Additions to the Gospel = Subtractions from Grace

[Five Solas]

At my church in Seattle, we’re currently wrapping up a sermon series on Galatians.  For those unfamiliar, it’s the ninth book of the New Testament, written as a letter to early Christians living in Galatia in the mid first Century AD.  The book is widely agreed by scholars to be an authentic example of the Apostle Paul’s writing. 

In it, Paul addresses a controversy that arose in the early Church.  Certain people were arguing for a “different gospel” (1:6) wherein Christians were required to adhere to “the law” as revealed in the Old Testament, including circumcision.  Notably, even the Apostle Peter (“Cephas”) appears to have been at least briefly persuaded by this grace + works argument (2:12). 

Paul is scandalized by this turn of events, arguing in response that God’s grace is unearned and undeserved, to be received by faith (2:16).  He argues faith itself is God’s free gift, that this is “the truth of the gospel” (2:5, 14).  He shows anger over those who reject this, saying they cannot expect to be saved (1:8, 5:4).   

In my own experience, I think how often we resolve controversy by finding positives on each side of an argument and saying—“you’re both right.”  Both sides need to compromise a little and resolution is thereby found in a new synthesis.   But not here, not for Paul, not when the real Gospel is at stake.

Contrast Paul’s no-quarter approach with that of the late LDS prophet & president, Gordon B. Hinckley, “You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.”  Because for Paul, any additions to the real Gospel are actually subtractions from grace—negating the work of Christ. 

One last thing.  If you haven’t read Galatians (or read it in a while)—I’d highly recommend a translation wherein you can readily understand the language.  I typically use the English Standard Version (ESV), but I often refer to the Catholic New American Bible as well.  The 400+ year-old King James Version included in the LDS “standard works” is itself largely copied from the even earlier work of William Tyndale and is by now quite hard to read and understand, given the ongoing evolution of the English language (the cynic in me sometimes thinks the LDS Church is quite satisfied to keep it this way for its membership). 

All thoughts welcome.

--Erik

[bluebell]

Pres Hinckely wasn't talking about additions to the gospel. He was talking about having a more complete understanding of it.

All truth is of God and therefore a part of the gospel already. So anything good that someone brings with them (i.e. Anything true) is not an addition to the gospel but a legitimate part of it.

Basically Hinckely was restating something Paul himself spoke of--anything that is good or virtuous is welcome in the kingdom of God.  If you have some such things already, you don't need to leave them behind when you join that Kingdom. You bring them with you.

[Wanderer7]

Both Paul and President Hinckley must be understood in context. Paul was speaking to the members of the church in his day who had the fullness of the gospel. Therefore, anything coming from outside the gospel as revealed through the apostles then living was of course not reliable for doctrine. I'm our day, the LDS standpoint is that the original church fell away from the fullness of truth but retained a part. With no apostles on the earth, no more truth could be added and no corrections could be reliably made. President Hinckley is addressing people outside the church who have part but not a fullness and inviting them into restored fullness as revealed through living apostles and prophets.

I note that to say that later apostles cannot add to the revealed cannon means Paul's writings must be disregarded as scripture since he was not in the original 12. Further he was not referring to not adding to the bible as it was not then compiled.

Also the LDS church has no policy on which version of the bible we choose to read. I personally prefer the Joseph Smith Translation

Edited March 14, 2016 by Wanderer7

[JAHS]

I think president Hinckley was speaking, not so much about doctrines, but more about the good Christian qualities that people have acquired in their lives because of living their religion. That they should bring that with them into membership of the church and see how many more good qualities can be added to their characters.

[cdowis]

Look, this whole thing about grace is discussed on two levels -- 

1. Those who are Bible only.
2. Those who are "all scripture, including the Bible and modern revelation".

And the twain will not be easily reconciled but lots of fun for Bible bashing.

[Five Solas]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pres Hinckely wasn't talking about additions to the gospel. He was talking about having a more complete understanding of it.

