What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[brotherofJared]

See, this is what I mean about being disagreeable. Whatever you believe, it has no principles, you stand for nothing.

No. You stand for faith-alone. There is no such thing as faith-alone. Faith cannot exist alone. That is standing for nothing.

I, on the other hand, very much stand for something, I stand for faith with works and that does exist. Without works, faith is dead.

Your response is always reactive to be opposite of whatever I say,

Again, I'm sure that you know that "always" is a little too comprehensive.

because I believe you're more interested in bickering than identifying truth.

But all of this, is a great example of bickering. Rather than argue the point, you've spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about how I respond. This argument would have been over a long time ago if you really had an answer to my questions. Instead, what you do is say, I'm out of here. Let me dust my feet on the way out. Such thoughtful responses.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows that I believe that our church teaches a works-based salvation. Most misunderstand it. They assume perfection is demanded, they keep making claims that there are things that are required or you can't be exalted, and they are wrong most of the time.

Oh, ok. So it's hard now?

And that's all you got out of it. You have now joined the ranks of those who seem to only be able to focus on 4 or 5 words to draw conclusions. You do not seem to understand that it is hard for the sinner to give up his sins. So hard, in fact, that many of them think that they don't have to, Among these are the faith-alone followers. If it was easy to give up sins, then everyone would do it just on the off chance that Christians might be right, but it's not and I would say, a majority of Christians are not worthy of salvation. But faith-alone is a great gimmick. It sells a lot of seats at the Cathedral. It's full of people who think they don't have to give up sin to be saved.

 

[brotherofJared]

No, you quite emphatically said salvation is expensive and painful.

It is not a pain. It is painful and it costs everything we have. Isn't the gospel the pearl of great price as referred to in Matt 13:45? Selling all that we have to obtain this great gift is giving away all our sins that we might know the only true and living God. If you aren't willing to do that, you can't have it. Is that painful? Yes. It is for those who are not willing to let go of their sins. There must be a change from the person seeking to hid their sins to the person seeking to give up all their sins. Only the latter will be saved.

I'm starting to think so.

Good. We're making progress.

Im not the one here condemning people, you are.

I've not condemned anyone. They are condemning themselves. I'm just pointing out that the way to salvation is by following Christ and if you aren't then you aren't saved. Each person has to decide for themselves, are they following Christ or not. If they decide that they are not following Christ, then they know where that road leads.

I've supported my views twice

And I poked your views full of holes. Now what? Now you just tell me that I'm the bad guy and you're not going to patch the holes? That's the answer?

you succumb to either no true scotman fallacy,

You'll have to explain that one. I have not witnessed any counter-examples offered in your arguments.

This is what I understand the argument is, You think that any "requirement" to enter heaven is legalism and is wrong.

I point out that Jesus said that no one can enter heaven except they have been baptized.

Then you respond, "God knows our hearts. God can tell if it's lip service or performance out of our ego."

So, sorry, but the way it looks to me is that you are using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Basically, the idea is that regardless of what we, as Mormons believe and teach (obviously you don't believe what we believe), you insist that it isn't right and will ignore the fact that you are arguing against your own church's doctrines.

There are requirements. They are not salvific in and of themselves. Just because a person is baptized or married in the temple, doesn't mean they are saved or exalted. That only comes through the life we live. If we follow Christ, we will be saved. If we don't, we won't. There is no in-between. All of the ordinances can be done for us after we're dead. I think it's a mistake to put it off and let someone else do it when a person has the chance to get it done. Especially if we put it off so we can party and do what we want. The person who does that misunderstands the path to heaven isn't based on a few outward ordinances. The path to heaven is inward and requires a personal change from within to live the kind of life that Christ lived. He misses that whole lifetime of opportunity to draw closer to God which is the course that a follower of Christ takes. That person isn't going to arrive in heaven and get baptized by his kindred and suddenly be allowed heavenward. He's going to have to learn the way without the benefit of experiencing the consequences of his choices. He will have the suffer the consequences of the choices he already made which will result in a delay.

