Christian Faith

[James1]

Hello everyone. I\'m a Christian(not LDS) and I was wondering if you could watch the following videos and let me know what you think. There from different Christian Pastors and I was just wondering what you thought of them.Thanks. The videos are from a church called Reality LA and Tim Chaddick is a pastor there. The first is by a pastor named Tim Keller who teaches in New York City. Thanks! Let me know if you agree thanks! They\'re all really short.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gySaWKg-NQQ

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j5EfgAS2-7A

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RMMjfYkz48k

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sPYUbBwKC00

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FE5zw6Q_JC8

[mordorbund]

I just watched the first two videos. Is there a particular theme you'd like to discuss? Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but the first one is a plug for two books and the second is a short snippet on forgiveness (unrelated to the first).

 

Do you want to discuss forgiveness, books, evidences of God, or whether or not "religion" has taken on a negative connotation? Or something else?

[MrShorty]

As I perused these videos: here are my thoughts:

 

1) I would agree with him that believing in God "just makes sense." However, in this life while we must walk by faith, I don't see us ever coming up with truly rigorous, logical proof of God.

 

2) I would agree with him that refusing to forgive our neighbor his trespasses against us in essence is refusing to accept Christ's atoning sacrifice for our own sins.

 

3) and 4) are interesting. I assume as an Evangelical/Protestant, he subscribes to the idea of sola fide -- salvation by faith alone. He goes on to say that true faith should/must be evidenced in our works. IMO, LDS theology, though it emphasizes the importance of faith in Christ (1st principle of the gospel in our 4th article of faith), it rejects the idea that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. As I have listened to Evangelical pastors, I do see some variation in how they interpret the idea of by faith alone. Some insist that there will be many in heaven who are "saved" but have no good works to show for their saving faith (their faith did not produce any real fruit in their life). Others, like Pastor Chaddick does in the 4th video, seem to suggest good works must (or almost must) follow or be an outgrowth of true faith. Another response to this approach sometimes is around the question of free will. If good works are only an outgrowth of faith, should a Christian sit on the couch until moved upon by the Holy Spirit to do something, or should he exercise his own free will (if there is such a thing as free will, which also seems to have a variety of opinions) to perform good works?

 

As I see it, LDS theology teaches that faith and good works are both essential for salvation and that men should exercise their own free will to grow their own faith and to bring about much righteousness (see D&C 58)

 

5) LDS believe that Christ will return to Earth in a literal way and will reign as King. At some point in time, we will each make an account of what we believe, what we do, and what we have become. With that background, I would agree with Pastor Chaddick that it is important to treat each day as if that accounting/judgement could occur at any time. Sometimes we need to be careful that this doesn't lead to a fear based approach to God, as if He is constantly on the verge of punishing us. Rather, we need to develop our relationship with Him constantly, knowing that we will stand before Him where He will be able to perfectly apply mercy and justice to our personal situation.

[James1]

I just watched the first two videos. Is there a particular theme you\'d like to discuss? Perhaps I\'m a bit dense, but the first one is a plug for two books and the second is a short snippet on forgiveness (unrelated to the first).

Do you want to discuss forgiveness, books, evidences of God, or whether or not \"religion\" has taken on a negative connotation? Or something else?

Thanks for responding! I was just wondering if you agreed with what was said in the videos. Did you watch the whole first video? At the end he says(1:30 mark)

\"Religion is I obey therefore God accepts me. And the gospel is I\'m accepted through what Jesus Christ has done on the cross therefore I obey. So in religion I\'m obeying out of fear that God is going to reject me and in order to feel good about myself where as in the Gospel I\'m obeying out of gratitude and joy, not to get things from God, but just to get God.. to delight in Him and nearness to Him. And it brings a humility because it\'s all an act of grace it\'s all a function of grace and in the Prodigal God(his book) we\'re bringing that fundamental model to people of what it means to be a Christian and why it makes us different in this city.\"

Do LDS agree with what Pastor Tim Keller said in the first video? That\'s what I want to know. He\'s basically saying faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone. When we accept Christ and ask him to come into our lives, we are immediately made right in Gods eyes through having faith in Jesus. When Jesus comes into our lives a transformation takes place that produces the fruits of the spirit and good works inside of us. For the Christian every good work is done in Christ and because of Christ. We don\'t do good works to be made right before God but rather good works come about because we are already made right before God through faith. I don\'t do good works to be saved but the works are the result of already being saved as God is inside transforming me and fruits are produced. That\'s the Protestant view of what the Bible says. Do LDS agree?