All truth is of God and therefore a part of the gospel already. So anything good that someone brings with them (i.e. Anything true) is not an addition to the gospel but a legitimate part of it.

Basically Hinckely was restating something Paul himself spoke of--anything that is good or virtuous is welcome in the kingdom of God.  If you have some such things already, you don't need to leave them behind when you join that Kingdom. You bring them with you.

I think you might be stretching Philippians 4:8 more than a little (if you had something else in mind, let me know).  But let's play this out with a highly realistic, yet hypothetical example:  I'm a tech worker in Seattle.  My beliefs are theologically agnostic, working as hard as I have to, making as much money as I can.  

What exactly is the good to which Mormonism/Hinckley will now add?  Feel free to substitute an example of your own if mine doesn't suit. 

--Erik

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I think you might be stretching Philippians 4:8 more than a little (if you had something else in mind, let me know).  But let's play this out with a highly realistic, yet hypothetical example:  I'm a tech worker in Seattle.  My beliefs are theologically agnostic, working as hard as I have to, making as much money as I can.  

What exactly is the good to which Mormonism/Hinckley will now add?  Feel free to substitute an example of your own if mine doesn't suit. 

--Erik

My, it seems like you have a hard time understanding what is good.  Do you see anything good to bring out of the standard you described (excluding being a hard worker)?  Do you think any prophet would think what you presented is good?  Of course not, don't be silly.

A worthwhile example, you are a Protestant and finally find the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ and seek to be baptized.  In your time as a Protestant Christian you have learned to love your neighbor.  President Hinckley, not surprisingly, is saying bring THAT GOOD THING with you, join it with the fullness of the gospel.  He is not saying bring your falsehoods with you.  He is saying the exact opposite.  If you have truth, bring it; we claim all truth as our own and is welcome in the Kingdom of God.  

This is not difficult and certainly is not rocket science.  Allow the Spirit to guide you and you will see truth of things. 

As an aside, I have several different translations of the Bible that I use in scripture study.  However, I still prefer the beauty of the King James version of the Bible.  When one has studied the language for as long as most LDS do, there is no problem understanding the language.  To the contrary, reading the Bible that has been put into modern language is very awkward to me; it is not as enjoyable to read.  

Edited March 14, 2016 by Storm Rider

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I think you might be stretching Philippians 4:8 more than a little (if you had something else in mind, let me know).  But let's play this out with a highly realistic, yet hypothetical example:  I'm a tech worker in Seattle.  My beliefs are theologically agnostic, working as hard as I have to, making as much money as I can.  

What exactly is the good to which Mormonism/Hinckley will now add?  Feel free to substitute an example of your own if mine doesn't suit. 

--Erik

That's a pretty one dimensional person you have described. Is that really all they believe?  

Or....do they also believe in helping people who are down on their luck? Do they believe in loving their spouse, caring for their kids, helping their aging parents?  Do they believe in being honest? Sharing their talents to enrich other people's lives? Volunteering at the animal shelter?  Donating to charities that help the community?   

I've never met someone who did not have some good beliefs and actions in their life. There are probably some out in the world who don't, but I think they are very very very few in numbers.

And anyone who has even one single good belief, tradition, or action in their life has something good they can bring with them when they join the Kingdom of God. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

At my church in Seattle, we’re currently wrapping up a sermon series on Galatians.  For those unfamiliar, it’s the ninth book of the New Testament, written as a letter to early Christians living in Galatia in the mid first Century AD.  The book is widely agreed by scholars to be an authentic example of the Apostle Paul’s writing. 

In it, Paul addresses a controversy that arose in the early Church.  Certain people were arguing for a “different gospel” (1:6) wherein Christians were required to adhere to “the law” as revealed in the Old Testament, including circumcision.  Notably, even the Apostle Peter (“Cephas”) appears to have been at least briefly persuaded by this grace + works argument (2:12). 

