Changes to John 3:16

[Kawazu]

Howdy,

Isn't this merely a question of word choice, at this point?

Person A has faith and acts on her beliefs.

She uses the rhetoric of, "Saving Grace."

Person B has faith and acts on her beliefs.

She uses the rhetoric of, "Keep My Commandments."

It seems to me that the participants in the discussion are saying the same thing with emphasis on different verbiage. I say everybody should simply agree to agree.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

[Snow]

Action is a necessary PRODUCT of belief. Yes, absolutely. But, remember, that God sees the true belief before we see the actions. And, sometimes that product is frustratingly slow in coming...doesn't mean the faith isn't true, though weak.

If the point you are making is that faith without works is dead, ergo faith alone, without obedience means nothing. It is not even real faith and therefore without actions to back up the belief... then fine, we are all in agreement. Faith without works does not save. It's the whole package.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow...God doesn't have to wait for us to prove our faith is real. It's not a package. It's faith. But, faith without works isn't real faith--that's why it doesn't work. It's dead. Real faith works, if that makes sense.

The thief on the cross, his work was to publically ask Jesus to remember him. I suppose that's a work...but it certainly is not what James had in mind. Yet, it counted. Hebrews 11 is full of men of faith. The chapter contends that we needed to see their deeds, but it was their faith that God counted as righteousness. God can read our hearts--we're limited to empirical evidence.

[prisonchaplain]

Howdy,

Isn't this merely a question of word choice, at this point?

Person A has faith and acts on her beliefs.

She uses the rhetoric of, "Saving Grace."

Person B has faith and acts on her beliefs.

She uses the rhetoric of, "Keep My Commandments."

It seems to me that the participants in the discussion are saying the same thing with emphasis on different verbiage. I say everybody should simply agree to agree.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,

Kawazu

Except nobody is satisfied to leave it at that. Why? Order is important. The end result is a living faith that works--but how do we get there?

Person A says: Faith = salvation that works

Person B says: Faith + Works = salvation

Yes, we're using the same rhetoric, but it's a different equation. Or is it?

[Snow]

Snow...God doesn't have to wait for us to prove our faith is real. It's not a package. It's faith. But, faith without works isn't real faith--that's why it doesn't work. It's dead. Real faith works, if that makes sense.

The thief on the cross, his work was to publically ask Jesus to remember him. I suppose that's a work...but it certainly is not what James had in mind. Yet, it counted. Hebrews 11 is full of men of faith. The chapter contends that we needed to see their deeds, but it was their faith that God counted as righteousness. God can read our hearts--we're limited to empirical evidence.

You are assuming that when Christ said that the thief would be with him in paradise, that meant heaven and that meant salvation. However, we know that days later Christ said, touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my Father - so wherever paradise is, it's not where God the Father is. Presumably heaven and salvation are where the Father is.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm guessing we'd both agree that this thief who went to paradise ended up much better than the one who mocked Jesus.

[Snow]

I'm guessing we'd both agree that this thief who went to paradise ended up much better than the one who mocked Jesus.

Hmmm - do I think that God is going to be terribly put out because someone doesn't understand that He is God?

Not really. God deliberately hides himself. It is no surprize that people don't get it, even good people miss it. Moreover, even though the mocker was wrong, how does God, in his power, respond? We in the LDS Church believe that God has a model for exercising power:

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

Therefore I hope that God's response would be one of gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned.

[Kawazu]

Except nobody is satisfied to leave it at that. Why? Order is important. The end result is a living faith that works--but how do we get there?

Person A says: Faith = salvation that works

Person B says: Faith + Works = salvation

Yes, we're using the same rhetoric, but it's a different equation. Or is it?

To me, it seems like a semantic quibble. Can you toss out some examples of a difference in heavenly outcomes for these two hypothetical people? Using your equation, is there an instance where one individual is saved while the other is doomed, and vice versa?