The videos following the first one are of a pastor in LA and I just posted those to give LDS people perspective on what a normal kind of Protestant church is like and what they teach as I\'m not sure if they (lds) really know what\'s being taught there or what goes on. Just wondering if you agree. Thanks!

[James1]

As I perused these videos: here are my thoughts:

1) I would agree with him that believing in God \\\"just makes sense.\\\" However, in this life while we must walk by faith, I don\\\'t see us ever coming up with truly rigorous, logical proof of God.

2) I would agree with him that refusing to forgive our neighbor his trespasses against us in essence is refusing to accept Christ\\\'s atoning sacrifice for our own sins.

3) and 4) are interesting. I assume as an Evangelical/Protestant, he subscribes to the idea of sola fide -- salvation by faith alone. He goes on to say that true faith should/must be evidenced in our works. IMO, LDS theology, though it emphasizes the importance of faith in Christ (1st principle of the gospel in our 4th article of faith), it rejects the idea that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. As I have listened to Evangelical pastors, I do see some variation in how they interpret the idea of by faith alone. Some insist that there will be many in heaven who are \\\"saved\\\" but have no good works to show for their saving faith (their faith did not produce any real fruit in their life). Others, like Pastor Chaddick does in the 4th video, seem to suggest good works must (or almost must) follow or be an outgrowth of true faith. Another response to this approach sometimes is around the question of free will. If good works are only an outgrowth of faith, should a Christian sit on the couch until moved upon by the Holy Spirit to do something, or should he exercise his own free will (if there is such a thing as free will, which also seems to have a variety of opinions) to perform good works?

As I see it, LDS theology teaches that faith and good works are both essential for salvation and that men should exercise their own free will to grow their own faith and to bring about much righteousness (see D&C 58)

5) LDS believe that Christ will return to Earth in a literal way and will reign as King. At some point in time, we will each make an account of what we believe, what we do, and what we have become. With that background, I would agree with Pastor Chaddick that it is important to treat each day as if that accounting/judgement could occur at any time. Sometimes we need to be careful that this doesn\\\'t lead to a fear based approach to God, as if He is constantly on the verge of punishing us. Rather, we need to develop our relationship with Him constantly, knowing that we will stand before Him where He will be able to perfectly apply mercy and justice to our personal situation.

Thanks so much for the detailed response. To answer some of your comments, Biblically based Protestant churches teach that we\\\'re saved by Grace through faith and that not of ourselves. Salvation is a gift from God that can\\\'t be earned or acquired through good works just through faith. Protestant churches teach that we should rely entirely on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone as the ground of God being 100% for us after which necessary sanctification comes. That\\\'s it. Faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone. That\\\'s the position that Pastor Chaddick takes from what I understand. The Christian is already accepted by God through faith and therefore does good works out of Gratitutde and joy not out of fear. Thanks for the comments really appreciated.

[prisonchaplain]

Of course, I am fine with both of these pastors.  I liked the younger one better though.  He showed more directly that salvation is from something--sin.  He also highlights that God corrects.  Finally, he is not afraid to say that Christians should be doing good.  It does not undermine salvation by faith to say that the faith results in good works.

 

Perhaps listening to these fellows is akin to me or James listening to someone like Robert Millet.  He teaches LDS doctrines, but takes the time to "translate" them into evangelicaleese.  I can find myself agreeing with much, and better understanding the parts I do not agree with.

