Salvation - a point of view

[prisonchaplain]

Thank you for your input. As soon as someone says all you have to do is believe in Jesus then there is something other than grace that impacts salvation and it is not grace only. The point is that it does not matter if someone believes a little or a lot. The point of the debate is that it is not by our effort to believe just that we do believe and then the power of G-d's grace is in effect. Therefore even though it is by grace not because of our belief that we are saved our belief is still an element. So no one can boast of their works or their belief - It is as wrong to say "I believe therefore I am saved" as it is to say "I attend church and give to the poor therefore I am saved".

We all agree there is something other than grace that differentiates the saved from the unsaved and that difference is initiated by those that are saved.

The Traveler

Saying "Yes" to grace is not a work. It is not meritorious. Repenting is not a work. It is not payment. Acknowledgment and acceptance and humility are baseline responses to God's offer of love, forgiveness and true life. Pride, rejection, resistence...these are rebellion. They are works of unrighteousness. Further, Scripture tells us that even faith is from God. So, there's no "purchase" involved in conversion.

Scripture tells us both that we are saved by God's mercy, not by works, and that we must repent. So, the biblical authors did not intend for repentence to be conceived as a pride-filling work of righteousness.

[Traveler]

Saying "Yes" to grace is not a work. It is not meritorious. Repenting is not a work. It is not payment. Acknowledgment and acceptance and humility are baseline responses to God's offer of love, forgiveness and true life. Pride, rejection, resistence...these are rebellion. They are works of unrighteousness. Further, Scripture tells us that even faith is from God. So, there's no "purchase" involved in conversion.

Scripture tells us both that we are saved by God's mercy, not by works, and that we must repent. So, the biblical authors did not intend for repentence to be conceived as a pride-filling work of righteousness.

Thank you PC – I believe this to be the very essence of all misunderstanding. I still contend that faith and repentance are works that one seeking salvation must do. I believe the problem can be solved once a few things are understood.

First: there are no works that man can do by himself that will overcome his fallen state which will bring death. See Book of Mormon – Alma 22:14.

Second: Man must do the works of faith and repentance in partnership with Christ to merit divine blessings which overcome the fall.

Because the works of salvation are bilateral covenants (not unilateral) between man and Christ there must be something of value offered by both parties to consummate the covenant. The point is that man’s offering is of no value outside the covenant. The scriptures are clear in indicating that Jesus did overcome death for himself and that if we partner with him then he will accept our “good” works that we covenant with him to do according to his commandments. This is why Jesus said that if someone is not keeping the commandments (which are doing the works commanded by Jesus) that they do not know him and such a man does not have a consummated covenant which will bring salvation.

The Biblical authors intended that the ancient understanding of bilateral covenants be the context of understanding the ancient scriptures they wrote.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, you have Calvin and Martin Luther turning over in their graves. That probably does not concern you too much, but it is an long-standing doctrine of Protestantism that salvation cannot be merited. The Ephesians verse I referred to is explicit--not works of righteousness, but totally his mercy.

And yet...from the long view, I agree...salvation is the commencement of covenant. Within the covenant, there is no question but that I will produce works of righteousness, that I must even love my enemies. And yet, in a sense, even these are gifts.

[mountthepavement]

What do you believe happened as a result of the Fall of Adam? Why did God send His Son into the world, unless mankind was lost and fallen, or condemned?

I can get scriptures if you like, but I thought that was a pretty universal belief among Christians.

I see your point, but I like to constantly re-evaluate things; so, if you have a verse handy, that would be nice. Otherwise, I'm sure I'll run across one sometime.

[mountthepavement]

A bit of irony and sarcasm. In general it does appear to me that the ancient understanding of Near Eastern Suzerain Servant Vassal law in established ecclesiastical and secular Kingdoms are ignored by modern scholars in interpreting ancient scriptural texts in creating modern versions of the Bible and contemporary doctrine.

The Traveler

No doubt you are right that people do not consciously follow the ancients you describe, but I am not convinced by what you wrote that their precepts, in fundamental or analogous terms, are ignored by all or most. It struck me as rhetorical but not necessarily accurate.

[mountthepavement]

Temple work, tithing, church attendance, callings, genealogy.