Paul is scandalized by this turn of events, arguing in response that God’s grace is unearned and undeserved, to be received by faith (2:16).  He argues faith itself is God’s free gift, that this is “the truth of the gospel” (2:5, 14).  He shows anger over those who reject this, saying they cannot expect to be saved (1:8, 5:4).   

In my own experience, I think how often we resolve controversy by finding positives on each side of an argument and saying—“you’re both right.”  Both sides need to compromise a little and resolution is thereby found in a new synthesis.   But not here, not for Paul, not when the real Gospel is at stake.

Contrast Paul’s no-quarter approach with that of the late LDS prophet & president, Gordon B. Hinckley, “You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.”  Because for Paul, any additions to the real Gospel are actually subtractions from grace—negating the work of Christ. 

One last thing.  If you haven’t read Galatians (or read it in a while)—I’d highly recommend a translation wherein you can readily understand the language.  I typically use the English Standard Version (ESV), but I often refer to the Catholic New American Bible as well.  The 400+ year-old King James Version included in the LDS “standard works” is itself largely copied from the even earlier work of William Tyndale and is by now quite hard to read and understand, given the ongoing evolution of the English language (the cynic in me sometimes thinks the LDS Church is quite satisfied to keep it this way for its membership). 

All thoughts welcome.

--Erik

So you have Peter vs Paul.

So what is anybody supposed to do with that??

Pray about it and read the Book of Mormon, what we always do with conflicts in the Bible.  To to the second witness.

Not that it much matters anyway.  A true Christian will do the best he can anyway even after being "saved".  Sounds like a non-problem to me.

Not to mention that this IS the true gospel, not an addition to anything.

Edited March 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Storm Rider]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you have Peter vs Paul.

So what is anybody supposed to do with that??

Pray about it and read the Book of Mormon, what we always do with conflicts in the Bible.  To to the second witness.

Not that it much matters anyway.  A true Christian will do the best he can anyway even after being "saved".  Sounds like a non-problem to me.

Not to mention that this IS the true gospel, not an addition to anything.

It is the very tired argument of the Evangelical.  They want to force the conversation into their perspective rather than see what the scriptures says or what The Church of Jesus Christ actually teaches.  If ye love me keep my commandments.  If you don't love him Jesus you will not keep his commandments and thus, are not saved.  Of course, there is that problem of being judged....on what are you judged?  Yup, works.  I have heard the dodge that Christians are not judged or when they are judged all their works, good or ill, or washed away by the atonement.  Then why are we judged?

Then there is the more nuanced understanding that one is judged on their works in order to be assigned their mansion in heaven.  This comes much closer to the truth.  

Regardless, it is a worn out attack.  

 

[Anakin7]

    We must walk in the light as he [God The Father] is in the light so as the Blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin. How do we walk in the light ?, by True Faith - pistis = allegiance, commitment, confidence, dedication, devotion, faithfulness,fidelity, loyalty,obedience, trust to the person and work of The Lord of Life/Lord/Redeemer/Savior/God/King/Master Christ Jesus. Salvation to the doer not the sayer.

The Atonement it is the Central Doctrine

Washing my Robes in the Blood of the Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7    

          

[BCSpace]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

It is the very tired argument of the Evangelical.  They want to force the conversation into their perspective rather than see what the scriptures says or what The Church of Jesus Christ actually teaches.  If ye love me keep my commandments.  If you don't love him Jesus you will not keep his commandments and thus, are not saved.  Of course, there is that problem of being judged....on what are you judged?  Yup, works.  I have heard the dodge that Christians are not judged or when they are judged all their works, good or ill, or washed away by the atonement.  Then why are we judged?

Then there is the more nuanced understanding that one is judged on their works in order to be assigned their mansion in heaven.  This comes much closer to the truth.  

Regardless, it is a worn out attack.  

 

We learned from Mosser and Owen in the late 1990's that we had already won the battle.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

At my church in Seattle, we’re currently wrapping up a sermon series on Galatians.  For those unfamiliar, it’s the ninth book of the New Testament, written as a letter to early Christians living in Galatia in the mid first Century AD.  The book is widely agreed by scholars to be an authentic example of the Apostle Paul’s writing. 

