are OC and Jeff going to hell?

[OtherCheek]

I was doing that in the post you just ignored, OC.

The verse in the BoM says you have to earn salvation and that it is by grace (free). That makes the two concepts conflict with each other.

so to repeat myself:

What you don't seem to realize is that the two concepts cancel each other out. If you are working for something then it isn't a free gift. grace is the free gift. It is what God does for us despite the fact that we don't deserve it. If the condition is that you have to work for it first (obedience is a work) then you are earning your salvation, and God OWES you the salvation as a "pay check" for your work. In other words you are trying to make God obligated to save you because of your obedience. You are attempting to make God owe you a debt. You can't have God owing you salvation and giving you salvation as a free gift at the same time.

This is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 4.

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

You know OC, I find myself quoting the book of Romans to you over and over, refuting the teachings of the LDS. Is Romans a book that mormons are discouraged from reading? Because Paul is very clear in Romans about works and grace. I think you should take the time to sit down and read it. Preferably in a modern english translation like the NIV.

Please?

I added more that you missed.

This verse in Romans doesn't mean that our works are not required. It only is saying that the atonement (grace) is not a payment for our works. Which I agree with.

Now when will you actually quote the entire BoM scripture and prepare to address it as a whole, and in light of other LDS scriptures?

Or, if you prefer, we can take these 5 words from the Bible: "Faith without works is dead" and view it in total isolation of all other Bible teachings.

[OtherCheek]

You left "grace" out of the equation.

Just like Sparko's (and perhaps yours too), myopic and isolated focus on five words in the BoM also leaves "grace" out of the equation. In fact, in the BoM verse, the word grace is mentioned, while in this Bible verse about faith and works (James 2:26), grace is NOT mentioned.

[Cow Poke]

Just like Sparko's (and perhaps yours too), myopic and isolated focus on five words in the BoM also leaves "grace" out of the equation. In fact, in the BoM verse, the word grace is mentioned, while in this Bible verse about faith and works (James 2:26), grace is NOT mentioned.

Your "after all you can do" pretty well negates the "grace through faith, not of works", OC -- that's why we focus on it. It's a concept that Smith ADDED to what was already taught concerning Salvation.

Robert L. Millet, writing with Joseph Fielding McConkie before his (Millet's) more significant move to neo-orthodoxy, wrote:

"Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness - only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust - that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious"

So WHY do we need "grace"?

[OtherCheek]

Grace is unmerited favor, OC. Why do I need unmerited favor if I'm "meriting" it?

Why must you view the atonement as a payment for good works? No LDS person I know of, or LDS scripture that I know of makes such a claim.

I addressed that in Post #60.

Either one of you have yet to quote the whole BoM verse and deal with it. You haven't done so.

[Cow Poke]

Why must you view the atonement as a payment for good works?

I don't. Can you please show me where I ever said such a thing? It would really help, OC, if you would stop purposely misrepresenting what we say.

No LDS person I know of, or LDS scripture that I know of makes such a claim.

Nor did I.

ither one of you have yet to quote the whole BoM verse and deal with it.

Because the "after all you can do" is Smith's own addition to CHANGE what was written. Why quote what was already accepted when Smith obviously didn't think it was sufficient?

You haven't done so.

I said I addressed it. I did. It is dishonest of you to claim I did not.

[OtherCheek]

Your "after all you can do" pretty well negates the "grace through faith, not of works", OC -- that's why we focus on it. It's a concept that Smith ADDED to what was already taught concerning Salvation.

No. It doesn't negate grace through faith. There is no verse in LDS scriptures anywhere that makes the claim that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our works.

Robert L. Millet, writing with Joseph Fielding McConkie before his (Millet's) more significant move to neo-orthodoxy, wrote:

"Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness - only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust - that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious"

Yes. That is still no where close to saying that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our good works as you have characterized it.

So WHY do we need "grace"?

[Sparko]

I added more that you missed.

This verse in Romans doesn't mean that our works are not required. It only is saying that the atonement (grace) is not a payment for our works. Which I agree with.

um no. that's not what it says. It says that if you work for your salvation, then you are saying that God owes you a debt (a wage for your effort) - but if you don't work for your salvation but have faith instead, then you are credited with righteousness (see Romans 1:17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed —a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” - and Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.)

You really need to read Romans instead of just giving knee-jerk reactions.

Now when will you actually quote the entire BoM scripture and prepare to address it as a whole, and in light of other LDS scriptures?

I did. and I even quoted from other LDS leaders (as did CP) as to what "after all we can do" means. It is you who is trying to wiggle out of it.

Or, if you prefer, we can take these 5 words from the Bible: "Faith without works is dead" and view it in total isolation of all other Bible teachings.

Faith without works is dead. Because true faith will produce works. The works don't save you, they are just evidence that you are saved. The verse says nothing about earning salvation or "after all we can do" or even contributing to our salvation with works.

