Additions to the Gospel = Subtractions from Grace

[halconero]

And yet post-Reformation Protestantism likes to ignore the Pauline language of divine patronage models where the concept of "faith" is wrapped up pious living and actions whose purpose is the maintenance of undeserved divine favour (grace).

[stemelbow]

All I can say is Fewf! to have to read into the scriptures like he in the OP did would be an exhausting way to go.  Sorry, there doesn't seem much more for me to comment on than that.  I guess I'm rude. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe Wanderer was pointing out to Five Solas that by his intepretation of the scriptures, anything Paul wrote was an addition and therefore should be tossed out. 

Wanderer, please correct me if I have misunderstood.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, volgadon said:

Compare Hinckley with Paul at the Aeropagus.

This is an important scripture, and your comment incredibly on point, because I feel this parallels our position as LDS in this secular world, and even in the alleged "Christian" world

All in "the opposition" are worshiping false gods, either disembodied substance, or a secularism that makes man into god.  Christianity makes its god an ineffable "substance" which cannot be defined, so secularism reacts with no god but man.  We see the irony of all this embodied right here in this discussion- where the choices given for belief are either blind unreasoned faith in an  ineffable substance, or an atheistic worship of man as god.

So this discussion itself parallels Paul's point at the Aeropagus, just the false gods have changed into ineffable substance or secular man himself.

Paul sets us straight with the answer being that God is "Our Father" and we are his children.  He is no ineffable substance, and not a creation of man, but as the Lord's prayer teaches, Our Father. Secularism gets it half right by worshiping man, but misses the Man of Holiness.  Christianity gets it half right, making God a spirit, but not an embodied spirit combined with an exalted body, capable of being Our Father.

And here we are, stuck in the middle with Paul.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours 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. 

 

The further irony is that EV's go to Paul who never saw Jesus in the flesh, thereby endorsing personal revelation , while they themselves eschew personal revelation of doctrine.  If anyone was "adding to the gospel", it was Paul preaching his personal revelation and not the words of Jesus.

Go figure.

They endorse the "plain words" of the bible and yet also endorse Paul's personal revelation and the "philosophies of men"- ie HIS personal interpretation of what he heard the words of Jesus were.

Don't get me wrong- I have no problem with Paul, but being able to understand him.  In many ways it was Paul who constructed the theory behind "Christianity" though he never met Jesus in the flesh.  Because I believe in personal revelation I have no problem with that, and of course that is what Joseph did also with his visions.

But why it was ok for Paul and not Joseph is just a mystery to me, and I find it terribly inconsistent.

Edited March 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The further irony is that EV's go to Paul who never saw Jesus in the flesh, thereby endorsing personal revelation , while they themselves eschew personal revelation of doctrine.  If anyone was "adding to the gospel", it was Paul preaching his personal revelation and not the words of Jesus.

Go figure.

They endorse the "plain words" of the bible and yet also endorse Paul's personal revelation and the "philosophies of men"- ie HIS personal interpretation of what he heard the words of Jesus were.

Don't get me wrong- I have no problem with Paul, but being able to understand him.  In many ways it was Paul who constructed the theory behind "Christianity" though he never met Jesus in the flesh.  Because I believe in personal revelation I have no problem with that, and of course that is what Joseph did also with his visions.

But why it was ok for Paul and not Joseph is just a mystery to me, and I find it terribly inconsistent.

Excellent points - I hadn't thought of it that way. 

[Spammer]

17 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

There's a third level:

3. Those who are Bible and Holy Tradition,  the same ones who produced the Christian Bible in the first place. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Excellent points - I hadn't thought of it that way. 

Thanks!

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

There's a third level:

3. Those who are Bible and Holy Tradition,  the same ones who produced the Christian Bible in the first place. 

This made me think of a picture my Catholic friend sent me:

 

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours 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. 

Resurrection makes you non-historical?

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Resurrection makes you non-historical?

Paul experienced a voice he attributed to a risen Jesus. He never met the historical Jesus (ie the living breathing human being). 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Gray

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Paul had visions of Jesus. He never met the historical Jesus (ie the living breathing human being). 

 

Many visions involve meeting living breathing human beings. I suspect Paul's was one of them.

[consiglieri]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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?

This is a good example you give, Nehor, because it is a plan of salvation that is completely works-based without a hint of needing any kind of atonement from Jesus or any forgiveness of sins.

Not surprisingly, it is found in Matthew's gospel which is very works-oriented.

At the other end of the spectrum is Paul's work in Galatians, where he states that following the law of Moses does not make a person right with God, and even goes so far as to say that if a Jewish Christian follows the law of Moses, it will result in damnation.