Then you probably ought to stop talking.

LoL! Nice. Because now you get to define Christianity now. How convenient for you.

Uh. No. I use the dictionary to define Christianity and by that definition, We are Christians, so naturally, your accusation is false, but I wasn't referring to what you don't apparently know. You accuse me attacking Christians and that's not what I'm doing. I'm addressing what I believe is a damning theology and I'm trying to address the fact that your view is not in alignment with the teachings of the church.

If you are what you say you are, I believe you said you were a counselor in a Bishopric, then you know that our church is very legalistic and that no one can enter heaven except they are baptized by one having authority to do so. Trying to lay common ground by a peace offering in the form of admitting we were wrong is nothing more than saying we are just like them all... equally wrong.

What else does it take that isn't preceded with faith?

If anything follows faith and it is an action, that is works and is not faith alone. Faith may have started the action, but if the action is not there, the faith would be nullified by the inaction. As I said before, throw me a life ring when I'm drowning, that ring represents hope/faith. If I don't act on that faith, I will still drown. No amount of faith is going to help anyone if they don't act on it. The gift of faith that God gives, changes lives. If that life isn't changed and doesn't continue on that changed path until the end, then he didn't accept that gift even if he says he did.

 

[brotherofJared]

Aaron,

Ponder on that. At least BoJ is honest on how many if not most Mormons respect the cross, even if they do not know it. Basically to him the cross is foolishness, I think we both know what Bible verse I am referring too.

What he wrote above is the bottom line difference between Mormonism, and Christianity in regards to salvation. …It actually hurts my heart in a big way.

NO doubt about it, there is a difference between what you believe and what we believe. I believe that a person who is walking in the good works the Lord prepared for us to do is a saved person. Further, that if that person is not walking in those good works, they are not saved. It's pretty simple. I'll continue walking in the good works I am aware of and you continue not walking in good works and we'll see how it works out.

 

[Magdalena]

Aaron,

Ponder on that. At least BoJ is honest on how many if not most Mormons respect the cross, even if they do not know it. Basically to him the cross is foolishness, I think we both know what Bible verse I am referring too.

What he wrote above is the bottom line difference between Mormonism, and Christianity in regards to salvation. …It actually hurts my heart in a big way.

This is all such a painful reminder of how some Mormons turn on their own when different realizations come up. The hateful comments and insults for those who may not believe the same way anymore and think about leaving. And all done under the guise of some kind of pseudo-righteous superiority. That can actually turn people away from God when they leave mormonism. Not wanting anything to do with any religion.

I like to tell people to just stay close to Christ and His words, no matter what. That’s where real truth and peace come from. That’s the only way we’ll get back to Him.

 

[Magdalena]

n/t

 

[Markk]

NO doubt about it, there is a difference between what you believe and what we believe. I believe that a person who is walking in the good works the Lord prepared for us to do is a saved person. Further, that if that person is not walking in those good works, they are not saved. It's pretty simple. I'll continue walking in the good works I am aware of and you continue not walking in good works and we'll see how it works out.

BoJ,

Yours is not walking in Good works…that is nonsense in the context you describe. The church demands works to the law…and even a different law that Israel had. Aaron is leaning towards what you just wrote, which could be construed as saved by faith alone.

In other words a saved person present tense, demonstrating his faith by his works…while LDS theology demands works first, then they will only get what they merit after their final judgment.

Are you trying to tell me you believe you are saved (present tense) and others are not? Where does the church teach that…CFR.

Again you show a complete lack of understanding of LDS theology, but noted.

 

[Markk]

First, I'm not the one who started this war. I'm just here to defend what I believe. Second, I don't need to prove the idea of babies don't fall into the same category of sinners as we do and that it's wrong to believe that God would set up anyone to fail and call it just. That is not something I would want to understand because it simply isn't true. Because it's common sense that such an idea can't possibly be true, it calls in to question, what did Paul mean by "all have sinned". Once we get that straight in our minds, then the discussion can move forward somewhat.

