A Mormon tries to attack "Faith Alone"

Theo1689

Well-known member
A Mormon tried to go off-topic in the Mormonism forum, so I felt it more appropriate to respond to here.
For those who are unaware, Mormons are unable to defend their false teachings in the Mormonism forum, so they try to derail all discussion there away from Mormonism, and instead try to attack orthodox Christianity.

Such as this heretical doctrine?(in your theology)

Romans 6:16---King James Version
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Bonnie--the faith alone can't even begin to comport their theology with the Biblical NT. The LDS can. What is found in the Biblical NT--is also found in the LDS church--as far as salvational doctrines go.

Well, first of all, I would prefer a better translation. While the rendering of "servants" isn't too bad, it can lead people to a wrong understanding. The Greek term here is "doulos", which means "slaves". If the concept of "willing servants" was intended, the more appropriate term would have been "diakonos", which we do not see in this passage.

Hence:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

This isn't about "choosing to obey". There is nothing in the text about "choosing". Slaves don't "choose" to be slaves, their MASTER chooses for them to be slaves. What Paul is saying that your obedience, your actions, demonstrates who your master is. If you live a life of sin, it is because sin is your master. if you live a life of righteousness, it is because God is your master.

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, (ESV)

So we were "once slave of sin", and now we "have become obedient (to righteousness).
And this calls for us to "thanks be to GOD!".

Why are we thanking God, if this was allegedly our "choice"?
No, we are thanking God because HE is the one who freed us from sin.

Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (ESV)

We have "been set free".
We did not "do" this, God did this TO us. We are the passive ("dead in trespasses and sins") recipients of regeneration.

We "have become slaves" of righteousness.
We have been sold from one master to another, SUPERIOR master.
This was not our choice, our doing, this was GOD'S doing!

Thanks be to GOD!

1 John 2:3-4---King James Version
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Amen!
Nothing really to unpack, here...

If we live a life keeping his commandments, that means we have become "slaves of righteousness", and THANKS BE TO GOD! (Rom. 6:16-18).

Try and comport that to your theology.

Fits perfectly (thanks for asking!)

Fits the LDS doctrines well.

Not at all.

Mormons teach you must "obey to be saved".
The Bible teaches you obey BECAUSE you are saved.
 

Stephen

Active member
The Bible teaches you obey BECAUSE you are saved.

Every Mormon that I've come across states this as their understanding.

If "Faith" then its fruit "works" will naturally occur​

The disagreement occurs because James 2 completes the logical construct (modus tollens?)

if no naturally occurring works, then there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is no faith​


In short, the bible says:

If A, then B and also If -B, then -A​

The faith alone crowd likes to deny the second part of the logical construct and then can't understand why other people accept it.




(Works in this construct are not to be construed as "works of the law" per Romans 3, but in obedience to God)
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Every Mormon that I've come across states this as their understanding.

If "Faith" then its fruit "works" will naturally occur​

Well, I don't know what to tell you....

I've come across HUNDREDS of Mormons over the last 30 years, and NONE of them have said that, they all attack that as "faith alone" belief.

I can only respond based on what Mormons tell me they believe.

Perhaps you can spend some time in the Mormonism forum, and see if they argue the same, or differently, than what you've seen in the past.

The disagreement occurs because James 2 completes the logical construct (modus tollens?)

if no naturally occurring works, then there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is no faith​

Yes, that's a form of modus tollens....

In short, the bible says:

If A, then B and also If -B, then -A​

The faith alone crowd likes to deny the second part of the logical construct and then can't understand why other people accept it.

Again, in my 30 years as a Christian, I have NEVER come across a "faith alone" who denies the second part. I'm sorry, but I'm starting to doubt your credibility.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
They most certainly aren't--but they are heretical to faith alone theology:

Romans 6:16---King James Version
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

That's what one will find being taught in the LDS church.

Responded to here:

Matthew 19:16-19----King James Version
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

This is pretty much a common tactic by Mormons, to try to atomize the Bible by trying to isolate it from its context.

First we have to address the following Biblical truth:

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

So the law was never intended to save, it was intended to CONVICT us of sin.

Gal. 3: 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,



Now that we understand the purpose of the law, we are ready to understand the interaction between Jesus and the man:

Matt. 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”


Now, we already know that the law cannot save, but that it only convicts people of sin. Of course, Jesus knew that, and that is why Jesus pointed him to the law, to try to get him to come to that conclusion.

But the passage continues, and here is the part that you DON'T quote:

20 The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.


The man said, "I have kept the entire law".
So why didn't Jesus say, "Great! Then you have eternal life!"?