[mordorbund]

Thanks for responding! I was just wondering if you agreed with what was said in the videos. Did you watch the whole first video? At the end he says(1:30 mark)

\"Religion is I obey therefore God accepts me. And the gospel is I\'m accepted through what Jesus Christ has done on the cross therefore I obey. So in religion I\'m obeying out of fear that God is going to reject me and in order to feel good about myself where as in the Gospel I\'m obeying out of gratitude and joy, not to get things from God, but just to get God.. to delight in Him and nearness to Him. And it brings a humility because it\'s all an act of grace it\'s all a function of grace and in the Prodigal God(his book) we\'re bringing that fundamental model to people of what it means to be a Christian and why it makes us different in this city.\"

Do LDS agree with what Pastor Tim Keller said in the first video? That\'s what I want to know. He\'s basically saying faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone. When we accept Christ and ask him to come into our lives, we are immediately made right in Gods eyes through having faith in Jesus. When Jesus comes into our lives a transformation takes place that produces the fruits of the spirit and good works inside of us. For the Christian every good work is done in Christ and because of Christ. We don\'t do good works to be made right before God but rather good works come about because we are already made right before God through faith. I don\'t do good works to be saved but the works are the result of already being saved as God is inside transforming me and fruits are produced. That\'s the Protestant view of what the Bible says. Do LDS agree?

The videos following the first one are of a pastor in LA and I just posted those to give LDS people perspective on what a normal kind of Protestant church is like and what they teach as I\'m not sure if they (lds) really know what\'s being taught there or what goes on. Just wondering if you agree. Thanks!

 

I am LDS, but I don't pretend to speak the LDS view. For me, I think the term "religion" has picked up a negative connotation and modern churches are trying to combat it by moving away from the term (as opposed to fully owning it and showing it to be a positive thing). I think the term "religion" means, "a system of beliefs and practices designed to bring adherants to God". I think such a thing is noble and praiseworthy. "Organized religion" was the bogeyman before it was just "religion", and I have no problem with that either. I have learned from "organized education" because I was able to build upon a foundation laid by intellectual giants. Why wouldn't I want to use a similar foundation on the shoulders of spiritual giants? CS Lewis in Mere Christianity talks about the usefulness of theology because you can understand your own spiritual experiences better when you view them from a common framework. In fact, if you are accepting scripture as your guide, you are already taking advantage of "organized religion".

 

What do you think of religion?

 

Regarding the old faith vs. works (or grace vs. works, pick your preference). My thoughts on it are very simple. If you are engaged in a such a conversation you're having the wrong discussion. You should have both. "Without faith, it is impossible to please him"; "work out your salvation with fear and trembling"; "faith without works is dead, being alone"; "come, follow me" (following would consist of works and not simply belief, but not simply works either). Turning once again to CS Lewis' book, analyzing which of the two is more important is like arguing over which blade on a pair of scissors is the essential one. They've both got to be there.

 

What do you think? Is it enough to have both, or must I also work (arg!) with the premise that I am only in faith and my works are really God's works?

[James1]

I am LDS, but I don\\\'t pretend to speak the LDS view. For me, I think the term \\\"religion\\\" has picked up a negative connotation and modern churches are trying to combat it by moving away from the term (as opposed to fully owning it and showing it to be a positive thing). I think the term \\\"religion\\\" means, \\\"a system of beliefs and practices designed to bring adherants to God\\\". I think such a thing is noble and praiseworthy. \\\"Organized religion\\\" was the bogeyman before it was just \\\"religion\\\", and I have no problem with that either. I have learned from \\\"organized education\\\" because I was able to build upon a foundation laid by intellectual giants. Why wouldn\\\'t I want to use a similar foundation on the shoulders of spiritual giants? CS Lewis in Mere Christianity talks about the usefulness of theology because you can understand your own spiritual experiences better when you view them from a common framework. In fact, if you are accepting scripture as your guide, you are already taking advantage of \\\"organized religion\\\".

What do you think of religion?