[OtherCheek]

Your "after all you can do" pretty well negates the "grace through faith, not of works", OC -- that's why we focus on it. It's a concept that Smith ADDED to what was already taught concerning Salvation.

No. It doesn't negate grace through faith. There is no verse in LDS scriptures anywhere that makes the claim that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our works.

Robert L. Millet, writing with Joseph Fielding McConkie before his (Millet's) more significant move to neo-orthodoxy, wrote:

"Indeed, it is only after a person has so performed a lifetime of works and faithfulness - only after he has come to deny himself of all ungodliness and every worldly lust - that the grace of God, that spiritual increment of power, is efficacious"

Yes. That is still no where close to saying that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our good works as you have characterized it.

So WHY do we need "grace"?

Because we can't save ourselves.

[Cow Poke]

I did. and I even quoted from other LDS leaders (as did CP) as to what "after all we can do" means. It is you who is trying to wiggle out of it.

Here's more.... (bolding mine)

Dallin Oaks describes what it means to do all we can do:

"Because of what He accomplished by His atoning sacrifice, Jesus Christ has the power to prescribe the conditions we must fulfill to qualify for the blessings of His Atonement. That is why we have commandments and ordinances. That is why we make covenants. That is how we qualify for the promised blessings. They all come through the mercy and grace of the Holy One of Israel, 'after all we can do' (2 Nephi 25:23)." (Oct 2010 General Conference)

We believe that Jesus Christ has the power to FULLY FORGIVE. (Which is harder, to heal the sick, or to forgive sin?) NOT just the power to "make more rules", but the power to FORGIVE.

My Jesus is more powerful than your Jesus!

[Sparko]

OC if works are a requirement of salvation then salvation IS a payment for your works.

If I owned a factory and said that making widgets was a requirement of getting a paycheck, then the paycheck is a payment for the making of the widgets (the work) - You are trying to say you must make widgets to get a paycheck, but you get the paycheck even if you don't make widgets. That is just nonsensical.

[Cow Poke]

No. It doesn't negate grace through faith.

Yes. It does.

There is no verse in LDS scriptures anywhere that makes the claim that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our works.

That's a goofy statement, OC --- "payment for our works"? Where did THAT come from, and why should I expect ANY scripture (real or imagined) to say such a thing.

Yes. That is still no where close to saying that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is payment for our good works as you have characterized it.

No, OC -- I never characterized anything as "payment for our good works". That's just stupid, and dishonest of you to claim that.

Because we can't save ourselves.

HALLELUJAH!!!!!! WE AGREE!!!!! By GRACE are we saved through FAITH, and NOT of works... Nothign we can do, or we would BRAG about it! (yeah, sadly, I know that's not really what you're agreeing to )

[OtherCheek]

OC if works are a requirement of salvation then salvation IS a payment for your works.

False. By that logic we could say "if believing/faith is a requirement of salvation, then salvation IS a payment for believing. That would be just as heretical as the first mischaracterization you have presented.

If I owned a factory and said that making widgets was a requirement of getting a paycheck, then the paycheck is a payment for the making of the widgets (the work) - You are trying to say you must make widgets to get a paycheck, but you get the paycheck even if you don't make widgets. That is just nonsensical.

If I owned a factory and said that believing and faith was a requirement of getting a paycheck (grace), then the paycheck is a payment for the believing and faith. - You are trying to say you must believe and have faith to get a paycheck. That is just nonsensical

[Cow Poke]

False. By that logic we could say "if believing/faith is a requirement of salvation, then salvation IS a payment for believing.

Well, you could SAY that, but there's a big difference between "believing" and "doing works".

Elsewise, there wouldn't be that troublesome little section that says "Not of works, lest any man should boast".

[Cow Poke]

If I owned a factory and said that believing and faith was a requirement of getting a paycheck (grace), then the paycheck is a payment for the believing and faith. - You are trying to say you must believe and have faith to get a paycheck. That is just nonsensical

No, you're not "getting" grace by believing.. .it's about God GIVING grace....

Here, lemme try it....

I'm the owner of a factory. I have payroll print a $10,000 check for every employee, and I announce "all you have to do is come get your check, believing that I'm 'good' for the check, and I want you to have it as a free gift!"

(no analogy is perfect, but let's start there)

(Actually, bad example, because an "as yet unsaved" person is not the same as an "employee"... so, with THAT caveat.... )

[Sparko]

False. By that logic we could say "if believing/faith is a requirement of salvation, then salvation IS a payment for believing. That would be just as heretical as the first mischaracterization you have presented.



If I owned a factory and said that believing and faith was a requirement of getting a paycheck (grace), then the paycheck is a payment for the believing and faith. - You are trying to say you must believe and have faith to get a paycheck. That is just nonsensical

You are goofy OC.

Belief isn't a work. It's a choice. and the bible clearly contrasts "faith" (believing) with "works"