[prisonchaplain]

Kawazu, one person is wrong. Either Person A is guilty of teaching that we are saved simply by believing, and thus deludes people, or person B is guilty of believing s/he can earn salvation. Whether either error is damnable is a matter for God to decide, but we all want to be right about it.

BTW: Well Snow, you got me. I guessed wrong. Now I wonder if, from the text, you figure that John did not mean to imply that the fellow asking Jesus to remember him was going to be better off? What was he driving out with his rather detailed description of him vs. the mocker?

[ryanh]

What's with the change? The main point with many LDS on this thread has been with the idea that keeping the commandments is required, is necessary to receive salvation. Now it's okay if you just try, or even try and fail? How does that work? What's good enough? Must you "keep the commandments" or is it acceptable if you make the effort to keep the commandments?

I never said it was difficult to understand. I agree that believing is obedience; I just wanted clarification on the requirement for "keeping the commandments".

LDS professor and author Stephen E Robinson wrote the following regarding the use of the phrase "keeping the commandments":

Latter-day Saints habitually use the phrase "keeping the commandments" differently from its technical and historical meaning outside the Church. This is not wrong, but it is different, and for this reason "keeping the commandments" is sometimes an ambiguous and troublesome phrase for the Latter-day Saints, particularly when they talk to non-Latter-day Saints. We generally say "keeping the commandments" when what we really mean is "trying real hard to keep the commandments and succeeding most of the time." Defined in this way, the phrase describes the attempts at obedience that the new covenant requires as our token of "good faith." Defined in this way, "keeping the commandments" is both possible and necessary; that is, trying to keep the commandments, doing the best we can at it, is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though succeeding right now in keeping all of the commandments all of the time is not. This is why the gospel covenant offers repentance and atonement in addition to commandments.

Technically, however, this customary LDS usage is incorrect. If we insist on fine points, "keeping the commandments" means not breaking them-not any of them, not ever. It means keeping them perfectly, and in reality no one does this. Technically, you can't claim to keep the commandments in this sense so long as you break any of them at all. This is what James means when he says in James 2: 10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not lull. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou lull, thou art become a transgressor of the law."

The ambiguity between the traditional meaning and the customary LDS usage of "keeping the commandments" has caused Latter-day Saints and other Christians to talk past each other on occasion and led some who don't understand our theological vocabulary to accuse us of believing in salvation by works. It has also caused some in the Church to conclude incorrectly that perfect performance is a requirement of the gospel covenant, even though the real bottom line is being committed to the proper goals and doing all we can to achieve them. In fact, the whole purpose of the atonement of Christ is to provide a way whereby those who have not kept, do not keep, and probably will not keep all the commandments all the time can still be exalted in the celestial kingdom of God - where they will continue to make progress in eternity until they are perfected -provided that they genuinely hunger and thirst after righteousness.

In the New Testament, when Paul talks about keeping the commandments or being justified by works, he means obeying all the(commandments all the time. Therefore he rightly concludes that no one can "keep the commandments" in this sense, that our failure to keep the commandments perfectly condemns us, and that we must look somewhere else for a means of salvation. Strictly speaking, then, it doesn't matter which commandments you keep and which ones you break; if you don't keep them all, you are

a transgressor and guilty rather than righteous or just. When the terms are defined in this way, clearly whoever would claim to be righteous on the basis of "keeping the commandments" must keep all of the commandments all of the time. Good luck.

That's what LDS mean when using the catch-phrase "keep the commandments".

[Maureen]

Thank you ryanh, that was extremely helpful. Traveler, what do you think of this explanation by Stephen E Robinson?

[Misshalfway]

Kawazu, one person is wrong. Either Person A is guilty of teaching that we are saved simply by believing, and thus deludes people, or person B is guilty of believing s/he can earn salvation. Whether either error is damnable is a matter for God to decide, but we all want to be right about it.