Regarding the old faith vs. works (or grace vs. works, pick your preference). My thoughts on it are very simple. If you are engaged in a such a conversation you\\\'re having the wrong discussion. You should have both. \\\"Without faith, it is impossible to please him\\\"; \\\"work out your salvation with fear and trembling\\\"; \\\"faith without works is dead, being alone\\\"; \\\"come, follow me\\\" (following would consist of works and not simply belief, but not simply works either). Turning once again to CS Lewis\\\' book, analyzing which of the two is more important is like arguing over which blade on a pair of scissors is the essential one. They\\\'ve both got to be there.

What do you think? Is it enough to have both, or must I also work (arg!) with the premise that I am only in faith and my works are really God\\\'s works?

I think people can make salvation more complicated than it needs to be. Protestant churches teach that we should rely entirely on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone as the ground of God being 100% for us after which necessary sanctification comes. That\\\'s it. So do you believe that faith alone saves(is the only thing that makes us right before God) but the saving faith is not alone(good works come about as a result of Christ transforming the believer)? The Christian doesn\\\'t do good works to be saved but Good works come forth and fruits of the spirit are evident because the Christian is already saved through faith. Do you agree with that?

The word religion in that context was meant to show how many people rely on their own effort to be made right before God whereas the Bible says only Faith in Jesus can make us right before God-after which comes necessary sanctification. The cleansing or sanctification justifies the saving faith or shows that you have it. Religion in its traditional definition is fine. I think many evangelicals have always said that The Bible talks about having a relationship with God and that\\\'s the most important thing. So if people ask me if I\\\'m religious I tell them I\\\'m a follower of Jesus and that it\\\'s about a daily walk with God-a relationship with God. I don\\\'t think religion is a bad word per se but I do want to give people a clear idea about what Christianity is really about. The Bible says good works can\\\'t save you, going to church can\\\'t make you right before God, only faith in Jesus makes you right before God. As one has God in their heart and surrenders, that\\\'s when transformation takes place.

This is a really good passage it\\\'s Romans 4:1-6 New American Standard Bible:

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, [a]our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

[mordorbund]

Again, as far as I'm concerned, the believer has both faith and works. I care not one whit whether the one stems from the other (I'm even fine with a person gaining faith through her works), or if they work in parallel. Let them both be there and I'm satisfied.

 

It sounds like for you, the works must grow from the faith. Is that understanding also a part of the faith as well? That is, would you grow concerned for the salvation of a faith-filled person who felt his obedience was required? Perhaps his faith isn't full yet?

[James1]

Again, as far as I\'m concerned, the believer has both faith and works. I care not one whit whether the one stems from the other (I\'m even fine with a person gaining faith through her works), or if they work in parallel. Let them both be there and I\'m satisfied.

It sounds like for you, the works must grow from the faith. Is that understanding also a part of the faith as well? That is, would you grow concerned for the salvation of a faith-filled person who felt his obedience was required? Perhaps his faith isn\'t full yet?

What makes someone a Christian? Faith or works? What makes someone right before God as you see it? Faith or works?

[mordorbund]

What makes someone a Christian? Faith or works? What makes someone right before God as you see it? Faith or works?

 

Again, I don't see it as either/or. I don't separate the two. They both must be present as far as I'm concerned. One of Articles of Faith states that "the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are ... faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, .... repentance, ... baptism, ... and [receiving] the gift of the Holy Ghost". There should be faith, otherwise the works are completely worthless. But the works (including ordinances) must be there as well.

 

As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, I'd like to understand better your position.

 

It sounds like for you, the works must grow from the faith. Is that understanding also a part of the faith as well? That is, would you grow concerned for the salvation of a faith-filled person who felt his obedience was required? Perhaps his faith isn't full yet?

[The Folk Prophet]

Technically speaking, LDS teachings do teach that we are saved by faith alone. But faith without works is dead, so...no works indicates no faith. Works are highly integral to our salvation because they are the manifestation of our works. To claim faith in Jesus, and then not to follow him (obey his commandments), puts a lie to the claimed faith.

[prisonchaplain]

Let's see if I can move this discussion along with some of understandings I've gained over the years.  Feel free to agree, disagree, fine tune a nuance, etc.

