What degree of obedience qualifies for salvation?

[Theo1689]

Sorry if you can't see the difference.

Sorry if you can't see they're the same thing.

Belief is the conviction that something is true.
Faith is the hope that it is true.

In Greek, BOTH "belief" and "faith" are the EXACT SAME term.
So you are making up a distinction without a difference.

Can you show me where the BIBLE (not you) makes these contrasting definitions?

If there were no difference, there wouldn't be another word for it.

Um, there ISN'T "another word for it".
There is only ONE word, "πιστις".

In English, "belief" and "faith" are SYNONYMS.

 

[Theo1689]

Which law? When you figure that out. come back and we'll have a discussion.

Either you know "which law", or you don't.

When you stop playing stupid games, come back and we'll have a discussion.

 

[brotherofJared]

Can you provide some Joseph Smith quotes on polygamy please?

Correct. Wilford Woodruff did that.

No. He didn't. We still practice polygamy.

So, to be a good faithful member I should accept dishonesty and silent compliance?

No. You should work your way out of the church, isn't that what I said? Look. based on what you've said so far, you don't believe the church teaches the truth. It seems reasonable, therefore, that you should find a church that does. I know, there aren't any others, so that puts you in a pickle but the fact remains, we still practice polygamy, the only way it has changed is that we now practice it serially and through natural attrition. As for works-based salvation, we don't teach that Baptism saves or marriage in the temple saves. Those are necessary but not salvific. The works that save are the works of our everyday life. If you aren't walking in the newness of life, then you can't be saved. It's that simple.

If you are walking in that life, then I have no worries about you, but you should stop telling people that we believe in faith-alone theology, since we don't.

Nah, I'd rather get the posers like you kicked out for misrepresenting us.

hmmm.....

That's weird because I remember one time you being upset with me because I validated Adam God.

That is weird.

So your a relativist? "My truth" is my opinion. "Your truth" is your opinion.
Truth is truth, independent of our opinions. I stand in truth.

Apparently, you didn't get the point. My statement was your truth relative to the church's truth and they are not the same.

 

[brotherofJared]

Either you know "which law", or you don't.

When you stop playing stupid games, come back and we'll have a discussion.

I guess that means you don't know. Let me know when you do. Otherwise, your comments are just quips from the peanut gallery.

 

[Theo1689]

I guess that means you don't know. Let me know when you do. Otherwise, your comments are just quips from the peanut gallery.

I guess the fact that YOU haven't identified "the law" means YOU don't know.
"Let me know when you do. Otherwise, your comments are just quips from the peanut gallery."

Stop playing these stupid games, okay?
We all know that your goal here is to sabotage productive discussion, so lurkers might not understand how anti-Biblical Mormonism is.

 

[brotherofJared]

And yet, you say we disagree?

Uh Yep. we disagree because you keep ignoring the works part of faith. If there is no action, there is not faith. You say all the right things and then make the lame claim that it's faith-alone when it obviously isn't. I have never taught works-alone. I never once suggested that our works alone will save us. Faith-based is the cause for work. The point is, if the work isn't there, you can't be saved.

Again, "faith in action" is what make our theology a works-based theology.
faith-alone makes a faith-based theology and there is no such thing as faith-alone.

 

[Theo1689]

Ok. I accept that faith is the basis for our works. Now, what works are those?

The works are whatever works happen to be produced by that faith.
Why do you need to know "what works are those"?
Because you want to make salvation based on works, and you want to be able to judge salvation based on whether YOU see those particular works.

I didn't say anything about asking for the life ring Once again, please address what I said, don't put words in my mouth. Faith is our hope in the things we believe are true. It is useless if we don't act on it. But, since you brought it up, of course asking is evidence of hope, it is also work. Ask and ye shall receive. We have faith that if we ask, we shall receive. If we don't ask, then our faith is null and void, the only evidence that we have faith in such a principle is that we actually ask.

For purposes of understanding, I think it is useful to go over the four main historical views of salvation:

Pelagianism: Salvation is all of works. Example: If you are drowning at sea, you're able to come to your senses, figure out the direction of the shore, and swim to safety yourself.
Semi-Pelagianism: Salvation is partly of works, and then grace to complete it. Example: If you are drowning at sea, you have enough strength to find the shore, and are able to swim close enough to it so that the lifeguard can throw you a ring and save you.
Arminianism: Salvation is partly of (prevenient) grace, and the individual works to respond to that grace. Example: You are drowning at sea, and the lifeguard throw you a ring. But you have to swim to the ring, grab it, and put it around you.
Calvinism: Salvation is wholly of grace. Example: The individual has already drowned and his body is resting at the bottom of the lake. The "lifeguard" swims down to the bottom, grabs the individual, and drags him lifeless to shore. Then he performs CFR and breathes new life into him.