In it, Paul addresses a controversy that arose in the early Church.  Certain people were arguing for a “different gospel” (1:6) wherein Christians were required to adhere to “the law” as revealed in the Old Testament, including circumcision.  Notably, even the Apostle Peter (“Cephas”) appears to have been at least briefly persuaded by this grace + works argument (2:12). 

Paul is scandalized by this turn of events, arguing in response that God’s grace is unearned and undeserved, to be received by faith (2:16).  He argues faith itself is God’s free gift, that this is “the truth of the gospel” (2:5, 14).  He shows anger over those who reject this, saying they cannot expect to be saved (1:8, 5:4).   

In my own experience, I think how often we resolve controversy by finding positives on each side of an argument and saying—“you’re both right.”  Both sides need to compromise a little and resolution is thereby found in a new synthesis.   But not here, not for Paul, not when the real Gospel is at stake.

Contrast Paul’s no-quarter approach with that of the late LDS prophet & president, Gordon B. Hinckley, “You bring with you all the good that you have, and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.”  Because for Paul, any additions to the real Gospel are actually subtractions from grace—negating the work of Christ. 

One last thing.  If you haven’t read Galatians (or read it in a while)—I’d highly recommend a translation wherein you can readily understand the language.  I typically use the English Standard Version (ESV), but I often refer to the Catholic New American Bible as well.  The 400+ year-old King James Version included in the LDS “standard works” is itself largely copied from the even earlier work of William Tyndale and is by now quite hard to read and understand, given the ongoing evolution of the English language (the cynic in me sometimes thinks the LDS Church is quite satisfied to keep it this way for its membership). 

All thoughts welcome.

--Erik

And if LDS were promulgating the Law of Moses (clearly the Law being referenced) you might have a point but we don't so you don't.

As to the grace versus works debate let us see how Jesus said people would be divided in the end:

31 ¶When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

Looks like Jesus was a heretic and preaching another gospel. Stone him for me if you see him okay?

[volgadon]

Compare Hinckley with Paul at the Aeropagus.

[Freedom]

Five Solas

Perhaps you can explain something to us about this verse:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

So we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ. What is faith? Is it just believing? It would appear that this verse is not saying we are saved by grace, but rather by our faith in Him. And further, what are the works of the law? If you could provide a simple chart that outlines what these two terms are then we can have a sensible discussion. 

Perhaps also you could explain this scenario: a christian accepts Jesus as his lord and savior. He has problem with his temper, however, and cares little for others. One day he perceives that he was cut off by another driver who happens to be a non-christian so in a fit if rage he drives the other driver off the road and in the ensuing crash they are both killed. It so happens that the non-christian fellow strived his whole life to do good to others, he just never got the chance to understand Christianity.

According to your interpretations of the scriptures, what will happen to each of these men when they face the judgement? Will the non-christian go to hell just because he did not have the opportunity to have faith in Jesus? Will the murderer go to heaven because the only requirement is to believe? 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It is the very tired argument of the Evangelical.  They want to force the conversation into their perspective rather than see what the scriptures says or what The Church of Jesus Christ actually teaches.  If ye love me keep my commandments.  If you don't love him Jesus you will not keep his commandments and thus, are not saved.  Of course, there is that problem of being judged....on what are you judged?  Yup, works.  I have heard the dodge that Christians are not judged or when they are judged all their works, good or ill, or washed away by the atonement.  Then why are we judged?

Then there is the more nuanced understanding that one is judged on their works in order to be assigned their mansion in heaven.  This comes much closer to the truth.  

Regardless, it is a worn out attack.  

 

The ironic thing about it is that Paul contradicts much of what Jesus is reported to have taught. Yet Paul seems to be the source for Christian orthodoxy, not Jesus.