 

1.  Protestant Christians--especially Martin Luther--tend to insist that salvation (i.e. going to heaven and avoiding hell) is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ.  Our works are "filthy rags," according to Isaiah.  This tenent is so strongly held that if one claims to be a Christian and suggests that his/her good works had any part in appeasing God and earning salvation, we tend to view that person as a heretic.  Indeed most of us would wonder if such a one could be labeled a Christian.

 

2.  Many LDS have said to me that salvation is indeed by grace alone, through Jesus Christ.  However, that salvation is from the outer darkness, or hell.  It gains one entry into the Heavenly Realms--either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms.  I've been led to believe that faith in Jesus is not required to enter these realms.  That faithful followers of almost any religion could enter the 2nd kingdom, and even some fairly immoral people could enter the 3rd one.  It may be that there would have to be some growth in faith in Christ, but that such faith could be gained after death.

 

3.  Protestants--and especially Evangelicals--and LDS tend to talk past each other on this faith/works discussion, because we have such different views of heaven, hell, and the actual meaning of salvation. 

 

4.  LDS believe that entry into the highest heavenly realm (Celestial Kingdom) requires certain levels of faithfulness and obedience.  Further, exaltation, at the highest levels of that realm, comes only after even greater "endurance to the end."

 

5.  In fairness, many Christians of various denominations would accept the idea that within Heaven there may be some who earn special honors for their sacrifices and faithfulness.

[James1]

Again, I don't see it as either/or. I don't separate the two. They both must be present as far as I'm concerned. One of Articles of Faith states that "the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are ... faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, .... repentance, ... baptism, ... and [receiving] the gift of the Holy Ghost". There should be faith, otherwise the works are completely worthless. But the works (including ordinances) must be there as well.

 

As this is the Christian Beliefs forum, I'd like to understand better your position.

 

It sounds like for you, the works must grow from the faith. Is that understanding also a part of the faith as well? That is, would you grow concerned for the salvation of a faith-filled person who felt his obedience was required? Perhaps his faith isn't full yet?

Thanks for the response.

I would say Salvation only comes about from faith because Christ did the work on the cross. At the moment one places their faith in Christ they are immediately made right before God and therefore saved. Evidence that they have been saved is shown through Christ in them transforming the inside which produces fruits or works.

Romans 3:28 says: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

In Galatians chapter 5 Paul says that Christ has become no effect to you, whosoever of you attempts to be justified by law-you have fallen from grace. He said that in Galations to people who were saying its faith in Jesus and also just keep obedience to this work of the law which was circumcision. So Paul says if anyone tries to mix faith in Jesus with any work of the law to get right before God, he says that's not Grace, you're under the curse of the law to fulfill all of it. If someone is choosing works in tandem with grace and faith Paul says that that's false gospel and anyone preaching it is eternally condemned. Paul says very clearly in Romans chapter 3 that by the deeds of the law shall no flash be justified in God's sight and then says, "but now" apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested in the law and the prophets-in other words his righteousness from God is through faith in Jesus, it's a gift by his grace through the redemption that's in Christ.

You don't need works to be saved but you'll have works if you're already saved. The Christian does not need faith and works. A Christian only needs faith and then they will have works.

If someone came to me and said, "I have faith now I just need to get baptized to be justified in Gods sight," I would talk to them. The believer says, "I have faith in Christ now I will get baptized because I'm already made right in Gods sight therefore I want to obey and be obedient." The Christian doesn't do good works to be saved rather they do good works because they're already saved through faith. Agree?

[James1]

Technically speaking, LDS teachings do teach that we are saved by faith alone. But faith without works is dead, so...no works indicates no faith. Works are highly integral to our salvation because they are the manifestation of our works. To claim faith in Jesus, and then not to follow him (obey his commandments), puts a lie to the claimed faith.

Thanks for the response. So you agree that faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone? I know I'm hammering this. Thanks!

[mordorbund]

Thanks for the response.