Now, based on 2 Nephi 25:23 ("We are saved by grace, AFTER all we can do"), it would seem that Mormonism is semi-Pelagianism. But they way you are trying to describe it sounds like you're trying to describe Arminianism.

Your comment, "Our faith is useless if we don't act on it", is strange, since you seem to be ASSUMING that one can actually HAVE faith but not act on it.

Correct. It is the little investment we make to obtain huge dividends.

So you seem to look at salvation as a very selfish endeavour.
"What's in it for me?"

All you are required to do is grab on to it and keep holding it until the end which is marked by your being safely on dry ground. For your little bit of effort, you have obtained life, but without your little bit of effort, you would have drowned. The brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring. All you had to do is all you could do and that was hold on. You didn't pull yourself out of the water. You didn't pick up the life ring and throw it and you didn't haul yourself back in.

So your view of salvation is synergistic, a combination of the efforts of two people.
To you salvation is grace ("throwing out the ring"), plus works ("grab onto it and hold on"). You seem to try to downplay man's effort, ("the brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring"), but the fact remains that without your part of the work, you're not saved.

In that regard, you agree with Rome, "grace is necessary".
While we would assert that "grace is SUFFICIENT."

If you do something good "BECAUSE I believe.", there is an expectation for a reward.

That's simply not true.
I do good things "BECAUSE I believe", and I have no expectation of a reward for what I do. That's not WHY I do them. I don't do them "for reward". I do them out of gratitude. I'm guessing that you're projecting your OWN personal feelings that when YOU do something good, YOU perhaps expect a reward. But others don't.

I think a good example is from the movie, "The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)". When Zatara saves Jacopo's life in the knife fight, Jacopo pledged, "I am your servant forever." He didn't do so out of "an expectation of reward", but merely out of gratitude.

How much better is the person who does the work having no knowledge of any reward?

I guess that puts Christians in a better position than Mormons, doesn't it?
You expect "rewards" for your good works; we don't.

Telestial glory is not hell unless we make it hell by not following Christ.

In my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Mormons don't have a "hell" in their theology. They only have "outer darkness" (which is limited to apostate Mormons, so I'm safe), and "damnation", which I believe Joseph Smith confused with being "dammed" (like a river), or "stopped", which could supposedly occur at ANY point in one's "progression".

2. works-based salvation isn't about saving ourselves. It's about qualifying for the blessings of Salvation which is based on our actions. It recognizes the fact that what we do is the work that qualifies us and that if we refuse or choose to do some other work instead, it may disqualify us.

I can just see it now... A lifeguard is sitting high atop his chair, with full view of the olympic-sized swimming pool. Suddenly he sees someone drowning, and blows his whistle to get everyone else out of the pool. Now the lifeguard has to do some sort of "assessment" to determine whether the drowning man "qualifies" for salvation.

We have a quote that addresses the alleged "qualifications" for salvation:

“You contribute nothing to your salvation
except the sin that made it necessary.”
-- Jonathan Edwards

I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but I wanted to point out how (IMO) counterproductive emojis are, especially the one you use. I wish there were more LDS participating here, as maybe then they could provide you with an intervention. IMO, the constant use of that emoji only takes away from your credibility. Maybe that's just me.

I follow a podcaster named Matt Walsh, who believes that emojis are for women and children, and more suitable for places like Twitter and Instagram, than discussion forums where serious discussion is attempted. I agree with the sentiment, but I think there is a place for some emojis, as they can convey humour or sarcasm where they might otherwise be misinterpreted in a strictly written format without vocal cues or body language.

 

[Theo1689]

Uh Yep. we disagree because you keep ignoring the works part of faith. If there is no action, there is not faith. You say all the right things and then make the lame claim that it's faith-alone when it obviously isn't. I have never taught works-alone. I never once suggested that our works alone will save us. Faith-based is the cause for work. The point is, if the work isn't there, you can't be saved.

Again, "faith in action" is what make our theology a works-based theology.
faith-alone makes a faith-based theology and there is no such thing as faith-alone.

With all due respect, you don't UNDERSTAND what "faith alone" means, and you refuse to accept correction.

"Faith alone" does NOT mean that "there are no works".
What it means is that it's only FAITH which secures salvation in the transaction, and even though works are produced, those works don't take any part in securing salvation.

 

[Magdalena]

Which law? When you figure that out. come back and we'll have a discussion.

He told you “which law.”