What's the difference, would you say, between the requirement of tithing and the selling of indulgences by the Catholic church? Consider further: when a work is prescribed, doesn't that remove the crisis that would otherwise be present at the moment of any decision or act of faith and that alerts one to the possibility of risk and earthly embarrassment? What then is risked, when, while we sacrifice our material resources in terms of time and money, but gain others in the form of community (no doubt a good trade), a sense of history, belonging, an allayment of anxiety concerning the future and, "yea," the present, and even a sense of identity. Perhaps I have overlooked more benefits. It is no doubt faith in some sense, perhaps even "good faith," like that of a party to a contract, but is it the type of faith which we regard as vital to the religion? that which sacrifices the earthly comfort for something not altogether certain inasmuch as it is somewhat foreign to us in our present state, but which may seem certain, indeed, in some sense, a special sense of the word: more certain, if one is feeling especially swell, then even death and taxes.

I am at once dubious of your points of view, while also at a loss to express my own, so the best I can do is ask you questions and see if it clarifies things for me.

[mountthepavement]

... but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; ... "

The Traveler

Sorry, I don't for the moment get how that relates. I would like to ask about it though: I certainly do not understand how the author can at once say that the death of christ atones for sins while appending the mechanism of "through faith and repentance:" Is it like the supports of a three-spoked wheel, none of which can be removed without the whell ceasing to function? At the least, I think it is badly worded, and this seems to me a troubling prospect. If they are of equal importance, one ought to structure the sentence to reflect this, placing "sufferings and death of christ," "faith," and "repentance" in a list. As it is, the sentence appears to be a bit of a nonsequitur, as it is not at all clear (is it just me?) how a death of some individual could atone for someones sins, and here's the important part, through the faith and repentance of another individual. That I think is fairly labelled a non-sequitur.

In summary, it ought to have been worded, I argue:

but the faith, repentance, and the sufferings (and so forth!!!) and death of Christ atone for their sins

It is simply a matter of where the author wished to place the rhetorical emphasis: apparently, in this passage he (she??) wished to place it on christ, though did not appear to be justified in doing say, given (my interpretation of) the message of the passage.

[mountthepavement]

Saying "Yes" to grace is not a work. It is not meritorious. Repenting is not a work. It is not payment. Acknowledgment and acceptance and humility are baseline responses to God's offer of love, forgiveness and true life. Pride, rejection, resistence...these are rebellion. They are works of unrighteousness. Further, Scripture tells us that even faith is from God. So, there's no "purchase" involved in conversion.

Scripture tells us both that we are saved by God's mercy, not by works, and that we must repent. So, the biblical authors did not intend for repentence to be conceived as a pride-filling work of righteousness.

I need to hear more about this: You are saying that accepting grace (indeed, a humble act (?)) and repentance (also humble) is not meritorious; therefore, not works. What do you mean by meritorious? Is it true that all works of love, so to speak, are meritorious? Do you perhaps mean meritorious in a particular sense but not in all possible senses of the word?

Thanks

[mountthepavement]

Thank you PC – I believe this to be the very essence of all misunderstanding. I still contend that faith and repentance are works that one seeking salvation must do. I believe the problem can be solved once a few things are understood.

First: there are no works that man can do by himself that will overcome his fallen state which will bring death. See Book of Mormon – Alma 22:14.

Second: Man must do the works of faith and repentance in partnership with Christ to merit divine blessings which overcome the fall.

Because the works of salvation are bilateral covenants (not unilateral) between man and Christ there must be something of value offered by both parties to consummate the covenant. The point is that man’s offering is of no value outside the covenant. The scriptures are clear in indicating that Jesus did overcome death for himself and that if we partner with him then he will accept our “good” works that we covenant with him to do according to his commandments. This is why Jesus said that if someone is not keeping the commandments (which are doing the works commanded by Jesus) that they do not know him and such a man does not have a consummated covenant which will bring salvation.

The Biblical authors intended that the ancient understanding of bilateral covenants be the context of understanding the ancient scriptures they wrote.

The Traveler

I get it: so works and agency alone are not sufficient. Nor is Christ's sacrifice if it is not reciprocated by sacrifices and repentance (and "so forth" :))on our parts. Both, however, are necessary to salvation.

