27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
James 1:27
vs.
“I wonder what it must have been like to be Abraham’s home teaching companion!”
So what is the gospel? Which programs, doctrines, knowledge and belief is essential and pure and which is transitory?
I think it all comes to looking at what Christ will consider important when we are called home and judged.
Matthew 7:21
21. Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my
Father which is in heaven
Matthew 25: 31-46
31. When the Son of man
shall come in his glory, and all
the holy angels with him, then
shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory:32. And before him shall be
gathered all nations: and he
shall separate them one from
another, as a shepherd divideth
his sheep from the goats:33. And he shall set the sheep
on his right hand, but the goats
on the left.34. Then shall the King say
unto them on his right hand,
Come, ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of
the world:35. For I was an hungred ,and
you gave me meat: I was thirsty
and ye gave me drink: I was a
stranger, and ye took me in:36. Naked, and ye clothed me:
I was sick and ye visited me:
I was in prison and ye came
unto me.37. Then shall the righteous
answer him, saying, Lord, when
saw we thee an hungred, and fed
thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?38. When saw we thee a stranger,
and took the in? or naked, and
clothed thee?39. Or when saw we thee sick,
or in prison, and came unto thee?40. And the King shall answer
and say unto them, Verily I say
unto you, Inasmuch as ye have
done it unto the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.41. Then shall he say also unto
them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels:42. For I was an hungred, and ye
gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me no drink:43. I was a stranger and ye took
me not in: naked and ye clothed
me not: sick, and in prison, and
ye visited me not.44. Then shall they also answer
him, saying Lord, when saw we
thee an hungred, or athirst, or a
stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto
thee?45. Then shall he answer them,
saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one
of the least of these, ye did it
not to me.46. And then these shall go away
unto everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal.
A clear reading of the scriptures is that Christ will judge us not by whether we have recognized him or whether we call upon his correct name, but by whether or not we fed him, gave him drink, clothed him, visited him, came unto him by doing that for others.
Not our doctrine — our calling Lord, Lord — but our love and kindness, our Christlike Charity, reveal whose children we are. Thus “blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God,” not “blessed are the scribes and pharisees, who stand in Moses’ gate.”
That is the gospel. The rest is a program and as transitory as home teaching, designed for our needs in the moment (such as the Sabbath Day which was made for man, not man for the Sabbath). It preserves us, like an iron rod through the fog, but the core of it is the Tree of Life, which is the love of Christ. I know, wordy and dense, but this is my conclusion and the essay is already long.
- What do you think the gospel is?
- Why do we need anything else (programs) to help us reach the truth?
- Why?
- What are your thoughts and additions?
=================================
All images from Wikimedia Commons.
Wheat & Tares 
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
1 Corinthians 15
The message of the Gospel is a message of good news, that when understood and believed, has redemptive power. It turns the heart of the believer toward the good works of Christ’s teaching. The gospel is not a list of rules, regulations, rituals, or requirements. If I were to ever stand up in a Testimony Meeting again (very unlikely), and talk about how much I love the gospel, I will not be referring to “all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom,” which is how the word is defined over on the church’s website.
This is an egregious redefinition of a word for the purposes of directing the devotion of believers away from Christ and onto the institution that claims to provide these doctrines, principles, laws, etc.
.
BTW, here is how someone else imagined Abraham:
Odds are, it may be in the Louvre, but it probably wasn’t like that either. 🙂
Too often we read so much of our own culture and background into things where they really do not belong.
Great quote John.
“The gospel” (the good news) is as stated above; pretty simple; Jesus died for our sins (more correctly he LIVED so that he could do this), was buried and rose on the third day (more or less) thus bringing redemption. Well, actually, opening the door just a crack to redemption. There’s a bit more to it depending on your point of view followed by 2,000 years of arguing over that bit. We have just started another round of arguing over it.
Anyway, that’s “the gospel” (the who and the why). Now if you add the words “of Jesus Christ” then suddenly you don’t have him talking about himself; the “gospel of Jesus Christ” is whatever he taught which includes doctrines, parables and so on (the what, when and the how).
Excellent point Mike.
There is a difference between “the gospel “ and what it is intended to teach us.
I missed that in my essay.
