From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QUESTION ULTIMATELY ANSWERED! (Are Mormons Christians?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:19:32 GMT
Reply-To: agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <92271.112538HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>Tony's post has let the cat out of the bag.  To be a real Christian
>it is not enough to believe in Christ, you must also accept
>the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone.  Thus,

If you think that was the content of my post,  you need to reread it
friend!  I didn't say or imply any such thing.  If you have 100% faith in
Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour, then you will understand that you
are ALREADY saved and that Jesus has done it all for you.  Whatever you
do as works will not help in saving your soul.

That is what I said.  IF you have that faith, THEN you will understand
that.  Not that you have to understand that as a pre-requisite to the
saving of your soul.

>as I predicted, the working definition of the anti-Mormons
>would exclude many Catholics, Orthodox, etc.  But let's

No it wouldn't.  You obviously don't understand their doctrines.

>turn for a moment to the question of what the Bible
>really teaches about Faith and Works.
>(I do appreciate Tony begrugingly admitting Mormons
>into        the Christian fold!  Thanks, Tony!)

No problem! That is how I feel.

>
>Some Protestants claim that the true Biblical doctrine is
>that mankind is saved, in the words of Martin Luther, by "faith
>alone".  They then condemn Mormons, because we believe that
>Mankind is saved by a combination of faith and works.  I would
>like to present five challenges to those believing in salvation
>by faith alone.
>
>
>Challenge 1-  In reality, even if the "faith alone"
>interpretation is right (which I deny) there are still no grounds
>to condemn Mormons, since Mormons also believe in salvation
>through faith and in being born again.  If a Mormon is born
>again, and then mistakenly goes on to perform good works,
                 ^^^^^^^^^^
  Does good works mistakenly ????

>does that make that Mormon any less saved than, say, an
>evangelical Christian who is born again and then commits
>adultery.  Both have sinned, but both have been saved.  What's
>the difference?  I, as a Mormon, have been born again -- can
>anyone prove that I have not?

Absoluely not!  There is no difference as you put it.  But you see, you
are doing good works to climb a salvation ladder.  The Christian does
the good works as a result of being (past tense) saved.

Please read my response to " Re:  LDS: Can LDS be Saved" from today.

>atonement cover my "sin" of doing extra good works?   But the
>Mormon doctrinal difference with some Protestant
>denominations over salvation is that those Protestants
>proclaim salvation by faith ALONE, while Mormons believe, as
>the Bible teaches, that both faith and works are necessary for
>salvation.  Let me turn to just a few Biblical examples
>confirming the LDS position.
>
>Challenge 2-  I challenge anyone to show a passage
>where Christ states that we are saved by faith and/or grace
>alone.  If it is such a central concept of the Gospel, why didn't
>Christ state it?  Christ indeed talks about the importance of
>faith, but never does he say it is supreme or even sufficient
>for salvation.  Why did Christ go on extensively about good

1) The theif on the cross.  He was never baptized or did any works, but
   he surrendered his mercy to the Lord Jesus, and Jesus responded,
   "today you will be with me in Paradise."
2) If you look at the passage in John 6:28-29, Jesus is asked,"What must
   we do to do the works God requires?"  Jesus answered, "The work of
   God is this:  to believe in the one he has sent."
   Now if other things (works) were required, then Jesus lied to these
   men and they lost their souls!

>if all we need to do is believe in him to be saved?  Why
>did he say, "Not all who say to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into
>the kingdom of the heavens, rather those who do the will of my
>Father who is in the heavens." (Mt. 7:21)  Why did Christ say
>"For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father
>with his angels, and then reward everyone according to his
>deeds." (Mt. 16:27), and "If you love me, you will keep my
>commandments." (Jn. 14:15)  Is Christ here trying to trick us
>into believing that we should obey his commandments and do
>good works?  These are only a few statements of the Lord on
>these matters.  Should not Paul be interpreted on the basis of
>what Jesus said, rather than reinterpreting the words of Jesus
>to make them fit with a misreading of Paul?