For Paul, it is purely the gift of grace through Jesus Christ and him crucified.

What is the truth?

It is hard to say by reference to the scriptures.

Largely because the different authors of the scriptures have such divergent views on the subject.

A recognition of this fact should make all parties to the discussion a bit less dogmatic in their assertions, which are invariably based on scriptural authors who agree with them, while discounting or ignoring those scriptural authors who disagree. 

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Many visions involve meeting living breathing human beings. I suspect Paul's was one of them.

Probably not. A vision is a vision. Of course vision is the wrong word since Paul didn't see anyone. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Many visions involve meeting living breathing human beings. I suspect Paul's was one of them.

I agree of course but this does raise an interesting point.  The resurrection was a historical event- if you see the bible as historical.  That itself is a matter of faith.  I personally believe that the resurrection was a historical event.

But then we have a difference in Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ and the event itself in showing to be "historical".  Like Joseph's vision, Paul's vision was a private event- no one else witnessed what Paul witnessed while he was seeing it.  On the other hand, the bible tells us that many people were witnesses to the risen Christ- which made the biblical account sound more "objective".  You have hundreds of people allegedly seeing Christ- and we have only Paul's word for his experience.

Again I see a parallel with Joseph, and since logically I am a skeptic (who has a strong spiritual testimony based on private experiences) I find it fun to play with different scenarios comparing Paul to Joseph.

So within the context of the bible, I think we have a lot of evidence for the resurrection being historical, but we have no more evidence for Paul's vision than what he has told us.

So in a way, Paul could be seen as vulnerable to the same kind of criticisms we might hear about Joseph.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Probably not. A vision is a vision. Of course vision is the wrong word since Paul didn't see anyone. 

How could you possibly know that?

[Five Solas]

On 3/14/2016 at 6:56 PM, bluebell said:

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. 

 

I think it's fair to say genuine altruism is rare in nature, humans no exception.  Back before he began dabbling in theology, Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on the subject, The Selfish Gene.  It's worthy of one's time and consideration.  I recommend it. 

Yes, my example was pretty one-dimensional.  Had I a bit more time, I could have added that he (or she) also believed in picking up the tab when out with friends and it was his turn to do so.  That he unfailingly took Uber to get home rather than risk a DUI.  And more.  I could even have used your examples:  Helping, caring?  Certainly!--when he was confident of getting recognized for his goodness and the inconvenience was minimal.  Honest?  Every time!--every time the benefits of honesty exceeded the cost. 

But would it have mattered had I developed my character further while still keeping him plausible?  Would you then have been able to put your finger on the good to which Mormonism/Hinckley purports to add?  No?

Two more thoughts before I call it a night.  First, we have no innate goodness to "bring" before God, see James 2:10 (For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.)  Second, it's our heart that matters (do a word-search on "heart" across the 66 books of the Bible and see how significant this idea is).  Unlike us--God isn't fooled by words or deeds, He is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (see Hebrews 4:12).  The human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the only solution is a new one (2 Corinthians 5:17).       

--Erik

PS.  And now, a little Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, "People ain't no good."  You're welcome

:0)

 

[thesometimesaint]

Unlike what the Protestants teach Mormons proudly proclaim that God has a body of flesh, bone, and passions. That he loves us so that we can become like him. That mere believing is not enough. That the Devils believe but tremble. That we are to let our light so shine to be an ensign unto all the earth of God. That the Atonement applies to all in all generations before and after Christs' mortal ministry. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is a good example you give, Nehor, because it is a plan of salvation that is completely works-based without a hint of needing any kind of atonement from Jesus or any forgiveness of sins.

Not surprisingly, it is found in Matthew's gospel which is very works-oriented.

At the other end of the spectrum is Paul's work in Galatians, where he states that following the law of Moses does not make a person right with God, and even goes so far as to say that if a Jewish Christian follows the law of Moses, it will result in damnation.

For Paul, it is purely the gift of grace through Jesus Christ and him crucified.

What is the truth?

It is hard to say by reference to the scriptures.

Largely because the different authors of the scriptures have such divergent views on the subject.

A recognition of this fact should make all parties to the discussion a bit less dogmatic in their assertions, which are invariably based on scriptural authors who agree with them, while discounting or ignoring those scriptural authors who disagree. 

 

I have to disagree a bit here. The lesson Jesus taught in the parable suggests a strong atoning power due to Christ (the King) vicariously claiming to be of all humanity.

