage. The technical term for these alleged intrusions into the text found in all extant copies is interpolations. These are scholars' speculations, not facts based on any solid evidence.

You wrote:

Hopefully I've shed a little light for you on this question. Where all of the manuscripts agree on the wording of the text, there's no basis for suspecting that all of them are wrong. No one thinks John 3:16 didn't originally say "For God so loved the world...." There's no chance it said anything like "For Athena hated the world." If the copying process really had radically altered the text of the NT books, we should have discovered some evidence of this as our earliest copies and fragments became earlier and earlier. That has not happened. We now have enough evidence to conclude with a high degree of confidence that it is extremely unlikely that such radical alterations occurred and left no traces in the extant copies.

A key point here is that Christianity in the second and third centuries was not organized well enough even to try to produce a uniform text for all churches throughout the Mediterranean world. Christians were generally poor, politically powerless, and lacked the necessary ecclesiastical structure and controls to impose uniformity on the biblical writings. In fact, the historical evidence of the extant manuscripts shows that European Christianity did not develop anything like a uniform text until about a thousand years after Christ. So whatever changes were made in specific manuscripts in the second and third centuries, no specific change would be made in all of the manuscripts, and no specific change would be passed down to all of the copies that have survived. That means that the correct reading of any passage in the NT is almost certainly going to be available in some of the manuscripts that are extant today. It's simply a matter of studying the variants and using good reasoning skills and information about the manuscripts to reach educated conclusions as to what the originals most likely said.

You wrote:

Yep, I'm well aware of Ehrman's position on the authorship of the NT writings. Again, this is an entirely different question than whether what we have in the NT is what the authors, whoever they were, originally wrote.

You wrote:

That's great.

You wrote:

The comparison is relevant only to the question of whether we can know what the book in question originally said, not whether what it said is true. I have not tried in these posts to argue that the NT is true, only that we can know to a very high degree of accuracy what the NT books originally said. This ought to be enough for our purposes, since the LDS position is that the NT as originally written was true and is the word of God insofar as what we have accurately reflects what it originally said.

I've got some issues and questions with some of your points, but I think my best course of action would be to do some more reading on it. I've been wanting to get Ehrman's "misquoting Jesus" for a while and this discussion and finally spurred me to do it.

Thanks for the discussion on it.

For anyone i might still owe a reply to and not remember-my hubby's back in town for the weekend so i probably won't be on much. If there's something i've missed that you really want me to address-PM me with the post number and i'll definitely get to it next week.

[Vance]

And yet Paul speaks of Gentiles who do good works and are godly "by Nature" and show them self just before God.

Romans 2

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

AND, we find this in ROMANS!!!! of all places. But hey, just ignore it because it doesn't fit the 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical preconceptions of what Romans is supposed to be saying.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

What does that mean, that the Bible is missing "many plain and precious things"? What "plain and precious" things are most apparently lacking in the Bible?

You mean besides the things needed to unite the Christian world with a common understanding of what is and is not true Christian doctrine and practice?

You don't know what these letters contain but on basis of their potential existence you assume they would constitute scripture?

ALL of the other epistles of Paul are considered scripture, so why would you assume these would NOT constitute scripture?

Yours is a pretty weak argument, in my estimation.

[Vance]

Well of course there are Godly people who do good works, evangelicals have never said there isn't.

Apparently, you aren't speaking for the Calvinist Evangelicals.

However the question is how did these people become godly.

You seem to want to have it both ways here. You claim that God justifies the ungodly, but then you seem to agree with us that they are no longer ungodly, but have become godly (even though we disagree on what that process is).

So, are they ungodly are not?

I also have another question. Does God justify ALL of the ungodly or only just some of the ungodly. If only just some of them, what is the discriminator between the ungodly that He justifies and the ungodly that He doesn't?

As the NT clearly presents God must do a work in their heart first.

And the Bible is clear that God doesn't force His work upon anybody.

Without this work all men are ungodly by nature as Paul explains in Romans 1:18-3:18, therefore they cannot be declared righteous on account of their works Romans 3:19-20, but are declared righteous on account of the righteousness of God received through faith Romans 3:21-22

It is very unfortunate that you don't understand what Paul meant by that phrase even though numerous attempts have been made to explain it to you.

Then, as Ephesians 2:8-10 lays out, those that have been 'created in Christ Jesus' are the ones that then do the good works prepared for them. But as Ephesians make clear there is an order involved, men are saved by grace through faith apart from any works so that they then may do good works.

This is classic Evangelical mish mash, while TOTALLY disregarding the rest of the teachings of Paul, Peter, John, James, and JESUS.

[thews]

And who is covenanted to practice plural marriage today Thews?

That is my question to you? The point here, is that D&C 132 commands it be "accepted" or one is damned, and the doctrine is exclusive to the LDS faith. Can you define what being "damned" entails?

