What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[danielwoods]

That's not true. Haven't you ever seen those 'free gift with a purchase of 30 dollars or more' advertisements? A gift is a gift regardless of the requirements the giver places on it.

If someone gave you a car, but required that you take drivers ed and get a license before you could drive it, the car is just as much a gift as it would be otherwise.

Believing that Christ has declared that one must 1-have faith in Him, 2-repent of their sins, 3-be baptized, 4-receive the Holy Ghost, and 5-keep having faith and keep repenting for one's entire life in order to be saved does not negate the Atonement or mean that the person is 'earning' their salvation, any more than the person who had to get a driver's license has 'earned' their car.

Tha'ts not true either. The word 'attain' means the same thing as the words 'receive', 'get', 'gain', etc.

You can't make up your own definitions for words.

We obviously disagree.

The bible does not ever specify if the eternal state of the thief on the cross, so i can't speak to that.

Obviously we do disagree, and will continue, but not based on the NT alone, but because other ideas are mixed in. Your list is from the LDS not from the NT, which only proves my point.

The Thief on the cross is with Jesus. Case closed. That's all we all hope for, to be with Christ. If the story in the NT isn't enough for you, again, that means that other ideas are being mixed in.

I was only using the term "attain" in the way it was used in the previous quote. "He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory?"

As for your idea that a gift is still a gift if it has strings attached. I disagree. It's not a free gift, as salvation is explained in the NT. When someone attaches all sorts of strings e.g. a sales pitch, then it's not analogous to salvation at all, because it's not free.

As for your analogy about the car, the car is a gift, if it's given for free. The requirements to use the gift don't really have any connection by way of analogy to salvation. The NT doesn't place limits or licenses on one's salvation to use it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by danielwoods

[djholmess]

I beleive Jesus is talking about the witness of the Spirit. It is not something that is easily described. Nicodemus wanted this "born again" thing quantified, laid out for him. Jesus simply told him that it can't be done. Like the wind, we can't see it, but we know it is there. Evangelists like to claim we simply rely on our feelings, but we know it is not.

What justification do you have for equating Jesus concept of 'born again' with your LDS concept of a 'witness of the Spirit.'. Is there ever a context where Jesus or another NT writer uses the phrase to describe what you mean when you say witness of the Spirit?

In Jesus dialouge with Nicodemus Jesus expected him to know what Jesus was talking about, 'are you a teacher of the law and you do not know these things'. Can you show me where in the OT your concept of a witness of the Spirit is found described as being 'born again of water and spirit'

If that is the case, then the devils are born again also. As James says,

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

The devils believe...by your definition, they are born again.

It's not my defination, it's Johns. The tense of the Greek feeds is clear, 'believes' is in the present tense, 'born' is in the perfect tense. Anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

Why do you seek to reject what John has said by appealing to James? Even if you are right and born again is a witness of the Spirit then you are arguing against your self because you could say that the devils have a witness of the Spirit.

Of course 1 John and James are different books. There is a vast difference between saying Jesus is the Messiah and saying there is only one God-surely you can see that?

Paul's point was to convince the Jews that they were no better than the gentiles. They were in need of salvation just as much as the gentiles. The Law of Moses did not save the Jews. He used that passage of scripture, that points to a particular subset of people(fools), to illustrate a point. The role of the fools, would be played by the Jews in this illustration.

If, as you think Paul is saying, nobody seeks God, then all those scripture passages about seeking the Lord, are meaningless.

Please go back and read Romans 1:18-3:18, I think you would find it very interesting to read the entire passage with our conversation in mind. Paul is talking about both Gentiles and Jews. His purpose is to show that all people are sinners in need of salvation both Gentile and Jewish people. 3:9-18 is very clearly his summary of everything he has just argued about both groups not just the Jews.

You seem to want to split faith apart from works while James say that you cannot. Living faith does not equal works, living faith = beleif + action.

James also says: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" You seem to say "yes".