We.....similar circles of posters....have this same conversation a lot. Sometimes, I will admit that I get frustrated at not being understood by members of this forum who "should" in my mind have a better understanding of things by now. But I am wrong to get frustrated because I still find myself wanting to argue it all out. :)

I have learned that "saved by faith/grace" belief platforms aren't exactly what I thought they were. I can see how repentance and doing good is woven into the belief even though I see it differently. And I think we are closer than we think think we are as our language/terminology gets in the way. I also hope that the "keep the commandments" platform is being better understood as well as it does not mean "earning" and that it still is all about grace even though it does emphasize personal responsibility.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We.....similar circles of posters....have this same conversation a lot. Sometimes, I will admit that I get frustrated at not being understood by members of this forum who "should" in my mind have a better understanding of things by now. But I am wrong to get frustrated because I still find myself wanting to argue it all out. :)

I have learned that "saved by faith/grace" belief platforms aren't exactly what I thought they were. I can see how repentance and doing good is woven into the belief even though I see it differently. And I think we are closer than we think think we are as our language/terminology gets in the way. I also hope that the "keep the commandments" platform is being better understood as well as it does not mean "earning" and that it still is all about grace even though it does emphasize personal responsibility.

I think the "language/terminology" gets in the way because we can't even agree on the basics, faith, works, salvation. One can't write out simple equations to compare Person A with Person B when Person A's faith is different than Person B's and each definition of salvation is different.

To me, all the understanding I need to have is that we need both faith and works as I won't boast of my own Exaltation until it happens. If Person A and Person B both agree that they do not know of their own Exaltation until they hear it directly from God's mouth then Person A and Person B will keep their focus on both faith and works. What is more important than the other or what came first the chicken or the egg discussion means nothing in that setting. But there is no discussion or comparison when one person says salvation means resurrection and living in some proximity to God (any of the three kingdoms, even Telestial has some light - stars) and the other person is using the word salvation to mean Exaltation - meaning having eternal increase and living with God (Celestial Kingdom).

Person A and Person B both believe that "faith" - believing in Jesus Christ and His plan leads to salvation from temporal death (of the first type above), its just at a different time. I am assuming people are saying Person B is LDS, believe that belief in Jesus occurred before the world began, so everyone (essentially) here gets salvation from earthly death through Jesus just by being born here.

I also think it should be obvious by now, these terms are different. But when there are these comparing equations, Person A and Person B type things, its like .... yep here we go again.

So on any further equation comparing, I would suggest specifying salvation from temporal death or spiritual death or both as we are on an LDS site. And realize that when LDS say 'faith' we are talking about real faith, in other words the 'faith without works is dead' kind of faith. ... or we can keep going around and around, either way,

[Seminarysnoozer]

Except nobody is satisfied to leave it at that. Why? Order is important. The end result is a living faith that works--but how do we get there?

Person A says: Faith = salvation that works

Person B says: Faith + Works = salvation

Yes, we're using the same rhetoric, but it's a different equation. Or is it?

The equation should be mushed together to be;

Faith (agreeing with Jehovah's plan over Satan) = Salvation from temporal death, then

Salvation from temporal death + Real Faith (when one has a veil) + covenants with God (works) = Salvation from spiritual death then,

Salvation from spiritual death = working for eternity with God

or something like that .... its not a different equation, one big one.

[Justice]

PC, The formula is belief + works = faith.

I'm not sure a formula has been derived that equals salvation. There is much unknown about salvation and we must rely on God that if we do what He says, or live the way He showed, then salvation is possible for us.

[Snow]

BTW: Well Snow, you got me. I guessed wrong. Now I wonder if, from the text, you figure that John did not mean to imply that the fellow asking Jesus to remember him was going to be better off? What was he driving out with his rather detailed description of him vs. the mocker?

Am I mistaken? I don't think John demonstrated any awareness of a conversation between the thieves and Christ, nor did Mark, nor Matthew.

Luke said something but it's wasn't a detailed description, it was a brief sentence about each of the two. You may be able to draw some conclusions from the brief description but not much of a conclusion... especially considering that the anonymous author of Luke was not a witness to the event he described decades and decades after the fact.