This is a very subjective take. I begs two question from you ..

1. Is God, in your belief , all knowing via the current LDS view, or always learning as per say a BY?

2, What is the churches definition of sin, and sin nature?

 

[brotherofJared]

Yours is not walking in Good works…

You say that as if I should be concerned about what you think.

that is nonsense in the context you describe.

Uh. Yeah. Because you say so.

The church demands works to the law…

Which law? The law of Christ? You don't believe Baptism is necessary. I do. I believe that is what he said. You don't.

and even a different law that Israel had.

The same commandments they had. Of course, no one follows the Law of Moses, the one for sacrificing animals for an atonement. Now that sacrifice is a broken heart and a contrite spirit and right now, I don't have that where this context is concerned. And that probably is raised on the basis of you, once again, telling me what I believe and, once again, you are wrong.

Aaron is leaning towards what you just wrote, which could be construed as saved by faith alone.

You'd have to explain that because what I just wrong was that Aaron32 is leaning towards not walking in good works because they are not necessary. That would be faith alone and that will save no one.

In other words a saved person present tense, demonstrating his faith by his works

That's what I'm doing and is what we teach. By "present tense", I take it that you mean if we're not doing those good works, then we are no longer a "saved person". You can correct me if I got it wrong.

while LDS theology demands works first

No, we don't. Works are the measure of faith. If you're not walking in the good works, then there is no faith. That's why I teach that works and faith are two sides of the same coin. If a person as faith that God hears his prayers and he doesn't pray, then that faith is good for nothing. But if he prays, he has started the work. Therefore, the faith that God hears and the prayer of faith go hand in hand, faith on one side of that coin and the prayer on the other side. Raise this to any work we do and faith exists on the other side of that coin. Faith that the church has a message for the world to come unto Christ and follow him. On the other side of that choice are many things, tithing being one of them, missionary work being another. We perform baptisms for the dead because we have faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ that no one can enter the kingdom of God without baptism and that through this ordinance done for and in behalf of our dead, they too can have the blessings of Salvation. Works always follow faith. If not, then there is no faith.

Are you trying to tell me you believe you are saved (present tense) and others are not?

It depends on their works. I'm telling you that even those who don't know Jesus Christ are saved, present tense, if they follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. That is my faith in the goodness of God. These people are better than you are me because their works are by grace. These are the elect who will not bend the knee to Baal.

I certainly believe that others are not saved, present tense. No one walks into a store with a gun with intent to rob the store without having planned it out in advance. Their nature is to take what they want and never consider the harm they are inflicting on others and that quickly escalate. Yes. there are people who are not saved, present tense. And some of those people, people who take over half of our prisons believed they were saved. The point here is that it doesn't matter what you believe or if you think you have faith. It matters what you do. Faith is demonstrated by the things you do.

Where does the church teach that

It's common sense.

 

[brotherofJared]

1. Is God, in your belief , all knowing

Yes. I don't know what the rest of your question has to do with it.

2, What is the churches definition of sin, and sin nature?

I can only give you my understanding of it since we don't do the "sin nature" jargon. Sin nature is the carnal man. The person who acts only for his own gratification without a sense of his eternal nature. He is born with it because, at birth, he has no memory of any previous life. Therefore, learns from the world and as he grows up and tests the world, he learns from his surroundings and a desire for self-gratification how to obtain things by hook or crook. This, alone, is puzzling because not everyone, with this interface alone, chooses a path of hook or crook, and these people usually get taken advantage of by those who do.

Children are in the process of learning. They are not capable of exercising any of it because of their innocent nature. They may kill, but it isn't for gain. It's normally an accident and sometimes in the process of learning, it's an experiment. They judge its benefits based on the results. IOW, they are forming their course. Hopefully, that course is guided by loving parents.

As for the definition of sin, I believe that is knowingly choosing to do evil whatever the reason, but it is the conscious choice of picking a course of action knowing there was good that could be done and choosing evil over good. Children are exempt from this because they are innocent and are still forming that knowledge.