You are not understanding what I'm saying. Living faith and works are two different things. However living faith is always accompanied by works. Living faith itself is not a doing it is a trusting and believing in God who justifies the ungodly. Such a man is declared righteous by God because a alien righteousness (Christ's) is counted to him on account of his faith. Once justified on account of faith alone the person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and then is able to do good works. So from a human perspective someone who claims to have faith but has not works cannot be said to have a saving faith.

Paul's audience in the Romans is "... all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...". Of course they have already been baptized for the remission of sin and received the Holy Ghost.

To remain justified, and be undefiled before God, you must keep yourselves unspotted from the world.

Can't you see that you just read all that back into Romans rather than getting it from the letter? Where does Paul say they were justified because they were baptised or because they received the Holy Spirit? Where does Paul say someone can lose their status of justification?

[altersteve]

djholmess,

Please stop implying that we believe we can earn our own salvation, or receive it based on our efforts. We do not, as this statement on the official LDS Newsroom clearly explains. Your persistence to tell us what we believe and to use your Protestant interpretation of scripture to prove us wrong is getting beyond tiring. Protestant doctrine has nothing to do with what we believe in, so using your interpretation (which we believe to be false anyway) to criticize LDS doctrine is an illogical and totally useless exercise that gets nobody anywhere. You waste your time and you waste ours. You asking us to read a certain Bible passage to get your point across is especially ridiculous, because guess what? WE'VE ALREADY READ IT, and we DO NOT read through your interpretation, nor will we.

Remember, Latter-day Saints view the Bible from a (naturally) Latter-day Saint perspective, in light of what we believe to be modern revelation. And you even seem to realize this obvious fact:

Can't you see that you just read all that back into Romans rather than getting it from the letter?

Obviously! Of course we read it back into Paul's letter, because we are reading that letter in light of modern revelation, just as you read the Old Testament in light of the New. Using this fact against us is pointless, because we completely agree with you that we do it! And no, we will not show you from the Bible where Paul says such-and-such, or where Jesus taught whatever to so-and-so. We don't have to. We have extra-biblical revelation that tells us "such-and-such" is true. The fact that you don't accept that revelation is your problem, your business, and it's between you and God only and has nothing to do with what we believe at all. But we do accept them, and therefore, we do NOT believe the Bible, because of these modern revelations, contradicts ANYTHING we believe in. You do. That's fine. But please stop using your interpretation to prove ours wrong. That's really all you and every other Christian critic of ours is doing. And it just doesn't work that way. We Latter-day Saints understand this, which is why we don't tell people that everything believe in is wrong and they should denounce all those false beliefs or they'll go hell. Instead we ask all people to come unto Christ, and if you already have, great! Let's see if we can add to your happiness with the additional information Christ has given to us about His gospel for the sole purpose of sharing it with you. Why don't other Christians have this kind of attitude?

But I digress. My original goal with this post was to say this: STOP implying that we believe we can earn our own salvation. WE DON'T. WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T. So please STOP TELLING US WE DO.

Thank you.

[/rant]

Edited August 15, 2012 by altersteve

[djholmess]

djholmess,

Please stop implying that we believe we can earn our own salvation, or receive it based on our efforts. We do not, as this statement on the official LDS Newsroom clearly explains. Your persistence to tell us what we believe and to use your Protestant interpretation of scripture to prove us wrong is getting beyond tiring. Protestant doctrine has nothing to do with what we believe in, so using your interpretation (which we believe to be false anyway) to criticize LDS doctrine is an illogical and totally useless exercise that gets nobody anywhere. You waste your time and you waste ours. You asking us to read a certain Bible passage to get your point across is especially ridiculous, because guess what? WE'VE ALREADY READ IT, and we DO NOT read through your interpretation, nor will we.