It's because he HADN'T kept the entire law, but he still thought he could. He hadn't yet learned that he was unable to keep the law, and had to instead depend on Jesus, who is the only one who CAN.

That is why "the man ... went away sorrowful".




In the meantime, you STILL haven't addressed the following:

Eph. 2:8 ... And this is not your own doing ...
Eph. 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
2 Tim. 1:9 who saved us ... not because of our works
Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of works ...
Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work ... his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom. 4:6 ... the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom. 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works;
 

Stephen

Active member
Again, in my 30 years as a Christian, I have NEVER come across a "faith alone" who denies the second part. I'm sorry, but I'm starting to doubt your credibility.

So as a faith alone proponent, you accept the idea that if there are no works, then there is no faith.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So as a faith alone proponent, you accept the idea that if there are no works, then there is no faith.

Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, eso that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

See also James 2.

See also Luther's comment:

"We are saved by faith alone;
But a faith that saves is never alone."
 

Stephen

Active member
Eph. 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, eso that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

See also James 2.

See also Luther's comment:

"We are saved by faith alone;
But a faith that saves is never alone."

You affirmed in multiple ways what we both agree is the "faith alone" position:

If A then B,​
if "faith" then "works"​


That wasn't the question however. The question was regarding the second part of the logical construct:

If -A, then -B,​
if "no works" then "no faith".​

Do you affirm the second part of the logical construct? If there is no works, then there is no faith.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You affirmed in multiple ways what we both agree is the "faith alone" position:

If A then B,​
if "faith" then "works"​


That wasn't the question however. The question was regarding the second part of the logical construct:

If -A, then -B,​
if "no works" then "no faith".​

Do you affirm the second part of the logical construct? If there is no works, then there is no faith.

<sigh>
I've already answered.
I'm not sure what you think is accomplished by giving people he 3rd degree, and asking questions that have already been answered.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Mormons are no different from any other denomination. Muslims, Baptists, Catholic, COCs AOGs, you name it all have their own gods they have established to worship. That is why none of these can agree about their gods.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Romans 6:16---King James Version
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Well, first of all, I would prefer a better translation.
LOL!!! I guess you would Theo--especially seeing it violates your theology.

So--how does one comport the above scripture to faith alone theology?

Hence:
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

Which still connects obedience to righteousness--which still violates your theology.

Theo--in faith alone theology--all works of obedience is excluded in obtaining salvation.

Romans 6:22---King James Version
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.


Anathema to faith alone theology.

If you live a life of sin, it is because sin is your master. if you live a life of righteousness, it is because God is your master.

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, (ESV)

So we were "once slave of sin", and now we "have become obedient (to righteousness).

"ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life."

Just how do you collate your theology with that witness, seeing faith alone theology excludes all acts of obedience to Jesus Christ in obtaining eternal life?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
LOL!!! I guess you would Theo--especially seeing it violates your theology.

Not at all.

So--how does one comport the above scripture to faith alone theology?

All you have to do is read my response here;

I made it super-easy for you, all you have to do is click on the link.
If you're too lazy to even do that much, I can't really help you.

But the irony is that it's easier to simply click on the link, than it is to quote your proof-text over and over again.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
See also Luther's comment:

"We are saved by faith alone;
But a faith that saves is never alone."

LOL!!!

So, Theo--please do inform us what faith alone theology adds to "faith" in obtaining salvation, so we can hear the cricket choir sing.

(this is where the wagon leaves the road, folks)
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
So as a faith alone proponent, you accept the idea that if there are no works, then there is no faith.

That might be the language--but the truth is--faith alone theology excludes all works in obtaining salvation. IOW--what the Biblical text labels as a faith which is dead(faith without works)--the faith alone theology claims is the faith which one is saved through. Dead faith saves.

That's the greatest lie satan has ever pawned upon mankind:

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Every Mormon that I've come across states this as their understanding.

If "Faith" then its fruit "works" will naturally occur​

The disagreement occurs because James 2 completes the logical construct (modus tollens?)

if no naturally occurring works, then there is sufficient evidence to conclude there is no faith​


In short, the bible says:

If A, then B and also If -B, then -A​

The faith alone crowd likes to deny the second part of the logical construct and then can't understand why other people accept it.

(Works in this construct are not to be construed as "works of the law" per Romans 3, but in obedience to God)
I'm LDS--and I can say I believe what you said about the LDS--and faith alone theology--is a fair and true expression of thought.

The faith alone make a good talk--but, as we say in the south--that dog just ain't gonna hunt:

For example:

Theo1689 said:

See also Luther's comment:

"We are saved by faith alone;
But a faith that saves is never alone."