In the course of my discussion, none of these kids lived to a time when they would he held accountable for their actions and in extreme cases, were used as objects by evil people. God put them there knowing that they would be abused and killed. The child had no choice at all.

 

[Aaron32]

This is where the problem lies from my vantage point. The LDS Church make a very big deal of having a living prophet to give revelation and guide the church. If the Prophet is governing the church, that is not a biblical model. The biblical model is one of elders. There are also offices of apostles, prophets, etc. but not listed as those in church governance. Some may have those respective gifts but it is not required or mandated for church governance.

The Quorum of the twelve are "Elders" as Apostles, then the real difference is the Quorum of the First Presidency.
Both quorums need to be united in pronouncement of doctrine.
I think Biblical standard is up for interpretation, but just because it's not exact, doesn't make it false.

Now the prophet in the LDS church in his role gives revelation from God, supposedly as the OT prophets did. Yet personal revelation trumps what the prophet may give as a word from God. Member "A" and Member "B" both get conflicting personal revelations from what the "prophet" has said comes from God. Obviously somebody isn't hearing. God is not the author of confusion. and we are no longer in the OT model where only the anointed prophet of God spoke. Yet, the LDS church seems to want it both ways.

Member A and Member B are free to lead their own lives and believe and do what they should do. They have no authority to receive revelation for the Church. If they differ, you are correct, somebody isn't hearing. As you state below, those who reject a message not endorsed by the Spirit, is simply evidence of unbelief.
Generally speaking, all members should be unified in one message and one spirit, but everyone is at various degrees of spiritual learning and understanding. (D&C 38:27)
If the church leadership is not inspired, or are leading in unrighteous dominion, they will face two consequences: 1)Their numbers will shrink, 2) They will be held accountable to God for taking upon His name in vain.

No other Christian church claims to have a "prophet" to speak. There are plenty of "prophets" in the Christian churches who claim to speak for God-- I find few that actually do-- but not any that claim world-wide authority as the only true and living prophet.

And yet, if God told you the Church was true, and the leader of said Church didn't seek for the title, but simply received the calling - that would make a difference wouldn't it?

I agree with you that OT prophets were killed for speaking in God's name. People and leaders knew who the LORD called as a true prophet. Yet some were killed for speaking. It didn't negate the message. Their deaths only showed the unbelief of the people to deny the word spoken to them.

Agreed.

 

[brotherofJared]

As you state below, those who reject a message not endorsed by the Spirit

do you mean, not endorsed by your spirit? You have to know that your statement is extremely subjective.

Generally speaking, all members should be unified in one message and one spirit, but everyone is at various degrees of spiritual learning and understanding. (D&C 38:27)

Try, but when the message one carries goes against what the church teaches, then that person's message is questionable. This kind of situation creates chaos, not order.

 

[Theo1689]

You completely side-stepped the issue.
You won't refute that the Bible has contradictions and yet you say you trust God.

There's nothing to "refute".
We've read through the Bible MANY times, and guess what?
NO "contradictions".

So yes, it is perfectly REASONABLE for us to "trust God".

That must mean there is some picking and choosing on your part.

How so?!

I'm ok with that answer, as I believe in personal revelation, but hopefully you can extend the same grace to us Mormons that you grant for yourself.

Why?
You reject God's word.
We don't.
How does rejecting God's word deserve "extending the same grace"?

 

[Theo1689]

I actually agree. I feel that it's Christians that cherry-pick the Bible to mistrue Mormonism to something evil.

<sigh>
Here we go again...

We don't go to "the Bible" to determine what Mormonism teaches.
We go to MORMONS, and official Mormon publications, to determine what Mormonism teaches.
In my case, I've been doing it for over 30 years.

But no, you simply want to attack Christians, because you can't defend the bankruptcy that is Mormonism.

I do wonder if modern-day Christian would hold any respect for Abraham - a polygamist, who married is half sister (making him guilty of incest).