Thank you Stephen! I agree with you whole heartedly. In my opinion, I think we will all be surprised when we see many people of all faiths and religions and of no religions at all entering into His presence, for they followed the Light of Christ given to them at birth, helping the needy, and doing good throughout their lives, possibly many not even knowing that they were following that light. We have made the “Gospel of Christ” a long list of requirements that we need to check off, but really there is one requirement, to love one another.
John, I confess I don’t see the redefinition. The quote of Matt 7:21 seems apt. One who is neglecting the weak and afflicted clearly is not showing the pure love of Christ. However if one helps the poor but neglects the rest of the will of God are they following the gospel?
Clark,
You have redefined the word ‘gospel’ in your comment! Are they “following the gospel?’ you ask.
This is “Mormon talk.” It starts with the supposition that the “gospel” can be “followed.” It implies action. But the gospel is the good news that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected, and that through this sequence of events, we are somehow reconciled to the Father.
How do you “follow” that?
Type “following the gospel” into Google. When I do so, the first two hits are lds.org and speeches.byu.edu. The third and fourth are non-LDS Christian sites which alter the original search term to “follow me” and “follow Christ” respectively.
I just don’t hear the expression “follow the gospel” out in the mainstream Christian world. It’s a Mormon thing.
Yes…we should follow Christ, but the idea of following the gospel requires a redefinition of the word, which means it is a different gospel.
Wonderful post, Stephen. My compliments. I’ve found it to be quite uplifting and comforting today. It was an amazing experience for me when I came to the conclusion – after many years of adulthood – that “the organizational LDS Church” IS NOT God or Jesus Christ, that they ARE NOT synonymous one to the other, and that I don’t need to use them as my intermediary to the heavens, my mind soul and heart were finally at peace. In my life, and through my eyes, once I was able to clearly differentiate between these two very different things I was finally able to climb off of the religion treadmill , turn away from so much of the nonsense and soul crushing expectations, and allow my soul to grow.
So, just the way language works and develops, words get used in different contexts with different, sometimes overlapping meanings over time and sometimes by different groups. That’s okay and does not have to bother us. The trick is to just make sure we are understanding each other when we talk.
Mormons frequently use “the gospel” as a shorthand to mean the whole of Mormon theology, more or less. Sometimes Mormons also use the term to refer specifically to salvation from sin and death and exaltation through the atonement.
Evangelical protestants often use “the gospel” to specifically mean Jesus’s death on the cross to save sinners.
That’s all fine and good and allowed by the gods of descriptive linguistics. The only problem is when we use these terms with each other in a way that is confusing, or, more troubling, when we read back these modern specialized definitions onto the word εὐαγγέλιον or euangélion as used by the various New Testament writers.
John, how can one be reconciled without following a path of reconciliation. If some are reconciled and some aren’t, there is some difference there. One can go the Calvinist route and say humans do nothing and it’s just God picking things. However that’s deeply problematic, and many would argue problematic given the NT text. If we reject that Calvinist perspective where God does everything, then that implies us doing something. (And certainly James and others in the NT follow that approach even if some readings of Romans disagree) As soon as one adopts that more Jamesian perspective though, where I have I misspoke?
The gospel is the good news, yet the good news includes demands and obligations. In my view as soon as you move away from that perspective you’ve either embraced “cheap grace” or you’ve embraced Calvinism.
That’s not at all even an uniquely Mormon perspective. Indeed many skeptics would say that Mormonism merely appropriated Arminianism – especially the tradition of Grotius.
To anticipate an objection to the above, I offer without comment the following from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies 37:4.
No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient; ” referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour.” And, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
Clark: “how can one be reconciled without following a path of reconciliation?”
What you have established is a reconciliation that requires the penitent to first meet a certain standard of righteousness. What is that standard? What level of righteousness must we live in order to achieve this reconciliation? How long and how consistently and how persistently must we live that standard before we achieve our goal? I see this path leading to nothing to a legalistic dead end. The legalism may be optional, but the dead end isn’t.
I would ask a different kind of question: How can one follow a path of reconciliation without first being reconciled? “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). We are reconciled to God, even while we are sinners (Romans 5:8).
No, it doesn’t make sense. It is a scandal and it is foolishness. That is what the cross is.
Cheap grace and predestination are distractions. The Roman Catholic (and Mormon) belief in “infused righteousness” is not an adequate solution either.
The solution is to trust in what is written: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13. And “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” John 5:24.