I would love for any faith alone adherent to rely to us what the faith alone theology adds to faith in obtaining salvation. It's called "faith alone"--and that's what it means--alone, in obtaining salvation.

So--if that is true--then why did the Savior testify all men will be judged according to their own works--after death--and that for life or damnation?

John 5:28-29---King James Version
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I also agree with your differentiation of "works" as being both a reference to certain rituals under the Mosaic Law--or obedience to the gospel. One has to differentiate between the two. Paul was usually referencing the works of the Law--James, obedience to the gospel.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Mormons teach you must "obey to be saved".
The Bible teaches you obey BECAUSE you are saved.

The LDS teach both--not either.

Matthew 10:22---King James Version
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Revelation 22:14---King James Version

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.

Could you explain for us how one fits faith alone theology into that testimony?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
First of all, over the months and years you have MISREPRESENTED what "faith alone" theology actually teaches. You present a STRAW-MAN that you think is easily criticized, but you ignore what we ACTUALLY teach.

So first I'm going to explain to you what "faith alone" ACTUALLY teaches, and then just like always, you will ignore it.

When we say we are saved by "faith alone", we are NOT saying that we are saved by a faith that is NOT accompanied by works. That is your straw-man, but that is NOT what we believe. We believe (and Stephen the Christadelphian has explained this more than once here), that a saving faith WILL produce works, as the "evidence" or "fruits" of that faith. And that is precisely what James is teaching in James 2, which you are so fond of quoting ten million times, but apparently have never understood what it taught.

So a true saving faith DOES come with works.
But it is only the "faith" part of {"faith", "works"} that contributes to the salvation "transaction".
The works are there, but they don't contribute to the salvation.

So the "alone" in "faith alone" is NOT saying that "faith is alone, and doesn't have works" (like you misrepresent it).

It is saying that of the "faith" and "works" which are both present, ONLY the "faith" contributes to the salvation "transaction". Works are still present, but they didn't contribute to the salvation. They didn't need to.

To "add works" to the faith that PRODUCES works would be like charging someone when the buy an apple tree, and then charging them extra for the apples.

Hebrews 5:9---King James Version
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Amen!

What you don't understand is that there is a difference between "causation" and "correlation". This is Basic Statistics 101. Yes, all who obey, will be saved, and all who are saved, will obey. That is the CORRELATION.

But you are ASSUMING "causation" here, and you are ASSUMING (contrary to Scripture) that it is the "obeying" that "causes" the eternal salvation. But not only does this passage not teach this causation, but your interpretation is CONTRADICTED by:

Eph. 2:8 ... And this is not your own doing ...
Eph. 2:9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
2 Tim. 1:9 who saved us ... not because of our works
Tit. 3:5 he saved us, not because of works ...
Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work ... his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom. 4:6 ... the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom. 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works;

The LDS teach both--not either.

Matthew 10:22---King James Version
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Again, this is a "correlation", NOT a "causation".
They aren't saved "because' they "endure to the end".
They endure to the end BECAUSE they are saved.

They are saved because the hand of God will never let them go:

Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

They are saved, and will endure to the end, because the Good and Faithful Shepherd will leave the 99 and go after the straying sheep, and bring him back into the fold. That is what good shepherds DO.


Revelation 22:14---King James Version
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.

Yes, when you are saved, you will do his commandments, you will have access to the tree of life.
Perfectly consistent with our theology.

Your error is you keep ASSUMING "causation" where it doesn't exist.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Mormons are no different from any other denomination. Muslims, Baptists, Catholic, COCs AOGs, you name it all have their own gods they have established to worship. That is why none of these can agree about their gods.

Yep. And all like to pretend otherwise. It's a world of pretenders. But there won't be any pretending before God on that Day.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
A Mormon tried to go off-topic in the Mormonism forum, so I felt it more appropriate to respond to here.
For those who are unaware, Mormons are unable to defend their false teachings in the Mormonism forum, so they try to derail all discussion there away from Mormonism, and instead try to attack orthodox Christianity.



Well, first of all, I would prefer a better translation. While the rendering of "servants" isn't too bad, it can lead people to a wrong understanding. The Greek term here is "doulos", which means "slaves". If the concept of "willing servants" was intended, the more appropriate term would have been "diakonos", which we do not see in this passage.

So... you are pitting "willing servants" against "unwilling slaves"?

Hence:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

This isn't about "choosing to obey".

Um, Paul is instructing them to choose to obey. And if you didn't need to choose to obey, you would never sin would you?

There is nothing in the text about "choosing". Slaves don't "choose" to be slaves, their MASTER chooses for them to be slaves. What Paul is saying that your obedience, your actions, demonstrates who your master is. If you live a life of sin, it is because sin is your master. if you live a life of righteousness, it is because God is your master.