Remember, Latter-day Saints view the Bible from a (naturally) Latter-day Saint perspective, in light of what we believe to be modern revelation. And you even seem to realize this obvious fact:

Obviously! Of course we read it back into Paul's letter, because we are reading that letter in light of modern revelation, just as you read the Old Testament in light of the New. Using this fact against us is pointless, because we completely agree with you that we do it! And no, we will not show you from the Bible where Paul says such-and-such, or where Jesus taught whatever to so-and-so. We don't have to. We have extra-biblical revelation that tells us "such-and-such" is true. The fact that you don't accept that revelation is your problem, your business, and it's between you and God only and has nothing to do with what we believe at all. But we do accept them, and therefore, we do NOT believe the Bible, because of these modern revelations, contradicts ANYTHING we believe in. You do. That's fine. But please stop using your interpretation to prove ours wrong. That's really all you and every other Christian critic of ours is doing. And it just doesn't work that way. We Latter-day Saints understand this, which is why we don't tell people that everything believe in is wrong and they should denounce all those false beliefs or they'll go hell. Instead we ask all people to come unto Christ, and if you already have, great! Let's see if we can add to your happiness with the additional information Christ has given to us about His gospel for the sole purpose of sharing it with you. Why don't other Christians have this kind of attitude?

But I digress. My original goal with this post was to say this: STOP implying that we believe we can earn our own salvation. WE DON'T. WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T. So please STOP TELLING US WE DO.

Thank you.

[/rant]

Where in my last post did I say you believe you earn your salvation? I was asking flyonthewall to explain some statements he had made and I also more fully explained my understanding of what the Bible says about faith and works-I never mentioned LDS ,earning salvation'

[Calm]

But we do accept them, and therefore, we do NOT believe the Bible, because of these modern revelations, contradicts ANYTHING we believe in

Huh?

[Flyonthewall]

What justification do you have for equating Jesus concept of 'born again' with your LDS concept of a 'witness of the Spirit.'. Is there ever a context where Jesus or another NT writer uses the phrase to describe what you mean when you say witness of the Spirit?

In Jesus dialouge with Nicodemus Jesus expected him to know what Jesus was talking about, 'are you a teacher of the law and you do not know these things'. Can you show me where in the OT your concept of a witness of the Spirit is found described as being 'born again of water and spirit'

I did not say a witness of the spirit = being born again. They are 2 different things though a witness may accompany being born again.

There is nothing that I know of in the Scriptures that describes a witness of the spirit using that language. But then again, there is nothing in the OT that says we must be born again either.

It's not my defination, it's Johns. The tense of the Greek feeds is clear, 'believes' is in the present tense, 'born' is in the perfect tense. Anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

Why do you seek to reject what John has said by appealing to James? Even if you are right and born again is a witness of the Spirit then you are arguing against your self because you could say that the devils have a witness of the Spirit.

Of course 1 John and James are different books. There is a vast difference between saying Jesus is the Messiah and saying there is only one God-surely you can see that?

What I do see is that you are more than willing to credit devils with being born again, yet exclude us as being Christian.

It is not John's definition, it is your interpretation of John's words. I do not reject John's words, but do indeed reject your interpretation of them.

Please go back and read Romans 1:18-3:18, I think you would find it very interesting to read the entire passage with our conversation in mind. Paul is talking about both Gentiles and Jews. His purpose is to show that all people are sinners in need of salvation both Gentile and Jewish people. 3:9-18 is very clearly his summary of everything he has just argued about both groups not just the Jews.

Agree to disagree on your interpretation

You are not understanding what I'm saying. Living faith and works are two different things. However living faith is always accompanied by works. Living faith itself is not a doing it is a trusting and believing in God who justifies the ungodly. Such a man is declared righteous by God because a alien righteousness (Christ's) is counted to him on account of his faith. Once justified on account of faith alone the person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and then is able to do good works. So from a human perspective someone who claims to have faith but has not works cannot be said to have a saving faith.

I understand what you are saying. Works follow faith. But that is not what the scriptures say. What is faith without works?

James goes to great lengths to explain this and uses the analogy of the Body without the spirit...

Can't you see that you just read all that back into Romans rather than getting it from the letter? Where does Paul say they were justified because they were baptised or because they received the Holy Spirit? Where does Paul say someone can lose their status of justification?

So being justified, to you, is a one time event...? once justified, we no longer have to keep ourselves unspotted from world? We can do what ever we want and still be "saved"?