It might be fair and quite accurate to say that the difference between this position and PC's is that his wants to emphasize, which is to say grant sole credit to, christ. LDS, on the other hand, distrusts the tendency or the appearance of claiming that one can be saved without having to lift a finger, so to speak: what is sincerity of belief except for an illusion unless it is justified by works and, as you say, faith, no?

[hordak]

What's the difference, would you say, between the requirement of tithing and the selling of indulgences by the Catholic church? Consider further: when a work is prescribed, doesn't that remove the crisis that would otherwise be present at the moment of any decision or act of faith and that alerts one to the possibility of risk and earthly embarrassment? What then is risked, when, while we sacrifice our material resources in terms of time and money, but gain others in the form of community (no doubt a good trade), a sense of history, belonging, an allayment of anxiety concerning the future and, "yea," the present, and even a sense of identity. Perhaps I have overlooked more benefits. It is no doubt faith in some sense, perhaps even "good faith," like that of a party to a contract, but is it the type of faith which we regard as vital to the religion? that which sacrifices the earthly comfort for something not altogether certain inasmuch as it is somewhat foreign to us in our present state, but which may seem certain, indeed, in some sense, a special sense of the word: more certain, if one is feeling especially swell, then even death and taxes.

I am at once dubious of your points of view, while also at a loss to express my own, so the best I can do is ask you questions and see if it clarifies things for me.

I should note first and foremost that i'm not a "traditional Mormon" so you will not confuse my opinion with church doctrine. You might be asking the wrong guy.

That said my point is that Christians, LDS or traditional put their faith in Christ. This faith is followed by works, while the works vary between denominations a Mormon who, pays tithe because they "have to" is on par with a Christian who feels obligated to donate to the church they attend. Regardless of the work, it can be done for the wrong reasons (I.E. To earn salvation) or it can be done from the heart, (I.E. I love the church so i will pay tithe, I love the church so i will slip a $20 in the collection plate)

[Traveler]

I get it: so works and agency alone are not sufficient. Nor is Christ's sacrifice if it is not reciprocated by sacrifices and repentance (and "so forth" :))on our parts. Both, however, are necessary to salvation.

It might be fair and quite accurate to say that the difference between this position and PC's is that his wants to emphasize, which is to say grant sole credit to, christ. LDS, on the other hand, distrusts the tendency or the appearance of claiming that one can be saved without having to lift a finger, so to speak: what is sincerity of belief except for an illusion unless it is justified by works and, as you say, faith, no?

Your question is very good – but in truth, I believe it is a little more complex than what we may see at first blush in considering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In essence there are two parts of the covenants that G-d offers to man. The first part is unilateral. The unilateral part covers the condition of death because of the fall of man.

Jesus offered himself in sacrifice to overcome death as a unilateral gift to all mankind. (1Cor 15:22 - “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”)

Now in verse 50 of this same chapter we see the bilateral part of the contract. (1Cor 15:50 – “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”)

In the bilateral part of the covenant man must put off sin which is the corruption being spoken of. This is done through the works of repentance and baptism that can only be accomplished through a bilateral covenant with Jesus Christ – The only name (meaning the only means) to obtain this covenant. In ancient time doing something (doing meaning a work) in the name of someone else implied a covenant, much like the power of attorney. A false claim of covenant is unacceptable to Jesus. Note Matt 7:21-23

“21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, L-rd, L-rd, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, L-rd, L-rd, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. “

To inherit the divine blessings of heaven something must be done of value to G-d and done by covenant through Jesus Christ. Without Jesus Christ there can be no acceptable covenant. Because what must be done has value to G-d we know that we must participate in a bilateral covenant of value for value as stated in the scripture above. But please note that the value may not be equal value for equal value – just value for value.

In baptism one completes a spiritual rebirth and puts of the old “man” and becomes a new “man” that is sanctified or cleansed. The other term for a sanctified person is a saint. Thus when one covenants with Christ having faith in him unto baptism (that unifies the covenant for both the physical and spiritual) they become a “Saint of G-d” and a member of the Kingdom of G-d that is “The Church of Jesus Christ” – note that to accomplish such a thing a partnership must exist as prescribed in Matt 7. And thus the covenant is made whole and holy in the ancient manner established by Christ – both in ancient times and by a restoration of the whole and holy of the covenant in our time.

The Traveler

Edited June 18, 2009 by Traveler