[Traveler]

Thank you ryanh, that was extremely helpful. Traveler, what do you think of this explanation by Stephen E Robinson?

I think he is trying to be helpful but I think he does not understand several important principles like covenant, the principle of being whole, the principle of holy, what it means to be complete, and the ancient concept of "perfect".

For example the ancient concept of perfect did not mean "without any flaw". Because Christians believe Jesus did not have flaws that he was the only "perfect" person to have been on earth. That is not true from some many points. First Jesus never said (prior to his resurrection) that he was perfect.

The ancient concept of "perfect" was more along the line of a "way" or "path". It was not taught as a destination. Thus the first point of keeping the commandments is to initiate by covenant that one has begun. In this the initiate becomes a “disciple” of “the master”. The master teaches the disciple what they must do and then the disciple is tested until they master the teachings. This was the ancient way.

Stephen E Robinson seems to have a partial understanding but is caught up in the idea of flaws. He seems to think that flaws stay with us and that we do not learn useful things until we are perfect. My understanding is that “perfection” has more to do with where we are headed than where we have been.

But I do not believe in giving up on commandments because in the beginning they are difficult. We need to have faith in our covenants with G-d and the problem of being perfect is not an argument concerning keeping the commandments - except in those that do not want to live by covenant.

The Traveler

Edited October 29, 2009 by Traveler

[Misshalfway]

Stephen E Robinson seems to have a partial understanding but is caught up in the idea of flaws. He seems to think that flaws stay with us and that we do not learn useful things until we are perfect.

I didn't get that from his remarks. The part Robinson misses is that part of keeping commandments is repentance and how that integral process keeps us "in the way". Our flaws are only an issue when we stop using the basic principles of the gospel.....faith repentance, baptism, holy Ghost. When one puts their lives inside this process of redemption thru commitment to Christ's way and will, flaws become less important because they are forgiven and purged thru Christ and the very nature of the person refined. This is what salvation is all about. Being saved from our sins.....meaning that our very sinful nature is changed over time and thru either obedience or a return to obedience thru repentance NOT because those acts save us in and of themselves but because these actions are the evidence of faith and open the door what the Savior can then do with us.

[Misshalfway]

Maybe I said that wrong. Obedience in and of itself DOES bring significant progress. If a person forgives, they become forgiving. If a person loves, they begin to learn the lessons of love. If a person indulges passions and lusts, a person loses agency and becomes a slave.

I think the problem is that none of us can obey enough without the Saviors grace and cleansing help. It seems even from our mormon scriptures that many of the divine natures are gifts. Certainly charity is a gift that we must seek and pray for. It is interesting to me that God works with our righteous desires. If we desire knowledge, he meets us on the other side of our knocking. If we want forgiveness, he meets us with tender mercies.

I think what I am learning is that salvation is a partnership between us and Christ. Christ can't save us without our participation. If he did, then he would be promoting Satan's plan and we wouldn't learn anything.

It seems strange to me that a person can remain a "sinner" yet be saved at the same time and able to show "fruits" of faith. It seems strange also to me that being born again is being equated with salvation. In my mind, being born again means getting a fresh start with a renewed perspective on life and things and how one will then choose to live. It is a wonderful gift at the beginning of the path or journey, not the end result of what the path is meant to do to a person.

Edited October 29, 2009 by Misshalfway

[prisonchaplain]

Am I mistaken? I don't think John demonstrated any awareness of a conversation between the thieves and Christ, nor did Mark, nor Matthew.

Luke said something but it's wasn't a detailed description, it was a brief sentence about each of the two. You may be able to draw some conclusions from the brief description but not much of a conclusion... especially considering that the anonymous author of Luke was not a witness to the event he described decades and decades after the fact.

Snow, you really don't believe we have enough in this passage to surmize what the author meant to teach?