I don't think Paul is that one-dimensional. Paul was correcting an extreme flaw. Many of his letters seem to be to people convinced works are enough so the corrective is given and emphasized. I imagine if we had a letter to a congregation of proto-Evangelical heretics he could preach a rousing sermon on the need to live your faith. When he approaches the end he suggests that his life was successful when he says he finished what God sent him to do and kept the faith. If Paul was teaching modern Evangelicalism he probably would have said that he was saved a long time ago on the road to Emmaus and nothing else mattered from a salvation point of view. If he had retired to a villa in Rome and spent his days watching gladiators and chariot races his reward would have been the same.

I think as a cohesive whole you have to take both. "work out your salvation with fear and trembling (works, scary works). For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (despite this God does the heavy lifting)."

I would argue that whatever model you fixate on you should probably focus on the other as a corrective. Focusin solely on grace tends to turn people into sentimental saps who downplay sin. Focusing on works alone makes you a prideful idiot if you are stupid enough to think you measure up and leads to despair if you realistically understand how bad you are doing.

I think if you have to start with one works is preferable. Conscientiously trying to measure up is the best way to find out how badly you need the atonement. The atonement counters the despair and lets you continue to work at it with the knowledge that there is a power out there willing to help you reach the point where God can be 'well pleased' with you.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I think it's fair to say genuine altruism is rare in nature, humans no exception.  Back before he began dabbling in theology, Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on the subject, The Selfish Gene.  It's worthy of one's time and consideration.  I recommend it. 

I disagree. People are like water. Genuinely good but they tend to take the path of least resistance which leads them to hell in varying degrees.

36 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Two more thoughts before I call it a night.  First, we have no innate goodness to "bring" before God, see James 2:10 (For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.)  Second, it's our heart that matters (do a word-search on "heart" across the 66 books of the Bible and see how significant this idea is).  Unlike us--God isn't fooled by words or deeds, He is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (see Hebrews 4:12).  The human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the only solution is a new one (2 Corinthians 5:17).      

We have no innate goodness that will satisfy God. That is not the same as saying it is not there. Your scripture also does not support your statement. It just states that breaking the Law damns us and everyone will break the law to some extent and that means damnation without the atonement of Christ. That is not a point of contention.

And yes, the heart is what matters but, as you say, the heart is deceitful. I have known monsters who are convinced their heart is in the right place. Usually it just means they were happy for a bit. I think you have it backwards. The way to get your heart right is to control your words and deeds and then the heart shifts. I often have no desire to get out of bed and go to church on Sunday morning or help someone move on Saturday or go out with the missionaries when they call for help. My heart is not always in the right place. I don't love my God with my whole being and love my neighbor as myself. But I want to. So I have to pretend I do. I try to ask myself what I would do if I was that kind of person. That is part of what is meant when LDS take upon themselves the name of Christ at baptism (there is much much more but that is a start). We are trying to pretend to be Christ in the same way a child pretends to be a grownup until eventually the act ends and they become what they wanted to emulate.

That is how you get your heart right. You have to do all the hard stuff first. I wish it was as simple as saying a simple prayer and accepting Jesus once. Instead you have to accept Him over and over again until you become Him.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How could you possibly know that?

Which part? From the story, it's explained that Paul heard a voice. I think he probably did hear a voice. Similar stories have long been a part of the religious experience. Of course the experiences themselves and how they are interpreted is subjective. 

Of course I wasn't there, so I don't know anything for sure. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Gray

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

...

I think you have it backwards. The way to get your heart right is to control your words and deeds and then the heart shifts. I often have no desire to get out of bed and go to church on Sunday morning or help someone move on Saturday or go out with the missionaries when they call for help. My heart is not always in the right place. I don't love my God with my whole being and love my neighbor as myself. But I want to. So I have to pretend I do. I try to ask myself what I would do if I was that kind of person. That is part of what is meant when LDS take upon themselves the name of Christ at baptism (there is much much more but that is a start). We are trying to pretend to be Christ in the same way a child pretends to be a grownup until eventually the act ends and they become what they wanted to emulate.

...

Interesting choice of word, Nehor--"pretend."  If we're "justified" (made right with God) "by faith" as Paul wrote to the Galatians (2:16) - why would any believer ever feel a need to be a pretender, to be an actor--the very definition of an even stronger word, hypocrite? 

Maybe it was just a poor choice instead of a revealing one and I'm reading too much into it.  But I will add it resonates strongly with my own experience when I was LDS.  Do all these things (and it's a *long* list) and you be blessed, you'll "get your heart right" by disciplining yourself, and you'll be authentic.  Except it didn't work, especially that last bit.  Come to think of it--they never actually promised that, did they?