The law was God's way in the Old Testement.  When Jesus died on the
cross, the law was done away with as far as justification is concerned.
The law exist to show us our imperfection.

The reason Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments", was because
he also said this:  "This is my first and greatest commandment, and the
second is like it: `Love your neighboor as yourself'.  ALL the law and
Prophets hang on these two commandments". (Matthew 22:38-40).  Notice it
is ALL the law that hangs on these TWO commanments!  So even IF the law is
required for salvation, Jesus has made it clear in the NT that this is
the only law he is concerned with.  He reitterates this in John 13:34
where he says, "A NEW command I give you: Love one another, as I have
loved you, so you must love one another."  So at this point, this is the
will that Jesus was speaking of above.
>
>
>Challenge 3-  If Paul is indeed preaching that we are
>saved by faith alone (a phrase he never used), why did he make

I have to disagree, he did make this remark:
   "Where then is boasting?.... For we maintain that a man is
    justified by faith apart from observing the law"
                           Romans 3:27,28

>the following statements?  Why does Paul believe that in the
>day of judgement God "will render unto everyone according to
>his deeds" (Rom. 2:6)  Why is it that "the hearers of the Law
>are not just before God; rather the doers of the law will be
>justified." (Rom. 2:13)?  In interpreting Paul, how can we
>ignore such explicit statements?  Now Paul indeed emphasized
>faith in his writings, but did so in a context of his opposition
>to the Judaisers in the Church.  That is, he disagreed with
>those Jewish Christians who maintain that the Hellenic
>Christians must obey the old Jewish Law to be saved.  It is
>true that the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and was no longer
>necessary for salvation, but this does not apply to the
>commandments of Christ.  It seems crystal clear, then, that
>Paul's thought as a whole includes works as a necessary part
>of salvation.  Why ignore these statements by Paul about
>works, and focus only on his statements on faith and grace?

Paul indeed was preaching saved by faith alone!

   "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him
    as a gift, but as an obligation"
                                       Romans 4:4

   "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith,
    we have peace with through our Lord Jesus Christ"
                                       Romans 5:1

   "It does not, therefore, depend on a man's desire or effort,
    but on God's mercy"                Romans 9:16

   "And if by grace then it is NO LONGER by works; if it were
    grace would no longer be grace."   Romans 11:6

   "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done,
    but because of his mercy."         Titus 3:5

   "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  They replied, "Believe
    in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved"
                                       Acts 16:30-31

Look in the nineth chapter of Romans. Paul is discussing this very issue.
He says, "What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue
righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but
Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not?
Because they pursued it not by faith, BUT AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS? THEY
STUMBLED OVER THE "STUMBLING STONE".
>
>Challenge 4-  How can we ignore the clear testimony of
>James (2:14-26), Peter, and John.  James asks, "If someone
>says he has faith, but has no works, can his faith save him
>[save here is the Greek swsai = sosai, the same word used by
>Paul in Eph. 2:8-9]?" (2:14).  James' answer is no, for  "faith
>without works is dead" (2:26), because "by works was faith
>made perfect." (2:22)  James cannot be clearer.  Faith alone
>will not save anyone.  He gives several examples, and
>concludes, with language as explicit as possible (in contrast to
>the supposed implication of PaulUs language) "You see then that
>man is justified by works, and not by faith ALONE." (2:24).  "Not
>by faith ALONE."  How can it be more clear?