39And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The malefactor gets rebuked for not fearing God, and the other thief is told he'll be with Jesus in paradise. From that you really don't think we can draw any conclusions about who the author is predicting will wind up better? You surely are a cautious soul.

Edited October 29, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Snow]

What I see is one condemned malefactor trying to teach gospel principles to the other malefactor. And them rebuking him. It's not exactly the same as if God had rebuked him. It's clear that Christ thought his contrition was noteworthy but it is not clear that Christ agreed with his rebuke. You'll notice that Christ himself did not rebuke the other malefactor.

I suppose that you could make the case that the one malefactor understood the gospel and made making a doctrinally true statement but if so, it bears mentioning, he was obviously a faith plus works type of guy, not a faith onlyer.

[ryanh]

Traveler, have you read the book Believing Christ? I'm assuming not because what you argue as what is in the book is the anthesis of what I just read in it in the past couple days.

I'm especially dumbfounded by:

Stephen E Robinson seems to have a partial understanding but is caught up in the idea of flaws. He seems to think that flaws stay with us and that we do not learn useful things until we are perfect. My understanding is that “perfection” has more to do with where we are headed than where we have been.

IMO you are putting words in his mouth (book) that are not there. Flaws stay with us and we don't learn? Where is that said? That is a false representation of his writings as he explicitly states that that perfection is not only a goal, but a requirement (be ye therefore perfect even as I am), and that it is precisely through our experiences that we will get there.

[Traveler]

Traveler, have you read the book Believing Christ? I'm assuming not because what you argue as what is in the book is the anthesis of what I just read in it in the past couple days.

I'm especially dumbfounded by:

IMO you are putting words in his mouth (book) that are not there. Flaws stay with us and we don't learn? Where is that said? That is a false representation of his writings as he explicitly states that that perfection is not only a goal, but a requirement (be ye therefore perfect even as I am), and that it is precisely through our experiences that we will get there.

I believe you have missed my point. The ancients did not define perfect as flawless but rather being complete or whole. Stephen E Robinson contends that as long as a person has flaws they cannot be perfect. It was this concept I was trying to get away from – though I may not have explained it well.

The point is that even if it is possible for a person to be flawless that does not mean they are perfect. The concept that many have a hard time getting their brain wrapped around is the idea that a person can have flaws and still be perfect. The problem is lost in not understanding covenant and how keeping the commandments require a covenant (anciently this was covenant seeing and hearing or having eyes to see and ears to hear). Keeping the commandments according to covenant does not mean without flaw – it means to be loyal during a trial. The key principle is that of being loyal and the second principle is that of a trail. A person can make flaws but it is the principle of being loyal that brings perfection.

Jesus makes points concerning this on a number of occasions when he highlights particular behavior and makes a comment along the line, “Your faith has made you whole.” Which according to the ancient concept could also have been translated into English as “Your faith has made you perfect”.

The Traveler

Edited October 29, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

What I see is one condemned malefactor trying to teach gospel principles to the other malefactor. And them rebuking him. It's not exactly the same as if God had rebuked him. It's clear that Christ thought his contrition was noteworthy but it is not clear that Christ agreed with his rebuke. You'll notice that Christ himself did not rebuke the other malefactor.

I suppose that you could make the case that the one malefactor understood the gospel and made making a doctrinally true statement but if so, it bears mentioning, he was obviously a faith plus works type of guy, not a faith onlyer.

My take is a little simpler. The 2nd thief realizes Jesus is from God. He tells the first thief to can the mockery if he has any fear of God. Then, he turns to Jesus and asks if he might help a dying thief out. Jesus responds by saying yes.

If we must infuse doctrine into it, I'd say it's that if you need help, rather than cursing God for the problem, ask him for help.

[lattelady]

Traveler, in reference to one of your earlier posts, you spoke of Christ pre-resurrection and said that many believe that He was without flaw--but that not even Jesus claimed to be without flaw. Where do you get that from? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying?