Clearing up misconceptions: Galatians1 6-9 VS TBOM

[dberrie2001]

Okay...directly to the matter of faith and works.  What do we agree on?

 

1.  Grace.  I have yet to meet an LDS person here, or in real life, who says that good works, apart from Grace, garners the kind of salvation that would lead to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

2.  Good works.  That they must be evident in a believer's life.

 

3.  Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS).  I don't have to defend this view either--since I don't believe in it.

 

So, why do I support the idea of "faith alone?"  It means that I am converted by faith.  I cannot clean myself up, or perform sufficiently well, or deny myself sinful desires to a great enough degree, to impress the Savior.  Billy Graham got it right:  Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me . . .

 

Perhaps one of the strongest cases against a focus on works or performance is 1 Corinthians 13--the love chapter.  It details how a person can speak angelic tongues, prophecy, give all to the poor, and even die as a martyr.  However, without love (God-produced) all of that is nothing.

 

I will give you this.  If "faith alone" were taken literally--as in faith without works--then it is indeed dead.  However, only faith can lead to my conversion, so it can then be infused with God's love and power--and result in good and great works.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, I believe salvation comes through God's grace, not anything independent of that. The only question I ask--who does God give His grace unto life to?

 

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)

⁹ And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

 

IMO--one cannot make the plea of faith without works for life through the idea that God died for them--Jesus Christ died for all of mankind--and all of mankind do not receive of eternal life.

 

The Atonement did not forgive anyone's sins--nor give one person eternal life--as a personal reception. If you believe it did--could you explain why all were commanded to repent and be baptized, for the remsiion of sins--following the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?

 

The Atonement did offer the OPPORTUNITY for all men to inherit eternal life, as a free gift to all men:

 

Romans 5:18--King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

"Came upon"--past tense.

 

If you agree that faith alone would be dead without works--then why do those of the faith alone theology preach a theology of salvation through a faith without works?(sola fide)

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.

The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works".

[LeSellers]

How [does the Book of Mormon preach the same Gospel as the Bible does]?

The Gospel is not explicitly defined in the Bible except in the first half dozen verses of 1 Cor 15.

The Gospel is the Good News of Christ's resurrection, and of the future resurrection of all mankind (For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive).

Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites and Lamanites in (I believe) Central America in late 34 or early 35 AD. They did as Thomas: they felt His wounds, just as he did in Israel They kissed His feet, just as Mary did in Israel. He blessed them and their children, just as He did in Israel. He healed their sick and lame, as He did in Israel. He preached to them exactly as He did to the Jews in Israel.

So, we might ask, how does the Book of Mormon, in your opinion, fail to preach that same Gospel?

Lehi

Edited November 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

cdowis, Are you turning Byron's assertions back on him, and suggesting that it is the historic Christian tradition and churches that have embraced "another gospel?"    (Just trying to connect our discussion of what "another gospel" is to this post about apostasy and restoration).

I can't speak for cdowis, but for my part the answer to your question is yes. (You knew that, thus the emoticon.)

The Bible, from start to finish, promises that there would be a restoration of the Gospel in the last days. There would be no need for a restoration absent an apostasy, a complete apostasy.

The majority of the New Testament, the epistles of Paul and the others attest to the fact that there was an active apostasy. The loss of Apostles indicates a complete apostasy. The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (aka the Apocalypse, aka Revelation) tells us explicitly that there was and would be an apostasy.

The epistle to Galatians, the very verses we are discussing, was written because the apostasy was in full flower among them: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him* that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

* "Him" is not capitalized in the Greek (and no one supposes that it should have been, no matter who it refers to). In some English versions, it is, making it point to Christ, but most do not (making it ambiguous). It seems to be a reference to Paul himself: he was the one who preached to them, who "called [them] unto the grace of Christ". It seems so, because the most critical element of the apostasy is the loss of apostolic authority.

Yes, the entire Christian world fulfills the prophecies of the apostasy. Protestants must, by necessity, accept an apostasy — there is no rationale for their existence without it. Your (collective) obligation is to show how the Reformation restored pure Gospel doctrine, and, even more importantly, the Priesthood of God.

You have told us here that the Priesthood is "the priesthood of all believers". But that is a throw-away line. What does it mean? How does it function? What does it do? How does it meet the specifications of Hebrews 5?

Lehi

Edited November 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[dberrie2001]

I can't speak for cdowis, but for my part the answer to your question is yes. (You knew that, thus the emoticon.)