The present tense (have, has) in those verses is significant. Trust, and you’ll begin to see how this all works out.
Clark, Paul makes it clear in his letter to the saints in Colossae that reconciliation is through the work performed, and completed, by Christ (Colossians 1-2). What more could we possibly hope to do than what Christ has already accomplished in our place? The “charge of our legal indebtedness” has been canceled when we accept that Christ “made a spectacle” of the powers and authorities that condemn us by “nailing them to a cross.” The work is done. The believer is saved, having had his/her old self crucified with Christ and made alive in him a new creature.
Troy Cline:
Thanks so much for your great comments. Well done, my friend.
The Book of John tells us that to know God is eternal life. By that, we need to know and experience His character. The great cosmic battle is and has been over the character of God. Right from the beginning Satan lied to our first earthly parents about God. “You won’t surely die.”
Truly knowing and trusting in God’s character will then result in caring for others as described in Matthew 25. So, the good news of the gospel extends beyond our own salvation to becoming bearers of the news about God’s character. We have, as the sons and daughters of God, the privilege of participating in the process of restoring the Universe to its original beginning where love for God and love for others is the fulfillment of Heavenly Fathers plan.
Clark, you misinterpret James. James does not contradict what Paul teaches in Romans. James is refuting a misuse of Paul’s teachings, a misuse that Paul himself acknowledges. Paul’s teachings were being abused by others to suggest that Paul was teaching “cheap grace” as you call it. Paul refutes this idea in Romans and James refutes it in James 2. James does not teach that works added upon that of Christ are required for salvation. Both Paul and James are in agreement that salvation is through faith alone. James is describing what KIND of faith saves, or what does faith sufficient for salvation look like. James teaches, as does Paul in Galatians, that saving faith is faith manifest through works of love. Those works are not salvific. They cannot be, because God demands perfection. One sin is equivalent to breaking the entire law (James 2:10-11). So it doesn’t matter what good works or how many good works we perform, those works can never save us. They merit nothing and are filthy rags in the Lord’s eyes (Isaiah 64:6) Rather, our works are the FRUIT of our faith and salvation, reflecting God working in us, rather than the ROOT of our faith and salvation.
As far as Calvinism goes,….to address Clark’s comments a little further, I don’t claim to be an expert. But I think the Calvinist position is a little more nuanced than “humans do nothing and it’s just God picking things.”
If God has foreknowledge, meaning he knows the beginning and the end of all things, then it isn’t really that God is “picking.” God simply already knows what is going to happen. From God’s point of view, he already knows how we are going to use that agency. From our point of view, we are making choices. Those two mix in a way that we, with only our finite view, cannot understand. I believe predestination was an attempt, albeit a weak and incomplete attempt, to figure out how we can have agency even while God knows what we are going to do all along. The doctrine emphasizes the infinite viewpoint rather than the finite viewpoint. And thus….Calvinists teach what they teach. Arminians emphasize the finite viewpoint, and thus they focus on agency and free will.
Paul talks about how God predestined certain people to wrath to bring about his purposes. Like the Pharoah. That is in Romans, so the NT text isn’t at all problematic for those who preach predestination. It is in there! The term “predestined” is even in there. That is more than can be said for the doctrine of the Trinity. And “eternal family” too, I might add.
There is more direct New Testament support for predestination than for trinitarianism.
But again….I am not a Calvinist. I think the proper way to read these passages is as an attempt to reconcile the idea of God’s foreknowledge with the idea that we have free will. You can’t go too far in either direction, though. If you think we can actually make a choice that God didn’t see coming….you set human beings up as tricksters capable of even fooling God. If you think God’s foreknowledge of our actions predetermines those actions, .you have turned us all into automatons, remote-controlled creations.
Balance…….It’s about moderation in all things. It’s about walking in that mysterious middle ground.
John, that makes no sense unless one simply rejects free will or the ability to choose in reaction to grace. Now Calvinists famously do that. I’m sensing you are a Calvinist so perhaps that makes sense. For those of us who reject Calvinism and Calvinist readings particularly of Romans it isn’t an objection at all. If I receive grace I then choose how to react. That’s not a “standard of righteousness” to receive grace but is part of my reaction to grace. Then we progress, as the scriptures say, grace for grace.
To suggest we can’t follow the path of reconciliation without being first reconciled presumes two things. First that grace is a one time event rather than a process.Second that we can’t accept or reject grace.