I would say Salvation only comes about from faith because Christ did the work on the cross. At the moment one places their faith in Christ they are immediately made right before God and therefore saved. Evidence that they have been saved is shown through Christ in them transforming the inside which produces fruits or works.

Romans 3:28 says: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

In Galatians chapter 5 Paul says that Christ has become no effect to you, whosoever of you attempts to be justified by law-you have fallen from grace. He said that in Galations to people who were saying its faith in Jesus and also just keep obedience to this work of the law which was circumcision. So Paul says if anyone tries to mix faith in Jesus with any work of the law to get right before God, he says that's not Grace, you're under the curse of the law to fulfill all of it. If someone is choosing works in tandem with grace and faith Paul says that that's false gospel and anyone preaching it is eternally condemned. Paul says very clearly in Romans chapter 3 that by the deeds of the law shall no flash be justified in God's sight and then says, "but now" apart from the law the righteousness of God has been manifested in the law and the prophets-in other words his righteousness from God is through faith in Jesus, it's a gift by his grace through the redemption that's in Christ.

You don't need works to be saved but you'll have works if you're already saved. The Christian does not need faith and works. A Christian only needs faith and then they will have works.

If someone came to me and said, "I have faith now I just need to get baptized to be justified in Gods sight," I would talk to them. The believer says, "I have faith in Christ now I will get baptized because I'm already made right in Gods sight therefore I want to obey and be obedient." The Christian doesn't do good works to be saved rather they do good works because they're already saved through faith. Agree?

 

My views are not so nuanced, and I'll explain in a future post. Since we are now discussing what drives the faith-works I'd like to ask some followup questions to clarify something for me.

 

What is the role of commandments for the faith-filled Christian? I think it's clear that Paul still expects a certain baseline of Christian behavior, otherwise the Corinthians should "evict the rascals" if you will. Are these commandments intended to increase the faith of the disciple? or are these commandments for those without faith (so the condemnation is just)?

 

In the example you gave of the faith-filled Christian wanting to be baptized "to obey and be obedient", though "already made right in God's sight" - if such a person refused baptism, is he fighting the Christ within him? Is he denying his faith, and falling from grace?

 

By the way, I appreciate you engaging in such a civil manner.

[mordorbund]

The word religion in that context was meant to show how many people rely on their own effort to be made right before God whereas the Bible says only Faith in Jesus can make us right before God-after which comes necessary sanctification. The cleansing or sanctification justifies the saving faith or shows that you have it. Religion in its traditional definition is fine. I think many evangelicals have always said that The Bible talks about having a relationship with God and that\\\'s the most important thing. So if people ask me if I\\\'m religious I tell them I\\\'m a follower of Jesus and that it\\\'s about a daily walk with God-a relationship with God. I don\\\'t think religion is a bad word per se but I do want to give people a clear idea about what Christianity is really about. The Bible says good works can\\\'t save you, going to church can\\\'t make you right before God, only faith in Jesus makes you right before God. As one has God in their heart and surrenders, that\\\'s when transformation takes place.

 

 

Maybe PC can chime in on some of his church governance / demographics experiences here. I mentioned earlier that "religion" is picking up a negative connotation and that (it seems to me) it stems from the old distrust of "organized religion". I was thinking about that the last few days and I can only think of men who have told me they have such a distrust. I have some guesses as to why that may be, but add to that what you just said here: churches are combatting this image by focusing on a "relationship with God" as the real key. I wonder if such approach is missing the point. PC posted an article a few years back about Christianity losing men because of the perception that religion is for women and children. And one of the examples that contributed to this perception is the focus on "relationships" - anciently it was the church as a bride - and other feminine traits and analogies alienating men.

 

James, I gather from your tone that you're relatively young, have you seen a drop-off among your peers as you age? In your work environment or school or what-have-you? What do you think would help with the transition when it's time for you to "be a man" and church just isn't manly enough?

 

PC, how does your church (in a non-churchy area) combat some of the stigma against religion in general, organized religion specifically, and especially one that promotes something as unmanly as speaking in tongues (something you see children do without claiming any sort of spiritual origin)?