The Bible, from start to finish, promises that there would be a restoration of the Gospel in the last days. There would be no need for a restoration absent an apostasy, a complete apostasy.

Lehi

 I like your post.

 

I find this is where the battleground has evolved--a "complete apostasy". IMO--it really does not matter if it was a 50% apostasy, a 75% apostasy--or a 100% apostasy. That will always be a parameter we can't agree on. There is no real answer there. No definitive proof we can submit, as to the exact percentages of apostasy. It then devolves into definitional statements, personal beliefs, etc.--and it goes south from there.

 

I feel when we relegate the argument to percentages of apostasy--then we move the goalpost to another argument--and leave the real argument in limbo--an apostasy occurred.

 

There was an apostasy. A Restoration was needed. The Reformation, and what followed--was a restoration, even if one believes it was not a restoration of truth. There was nothing reformed--new denominations were formed--with a claimed theology that was different.

 

For me--the real argument is--who was authorized to restore what was lost?(the Catholics might say--nothing)

[LeSellers]

I like your post.

Thank you. You are most kind to say so.

 

I find this is where the battleground has evolved--a "complete apostasy". IMO--it really does not matter if it was a 50% apostasy, a 75% apostasy--or a 100% apostasy. That will always be a parameter we can't agree on. There is no real answer there. No definitive proof we can submit, as to the exact percentages of apostasy. It then devolves into definitional statements, personal beliefs, etc.--and it goes south from there.

I believe your are correct, or would be, if, by "apostasy", you limit the discussion to doctrine. I do not.

By apostasy, I mean the loss of Priesthood. The doctrine of Christianity could be 100% pure, and there would still have been a total apostasy because there was no Priesthood after about 150 AD. (Even John's keys were on hold, however much he tried to keep people true to the faith. The same is true about the Three Nephites.)

 

For me--the real argument is--who was authorized to restore what was lost? (the Catholics might say--nothing)

We can look at Popes, at Reformers, at other restorationists (e.g., Hebert W. Armstrong, Mary Baker Eddy) and while they did "restore" some true doctrine (and a lot of false, as well), they did not recover the Priesthood. Joseph Smith alone* did that. Reformers looked at doctrine, and came up short on Priesthood. Popes have tried to reform their own church, and came up short on Priesthood. The true Church of Jesus Christ is the vehicle for Priesthood ordinances. The Priesthood can exist outside the Church, but the Church cannot exist without Priesthood.

* He got it from Jesus Christ, through the human intervention of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John.

Lehi

Edited November 21, 2015 by LeSellers

[dberrie2001]

I believe your are correct, or would be, if by apostasy you limit the discussion to doctrine. I do not.

By apostasy, I mean the loss of Priesthood. The doctrine of Christianity could be 100% pure, and there would still have been a total apostasy because there was no Priesthood after about 150 AD. (Even John's keys were on hold, however much he tired to keep people true to the faith.

Lehi

 

That's a good point--although I would say priesthood power. The Catholics still claim a priesthood.

 

Lehi--one of my purposes and intentions on this forum might be to show how the points postulated here might look to those outside of the church--not to argue doctrine. I have witnessed many LDS struggle with their conceptions of the LDS POV, in attempting to explain their doctrines. We use too much language that can be ripped apart, quickly, by those who question our doctrines. And rightfully so, in many instances. It's usually only good when we are addressing other LDS, for the main, because we usually know where we are coming from. Just a thought.

[LeSellers]

That's a good point--although I would say priesthood power.

The distinction is valid: I capitalized "Priesthood" whenever I meant the Priesthood of God. In reality, it isn't "Priesthood", even "priesthood power", it's Priesthood keys. I hold the Priesthood. I hold no keys. I can' bpatize my grandson, but only with his bishop's permission. In effect, I am acting under the authority of that bishop. That's why we can say that there was a complete apostasy even while the four translated beings are still on the earth: they have the Priesthood but they do not have the keys, and did not have them after the II (or V for the Three Nephites). The Church was taken because she had no Priesthood to sustain her, none to perform the sacred ordinances of the Gospel.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

one of my purposes and intentions on this forum might be to show how the points postulated here might look to those outside of the church--not to argue doctrine. I have witnessed many LDS struggle with their conceptions of the LDS POV, in attempting to explain their doctrines. We use too much language that can be ripped apart, quickly, by those who question our doctrines. And rightfully so, in many instances. It's usually only good when we are addressing other LDS, for the main, because we usually know where we are coming from. Just a thought.