Congratulations!
You've JUST figured out that Abraham was a sinner.
We're ALL sinners.
Do you actually think your false "prophets" are sinless?

But once again, since you can't defend the bankruptcy that is Mormonism, you have to instead try to attack the integrity of the Bible.

 

[Theo1689]

Aaron,

Ponder on that. At least BoJ is honest on how many if not most Mormons respect the cross, even if they do not know it. Basically to him the cross is foolishness, I think we both know what Bible verse I am referring too.

If I had a nickel for every time I told a Mormon that our salvation is based on Christ dying on the cross, and they responded with, "If Christ had been shot to death, would you be wearing an AK-47 around your neck?!??!?!?!?!?!?", I'd be a millionaire today.

 

[Theo1689]

You're missing the point. Those who are saved must do something different that those who are. I don't care if you want to put a label on it. The fact remains, it is what we do that makes the difference.

Well, the BIBLE disagrees with you:

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;

Even all the ECF's disagreed with you (I can bombard you with quotes, upon request).

But you seem to say that we have to "do something", but that doesn't mean "earning", and you can talk out of both sides of your mouth because..... "nuance"?

I'd sincerely love to hear your exegesis of the following:

Rom. 4:1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

100%. You're not paying attention. I said it takes one's whole life. There isn't a list of things we must do and do them to a certain degree. We don't get a grade on it, we just have to do it and do it every day. That seems to be the "nuance" you're missing.

An even more eggregious contradiction of Rom. 4:1-6.

 

[organgrinder]

AAron32 wrote: And yet, if God told you the Church was true, and the leader of said Church didn't seek for the title, but simply received the calling - that would make a difference wouldn't it?

You answer was based on this portion of the post:

organgrinder said:
No other Christian church claims to have a "prophet" to speak. There are plenty of "prophets" in the Christian churches who claim to speak for God-- I find few that actually do-- but not any that claim world-wide authority as the only true and living prophet.

A

Maybe I am just tired from working in the heat, Aaron, but I didn't quite follow this one. Help me here, please.

 

[Aaron32]

No. You stand for faith-alone. There is no such thing as faith-alone. Faith cannot exist alone. That is standing for nothing.

"Faith alone" is in the context of salvation. What "good work" can you do that isn't first led by faith. Anything that follows is encapsulated by faith - hence, "faith alone".

I, on the other hand, very much stand for something, I stand for faith with works and that does exist. Without works, faith is dead.

But works is evidence of faith. It's not "I believe AND I did 'x'." It's "I did 'x' BECAUSE I believe."
Thus, though I strive but fail against a sin of omission, I can still have hope, and try again. Not, "I didn't make all my ministering visits so I'm going to hell."
God looks on the heart, and it's nuanced, there's no universal line to cross, except believing in Jesus Christ. You're trying to hold me to defining a standard that can't be defined, and if I can't then somehow I'm wrong.

Again, I'm sure that you know that "always" is a little too comprehensive.

Ok. Fair enough - "most of the time" then.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows that I believe that our church teaches a works-based salvation. Most misunderstand it. They assume perfection is demanded, they keep making claims that there are things that are required or you can't be exalted, and they are wrong most of the time.

Think about the term "works-based" salvation.
The basis of salvation = works.
Works a+b+c = salvation
If a or b or c is missing then "no salvation".
By common sense, "works based" salvation requires perfection. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "works based".

And that's all you got out of it. You have now joined the ranks of those who seem to only be able to focus on 4 or 5 words to draw conclusions.

What matters in OUR discussion is what YOU believe and what I believe. I'm trying to nail down exactly what you believe, thus Im showing your inconsistency in your judgement against MY beliefs.

. If it was easy to give up sins, then everyone would do it just on the off chance that Christians might be right, but it's not

It's not easy if you're relying on your own strength, that's why many Christians take no credit in their own righteousness.

andnd I would say, a majority of Christians are not worthy of salvation. But faith-alone is a great gimmick. It sells a lot of seats at the Cathedral. It's full of people who think they don't have to give up sin to be saved.

Projection.