 

[Fenuay]

Sorry if you can't see the difference.
Belief is the conviction that something is true.
Faith is the hope that it is true.
hope moves us to action, sometimes observed as being strange by others
Action is the evidence of our faith.

If there were no difference, there wouldn't be another word for it.

BoJ how do you argue this if you don't speak Greek? Theo is not offering opinion he is offering a linguistic dissection of that scripture. How is he wrong?

 

[brotherofJared]

He told you “which law.”

No. He didn't. If he did, maybe you can help me out and tell me what he told me.

 

[brotherofJared]

With all due respect, you don't UNDERSTAND

Oxymoron

you don't UNDERSTAND what "faith alone" means, and you refuse to accept correction.

I'm not aware of any attempt at a correction.

"Faith alone" does NOT mean that "there are no works".

Oh. So faith alone doesn't mean faith alone. Got it. Let's see what else you have to say to see if that makes any sense.

What it means is that it's only FAITH which secures salvation in the transaction

Ahhh. so now it is faith alone. it is ONLY faith without works that secures salvation. And you think you're explaining it to me.

and even though works are produced, those works don't take any part in securing salvation.

Then I don't misunderstand at all. That's what I thought it meant. How many times have I said, works are important, but not necessary. If I have faith, I can beat you to death and still be saved. Again, I know you've corrected me here, sort of. But exactly how is that any different from what I've been saying faith alone is all along?

 

[Theo1689]

Oh. So faith alone doesn't mean faith alone. Got it. Let's see what else you have to say to see if that makes any sense.

<sigh>
When someone uses a particular phrase, it is wise to ask THEM what THEY mean by it, instead of trying to assume a meaning. Now the fact that you refused to do so the first time is forgivable. However, the facts that you have continued to refuse to accept correction, and continue to misrepresent it, is not.

But what is particularly telling is that with your constant attempts to intentionally misrepresent what we believe (which is OFF-TOPIC, btw!), then you have absolute NO basis for whining if you THINK others are misrepresenting Mormonism. That would be called hypocrisy, and rightly so.

What "faith alone" means, is that "We are SAVED by faith alone."
It doesn't mean that works don't exist and follow our faith, it simply means that those works don't contribute to our salvation.

Ahhh. so now it is faith alone. it is ONLY faith without works that secures salvation.

<sigh>
Of course I NEVER said "faith without works".
This simply proves that you are intentionally misrepresenting me.
I wonder why someone has to do that.
Actually, I don't wonder at all. If you were able to refute what we ACTUALLY believe, you wouldn't have to misrepresent it. This is classic straw-man.

If I have faith, I can beat you to death and still be saved.

That may be Mormon belief, but it is NOT Christian belief.

Here is what you don't understand.
Salvation is not merely a "confession" or a "promise".
Salvation comes from a REGENERATION of the sinner.
God takes out our heart of stone, and replaces it with a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19, 36:26), such that we don't WANT to "beat [someone] to death". Further, we love Christ so much that we hated adding more sins to His cross.

Rom. 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Mormonism doesn't have a "regeneration", at least that I know of. I can understand how you, a Mormon, can think you're saved yet still think you can exploit and abuse Christ's death by intentionally sinning, but no true Christian has that mindset.

 

[brotherofJared]

BoJ how do you argue this if you don't speak Greek?

easy. I speak English. And the word, Faith is not identical to the word, belief. That seems pretty straightforward. Let me ask you a question, I don't know if you know Greek or not, nor do I care. It's not really important, but consider this, explain to me why the translators used the words faith and belief if they are identical? How did they determine which word to use? Did they flip a coin and if it was heads, it meant faith and if it was tails, it meant belief?

I think not.

Theo is not offering opinion he is offering a linguistic dissection of that scripture. How is he wrong?

I don't know, Edit per mod. There is a reason the words are rendered one time as faith and another as belief and they are not the same because of that.

I'm not arguing Greek. I'm arguing English. Edit per mod. The fact is, one requires an action the other doesn't and it centers around trust. Google it. I did. You can believe a kevlar vest will protect you from a bullet but in order to prove that you believe it, would you wear it and let someone shoot you? If you would, then that's called faith because you trust your belief. Edit per mod.

A re-read of the rules is in order. Especially rule 12. https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/

 

[Magdalena]

No. He didn't. If he did, maybe you can help me out and tell me what he told me.

Yes, I could. Or you could just pay more attention.

 

[Theo1689]

easy. I speak English.

Well, I guess that you're unaware that the New Testament wasn't written in "English", it was written in GREEK. And just as someone would learn Russian if they want to understand Russian literature as well as possible, so too do people learn Greek and Hebrew if they want to understand the Bible as well as possible. That's why seminaries teach Hebrew and Greek, so that pastors who end up preaching in churches will know the Scriptures the best they can.