That's a fair position, and useful.

I'm trying to arm Saints (including myself) with the knowledge necessary to refute spurious arguments against the Restoration. I plead guilty to using terms common in Sunday School (although I employ a great number of terms most Saints are not familiar with) because of my audience. Would they be better served by changing the vocabulary? Hmmm, I suppose, in some cases. But for the majority, they will not confront antis or even friendly searchers. It just seems more useful, to me, to use terms we are comfortable with.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

I can't speak for cdowis, but for my part the answer to your question is yes. (You knew that, thus the emoticon.)

...

You have told us here that the Priesthood is "the priesthood of all believers". But that is a throw-away line. What does it mean? How does it function? What does it do? How does it meet the specifications of Hebrews 5?

Lehi

 

The short answers to the restoration and priesthood questions:  Concerning the restoration, we do not see in scriptures the idea that the church would be completely corrupted, thus the need to a restoration of spiritual authority.  Rather, we see warnings against several heresies--pre-Gnosticism and Judaizing being two prominent ones.  Martin Luther's movement was begun out of reluctance.  The Church told him he must recant his criticisms or be expelled.  He accepted expulsion, and could not repent of his observations.  Thus, a new church formed.  He never declared a complete apostasy.  Instead, he realized that current leadership allowed corruption, and thus, the church would be better not to rely on human leadership.  The Bible alone should be the final authority.  Ironically, then, Luther sets the stage for a rejection of hierarchical priesthood.  Going back to the Bible, we see the commands to preach the gospel, to live holy, to do good, to flee what is evil, and we realize that these are not just for church leaders, but are for all believers--since we are all priests, representing Christ to a world in desperate need. 

[dberrie2001]

The short answers to the restoration and priesthood questions:  Concerning the restoration, we do not see in scriptures the idea that the church would be completely corrupted, thus the need to a restoration of spiritual authority.  Rather, we see warnings against several heresies--pre-Gnosticism and Judaizing being two prominent ones.  Martin Luther's movement was begun out of reluctance.  The Church told him he must recant his criticisms or be expelled.  He accepted expulsion, and could not repent of his observations.  Thus, a new church formed.  He never declared a complete apostasy.  Instead, he realized that current leadership allowed corruption, and thus, the church would be better not to rely on human leadership.  The Bible alone should be the final authority.  Ironically, then, Luther sets the stage for a rejection of hierarchical priesthood.  Going back to the Bible, we see the commands to preach the gospel, to live holy, to do good, to flee what is evil, and we realize that these are not just for church leaders, but are for all believers--since we are all priests, representing Christ to a world in desperate need. 

 

A couple of points here:

 

1) There was an apostasy--and that is evidenced in the creation of new denominations with a different theology, resulting from the Reformation. Resorting to the claims of--"He never declared a complete apostasy."--cannot solve the problem for the faith alone. There remains the evidence of apostasy--regardless of what one believes the percentages are.

 

Could you explain to us what the difference is in a restoration for a 50% apostasy--and a 90% apostasy?

 

2)  Peter's reference to the priesthood, found in 1Peter 2.., was thought to be a quote from Exodus19:

 

1 Peter 2:9---King James Version (KJV)

⁹ But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

Exodus 19:5-6---King James Version (KJV)

⁵ Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

⁶ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

Where do we find a priesthood of all believers in the OT?

[LeSellers]

Where do we find a priesthood of all believers in the OT?

I think this is the wrong question.

The concept of a “priesthood of all believers” does not appear in the Bible anywhere. In 1 Peter 2 we do see this: 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

But this does not mean that all believers are Priests of God. It means that those who hold the Priesthood hold a holy Priesthood. And this is true.

As PrisonChaplain has said, Luther, et al., rejected the Priesthood because the Catholic Church (who had only the apostate priesthood of Rome) expelled them. Their priesthood was invalid, and they could not get another one legitimately: that would take a restoration, but the world wasn't ready for it yet.

We Saints are grateful for the Reformation. It was an important step in preparing the world for the mission of Joseph Smith three centuries later. As important as their work was (and it was also foretold in scripture), it was not the Restoration. Please note that among those whose Temple work was done in the St. George Temple in 1877 was John Wesley (and, by extension, many other Reformers). But the import of their work does not grant it the stature of being the Restoration.