 

[Aaron32]

Try, but when the message one carries goes against what the church teaches, then that person's message is questionable. This kind of situation creates chaos, not order.

Yes. I believe that's demonstrated throughout Church History.

 

[Aaron32]

It is not a pain. It is painful and it costs everything we have. Isn't the gospel the pearl of great price as referred to in Matt 13:45? Selling all that we have to obtain this great gift is giving away all our sins that we might know the only true and living God. If you aren't willing to do that, you can't have it. Is that painful? Yes. It is for those who are not willing to let go of their sins. There must be a change from the person seeking to hid their sins to the person seeking to give up all their sins. Only the latter will be saved.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said a few posts back. The pain is equivalent to the attachment you have to things of this world.

I've not condemned anyone. They are condemning themselves. I'm just pointing out that the way to salvation is by following Christ and if you aren't then you aren't saved. Each person has to decide for themselves, are they following Christ or not. If they decide that they are not following Christ, then they know where that road leads.

I don't think anyone is arguing this. No one is encouraging sin so grace may abound.

And I poked your views full of holes. Now what? Now you just tell me that I'm the bad guy and you're not going to patch the holes? That's the answer?

You'll have to explain that one. I have not witnessed any counter-examples offered in your arguments.

No, you've created no holes. Again, if I say white, you say black, and then throw in an ad hom to boot. And btw, you are the one contradicting yourself.

This is what I understand the argument is, You think that any "requirement" to enter heaven is legalism and is wrong.

I'm saying the requirement is a condition of the heart. Realizing our hearts are broken. In the words of Nephi: acting without hypocrisy and without guile. Realizing that we are completely lost without Jesus Christ, and that we are not good enough on our own, and having a willingness to give up all our sins, and pleading that he will give us a new heart.

Legalism is checking off the list of requirements and saying you're entitled to whatever rewards are attached for doing so. Because the requirement according to the law of the gospel is having "a mighty change of heart" which only God via the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost can give, we realize we can only prepare and qualify ourselves for the blessing of a changed heart - and God takes us the rest of the way, and when we receive it we can say "We are saved" in the present state, in Alma's words "we can sing the song of redeeming love". We don't have to question if we have salvation. It's done, and we have no room to boast of ourselves, because we know we didn't do it by ourselves.

I point out that Jesus said that no one can enter heaven except they have been baptized.

Then you respond, "God knows our hearts. God can tell if it's lip service or performance out of our ego."

So, sorry, but the way it looks to me is that you are using the no true Scotsman fallacy. Basically, the idea is that regardless of what we, as Mormons believe and teach (obviously you don't believe what we believe), you insist that it isn't right and will ignore the fact that you are arguing against your own church's doctrines.

No true Scotsman is the fallacy of never qualifying by adding more requirements and specification. I do the opposite of being more general.
I most certainly do believe what the prophet and apostles teach - it's called "the Doctrine of Christ" and I don't agree with your definition of it. You define in terms of works, I define in terms of condition of the heart.

There are requirements. They are not salvific in and of themselves. Just because a person is baptized or married in the temple, doesn't mean they are saved or exalted.

If "They are not salvific in and of themselves" - what makes the salvific? FAITH!
Faith precedes any works. That is why salvation is faith-based, not works-based.

Thatat only comes through the life we live. If we follow Christ, we will be saved. If we don't, we won't. There is no in-between. All of the ordinances can be done for us after we're dead. I think it's a mistake to put it off and let someone else do it when a person has the chance to get it done. Especially if we put it off so we can party and do what we want. The person who does that misunderstands the path to heaven isn't based on a few outward ordinances. The path to heaven is inward and requires a personal change from within to live the kind of life that Christ lived. He misses that whole lifetime of opportunity to draw closer to God which is the course that a follower of Christ takes. That person isn't going to arrive in heaven and get baptized by his kindred and suddenly be allowed heavenward. He's going to have to learn the way without the benefit of experiencing the consequences of his choices. He will have the suffer the consequences of the choices he already made which will result in a delay.