[prisonchaplain]

Great questions Mordorbund.  First, James1's use of "religion" as a negative (or nuetral) term--one not sufficient to describe how he relates to God--is different from the larger culture's aversion to organized religion.  Probably since the "Jesus People" movement of the 1960s-70s, Evangelical Christians have used "religion" as a contrast to what is really needed to reconcile with God.  "Religion" came to mean rules/regulations/rituals etc. that people do to appease God and earn salvation.  In contrast, as the Billy Graham invitational hymn says, we come "Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me."  It is a humble, repentent approach to God that brings salvation.  "God forgive me...a sinner...because of Jesus' crucifixion."

 

The larger culture took the spirit of that approach, combined it with the anti-establishment mood of the time, and started touting phrases like, "I'm not religious--I'm spiritual."  "I believe in 'God,' but I'm not into organized religion."  So, I'll say the Lord's Prayer, read the Psalms, wear a crucifix, put a Buddha statue in my living room, and I'll take the Book of Mormon the missionaries offered me and put it on the shelf next to my box of crystals.  BTW, isn't my pyramid poster cool?

 

20 years ago we worried about losing our men--today it's our young.  Promise Keepers was the largest manifestation of Evangelical efforts to make Christianity relevent to men.  Today, we see many of the larger Evangelical churches led by pastors in the mid-40s, trying desperately to look and act like their in their late 20s. 

 

None of this is necessarily bad.  However, we'd waste less effort if we simply sought the direction and moving of the Holy Spirit, and stuck to preaching/teaching 'the whole counsel of God' (i.e. more than just a few pet 'success passages').

 

I agree with James1 completely--salvation comes only through humble, repentence, and faith in Jesus' sacrifice for my sins.  I cannot prepare for my salvation-encounter by cleaning up, or beefing up my good works account.  In fact, attempting to do so is a sign that I don't get it.

 

On the other hand, once saved good works must needs follow.  Our fervent protection of salvation by faith alone can cause us to err, once we are saved.  We hesitate to do/promote good works, for fear of weakening the salvation doctrine.  The result is that converts don't know what to do next.  How do I mature?  How do I become strong?  How do I go from receiving salvation to becoming a messenger of it for the lost?  We have the answers.  They are the disciplines:  prayer, fasting, Bible study, meditation, sharing our faith in word and deed, etc.  Even as we engage in these activities, we know that it is faith and reliance on the Holy Spirit that brings blessing and success.  Nevertheless, I must cooperate with the Spirit. 

 

Works don't save, yet we honor those who engage in the greatest work of all--martyrdom.  More than once Revelation gives them special recognition.  Some Bible teachers even suggest that it is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

So, it's all about faith and grace in getting saved.  Further, it's faith, grace, and Holy Spirit anointing that cause our works--our disciplines--to be effective.  Yet, we are indeed to be about the Father's business.

 

Hope this helps!

[Guest]

These discussions are stupid to me. Sorry. It\\\\\\\'s like the chicken and the egg going round and round.

Jesus Christ sought baptism. He did not get baptized so we won\\\\\\\'t have to. That much is clear. Baptism - a work necessary after gaining faith in God - is a requirement. Therefore, while it is our faith in Christ\\\\\\\'s Atonement that saves us, making the covenant of baptism shows one\\\\\\\'s act of faith. If we go by faith alone without baptism, we have not gained enough understanding to live by our faith and make the covenant to follow Christ.

In non-LDS churches, this is an aweful thing to say as there are tons of faith-filled Christians living the faithful life producing good works because of it yet have not been baptized as they don\\\\\\\'t believe it is necessary. For LDS, that is all just fine and dandy because works that stem from our faith are not limited to mortality... We continue with our good works, making deeper covenants and progressing throughout eternity.

And that difference right there is why \\\"faith only\\\" Christians and LDS go round and round... It all stems from the missing pieces of the Plan of Salvation as an effect of the Apostasy.... Because, with that missing doctrine, we are all talking about the exact same thing.

[The Folk Prophet]

These discussions are stupid to me. 