Certainly we can be reconciled to God as sinners, but that’s completely irrelevant to the point at hand. I’m a sinner. I am receiving grace. I am not yet fully sanctified but am on a path of sanctification.
Troy, certainly reconciliation is through the work of Christ. However to suggest (as I am taking you to be implying) that only God does anything. We can neither resist nor accept nor do anything is simply ascriptural. If we are free in some sense, then to accept full determinism where God does everything including deciding if we are evil or good is itself a terrible false doctrine. It turns God into a monster. It is God that is responsible for all evil.
Regarding James, I think you’re just wrong in your exegesis. But more to the point, if works are God’s fruit, then evil is too since God could save everyone as no person has any say over their salvation. That means it is God who is to blame for every evil in the world. Fortunately God is not like that and does not determine whether or not people accept grace.
John,
The Gospel can’t be followed? Well, Paul says that it can be obeyed, so I don’t see why not followed. “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” 2 Thessalonians 1:8.
You are making a weak argument.
Clark, I am not a Calvinist, as I already said.
You said”To suggest we can’t follow the path of reconciliation without being first reconciled presumes two things. First that grace is a one time event rather than a process.Second that we can’t accept or reject grace.”
No it doesn’t presume either of those two things. I don’t see your logic here. You are trying to peg me as a Calvinist. I believe grace can be rejected.
You said,” Certainly we can be reconciled to God as sinners, but that’s completely irrelevant to the point at hand. I’m a sinner. I am receiving grace. I am not yet fully sanctified but am on a path of sanctification.”
You can’t be on a path of sanctification unless you are first justified. This grace you are receiving….what exactly is it doing? Has it justified you yet? Are you saved?
My simple thought:
The gospel is not followed, it is lived.
And there is a difference.
This is what Matthew 25 says to me.
What a simple and basic definition of the Gospel. So why do we make it so complicated.
Dsc.
The Greek word used in Thessalonians which is translated as “obey” and which you have pointed out is an intensified form of the verb “to listen.” It means “really really listening.” to the one giving orders. It has an implication “obey” in it. But it comes from the words “hupo” which means “under authority” and “akouo” which means “to hear, to comprehend.”
The Greek word for “obey” in Acts 5:29 (We must obey God, rather than man) is a different word altogether. It doesn’t carry the sense of really intently listening. It means “to obey authority.”
Maybe Paul should’ve used that word instead in Thessalonians, but he didn’t. Probably for a reason.
John,
And how is to follow significantly different? I feel like you’re making an extremely pedantic argument to claim that “following” the gospel infuses some distinctly Mormon meaning, or any meaning at all that is inconsistent with the term’s both literal and as-applied meaning.
John, my apologies for thinking you were a Calvinist, although you are making rather similar arguments. Again, I just disagree with your exegesis. Kind of pointless to continue. Fortunately the Book of Mormon clarifies all these things. As to justification, again why assume an event rather than a process? Is salvation an event or process? If grace can be rejected, then I simply don’t see how the things you claim can work. To accept grace is to do a work (accepting) and the scriptures are plain about what we are to do. Justification is God seeing us as just through the covenant, but of course we can reject the covenant and fall from grace. As I’m sure you’re aware the very meaning of justification in Paul is a rather contentious issue. N. T. Wright argues that justification is due to God’s commitment to his covenant. It is a statement about a people based upon what Christ has done in the past and thereby anticipating what will happen in the future (assuming they don’t reject grace). So to talk about justification first seems to confuse what is going on. (IMO)
But really, my point was just that the Mormon more Arminian type theology is hardly unique and certainly not clearly wrong exegetically. Further even the phrase that was supposedly so badly Mormon talk is found in the early Church Fathers. While clearly you disagree with the standard Mormon approach, it seems a completely defensible position.
You can listen to good news. You can’t follow good news.
“Hey…I have good news….it’s my birthday.”
How do you follow, “It’s my birthday?” Or “I won the lottery!” Or “Jesus was resurrected!”
How do you follow that?
But, if you believe that gospel is all the laws, ordinances, principles, and covenants that enable you to be exalted (another non-Biblical concept) in the Celestial Kingdom…then yes….I guess you can follow that. And I suppose you had better do so, too.