And the word, Faith is not identical to the word, belief. That seems pretty straightforward.

Of course, nobody claimed that they WERE "identical".
What I said is that they are "synonyms", and of course they ARE.
But I've gotten used to carelessness in reading and responding to posts.

Let me ask you a question, I don't know if you know Greek or not, nor do I care.

As a matter of fact, I've been studying Koine Greek for a number of years now.

It's not really important, but consider this, explain to me why the translators used the words faith and belief if they are identical?

Well, consider this... Why do authors use ANY set of synonyms?

How did they determine which word to use? Did they flip a coin and if it was heads, it meant faith and if it was tails, it meant belief?

Well, for starters, your question is nonsensical, as it ASSUMES that "faith" and "belief" mean different things.

Secondly, I appreciate your mockery ("did they flip a coin...?"), as it proves that you aren't the least bit interested in productive discussion, but simply want to take advantage of every opportunity to be insulting.

But let's talk a little bit about the occurrences of those two words, "faith" and "belief" in the KJV Bible, not that you're the least bit interested in facts, right?

The word, "πιστις" is rendered as "faith" in the KJV, 229 times.
The word, "πιστις" is rendered as "belief" in the KJV, 1 time. (2 Thess 2:13).

Now, I suppose we can ask the KJV translators why they chose to use "belief" that one time, and "faith" all the other times. But I'm not sure where we could find them to ask.

But it gets better....

The NET translates 2 Thess. 2:13 as "... and faith in the truth."
The NASB translates 2 Thess. 2:13 as "... and faith in the truth."
The BBE translates 2 Thess. 2:13 as "... and by faith in what is true:."
The TEV translates 2 Thess. 2:13 as "... and your faith in the truth."

So maybe the KJV is correct, and these translations are "wrong".
Or maybe the KJV is wrong, and these translations are correct.

Or maybe ALL the translations are accurate, and "faith" and "belief" are SYNONYMS, which has been my point all along?

I think not.

Yeah, I've noticed that about you....

I don't know,

Yeah, that seems to be your position most of the time...

we'll have to ask the translators why they didn't ask Theo which word to use. The fact is, Theo is playing a word game and he knows it. There is a reason the words are rendered one time as faith and another as belief and they are not the same because of that.

Oh?
Did the translators tell you that personally?

The fact is, one requires an action the other doesn't and it centers around trust. Google it. I did.

<sigh>
Our current generation seems to think that a mere "Google" search is superior to a comprehensive education.
Our society is doomed.

You can believe a kevlar vest will protect you from a bullet but in order to prove that you believe it, would you wear it and let someone shoot you?

I don't HAVE to "prove it".
I have faith, whether I "prove" it to you or not.

But that's the recurring theme, isn't it?
You want to try to usurp God's role as Judge, and YOU want the authority to "judge" (and perhaps "condemn") the rest of the species.

 

[Theo1689]

The fact is, one requires an action the other doesn't and it centers around trust. Google it. I did.

Just out of curiosity, would you trust Merriam-Webster as a source?

Definition of faith​

1a: allegiance to duty or a person :
(2): sincerity of intentionsacted in good faith
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proofclinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong convictionespecially : a system of religious beliefs

Merriam-Webster defines "faith" as "belief".
Go figure!





How about "Webster's Dictionary"?
Do you accept that as an authority source for meanings of English words?
I'm quoting from the 1913 edition, which I think is fair, as the KJV was translated in 1611.

Be·lief′,
1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.
2. (Theol.) A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith.

Look at that! Webster's defines "belief" as "faith".
It's almost as if they were .... SYNONYMS!

Faith
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.
3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith. (b) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, — called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith.

Look at that! Webster's defines "belief" as "faith".
It's almost as if they were .... SYNONYMS!

 

[brotherofJared]

The works are whatever works happen to be produced by that faith.
Why do you need to know "what works are those"?
Because you want to make salvation based on works, and you want to be able to judge salvation based on whether YOU see those particular works.

If faith is the basis for salvation, then I would think that I should know the works that demonstrate that faith.

For purposes of understanding, I think it is useful to go over the four main historical views of salvation:

Nah. We don't need to know anything about any salvation that doesn't work and only one can. All the others are just passing gas.

Now, based on 2 Nephi 25:23 ("We are saved by grace, AFTER all we can do"), it would seem that Mormonism is semi-Pelagianism. But they way you are trying to describe it sounds like you're trying to describe Arminianism.