Oh, that's right, if works don't follow, we were never justified to begin with....

Was King David justified?

[djholmess]

I did not say a witness of the spirit = being born again. They are 2 different things though a witness may accompany being born again.

There is nothing that I know of in the Scriptures that describes a witness of the spirit using that language. But then again, there is nothing in the OT that says we must be born again either.

In your previous post to this one when talking about John 3 you said, "I believe Jesus is talking about a witness of the Spirit". If you are now saying being born again isn't a witness of the Spirit then what is it?

What I do see is that you are more than willing to credit devils with being born again, yet exclude us as being Christian.

It is not John's definition, it is your interpretation of John's words. I do not reject John's words, but do indeed reject your interpretation of them.

Why do you keep saying I think devils are born again? I have never said anything like that.

James says that even devils believe God is one-so being a monotheist by itself means nothing with regard to being a follower of God.

John says that anyone who can say Jesus is the Messiah is born again.

Can't you see the difference between these two statements? 'God is one' 'Jesus is the Christ'

So if you reject my intrepretation then what is John saying, how does believing relate to being born of God in 1 John 5:1?

So being justified, to you, is a one time event...? once justified, we no longer have to keep ourselves unspotted from world? We can do what ever we want and still be "saved"?

Oh, that's right, if works don't follow, we were never justified to begin with....

Was King David justified?

Of course justification is a one time event-just as Paul clearly teaches. Abraham is his primary example, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness". When did this happen, Genesis tells us-at a point in time, not after Abraham had done a lot of faithful works but at a point where Abraham believed a promise of God. This is what Paul is teaching-and how does he describe Abraham's faith? "To the one who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness"

James is talking about a person who claims to have faith but no works. Such a faith is dead; only living faith produces works and so anyone who claims to have faith but lacks good works flowing out of that faith has no reason to think their faith is real living faith.

I have never said these works are 'perfect'-Christians do sin all the time. The evidence that your faith is living faith isn't that you never sin it is that you produce good fruit and one of these fruits is a confession and repentance of sin.

To ask was David justified shows that you misunderstand justification. Men are declared righteous because the righteousness of Christ is counted to them. David's or my justification has never been based on our good or sinful actions. It has been based on Christ being our perfect substitute.

[Vance]

A gift is has only one requirement, otherwise it's not a gift. That being the willingness to accept it.

That is the biggest bunch of HOOEY I have ever heard.

Is eternal life a gift?

Yet Jesus specifically declared, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Is to know correct doctrine a gift?

Yet Jesus specifically declared, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Is receiving mercy a gift?

Yet Jesus specifically declared, "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."

If it's something we "attain" then it's something we have earned, making it no longer a gift.

More utter nonsense.

As has been asked before, was the thief on the cross saved just as anyone else?

No. As has been explained before.

The NT when read by itself seems to imply that he was.

Only when you disregard what it actually says.

[bluebell]

Obviously we do disagree, and will continue, but not based on the NT alone, but because other ideas are mixed in. Your list is from the LDS not from the NT, which only proves my point.

My list is from the NT. It includes the references so you can go to the NT and look them up.

The Thief on the cross is with Jesus. Case closed.

The case is far from closed.

The scriptures say that the thief would be with Jesus in Paradise that day, but that's all they say.

We are taught later that during the three days between Jesus' death and His resurrection, Jesus was preaching to the Spirit's in prison, and we know that Jesus also claimed He had not seen God yet when He spoke to mary in the garden. If Christ's words on the cross to the thief were meant to imply, 'today you'll be saved and be in Heaven with me', then other parts in the NT make that interpretation much less clear.

I was only using the term "attain" in the way it was used in the previous quote. "He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory?"

No you weren't. You were using it in the way that would agree with what you think the person who said it was saying. In that quote, the word 'attain' means the same as 'obtain' or 'recieve' or 'gain'. Unless you have issues with using those words, you should just let this line contention go.

As for your idea that a gift is still a gift if it has strings attached. I disagree. It's not a free gift, as salvation is explained in the NT. When someone attaches all sorts of strings e.g. a sales pitch, then it's not analogous to salvation at all, because it's not free.