If you say, “It’s my birthday,” and I am really really listening to you…I will go make you a cake or buy you a present. That is what Paul means in Thessalonians when he says that certain people were not “obeying” the Gospel. They weren’t hearing the message, and they were behaving therefore as people who were not touched by the good news of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If you are really listening to the good news of Christ, there will be actions that follow. But the gospel is not the same thing as the law. And this isn’t just being pedantic. We are dealing with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ!
I believe the gospel is the atonement, and what is required of us is through grace, we become like God in our love for our fellow man. Be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect, is talking about us becoming as loving of our fellows as God is.
Our church has been rejecting grace for generations.
I also think that discriminating against our fellows, ie sexism or homophobia, or racism, are refusing to love our fellows.
In the original post v32 it says he will judge the nations. Could that mean you will be held responsible for voting to have a country where you care for the poor. There is a discussion at times and seasons about wealth distribution and caring for the poor. America is the worst in the developed world, and mormons continually vote to make it worse. Surely they must be held accountable for that?
I think there will be a lot of surprised mormons at the judgement, but it could be me that is surprised.
Have just been to India, Jordan and Egypt. It struck me that there are 1100million hindus doing their best, 500million buddists, and 1500million muslims likewise, and 16million mormons?? All Gods children.
Clark,
I don’t see accepting grace as a work. It is giving up the fight. It is putting down the sword. It is what you finally do after you have realized that all your work isn’t doing you any good. It is saying,” Okay….I can’t work my way to Heaven. In my rebellion against God, this is what I have been trying to do, but I am giving up my rebellion. Jesus…I accept you as my Savior.” This is not work.
Have you tried it? Will you try it? I find this to be the case: Those who think it is so silly and easy and “cheap” are very reluctant to get on their knees and say the words. It is more frightening than almost anything else. But what have you to lose? Give it a try. It is a few moments in prayer.
It is actually brutally hard to say these words and actually mean it. God has to bring you to the point where you will be able to actually do it. It is a gift. If you can’t pray the words, pray to be brought to the point where you can say the words. You’ll find out what it means to be justified. It’s an event.
You want to discuss Wright and Grotius and Arminius and Calvin……Forget about them all…..Forget about Paul. Peter, James, John….all of them….forget them for now. They are waiting for you on the other side of that prayer.
Geoff: I actually quite agree with you. God is God of all. I do not believe Mormonism is the “gatekeeper”for all mankind. Christ is. Sometimes Mormonism just needs to get out of the way!
Geoff: I actually believe what you’re saying. God is God of all. I no longer believe that Mormonism represents the “gateway” for all mankind. Christ is. Many times Mormonism just needs to get out of the way….and let people approach Christ in their own way; without all of the cultural baggage from this little Utah religion.
John, it’s puzzling that you come here with all of the standard Protestant theological arguments and expect everyone to just surrender to their obvious truth once you have expounded them to us. These things have been discussed, contested and left undecided for 500 years by smart, knowledgeable people on both sides. Why do you think that some random guy on the internet offering up a few well worn arguments should suddenly decide the issue?
John,
First of all, the word “gospel” implies more than the mere recitation of a fact, so your analogy is woefully inadequate. The gospel is a message. In the scriptures, one can subject himself to or pervert the gospel. The same cannot be said for your example message.
Second, I don’t read Ancient Greek, but I can use a condocrdance as well as the next guy. Hypakouo means more than to just listen really intently. It’s to listen as a subordinate, and “by implication to heed or conform to a command or authority” (Strong’s Concordance). There is a reason that nearly every translator simply translates it as obey. Yes, listening is a part of the meaning, but it implies further action to obey what one has listened to.
Finally, you seem so bent on making your pedantic argument and trying to paint Latter-day Saints as ignorant that you have simply overlooked the definition of follow. It can mean go after sequentially, follow the same path, or things like to adopt as a lifestyle, to heed, to obey, or to understand.
KLC – These things HAVE been discussed for many years. It’s true, but we’re also discussing them here and now. That is the whole point of a blog post and comments on that post, right? So rather than dismiss the “well worn arguments” or “standard Protestant [theology]” that have been communicated here, why not contribute something meaningful to the discussion? Take issue with one of John’s specific points and argue something different using scriptural support for your views.