[Storm Rider]

That is my question to you? The point here, is that D&C 132 commands it be "accepted" or one is damned, and the doctrine is exclusive to the LDS faith. Can you define what being "damned" entails?

In this context not being in the presence of the Father i.e. to not gain Exaltation.

[Vance]

That is my question to you? The point here, is that D&C 132 commands it be "accepted" or one is damned, and the doctrine is exclusive to the LDS faith. Can you define what being "damned" entails?

Since you are obsessed with polygamy, I am curious.

Do you think a man who marries somebody like this is a polygamist?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ready-famous-conjoined-twins-getting-their-own-reality-show/

[thews]

Since you are obsessed with polygamy, I am curious.

Do you think a man who marries somebody like this is a polygamist?

http://www.theblaze....n-reality-show/

My question is in regarding to being "damned" for rejecting D&C 132. This theology is currently practiced in sealings. What exactly does being "damned" entail? This is my understanding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealing_%28Mormonism%29

It has been argued that the LDS Church's policy on sealings and cancellations reflect its doctrine of plural marriage. Although the doctrine of plural marriage is currently prohibited from being practiced in the Church, a man can be sealed to multiple women. A widower may be sealed while he is alive to his subsequent wives. Additionally, men who are dead may be sealed by proxy to all of the women to whom they were legally married while alive. Recent changes in church policy also allow women to be sealed to multiple men, but only after both she and her husband(s) are dead.^[2]

So while polygamy may not be currently practiced in this life, polygamous sealings are currently practiced in the LDS faith. Is this incorrect? This point isn't subtle, as one is "damned" for rejecting it. My question, to anyone who can answer it, is what does being "damned" entail for rejecting D&C 132? If this theology is true, it's relevant to the differences in Christian theology vs. Mormon theology, as it requires Christians to accept Mormon doctrine unless they be damned for rejecting it.

[altersteve]

My question is in regarding to being "damned" for rejecting D&C 132. This theology is currently practiced in sealings. What exactly does being "damned" entail? This is my understanding:

http://en.wikipedia....ing_(Mormonism)

So while polygamy may not be currently practiced in this life, polygamous sealings are currently practiced in the LDS faith. Is this incorrect? This point isn't subtle, as one is "damned" for rejecting it. My question, to anyone who can answer it, is what does being "damned" entail for rejecting D&C 132? If this theology is true, it's relevant to the differences in Christian theology vs. Mormon theology, as it requires Christians to accept Mormon doctrine unless they be damned for rejecting it.

As I explained earlier, it does not say one will be damned for rejecting D&C 132, but for rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, i.e., the fullness of the gospel. Of course one will be damned for rejecting that, probably in the most literal way possible.

[djholmess]

You seem to want to have it both ways here. You claim that God justifies the ungodly, but then you seem to agree with us that they are no longer ungodly, but have become godly (even though we disagree on what that process is).

So, are they ungodly are not?

I also have another question. Does God justify ALL of the ungodly or only just some of the ungodly. If only just some of them, what is the discriminator between the ungodly that He justifies and the ungodly that He doesn't?

Ok to be as clear as possible. As per Romans 4:5 God justifies the ungodly-that means they are ungodly when they are declared righteous.

The only ungodly people God justifies are those who 'do not work but trust in him who justifies the ungodly'. So if you think/hope you are justified, 'declared righteous' by any other means than a faith that trusted in God to justify you when you were ungodly then you are not justified.

As a result of the New Cevenant/New Birth (see Jermeiah 31:29-31 and Ezekiel 36:25-27) a man/woman is changed to enable them to have faith and do good works, to be 'Godly'. The first response of this born again person is faith in the God who justifies the ungodly, that faith is counted for righteousness (just like Abrahams). But now this born again believer is enabled by God to do good works that spring from their faith. Good works that are not seeking justification and are not nessecary for salvation but that are out of a love for God and a delight in glorifying Him. This is the plain order in Ephesians 2. Men who were 'dead in trespass' and sin are 'made alive' in Christ and saved by grace through faith apart from any good works. These so saved people are saved in order to do the good works God has prepared for them to do.

The order is essential. Mormons mix this up. Being judged righteous/worthy by God is a future event rather than a past event and so good works take the wrong focus-rather than trusting the God who justifies the ungodly it seems you want to do your own godly works and thus miss out on the salvation offered in Christ.

[Flyonthewall]

It sounds like what is being said is that we are nothing but puppets or marionettes for God to animate at His pleasure.

I believe this to be the exact opposite of what is written in the Bible.

We are to act for ourselves to bring forth good fruit, and in so doing God will magnify our efforts.

Jesus stated very clearly: "He that ^abelieveth and is ^bbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ^cdamned."