;0)

--Erik 

 

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Interesting choice of word, Nehor--"pretend."  If we're "justified" (made right with God) "by faith" as Paul wrote to the Galatians (2:16) - why would any believer ever feel a need to be a pretender, to be an actor--the very definition of an even stronger word, hypocrite? 

Maybe it was just a poor choice instead of a revealing one and I'm reading too much into it.  But I will add it resonates strongly with my own experience when I was LDS.  Do all these things (and it's a *long* list) and you be blessed, you'll "get your heart right" by disciplining yourself, and you'll be authentic.  Except it didn't work, especially that last bit.  Come to think of it--they never actually promised that, did they?

;0)

--Erik 

 

You will find what you are looking for in this life...and maybe the next.  I think you missed the intent and context of what Erik was saying, but he can speak for himself.  The Faith and Works discussion is an old one that every Mormon missionary knows well.  A faithful Latter-day Saint will know that Jesus is the Son of God; that he lived a perfect life; that he was born of a virgin; that he was crucified and willingly sacrificed his life for each and every one of us; that he rose the third day; that he sits on the right hand of Father; that he will return again one day; that it is only through Christ that we each will return to be with the Father.  If you want to argue, argue with these things.  

If you want to argue about how loving Jesus is reflected by a disciple's desire to keep his commandments or how obedience plays into salvation; or even how works reflect a saved person....not so much.  It is mostly a lost cause because it is mostly talking past one another.  As I said before it is a very tired argument.  I appreciate the word of Nephi in 2 Nephi:  "26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I think it's fair to say genuine altruism is rare in nature, humans no exception.  Back before he began dabbling in theology, Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on the subject, The Selfish Gene.  It's worthy of one's time and consideration.  I recommend it. 

Yes, my example was pretty one-dimensional.  Had I a bit more time, I could have added that he (or she) also believed in picking up the tab when out with friends and it was his turn to do so.  That he unfailingly took Uber to get home rather than risk a DUI.  And more.  I could even have used your examples:  Helping, caring?  Certainly!--when he was confident of getting recognized for his goodness and the inconvenience was minimal.  Honest?  Every time!--every time the benefits of honesty exceeded the cost. 

But would it have mattered had I developed my character further while still keeping him plausible?  Would you then have been able to put your finger on the good to which Mormonism/Hinckley purports to add?  No?

 

Sorry, i'm really not sure what your point is.  Especially the last bolded question. My answer to the question is not 'no', and i have no idea why you would think it would be.

The full Hinckley quote mentioned in the OP is "Let me say that we appreciate the truth in all churches and the good which they do. We say to the people, in effect, you bring with you all the good that you have, and then let us see if we can add to it. That is the spirit of this work. That is the essence of our missionary service."

Can you explain again exactly what is evil about the thoughts expressed in the quote?  

Quote

Two more thoughts before I call it a night.  First, we have no innate goodness to "bring" before God, see James 2:10 (For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.)    

Any time we accept a truth of God, then that is something good in us.  Anyone who believes in loving their neighbor like themselves for example, has good in them regardless of whether or not they believe in God or go to church.  This knowledge that they should love their neighbor as themselves comes from God, even if they don't recognize the source.

Quote

Second, it's our heart that matters (do a word-search on "heart" across the 66 books of the Bible and see how significant this idea is).  Unlike us--God isn't fooled by words or deeds, He is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (see Hebrews 4:12).  The human heart is "deceitful above all things" (Jeremiah 17:9), and the only solution is a new one (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Again, i don't know what your point is.  No one is saying that our heart doesn't matter or that we don't need a new one to be saved.  

[halconero]

43 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Interesting choice of word, Nehor--"pretend."  If we're "justified" (made right with God) "by faith" as Paul wrote to the Galatians (2:16) - why would any believer ever feel a need to be a pretender, to be an actor--the very definition of an even stronger word, hypocrite? 

Maybe it was just a poor choice instead of a revealing one and I'm reading too much into it.  But I will add it resonates strongly with my own experience when I was LDS.  Do all these things (and it's a *long* list) and you be blessed, you'll "get your heart right" by disciplining yourself, and you'll be authentic.  Except it didn't work, especially that last bit.  Come to think of it--they never actually promised that, did they?

;0)

--Erik 

 

Speak for yourself, the grace of Christ has deepened my discipline, righted my heart, and made me more authentic via the promises and covenants which he extends to me.

Also, you keep using that word "faith," yet belief and faith in the Greco-Roman linguistic and cultural context is a much deeper, actionable, accountable, and covenantal experience than you would have us believe.