John, while I’d second KLC’s comments, I’d just say that it’s likely a pointless discussion. Whether you are Calvinist or not, a lot of your positions seem quite similar to it. But all I can say is that from my reading, that’s not what the NT says let alone what the fulness of the gospel in the Book of Mormon is. If anything, it just seems like a good reason from the Book of Mormon. My problem with these discussions is that how it treats God’s character just never is engaged with. Second, what does or doesn’t count as a work seems rather ad hoc depending upon whether the work is necessary for ones theology or causes conflicts. I’ll likely just bow out and say again that I disagree with your readings of scripture.
Geoff, the fruits of the spirit are love. Not everyone follows the spirit but the spirit is there. The spirit is the live action of grace on believers. So Mormons typically talk about the spirit rather than grace, as is more common in Protestantism. But really that is a particular manifestation of grace on the individual as they share in the work of redeeming love. However I’d also note that while Jesus would work with the sinners in the NT, he never accepted sin. When people talk about Mormons rejecting grace, I find that often what they are complaining about is a kind of acceptance that accepts all actions. Jesus simply didn’t do that in the NT.
I think we as a Church can and should do better loving those we disagree with. But it can be tricky and I understand why people fail. I’d just note that people who want love and understanding for those not living the commandments often are unwilling to treat members who are trying but failing on these matters with the same sympathy. The saying is don’t judge me because I sin differently from you. However in practice what they mean is, my sins should be acceptable while your sins should be unacceptable.
Actually Troy, I did take issue with his points, just not the specific ones he thinks he’s making. I’m taking issue with two implied points that he, and other earnest Protestants like him frequently make on LDS oriented blogs. First, he seems to think that his standard Protestant theology is so obvious as to be indisputably true merely by being expounded by some eager guy on the internet. Second, and more to the point on an LDS blog, he assumes that Mormons are just ignorant of the standard Protestant theology and if he just teaches it to us we will gratefully see the error of our ways. Both assumptions are wrong and both show a provincial world view that assumes the standard Protestant theology is the pinnacle of Christianity instead of just another flavor in the stew.
Clark,
I don’t see how my positions are Calvinist in anyway. Do me a favor, and elaborate more on this, because I am not seeing it. Either you don’t understand Calvinism or you do not understand yet what it is I am trying to say. If it is the latter, I’d like a chance to make myself more clear specifically in relation to this idea that I am supporting Calvinist ideas.
The basic summary of Calvinism is that we are totally depraved and cut off from God…that there is no condition we can (or have to) meet in order to be “elected” by God for salvation…..that the redemptive effects of the atonement are limited only to those so elected……that those so elected will answer the irresistible call of God’s grace that is extended to them….and that after they have answered the call there is nothing that can happen that will interfere with them persisting in this calling and election.
I reject all of those tenets except the first, that we are, in our mortal human state, cut off from God.
Beyond that, I believe that God calls all humankind to his grace, that this call is a gift of God rendered possible through the sacrifice of Christ, that when we abandon our own righteousness (Philippians 3) and embrace the righteousness of God, which is faith, and give up fighting against this call and receive Christ, we are justified. The Holy Spirit then comes to dwell within us, and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are prodded toward conformity with the image of Christ. This is called sanctification. To the extent that we are open to the hard process of sanctification, we will be brought into conformity with Christ. To the extent that we fight the process, we run the risk of falling from grace and being cut off, once again, from God.
Justification has to come first. This is even LDS doctrine!
“Justification is a scriptural metaphor drawn from the courts of law: a judge justifies an accused person by declaring or pronouncing that person innocent. ….All mortals individually need to be justified because they fall short of perfect obedience to God, becoming “carnal, sensual, and devilish” through transgression….Justification directly opens the way to sanctification by establishing a “right” relationship of mortals with God. Thus, God, without denying justice, can bless them with the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost.” – The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
Maybe I have just clarified. If not…please try to explain.
Hmmmmm….Nicely done, John. Compliments.
What I would give for us to use this kind of nomenclature in our LDS Meetings & Classrooms; instead of the constant drumbeat of “Obey, Obey, Obey…Follow your Leaders at all costs”!! Anymore, my brain and attention shut down….when the 3Ms start to flow…Monotonous, Mormon, Messages.
“Beyond that, I believe that God calls all humankind to his grace, that this call is a gift of God rendered possible through the sacrifice of Christ, that when we abandon our own righteousness (Philippians 3) and embrace the righteousness of God, which is faith, and give up fighting against this call and receive Christ, we are justified. The Holy Spirit then comes to dwell within us, and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are prodded toward conformity with the image of Christ. This is called sanctification. To the extent that we are open to the hard process of sanctification, we will be brought into conformity with Christ. To the extent that we fight the process, we run the risk of falling from grace and being cut off, once again, from God.”