You seem to be seeing something which is not there and failing to see what is there. How did you manage this? Maybe you need to read it again with your eyes open this time?

Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, (ESV)

So we were "once slave of sin", and now we "have become obedient (to righteousness).
And this calls for us to "thanks be to GOD!".

Why are we thanking God, if this was allegedly our "choice"?
No, we are thanking God because HE is the one who freed us from sin.

Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (ESV)

We have "been set free".
We did not "do" this, God did this TO us. We are the passive ("dead in trespasses and sins") recipients of regeneration.

We "have become slaves" of righteousness.
We have been sold from one master to another, SUPERIOR master.
This was not our choice, our doing, this was GOD'S doing!

Whenever you must choose between committing sin or doing the will of God, yes it is YOUR choice.

Or are you telling us that no one ever chooses to sin?

Thanks be to GOD!



Amen!
Nothing really to unpack, here...

If we live a life keeping his commandments, that means we have become "slaves of righteousness", and THANKS BE TO GOD! (Rom. 6:16-18).



Fits perfectly (thanks for asking!)



Not at all.

Mormons teach you must "obey to be saved".
The Bible teaches you obey BECAUSE you are saved.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Um, Hello, "God".
I believe I've already commented on your blasphemous choice of "nick".

So... you are pitting "willing servants" against "unwilling slaves"?

I could ask you the same question...
Are YOU "pitting 'willing slaves' against 'willing servants' "?

I'm just simply addressing the passage offered according to my preferred (modern) translation. I generally use the ESV, although I use the NET as well:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

Rom. 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness? (NET)

I believe that I already explained that the underlying Greek term is "doulos", which translates as "slave", rather than "diakonos" (from where we get "deacons"), which means "willing servants".

The person in question is quoting the KJV, which was originally a 1611 translation. Now it may well be that the term "servant" had greater connotations of "slavehood" back in the day, but this is not the connotation of the term today, which is why I believe the modern translations are more accurate and precise.


Um, Paul is instructing them to choose to obey. And if you didn't need to choose to obey, you would never sin would you?

The word "choose" is found NOWHERE in the text.
It seems that your faulty theology is causing you to ASSUME an understanding of "choose".


You seem to be seeing something which is not there and failing to see what is there. How did you manage this? Maybe you need to read it again with your eyes open this time?

Actually, YOU seem to be "seeing something which is not there" (ie. "choose"), and failing to see what IS there. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Whenever you must choose between committing sin or doing the will of God, yes it is YOUR choice.

Or are you telling us that no one ever chooses to sin?

No, I'm telling you that "choosing" is not as simplistic as you might want to ASSUME.
We do not "choose" things outside of God's will and control.
We "choose" things (ie. our wills are active), but we do not DETERMINE what we "will".

Joseph's brothers "chose" to sell him into slavery in Egypt, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
Pharaoh "chose" not to let the people go, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
Assyria "chose" to attack Israel in Isa. 10:5-7, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
The Jews and Romans "chose" to crucify Christ, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Um, Hello, "God".
I believe I've already commented on your blasphemous choice of "nick".
What is blasphemous about it?

I could ask you the same question...
Are YOU "pitting 'willing slaves' against 'willing servants' "?

I'm just simply addressing the passage offered according to my preferred (modern) translation. I generally use the ESV, although I use the NET as well:

Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)

Rom. 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness? (NET)

I believe that I already explained that the underlying Greek term is "doulos", which translates as "slave", rather than "diakonos" (from where we get "deacons"), which means "willing servants".

The person in question is quoting the KJV, which was originally a 1611 translation. Now it may well be that the term "servant" had greater connotations of "slavehood" back in the day, but this is not the connotation of the term today, which is why I believe the modern translations are more accurate and precise.




The word "choose" is found NOWHERE in the text.
It seems that your faulty theology is causing you to ASSUME an understanding of "choose".

So you can't possibly see that Paul is instructing the Roman believers to choose to obey rather than sin?

Actually, YOU seem to be "seeing something which is not there" (ie. "choose"), and failing to see what IS there. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



No, I'm telling you that "choosing" is not as simplistic as you might want to ASSUME.
We do not "choose" things outside of God's will and control.
We "choose" things (ie. our wills are active), but we do not DETERMINE what we "will".

Joseph's brothers "chose" to sell him into slavery in Egypt, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
Pharaoh "chose" not to let the people go, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
Assyria "chose" to attack Israel in Isa. 10:5-7, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.
The Jews and Romans "chose" to crucify Christ, but only because God DETERMINED that he would.

I see. It's all a head game for you.
 
Top