Nope. It has always been the same. If you're saved before you do anything, then what is the point of doing anything?

Your comment, "Our faith is useless if we don't act on it", is strange, since you seem to be ASSUMING that one can actually HAVE faith but not act on it.

Well, that's the point. If there is no work, then there is no faith. That's why I say that faith and works are two sides of the same coin.

So you seem to look at salvation as a very selfish endeavour.
"What's in it for me?"

That's the way you think I look at it, but it's not. Salvation is a group effort, so it's not about just me. I can't make to exaltation alone. You guys, however; seem to think you can. You all don't need a church. You all don't need anyone with keys or authority. You all don't need to be married to the opposite sex. You all don't need to have children and bring them up in righteousness. You all don't need to do work for the dead. You all don't need to minister to others. We need each other to be saved or we ourselves cannot be. That is part of the life of a disciple.

So your view of salvation is synergistic, a combination of the efforts of two people.

Far more than that, but in the analogy, the person throwing the life ring is Christ.

To you salvation is grace ("throwing out the ring"), plus works ("grab onto it and hold on").

I believe grace is the person who is able to throw the life ring. The fact that he is there to throw it. That's not something we could have made happen. It is a miracle that the person is even there. Grace could probably also be seen in that someone's foresight, call this someone, God the Father, to put a life ring in the vicinity where it might be needed. When he put it there, no one was drowning. It was wisdom and foresight that all these elements came together to rescue the drowning swimmer. Christ will surely act in our favor. We believe that he will anyways. But we cannot put expectations on him to save us in the manner that we demand and if God fails to do it the way we want him to, it's his fault. It cannot work that way.

I actually didn't see grace in my scenario. I was only talking about being saved from drowning. In the passage you quoted from the Book of Mormon, the author specifies what one must do to be saved and that is to be reconciled to God. That is all one can do and each person has different things he needs to reconcile. Some are big things and some are little, but so long as you do everything you can to be reconciled to God, you will be saved. The part that you can't do has already been foreseen by God. He is aware of our weaknesses and has provided the means through Christ to compensate for what we couldn't do. That is grace. And you don't get that if you haven't done all you can do. Christ, the life ring, the presence of both at the moment you needed it are all there for you. The life ring has been thrown, it is near you, but if you don't do your part and exercise a little faith, you will drown.

You seem to try to downplay man's effort, ("the brunt of the work was performed by the person who threw you the life ring"),

I do, don't I?

but the fact remains that without your part of the work, you're not saved.

correct. Our faith requires action. Without that action, we can't be saved.

In that regard, you agree with Rome, "grace is necessary".
While we would assert that "grace is SUFFICIENT."

It is sufficient. God could save every person on this planet if he wanted to. But he hasn't done that, has he? Are there not some people on this earth will not be saved? If that is true, then why would you say that God doesn't want to save every person on this planet? What is the difference between the saved person and the person that is not saved?

I'm amazed, you are capable of debate. Let's see how long this will last.

 

[Theo1689]

If faith is the basis for salvation, then I would think that I should know the works that demonstrate that faith.

Why?
Are you demanding to know the works "required" by you, or by others?

Nope. It has always been the same. If you're saved before you do anything, then what is the point of doing anything?

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.

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,

Your question seems nonsensical, and more than a little selfish.
You seem to be saying, "Why should we do works, if we don't obtain anything through doing them?"

That's the way you think I look at it, but it's not. Salvation is a group effort, so it's not about just me. I can't make to exaltation alone. You guys, however; seem to think you can. You all don't need a church.

You need to stop misrepresenting what we believe.
Once again, this is the MORMONISM forum, and not the forum for making false claims about what non-Mormons allegedly believe.

You all don't need to be married to the opposite sex. You all don't need to have children

Correct.
We believe the Bible.

It is sufficient. God could save every person on this planet if he wanted to. But he hasn't done that, has he? Are there not some people on this earth will not be saved? If that is true, then why would you say that God doesn't want to save every person on this planet?

Because it's Biblical.

Rom. 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

What is the difference between the saved person and the person that is not saved?

God's grace.
Nothing but God's grace.

I'm amazed, you are capable of debate. Let's see how long this will last.

Thank you for the insult.
At least you aren't hiding your true colours from the public.

 

[Markk]

That's the way you think I look at it, but it's not. Salvation is a group effort, so it's not about just me. I can't make to exaltation alone.

“Very gladly would the Lord give to everyone eternal life, but since that blessing can come only on merit-through the faithful performance of duty-only those who are worthy shall receive it.” JFS Doctrines of Salvation.

Who’s is the group, you’re bishop, you’re SP, the old man in the Temple that blesses your body parts?