So, your question ought to be where do we find a priesthood of all believers anywhere in the Bible?

Lehi

[dberrie2001]

The concept of a “priesthood of all believers” does not appear in the Bible anywhere.

Lehi

 

That was my point. The "priesthood of all believers" is usually derived from the verses found in 1Peter2:5,9, or possibly Revelation1:6.

 

1Peter2 :5,9 is looked at as a quote from Exodus19:5-6.

 

My point? Since there was no preisthood found in the OT which included all believers--then the very priesthood Peter was referring to in 1Peter2:5,9--which was a quote from Exodus19:5-6--could not have been a preisthood of all believers either.

Edited November 21, 2015 by dberrie2001

[prisonchaplain]

 

A couple of points here:

 

1) There was an apostasy--and that is evidenced in the creation of new denominations with a different theology, resulting from the Reformation. Resorting to the claims of--"He never declared a complete apostasy."--cannot solve the problem for the faith alone. There remains the evidence of apostasy--regardless of what one believes the percentages are.

 

Could you explain to us what the difference is in a restoration for a 50% apostasy--and a 90% apostasy?

 

Sure.  The early church had "apostasy"--as you are using it here.  Read through Paul's letters to the Corinthians.  He argued against heresies and sin.  Galatians is mostly a repudiation of a Judaizing heresy.  This, while the apostles were alive and leading.  The simple difference between what happened and what I hear LDS saying happened is that the church would always have to contend for truth and against sin--even within its ranks.  Some churches would die--or be given over completely (See the warnings in Revelation 2-3).  However, all of that is a far cry from a Great Apostasy, whereby the Church completely loses its spiritual authority for nearly 2,000 years.

 

2)  Peter's reference to the priesthood, found in 1Peter 2.., was thought to be a quote from Exodus19:

 

1 Peter 2:9---King James Version (KJV)

⁹ But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

 

Exodus 19:5-6---King James Version (KJV)

⁵ Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

⁶ And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

 

Where do we find a priesthood of all believers in the OT?

 

If one Israelite sinned the whole nation could be punished.  Even today rabbis do not proselytize.  In fact, they are commanded in the Talmud to discourage would-be converts three times.  Why?  The more Jews, the more potential for sin and punishment.    So, in the NT sense, all Israelites were like priests--they were meant to be a City on a Hill that would show all the way to God.

[Guest]

     

Edited November 22, 2015 by Guest

[dberrie2001]

Sure.  The early church had "apostasy"--as you are using it here.  Read through Paul's letters to the Corinthians.  He argued against heresies and sin.  Galatians is mostly a repudiation of a Judaizing heresy.  This, while the apostles were alive and leading.  The simple difference between what happened and what I hear LDS saying happened is that the church would always have to contend for truth and against sin--even within its ranks.  Some churches would die--or be given over completely (See the warnings in Revelation 2-3).  However, all of that is a far cry from a Great Apostasy, whereby the Church completely loses its spiritual authority for nearly 2,000 years.

 

Where do we find an apostasy in the NT denomination that required a whole new denomination to be formed?

 

A new denomination infers the apostasy was much deeper than what the faith alone want to believe. So deep, in fact--that they believed the existing church could not be salvaged.

 

If one Israelite sinned the whole nation could be punished.  Even today rabbis do not proselytize.  In fact, they are commanded in the Talmud to discourage would-be converts three times.  Why?  The more Jews, the more potential for sin and punishment.    So, in the NT sense, all Israelites were like priests--they were meant to be a City on a Hill that would show all the way to God.

 

I don't see anything in your post that shows there was a priesthood of all believers. The fact is--the reference Peter quoted from within the OT did not include the priesthood of all believers, as individual priests.

 

Only designated males held that priesthood.

 

 

 

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

Let's see how much agreement we have here.  I'll just lay out my beliefs.

 

1.  Salvation/conversion happens when I ask Jesus to forgive my sins and acknowledge him as my LORD and Savior.

 

This is real salvation.  If I die after this conversion event, I am bound for Kingdom of God.  Since traditionalists believe there is but one heaven (though many of us would allow for a variance of rewards within it), I would suggest this soul would go to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

2.  As a God-filled convert, the fruit of the Holy Spirit should begin to flow out of me.  (Galations 5:22-23).  The works of the flesh should diminish.  (Galations 5:19-22).  I should love God and my neighbor, read my Bible, attend church, give generously (tithe +), etc.  All of these actions should be done under the anointing of God-infused love.