What is the difference between those that believe but do nothing, and those that believe and go and get baptized?

James is very clear on this too: "24 Ye see then how that by ^aworks a man is ^bjustified, and not by faith only."

James goes into very great detail how faith is not complete without works...not the works/rituals of the Law of Moses but by obedience to the commandments of God.

Faith + works = living faith. Faith by itself is dead.

Your claim is that God will justify people with dead faith.

Now really, who do you beleive God will justify? People with dead faith? or people with living faith?

As has been stated before, to proclaim that God justifies the ungodly is in direct contradiction of the Gospel, and is a heresy brought about by a very plain and precious thing that was lost in translation.

[djholmess]

It sounds like what is being said is that we are nothing but puppets or marionettes for God to animate at His pleasure.

I believe this to be the exact opposite of what is written in the Bible.

We are to act for ourselves to bring forth good fruit, and in so doing God will magnify our efforts.

Jesus stated very clearly: "He that ^abelieveth and is ^bbaptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ^cdamned."

What is the difference between those that believe but do nothing, and those that believe and go and get baptized?

James is very clear on this too: "24 Ye see then how that by ^aworks a man is ^bjustified, and not by faith only."

James goes into very great detail how faith is not complete without works...not the works/rituals of the Law of Moses but by obedience to the commandments of God.

Faith + works = living faith. Faith by itself is dead.

Your claim is that God will justify people with dead faith.

Now really, who do you beleive God will justify? People with dead faith? or people with living faith?

I am sorry but you are confusing two connected but different concepts. Living faith alone justifies, just because this living faith is never alone-it produces good works-doesn't mean that the justification comes as a result of those works. Look at Paul's usage of the term, it is always a one time event in the life of a believer e.g. Romans 5:1

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Believers have been justified, past tense, by faith. This justifying faith is a living faith and so will go on to produce good works demonstrating that the faith is living faith not dead faith. However these good works have nothing to do with Gods declarition of justification as it has already been done.

Go and look at the context of Paul in Romans 3-4 and James 2. They are talking about justification from two differ view points.

Paul is talking about someone being justified in the sight of GOD.

20 For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in HIS sight, since through the law comes knowledge sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.....

James is talking about knowing is someone if justified in the sight on MAN.

18"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show ME your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works"

I would ask you if only godly men can be justified then who can ever be justified in light of Romans 3:9-18?

9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11     no one understands;

    no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

    no one does good,

    not even one.”

13  “Their throat is an open grave;

    they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips....

As has been stated before, to proclaim that God justifies the ungodly is in direct contradiction of the Gospel, and is a heresy brought about by a very plain and precious thing that was lost in translation.

If this is a translational issue can you then point me to even 1 Greek NT manuscript where the Greek word 'not' is found in Romans 4:5? Any English translation you would care to mention, the KJV or the ESV or whatever are all translations based on the (now 5500+) Greek manuscripts we have today. If this was lost in translation then you must be able to find it in the untranslated Greek manuscripts right?

Edited August 11, 2012 by djholmess

[Tacenda]

I am sorry but you are confusing two connected but different concepts. Living faith alone justifies, just because this living faith is never alone-it produces good works-doesn't mean that the justification comes as a result of those works. Look at Paul's usage of the term, it is always a one time event in the life of a believer e.g. Romans 5:1

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ"

Believers have been justified, past tense, by faith. This justifying faith is a living faith and so will go on to produce good works demonstrating that the faith is living faith not dead faith. However these good works have nothing to do with Gods declarition of justification as it has already been done.

Go and look at the context of Paul in Romans 3-4 and James 2. They are talking about justification from two differ view points.

Paul is talking about someone being justified in the sight of GOD.

20 For by works of the law no human being[c] will be justified in HIS sight, since through the law comes knowledge sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested.....

James is talking about knowing is someone if justified in the sight on MAN.

18"But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show ME your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works"

I would ask you if only godly men can be justified then who can ever be justified in light of Romans 3:9-18?

9 What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

11 no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

13 “Their throat is an open grave;

they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips....

If this is a translational issue can you then point me to even 1 Greek NT manuscript where the Greek word 'not' is found in Romans 4:5? Any English translation you would care to mention, the KJV or the ESV or whatever are all translations based on the (now 5500+) Greek manuscripts we have today. If this was lost in translation then you must be able to find it in the untranslated Greek manuscripts right?

I'm going to get it for this, but I think your quote justifies taking the "after all we can do" part out of the scripture in our LDS cannon. But of course I'll get a big stink over it. Because this is a sticky situation between the LDS and the Evangelicals.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

I'm going to get it for this, but I think your quote justifies taking the "after all we can do" part out of the scripture in our LDS cannon. But of course I'll get a big stink over it. Because this is a sticky situation between the LDS and the Evangelicals.