Not that we're immune from similar problems. We ignore a lot of what Paul said, but then we act like Paul is infallible when he talks about homosexuality. 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Gray

[Mars]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The ironic thing about it is that Paul contradicts much of what Jesus is reported to have taught. Yet Paul seems to be the source for Christian orthodoxy, not Jesus.

Not that we're immune from similar problems. We ignore a lot of what Paul said, but then we act like Paul is infallible when he talks about homosexuality. 

 

i've heard of peter and paul disagreeing, and paul disagreeing with even james, but paul and Jesus?  that one's new to me.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Wanderer7 said:

Both Paul and President Hinckley must be understood in context. Paul was speaking to the members of the church in his day who had the fullness of the gospel. Therefore, anything coming from outside the gospel as revealed through the apostles then living was of course not reliable for doctrine. I'm our day, the LDS standpoint is that the original church fell away from the fullness of truth but retained a part. With no apostles on the earth, no more truth could be added and no corrections could be reliably made. President Hinckley is addressing people outside the church who have part but not a fullness and inviting them into restored fullness as revealed through living apostles and prophets.

I note that to say that later apostles cannot add to the revealed cannon means Paul's writings must be disregarded as scripture since he was not in the original 12. Further he was not referring to not adding to the bible as it was not then compiled.

Also the LDS church has no policy on which version of the bible we choose to read. I personally prefer the Joseph Smith Translation

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded/highlighted part.  Care to expound?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Mars said:

i've heard of peter and paul disagreeing, and paul disagreeing with even james, but paul and Jesus?  that one's new to me.

Jesus, as quoted in the gospels, was very works-centric. And while Jesus advocated for a more liberal interpretation of the law, no where is Jesus quoted as advocating for the revocation of the law. 

[Mars]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Jesus, as quoted in the gospels, was very works-centric. And while Jesus advocated for a more liberal interpretation of the law, no where is Jesus quoted as advocating for the revocation of the law. 

i wouldn't characterize a difference in thematic emphases as 'contradiction.' 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

[Boanerges]

13 hours ago, Wanderer7 said:

Also the LDS church has no policy on which version of the bible we choose to read. I personally prefer the Joseph Smith Translation

The following is from GHI 2.1.7 (I recognize it says "should" in the first paragraph but it also says "approved editions" in the last paragraph - it's pretty clear which edition the church prefers you use. FWIW I like the NRSV.)

Bible English-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible. This edition includes the Topical Guide; footnotes; excerpts from the Joseph Smith Translation; cross-references to other passages in the Bible and to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price; and other study aids. Although other versions of the Bible may be easier to read, in doctrinal matters, latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. Spanish-speaking members should use the Latter-day Saint edition of the Reina-Valera Bible. This edition includes study aids similar to those in the Latter-day Saint edition in English. In many other non-English languages, the Church has approved a non–Latter-day Saint edition of the Bible for use in Church meetings and classes. Members should use these editions of the Bible. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical translation is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations. Printed copies of approved editions of the Bible are available from Church Distribution Services. Electronic text and audio recordings of Latter-day Saint editions are also available at scriptures.lds.org.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Mars said:

i wouldn't characterize a difference in thematic emphases as 'contradiction.' 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

I think they do contradict each other on many key issues. Not surprising I suppose, as Paul didn't know the historical Jesus. 

[Mars]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think they do contradict each other on many key issues. Not surprising I suppose, as Paul didn't know the historical Jesus. 

i'd be curious to see your take on this in more detail.  perhaps another thread, when you are able to find the time.  (don't know about you, but that is a scarce resource for me...)

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Mars said:

i'd be curious to see your take on this in more detail.  perhaps another thread, when you are able to find the time.  (don't know about you, but that is a scarce resource for me...)

Yes, I'm afraid the best I can usually muster is a sentence or two at a time. But a more detailed discussion would be fun!

[Boanerges]

I do agree with the OP that we Mormons do tend to gloss over or outright overlook grace. I think that was Uchtdorf's point last April.