 

I always find it humorous when someone states a discussion to be stupid and then proceeds to discuss it. :)

 

If you don't find it useful to discuss, don't discuss it. Others may find it useful. No reason to criticize that.

[prisonchaplain]

BTW...the chicken was first. 

 

 

 Sorry. It\\\\\\\'s like the chicken and the egg going round and round.
 

[Guest]

I always find it humorous when someone states a discussion to be stupid and then proceeds to discuss it. :)

 

If you don't find it useful to discuss, don't discuss it. Others may find it useful. No reason to criticize that.

I didn't say not to discuss it. I just said TO ME it is stupid. For you, it may not be.

Get a grip.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's see if I can move this discussion along with some of understandings I've gained over the years.  Feel free to agree, disagree, fine tune a nuance, etc.

 

1.  Protestant Christians--especially Martin Luther--tend to insist that salvation (i.e. going to heaven and avoiding hell) is only possible through faith in Jesus Christ.  Our works are "filthy rags," according to Isaiah.  This tenent is so strongly held that if one claims to be a Christian and suggests that his/her good works had any part in appeasing God and earning salvation, we tend to view that person as a heretic.  Indeed most of us would wonder if such a one could be labeled a Christian.

 

2.  Many LDS have said to me that salvation is indeed by grace alone, through Jesus Christ.  However, that salvation is from the outer darkness, or hell.  It gains one entry into the Heavenly Realms--either the Telestial or Terrestial Kingdoms.  I've been led to believe that faith in Jesus is not required to enter these realms.  That faithful followers of almost any religion could enter the 2nd kingdom, and even some fairly immoral people could enter the 3rd one.  It may be that there would have to be some growth in faith in Christ, but that such faith could be gained after death.

 

3.  Protestants--and especially Evangelicals--and LDS tend to talk past each other on this faith/works discussion, because we have such different views of heaven, hell, and the actual meaning of salvation. 

 

4.  LDS believe that entry into the highest heavenly realm (Celestial Kingdom) requires certain levels of faithfulness and obedience.  Further, exaltation, at the highest levels of that realm, comes only after even greater "endurance to the end."

 

5.  In fairness, many Christians of various denominations would accept the idea that within Heaven there may be some who earn special honors for their sacrifices and faithfulness.

 

I absolutely agree with you that mostly Christians and LDS tend to talk past each other. I think what you've gleaned from some LDS folk is somewhat accurate, and somewhat mistake...if that's even possible. :) I know you are aware from some other posts that we (LDS) have variable understandings of what salvation is. Salvation is not a single state. Yes, any kingdom of salvation is just that...a kingdom of salvation...in that even in the Telestial state we are saved from something. And that is by the grace of the Savior. However, their is only one state of FULL salvation. And that, too, we believe is given by the grace of Jesus. Anyone who argues that we are not saved by Grace (and claims to believe in the Bible) has no legs to stand on. We are saved by Grace. That is given.

 

To simplify the discussion, let's refer to "saved" as full salvation (Celestial Kingdom) concerning the LDS p.o.v.

 

LDS folk believe (or should believe, at least, if they understand) that we are saved by Grace after all we can do, per the Bible. That does not, in any way, mean that we earned our own salvation or that grace was not 100% the means of that salvation.

 

How does that work. It's simple really. Christ set the standard whereby He would give us His grace. That standard is to follow Him and to keep His commandments. Where the Christian world and LDS talk past each other a bit is in the idea of what it means to accept Christ. We (LDS) contend that if you don't follow His commandments, you haven't accepted Him, in spite of what one claims. The need to do as Christ has asked us to do is paramount. But doing that has no bearing on earning a thing. For our works are, as you pointed out, nothing but filthy rags. We cannot pay for treasure with filthy rags. Regardless, the Savior has asked us to give those filthy rags to him, and that is the condition He gave us for His grace.

[The Folk Prophet]

I didn't say not to discuss it. I just said TO ME it is stupid. For you, it may not be.

Get a grip.

 

No need for rudeness.

[Guest]

No need for rudeness.

I wasn't. Were you?