KLC – I see what you’re saying there. If your major issue with John is his style then yes, you’ve specifically addressed that. I was hoping that you would address where you disagree doctrinally, but if that isn’t your purpose then that’s fine. While acknowledging that John can speak for himself if he chooses, I will make one comment about his style. I don’t agree that he is expecting people to “surrender to his obvious truth once he has expounded it to [us],” as you write. In fact, I don’t see where he is doing anything different than the average Mormon missionary is doing. He is make a case for a particular view of the Christian message and then he has encouraged Clark to pray on it. Mormon missionaries do that every day.
Troy, I never used the word style and you using that word makes it sound like it’s a trivial issue. I did use the words assumptions and world-view, both of which are far beyond mere style and both of which are essential elements in the way we think and express ourselves. And why I’m not interested in addressing where we disagree doctrinally with scriptural support goes right back to my first comment. People far more educated than I have hashed over these differences for 500 years. I’m no more obligated to agree with John’s interpretation of the Bible than he is obligated to agree with LDS prophetical pronouncements…assumptions and world view.
KLC – OK then, assumptions and world view. Fine. But my point stands. John isn’t expecting you, or anybody else, to surrender to his worldview. He’s doing the same thing that Mormon missionaries do – offering an invitation. As for educated people hashing out these differences for 500 years, that’s true. It’s probably been longer than that, in fact. And it’s a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it is the Mormon view that attempts to put an end to the ongoing conversation within the Christian body by swooping in and claiming to be the only true church of God with sole authority to participate in and perform the rites/sacraments/ordinances of Christianity. Talk about a buzz kill! By and large, Mormonism as a religion isn’t at all interested in participating in a conversation.
Troy, I think this will be my last comment, we’re rehashing the last 500 years. But you’re just illustrating the assumptions and world view I talked about that are manifested in John’s posts. You are completely enmeshed in a Protestant world view and I don’t think you see it. It appears that your definition of the “Christian body” includes no one but the Protestants. Certainly the Catholic church, you know, that tiny group of misguided Christians who were actively pursuing their theology for more than 1000 years before Luther, also believes in their sole authority. And yes, Mormonism isn’t particularly interested in being part of the Protestant club. But what has always amused me is that you guys specifically say we aren’t part of the club and then criticize us for not wanting to be part of the club, could you make up your mind? And personally, except on an intellectual level I’m also not particularly interested in the Protestant club, but I don’t expect you to be interested in the Mormon club either. What’s the problem with that?
A few issues. First, while the Encyclopedia of Mormonism addresses topics, on some topics there are obviously differences of opinion. So Colin Douglas’ view, while a common one, isn’t the only one. You have say Chauncey Riddle’s view of justification that sees it primarily as a process “by which a person acquires the character or habits which he personally deems to be ideal for himself ” “Justification in Jewish thought is thus done by the individual, for himself, using the word of God as a guide. Sanctification, on the other hand. is God’s work.” Then there’s the New Perspectives on Paul view which has been very influential among many Mormon scholars. There you have Wright arguing that justification
is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status of ‘righteous.'” This “unites all believers into a single people, the one family promised to Abraham” and that they are forgiven.
My own view has aspects of all three views. I think justification is the process of becoming part of that forgiven community whereas sanctification is the literal change in ourselves through God’s grace. (Much of which will await the resurrection) Justification is our process joining the community and being pronounced righteous by God as we repent. But justification itself is tied to repentance. You can’t separate it. To not repent is to reject grace and cease being open to it. As we repent and bind ourselves to the community we are seen as part of God’s community and thus righteous even if not yet perfect.
To your other points much of what you say I’m fine with, other than quibbling with justification as a term. It’s just that what you said earlier seems quite at odds with what you say now. When you say it’s not a work because it’s putting down the sword, it’s hard to separate that from forgiveness. But surely sinful acts are not merely commissions where we stop but also acts of omission where we must start. If I stop committing adultery that’s certainly important. But if I don’t also love in a Christlike way those I once hurt, I have not truly turned away (put down my sword). Put an other way you earlier cast grace in merely negative terms – ceasing from acts. That’s why you see Mormon emphasis on positive acts negatively. To me though repentance can’t be seen only in negative terms.