 

If such is absent from my life, I need to repent.  I may need to recommit my life to God.  If I continually reject the wooing and convicting of the Holy Spirit, at some point I will have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.  He will leave, and I will be lost...damned.

 

Of course, I can also simply renounce my faith.  I can give myself over to a false religion.  And, of course, my initial conversion could have been insincere, and I might never have truly known God.

 

So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead.

 

I suppose a difference for us, then, is that I feel biblically safe in proclaiming that I have been and am saved.  Yes, I am also in the process of my salvation.  My sense is--and please correct me if I am wrong--that many LDS would not claim to be "saved" (i.e. headed towards the Celestial Kingdom) until they were at the end of life.

 

So...how close are we (me and thee, not the Calvinists, OSAS folk, or whatever else posters may have encountered)?

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Yes, I believe salvation comes through God's grace, not anything independent of that. The only question I ask--who does God give His grace unto life to?

 

 

The Atonement did offer the OPPORTUNITY for all men to inherit eternal life, as a free gift to all men:

 

If you agree that faith alone would be dead without works--then why do those of the faith alone theology preach a theology of salvation through a faith without works?(sola fide)

 

 

[Guest]

PC,

 

In broad terms I'd say no to #1 and yes to #2 in terms of LDS beliefs.  But under certain circumstances #1 may be sufficient.

 

You are correct that it is a confusing statement for a Mormon to say "I'm saved" while still living life.  It is generally taught that one is not saved until we reach the judgment bar of God.  However, we can believe that we are at a place in life where we are at peace with God and have a close enough relationship that "our confidence may wax strong in the presence of God."  That's the closest we have to what you're talking about for most people.

 

There is also having our "calling and election made sure" this is pretty much the "status" of what you describe in #1.  But we believe VERY few people (per capita) actually reach that level in this life.

 

ANECDOTE:

 

When I was 10 years old some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door and wanted to talk.  I told them we were Mormons.  One of them asked me how long I've been saved.  I just gave him a quizzical look and said, "That doesn't even make sense."  I'm guessing that he didn't know too much about our faith.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Guest

[dberrie2001]

Let's see how much agreement we have here.  I'll just lay out my beliefs.

 

1.  Salvation/conversion happens when I ask Jesus to forgive my sins and acknowledge him as my LORD and Savior.

 

This is real salvation.  If I die after this conversion event, I am bound for Kingdom of God.  Since traditionalists believe there is but one heaven (though many of us would allow for a variance of rewards within it), I would suggest this soul would go to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

 Hi Prisonchaplin:

 

The LDS believe this is the command for all, in the forgiveness of sins:

 

Acts 2:38---King James Version (KJV)

³⁸ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

And was the very beginning and doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

 

Mark 1:1-5---King James Version (KJV)

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

² As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

³ The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

⁴ John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

⁵ And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

 

2 John 9---King James Version (KJV)

⁹ Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

 

The faith alone usually deny Acts2:38, as salvational--because it involves a "work"--and faith alone theology is ---salvation through a faith without works.

 

The LDS pattern their theology, concerning the remission of sins--after the Biblical doctrine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dberrie2001]

2.  As a God-filled convert, the fruit of the Holy Spirit should begin to flow out of me.  (Galations 5:22-23).  The works of the flesh should diminish.  (Galations 5:19-22).  I should love God and my neighbor, read my Bible, attend church, give generously (tithe +), etc.  All of these actions should be done under the anointing of God-infused love.

 

If such is absent from my life, I need to repent.  I may need to recommit my life to God.  If I continually reject the wooing and convicting of the Holy Spirit, at some point I will have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.  He will leave, and I will be lost...damned.

 

Of course, I can also simply renounce my faith.  I can give myself over to a false religion.  And, of course, my initial conversion could have been insincere, and I might never have truly known God.

 

So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead.

 

I suppose a difference for us, then, is that I feel biblically safe in proclaiming that I have been and am saved.  Yes, I am also in the process of my salvation.  My sense is--and please correct me if I am wrong--that many LDS would not claim to be "saved" (i.e. headed towards the Celestial Kingdom) until they were at the end of life.

 

So...how close are we (me and thee, not the Calvinists, OSAS folk, or whatever else posters may have encountered)?