Many LDS that I talk to think that there is this major disagreement
between Paul and James.  James was not incorrect in his writings about
"works" and there is no contridiction if you look at it closely.  I bet
that you have never noticed that in both Paul's example in Romans 4, and
in James example, Abraham was used.  Paul clearly states that when
Abraham took Isiac up to the alter and raised the knife, he was justified
by God, through his faith.  There was not need to lower the knife!  James
does not disagree with this!  They both agree wholeheartedly right down
the line!  Where the misunderstanding comes in on the part of the LDS, is
that they do not realize that Paul and James are discussing different
things!  Paul is discussion being justified "in the eyes of God".  And
this, is done, through faith and not of works, as stated many times
through the NT.  I have included some of these above.  What James is
talking about is justification "in the eyes of man"!  Man cannot see the
heart of man as God can, and thus, the works are necessary to display this
faith to the fellow man.  Sure faith without works are dead!  Because IF
you have the faith, then you will do the works.  Notice in Eph 2:8,9 that
it says by faith you HAVE BEEN SAVED!  That is past tense.  The works
come from a saving faith, and without them you cannot justify your faith
in front of man!  Read Romans 4 and James entirely from the beginning of
each and you will see exacltly what I am talking about.

What you did to Eph 2:8,9 in your letter was slaughter the text with
no authority to add that word on the end "ALONE".  That is NOT in the
Greek, nor is it implied.  You added that work yourself.  That passage
does not say what you say it did.  You just cannot slaughter the
Scriptures that way. I mean this in a helpful and loving way, not in an
antagonistic way.

And even if you were able to justifiedly say what you did about Eph 2:8,9
was true, that does nothing about the Scriture I've listed above. You
would have to also slaughter them and many others to make your
arguement valid.  Please look at this seriously in the light I have
mentioned. You will see that this makes a lot more since, and I didn't
have to mangle the text or imply anything to get to the conclusion that
I did.

>
>
>Challenge 5- Note, finally, that nowhere in the Bible
>does it state that mankind is saved by faith alone .  Martin

Yes it does,  see above!  Read John Romans in their entirities.  Not
selected verse out of context.

>Luther added the word alone .  The Bible does indeed state we
>are saved by faith, but it also states we are saved by a number
>of other things as well.  It is simply illogical for some
>Protestants to take one element of the salvation process from
>the Bible -- in this case faith -- and declare it supreme over
>all others.  Take these passages, for example:  "we are saved by
>hope" (Rom. 8:24); "baptism now saves us" (1 Pet. 3:21); "he
>that endures to the end shall be saved" (Mt. 24:13); "And
>[Christ] having been made perfect, became the cause of eternal
>salvation to all who obey Him." (1 Heb. 5:9).  Are we to assume
>that we are saved by hope, baptism, enduring to the end, or
>obedience alone ?  No; rather that we are saved by a
>combination of faith, good works, hope, baptism, obedience,
>and enduring to the end.  This, of course, is precisely what
>Mormons believe.
>

"Enduring to the end is talking about resisting Satan" if you will read
the verses in context.  And the end is also the end of the "mission" they
are being sent on, not to the end of their lives!  When you read
Scripture, you HAVE to read it in it's entire context, or you
misunderstand what is really being taught!

Behaving Christ, keeping the commandments, are now loving your
neighboor as yourself (see above discussion).

>
>How, then, are we to understand Eph. 2:8-9.  In the LDS
>interpretation, Luther used the word alone to modify the wrong
>noun.  "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this
>is not on your own, but a gift of God; not through works alone,
                                                          ^^^^^
As I stated above, this is not in the Greek, or any other translation,
nor is it even remotely implied.  This is added by YOU.

>lest anyone should boast."  Thus Paul is not saying that "by
>faith [alone] you are save, and not through [any] works [at all],"
>as Martin Luther read the text, but rather "you are saved by
>faith, and not by works [alone]."  This interpretation does no
>injustice to the grammar of the text, and makes it compatible
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How many years of Greek have you had?  If any, you would realize in the
very basic sense of Greek that this does serious damage to the language.

>with all the other scriptures in the New Testament.  This is
>precisely the LDS position.  How can our critics say it is
>unbiblical?  It may not agree with their reading of the Bible,
>but it certainly a legitimate and logical way to interpret the
>scriptures.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^

The only legitimate way to interprete Scripture, is to arrive at the
meaning that the writer meant when he wrote it down. If you arrive at
any other conclusion, it is wrong.  Better make sure you understand what
the writer meant in the area of salvation. Your soul depends on it!