I don't think that an evangelical misreading of Paul requires us to excise portions of restoration scripture, especially not in NewPerspectives on Paul age.

[Zakuska]

Ok to be as clear as possible. As per Romans 4:5 God justifies the ungodly-that means they are ungodly when they are declared righteous.

The only ungodly people God justifies are those who 'do not work but trust in him who justifies the ungodly'. So if you think/hope you are justified, 'declared righteous' by any other means than a faith that trusted in God to justify you when you were ungodly then you are not justified.

As a result of the New Cevenant/New Birth (see Jermeiah 31:29-31 and Ezekiel 36:25-27) a man/woman is changed to enable them to have faith and do good works, to be 'Godly'. The first response of this born again person is faith in the God who justifies the ungodly, that faith is counted for righteousness (just like Abrahams). But now this born again believer is enabled by God to do good works that spring from their faith. Good works that are not seeking justification and are not nessecary for salvation but that are out of a love for God and a delight in glorifying Him. This is the plain order in Ephesians 2. Men who were 'dead in trespass' and sin are 'made alive' in Christ and saved by grace through faith apart from any good works. These so saved people are saved in order to do the good works God has prepared for them to do.

The order is essential. Mormons mix this up. Being judged righteous/worthy by God is a future event rather than a past event and so good works take the wrong focus-rather than trusting the God who justifies the ungodly it seems you want to do your own godly works and thus miss out on the salvation offered in Christ.

Why was Abraham declared righteous according to Paul?

Because he "believed" in Christ.

Belief in Christ is the first commandment of God under the New Covenant. (The first principle of the Gospel is "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" -- LDS 4th article of Faith)

1 John 5:3

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Therefore, you cannot be saved with out first following a commandment of God (ie a work) .

[djholmess]

Why was Abraham declared righteous according to Paul?

Because he "believed" in Christ.

Therefore, you cannot be saved with out first following a commandment of God (ie a work) .

Zakuska,

This is exactly why evangelicals do not accept that Mormons who believe as you do about this issue are truly justified followers of Christ. Your view, coming from JS or your Church or wherever it specifically comes from about the nature of faith and justification is read back into the text of the NT-you will not find it there.

Saving faith, living faith, is not a work. Saving faith is a waiting on God for justification without doing any type of work. Notice the contrast Paul makes in Romans 4

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS COUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS God,” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the ONE WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES IN HIM WHO JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY HIS FAITH IS COUNTED A RIGHTEOUSNESS, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Connect the the statements I highlighted. Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness. What was the nature of this belief? It was a belief that cannot be classed as a work and it was a belief that looked to God to justify him even though he was ungodly.

Now I've noticed that when faith apart from works is brought up in this forum people are quick to say 'yes but those works are the works of the Mosaic Law not the commandments we follow as LDS'. This won't work, firstly in the run up to Romans 3:19-4:8 Paul has not been talking about the ceremonial law of scraficies he has been talking about the moral commands of God. And secondly here in Romans 4 we are talking about Abraham as the premier example of being justified by faith apart from works. The Mosaic Law wasn't given at the time of Abraham. The works that are contrasted with waiting faith isn't the works of the Mosaic Law, it is any work whereby men think they actually do their own righteousness.

This is where LDS miss the gospel. The good news is that God justifies the ungodly who have no good works to their name. Just as Abraham was counted or reckoned righteous apart from any works so too are those who's faith like Abrahams' trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly.

How does this work? Well notice what righteousness Paul is talking about in Romans;

1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

3:21-22

But now the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

The righteousness that is reckoned to Abraham was the righteousness of God-Christ's righteousness. That is why the ungodly can be declared righteous; they are clothed in Christ's righteousness. Just as a mans sin was laid on Jesus when he suffered the punishment of sin on the cross, Jesus righteousness is counted to the believer who trusts in God to justify the ungodly.

Having then "been justified by faith, we now have peace with God" (Romans 5:1) and by the Holy Spirits power believers then go on to do good works showing that their faith is a living faith. These good works cannot add to or enhance the declaration of 'righteous' because the righteousness the believer is clothed in is the perfect righteousness of Christ-it can't be enhanced.

Anyone; Mormons, Roman Catholics or Evangelicals who have not yet recognised their own sinfulness before God (Romans 1:18-3:18) and looked to God for justification by faith apart from any effort on their part has not yet grasped and understood the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified to bring people to God.

[Calm]

This is exactly why evangelicals do not accept that Mormons who believe as you do about this issue are truly justified followers of Christ. Your view, coming from JS or your Church or wherever it specifically comes from about the nature of faith and justification is read back into the text of the NT-you will not find it there.

Thankfully LDS do not use the same justification to discount the discipleship of other Christians they believe are taking extrabilical concepts such as the Trinity and reading them back into the NT.