The bolded is exactly what I'm saying! Does that change come from us? No! It's a spiritual gift.
The problem is your argument is leading off with works (ie. "A saved person does something different than an unsaved person.) It's not about what we DO its WHY WE DO IT.

Uh. No. I use the dictionary to define Christianity and by that definition, We are Christians, so naturally, your accusation is false, but I wasn't referring to what you don't apparently know. You accuse me attacking Christians and that's not what I'm doing. I'm addressing what I believe is a damning theology and I'm trying to address the fact that your view is not in alignment with the teachings of the church.

And what I'm saying is the damning theology you're describing is a mischaracterization of what Christians believe. They do not believe in easy grace - they recognize that as a fallacy.

If you are what you say you are, I believe you said you were a counselor in a Bishopric, then you know that our church is very legalistic and that no one can enter heaven except they are baptized by one having authority to do so. Trying to lay common ground by a peace offering in the form of admitting we were wrong is nothing more than saying we are just like them all... equally wrong.

Yes. Baptism is

If anything follows faith and it is an action, that is works and is not faith alone. Faith may have started the action, but if the action is not there, the faith would be nullified by the inaction.

True faith results in works. It's faith in action. Faith without action is dead faith - it's lip service.

As I said before, throw me a life ring when I'm drowning, that ring represents hope/faith. If I don't act on that faith, I will still drown. No amount of faith is going to help anyone if they don't act on it.

If you never grab hold of it, you never had it in the first place.
Rather than using faith as the life preserver, maybe it should be "the word of God", as faith is a result of hearing, and not just hearing but doing.

The gift of faith that God gives, changes lives. If that life isn't changed and doesn't continue on that changed path until the end, then he didn't accept that gift even if he says he did.

Exactly! It's a gift from God we cannot obtain it by ourselves - it Pre-requisited by humility. By George, I think you've got it!

 

[Theo1689]

No. You stand for faith-alone. There is no such thing as faith-alone. Faith cannot exist alone. That is standing for nothing.

You misunderstand what "faith alone" actually means. I'm pretty sure you're doing it intentionally.

Martin Luther is said to have written:

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

So you are correct in saying, "faith cannot exist alone". But you are wrong in falsely concluding that we not saved without first doing works. Let me show you:

Mormonism: "Faith + Works" = "Salvation".
Biblical Christianity: "Faith --> Salvation --> Works."


Look at this very closely:

"Faith --> Salvation --> Works."

1) It shows that salvation is "not BY works". The word, "BY" is very important.
2) It shows that "faith cannot exist alone". True faith WILL produce good works. But those works don't contribute TO salvation. They are a product OF salvation, just as the Bible teaches that good works are the fruits/results OF salvation:

Eph. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves ["for" salvation]: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, ["for" salvation] lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works ["of salvation"], which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Phil. 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do ["of salvation"] of his good pleasure.


And so, once again, what does SCRIPTURE and the EARLY CHURCH teach about "works" being "required" for salvation?:

BIBLE:

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;


EARLY CHURCH:

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works we have have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
- Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch. 32 (AD 99)

“Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks  only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ.”
- Marius Victorinus, Epistle to the Galatians,1.3.7 (AD 356)

“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us in righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”
- Basil of Caesarea, Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate (AD 379)

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”
- Ambrosiaster, on 1 Cor 1:14b (AD 384)

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”
- Ambrosiaster, on Rom. 3:24 (AD 384)

“The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone; before circumcision, the text says, Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 27.7 (AD 407)

“See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ‘law of faith’? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 7, vs. 27 (AD 407)

“For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.”
- Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1-2 (AD 407)

“God justifies by faith alone” (“Deus ex sola fide justificat”)
- Jerome, Epestolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v.3 (AD 420)

“What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, but the gift of justification comes only from faith.”
- Bede, Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.(AD 735)

"But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given to you individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith."
- Bernard of Clairvaux, First Sermon on the Annunciation (AD 1153)

“Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone.”
- Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (AD 1274)