Yes it is 'free' in the way the NT uses that word.

The same is taught in the Book of Mormon-

4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified; or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

As for your analogy about the car, the car is a gift, if it's given for free. The requirements to use the gift don't really have any connection by way of analogy to salvation. The NT doesn't place limits or licenses on one's salvation to use it.

Christ has set requirements that we must meet in order to access His saving grace. My analogy spoke of certain requirements that must be met in order that the person have access to the car. My analogy fits.

[Vance]

Obviously we do disagree, and will continue, but not based on the NT alone, but because other ideas are mixed in.

What is this "NT alone" drivel? Even Paul recognized another, more powerful source. (see Gal 1:12)

BTW, did you know that the Christians of the NT didn't have the NT but only the OT.

Your list is from the LDS not from the NT, which only proves my point.

So, making a list of NT scriptures isn't sourcing from the NT?

You are being silly now.

The Thief on the cross is with Jesus. Case closed.

No, the Thief went to "paradise" and three days latter, Jesus went to "heaven" without him. So, the Thief isn't with Jesus.

That's all we all hope for, to be with Christ.

Then I suggest you start paying more attention to what Jesus taught and not the Evangelical misinterpretation of portions of Paul's writings.

If the story in the NT isn't enough for you, again, that means that other ideas are being mixed in.

The NT isn't enough for the Christian world to come to agreement. So NO, it isn't enough.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As has been asked before, was the thief on the cross saved just as anyone else? The NT when read by itself seems to imply that he was.

No it doesn't

The thief did not go to heaven but to paradise. Those are different places. Were was Christ for the 3 days between his death and resurrection? Remember that when Christ appeared to Mary in the garden he told her to "touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my Father in heaven". So if he (by his own admission) had not yet gone to heaven were was he? He told the thief that on the marrow he would be in paradise with him.

And please deal with Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and the goats. What did the sheep do that the goats did not do?

And I love how you totally skirted every verse that blue bell put up. They directly contradict your assertion that reading the NT alone tells us that we basically don't need to do anything but have a simple belief to be saved. This is false.

[Vance]

It's not my defination, it's Johns. The tense of the Greek feeds is clear, 'believes' is in the present tense, 'born' is in the perfect tense. Anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.

I am disappointed that you continue with this argument even after it has been so thoroughly refuted.

This behavior is an indication that it is a waste of time attempting to dialogue with you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Obviously we do disagree, and will continue, but not based on the NT alone, but because other ideas are mixed in. Your list is from the LDS not from the NT, which only proves my point.

You just lost this debate dude.

[Vance]

Of course justification is a one time event-just as Paul clearly teaches.

Actually NO! he doesn't teach that.

Abraham is his primary example, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness". When did this happen, Genesis tells us-at a point in time, not after Abraham had done a lot of faithful works but at a point where Abraham believed a promise of God.

So, paying tithing isn't a "faithful work"? Abraham paid his tithing BEFORE he was counted as righteous, so your whole argument is destroyed.

[Tacenda]

delete

Edited August 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Zakuska]

This isn't from the NT, but somewhere else. According the NT alone, Christ imputes to us his righteousness, based solely on our willingness, nothing else. We don't "attain" anything according to the NT, it is a gift of God, it always has been, and always will be.

My only point is that the NT is quite clear, when read by itself, in context. If this thread demonstrates anything, it demonstrates how mixing the NT with another body of ideas can make the ideas of the NT cloudy, and not clear.

Newsflash for Paul.

Phil. 3:11

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Silly, Paul. dontcha know you already HAVE it?! Why the heck are you trying for something you already have?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Newsflash for Paul.

Phil. 3:11

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Silly, Paul. dontcha know you already HAVE it?! Why the heck are you trying for something you already have?

Well you see Paul believed and is saved but because he believes he has to do more is really not saved so now he realizes this and is trying to attain it again.