 

I've read some of your posts--and I believe there is a lot of truth in what you say. I enjoy reading your comments.

 

The one thing that confuses me is your statement--"So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead."

 

That just does not make any sense, for faith alone theology. Works has nothing to do with salvation, in the faith alone theology.

 

One of the faith alone theology cannot redact, following salvation--and use works as a standard of salvation---for the simple reason--if works had nothing to do with obtaining salvation--then it can't be used as a measuring stick for the presence of it, following salvation, IMO.

 

Revelation 22:14---King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

[prisonchaplain]

dberrie, part of our looking past each other is timeline.  When does salvation happen?  I'm going to narrow my answer here--for Evangelicals it is at the point of conversion.  What works does a just-a-moment-ago converted soul have?  How can we berate someone who just a moment ago said, "Jesus come into my heart?" because they have no works?  How can we say their faith is dead?

 

James admonition is to the redeemed.  Okay...now you're a Christian?  Start showing it!  Where's your works?  Come on, brother--you've been at this awhile.  "Faith, faith!" you cry?  I cannot see it.  Buck up, and get your nose to the grindstone.

 

Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and empowers us, so even in the labor, it is God who is glorified.

 

When you view salvation as Paul's running of the race, reaching the finish line, and hearing, "Well done, good and faithful servant," then salvation by faith alone seems odd.

[Guest]

PC,

 

I think you encapsulated what I've been unable to say myself.

[dberrie2001]

dberrie, part of our looking past each other is timeline.  When does salvation happen?  I'm going to narrow my answer here--for Evangelicals it is at the point of conversion.  What works does a just-a-moment-ago converted soul have?  How can we berate someone who just a moment ago said, "Jesus come into my heart?" because they have no works?  How can we say their faith is dead?

 

I'm not sure why anyone would believe we should berate people, for whatever stance they take--even if they choose disbelief.

 

My point centers on the faith alone theology, as a salvation through a faith without works.

 

IOW--the faith alone claim salvation comes to mankind independent of works. You then make this statement:

 

prisonchaplain, on 23 Nov 2015 - 7:07 PM, said:So, for the living, breathing Christian, any claims to faith that lack fruit (or works) is dead.

 

My question--is someone saved through a dead faith? Or, are works necessary for salvation(eternal life) to occur? If so--what works?

[dberrie2001]

James admonition is to the redeemed.  Okay...now you're a Christian?  Start showing it!  Where's your works?  Come on, brother--you've been at this awhile.  "Faith, faith!" you cry?  I cannot see it.  Buck up, and get your nose to the grindstone.

 

Of course, we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and empowers us, so even in the labor, it is God who is glorified.

 

When you view salvation as Paul's running of the race, reaching the finish line, and hearing, "Well done, good and faithful servant," then salvation by faith alone seems odd.

 Good Morning, Prisonchaplain:

 

While I would agree with most of your post--James' conclusion was more basic than many will believe--that is--that faith without works is dead faith:

 

James 2:20-26---King James Version (KJV)

²⁰ But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

²² Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

²³ And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

²⁴ Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

²⁵ Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

²⁶ For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

That is the very faith(dead faith) the faith alone claim one is saved through--a faith without works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LeSellers]

That is the very faith(dead faith) the faith alone claim one is saved through--a faith without works.

While you are right, faith alone Christians run their own spectrum. There are even people who are so convinced that "works" are not important that they claim that even trying to be righteous is a work, and that it will condemn you, since you obviously do not have the true faith required to be saved.

We have PC here on the one extreme, your observations on the other.

My own experience with the sola fide types show them running strongly to the "I could kill you, but my faith will still save me" end, but they are not the entire population.

Lehi

Edited November 25, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

 

My question--is someone saved through a dead faith? Or, are works necessary for salvation(eternal life) to occur? If so--what works?

 

The person who converts is saved.  No works.  What does a baby do to be conceived?  It just is.  Likewise, when I say, "Jesus, come into my heart," I AM saved.  No works got me there.  Faith alone.  Sola fide.

 

If the baby doesn't eat, doesn't drink, does not find him/herself in the company of caring adults then s/he dies.  Rather quickly.  Likewise, the born again believer who does not eat (scripture, solid teaching, etc) or drink (prayer), and who does find him/herself in the company of caring believers will die.  As this baby grows, if s/he refuses to exercise and eat/drink right, s/he will die.  No works = death.