You know the other issues is that when EVies start talking like Daniel woods, is that they are essentially saying that we don't need to do anything to be saved. Just believe. This comes back to the idea that once I am saved I can do what ever I want. After all it is a gift and you cannot earn it. And once you get it you cannot lose it.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Anakin7]

Just returned from the outer region defending they who have been attacked by those that are critical of the True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Thought/Practice/Walk. Another Saved by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone thread, Awesome, Perhaps this will help - http://www.christian-history.org/sola-fide.html and http://www.christian-history.org/not-by-faith-alone.html. salvtion is free 2 Nephi 2:4.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[djholmess]

Actually NO! he doesn't teach that.

So, paying tithing isn't a "faithful work"? Abraham paid his tithing BEFORE he was counted as righteous, so your whole argument is destroyed.

Yes he did pay a tith but does the author of Genesis or Paul say Abraham was counted righteous because of his tithing? Hmmm I think not, I do recal something about his faith though what was it again....his faith was counted as righteousness.

[Zakuska]

Yes he did pay a tith but does the author of Genesis or Paul say Abraham was counted righteous because of his tithing? Hmmm I think not, I do recal something about his faith though what was it again....his faith was counted as righteousness.

And what did his "strong faith" consist of? It was much more than a mere "beleif".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

....his faith was counted as righteousness.

I agree. What is faith? Is it a mere "I believe" and then you just sit there? That seems to be what you guys are peddling here. Because after all it would not be a gift if we had to do something.

Or is Faith something that requires work to become active as James says?

[Anakin7]

Faith - pistis = faithfullness/fidelity/loyalty/obedience/trust. You are given the gift of True Faith from above but you must access/activate True Grace by way of True Faith in order for it to make a change/difference in one's temporal/spiritual life.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Vance]

Yes he did pay a tith but does the author of Genesis or Paul say Abraham was counted righteous because of his tithing?

Well, he did "believe" that he need to pay tithing, AND HE OBEYED. He believed he needed to DO that faithful WORK of obedience. The Lord commanded him to "get thee out of thy country" and he OBEYED prior to his being declared righteous. So, we have a pattern of him demonstrating his faith AND OBEDIENCE by his works of righteousness long BEFORE he was count righteous.

So, your conclusion that his being counted righteous WITHOUT works is proven to be without basis. And James' statement that Abraham was justified by his works is shown to be consistent.

[KevinG]

I am amused by the attempt to tell us we don't understand the New Testament by using definitions from outside of the New Testament to interpret the New Testament.

I would be more amused if the accusers who try to exclude us from Christianity using semantic arguments weren't so serious about drawing people away from Christ's church.

[djholmess]

I agree. What is faith? Is it a mere "I believe" and then you just sit there? That seems to be what you guys are peddling here. Because after all it would not be a gift if we had to do something.

Or is Faith something that requires work to become active as James says?

We have been specifically talking about the faith that justifies before God. Paul explains what Abraham's faith was in Romans 4:5, "and to the one who does not work but trusts in him who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness"

Here is the faith that is counted as righteousness described. It does not try to do its own works in order to be justified, rather it trusts in God to justify despite being ungodly. One thing that seems to be clear is that this is not the faith that Mormons have-you all seem to go to great lengths to ignore or twist this verse. E.g. 'Abraham was really justified because his faith caused him to tith'. Such thinking ignores what Paul says, "and the one who does not work"

Let me be clear this justifying faith isn't a 'just sit there' it is a falling on God crying out for grace and forgiveness recognising that by doing good works no one can be justified. Mormons seem to like to critique Paul's presentation of 'not working' faith. It seems to me this comes from a misunderstanding of how sinful man is. If it was impossible for a sinner to do enough good works to be justified and he knew that what would you have him do? Should he just try anyway or should he turn to God confess his own ability and trust in the way ungodly sinners can be justified that God has provided?

The only condition that God has placed on justification is that a person trust that He justifies apart from any good works. Mormons reject this condition and seek to make that conditional on faith AND their own faithful works. This is not the condition and so such a person has not been justified and with regard to the OP I cannot count them as my brother in Christ.