Second, the issue of whether justification is a process seems key. You said earlier that you can fall from grace, but what does it mean to fall from grace? If God calls me to do something and I refuse, that is falling from grace. Again grace can not be seen purely negatively. It’s your tendency to cast it in this negative view which is why I keep seeing you as adopting Calvinist arguments. You say you reject the depravity and God’s predestination. You now say, “we are prodded toward conformity with the image of Christ” but that is exactly why Mormons emphasize obedience. The directives God gives us are this prodding towards changing yourself through the spirit of God. Again, while our attempting to follow God’s prodding will fail, if we don’t turn to God in our failure then we’re rejecting grace – rejecting the influence of the spirit as it works upon us.
When someone condemns Mormon focus on the word of God, to me they are rejecting grace because they are saying the gift from God which includes the directives of the spirit directly, through our leaders and through our prophets, is not to be accepted. The commandments are a gift and if we reject them we are rejecting God’s love and are rejecting loving as God wants us to love. “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love.” (John 15:10) “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:20)
When you talk of reconciliation and then reject our doing anything you play fast and loose with doing. Of course we are not reconciled because we keep the commandments. We are however to turn back to God and the implication of turning back to God is that we will keep his commandments. When we break them, we must repent which is turning again to God and restoring the relationship. As the Book of Mormon notes, his arm is still outstretched. But we must step into his arms. That turning to God means being open to the grace he gives us which includes baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost, serving others, attending the temple and so forth. Church gives us the structures so we can learn to have Christ’s image in us. He is giving us through his free gift the image but we must be willing to receive it. As soon as someone condemns obedience they are rejecting grace. They are condemning the very things God gives us so that we may receive his image in our countenance. To reject the necessity of that is to adopt the Calvinist position that it is all God. That our free choice to turn to him is not an action and not a thing we do. It is to adopt the claim that it is something only God does. Whether you call it a work or not, that choice to accept what God gives us is essential for both justification and sanctification. If we reject the gifts God gives then we have chosen to cut ourselves off from the community God has allowed us to enter into.
That word “community” is problematic. What do you mean by it precisely? Can I look up the headquarters of that community in a telephone book?
Clark: I acknowledge and appreciate your comments. I think some of the “push back” Mormonism receives is when believers declare that all other religions, beliefs, etc. are wrong; or found delinquent when compared to LDS doctrine. Granted not everyone does this….but when it occurs it creates animosity and does anything…but bring people unto Christ. Just my opinion….nothing more.
Jesus said, “This ought ye to have done, not leaving the other undone.”
When one believes a neighbor or a fellow saint is imperfectly living or following the gospel, I hope he or she will remember to be charitable to the neighbor or fellow saint.
Left, Certainly I understand, although I don’t mind people thinking me wrong. And of course the mere fact that we are different religions entails we think each other wrong. The big difference is of course authority. Protestants by and large accept a priesthood of all believers while Mormons don’t. Mormons think that some things require authority that doesn’t come from belief. Clearly Protestants (and Catholics or Orthodox) disagree with us. But that’s fine.
John, the community is the community of the Saints or those who have entered into the community through baptism by proper authority, who have received the Holy Ghost, and who participate in the community of Saints through the grace of God. We are not perfect yet so long as we repent and endure to the end we are promised a place on the right hand of God.
Clark.
So the community you are referring to is to be found only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That aligns with what Ballard said in 2015,”It is the Church wherein we learn the works of God and accept the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ that saves us.”
No church, no saving grace.
You said earlier that to be open to this grace means, among other things, attending the temple.
What do you have to do to attend the temple? You have to wear certain clothing and obey certain dietary rules.
Thus, to obtain grace, you have to wear certain clothing and obey certain dietary rules.
“Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” -Colossians 2:23.
“And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” – Romans 11:6
John,
Entire volumes have been written on the question of the relationship between grace, faith, and works. Suffice it to say right here that Latter-day Saints typically believe that salvation comes by grace through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, but that to become partakers inthat grace, we must have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, make covenants with God, and endure to the end (repeating most of those steps often).
I would suggest that this is not the forum to trade “faith and works” scriptures back and forth. But I would encourage you to look into the arguments that the Greek “Pistis” is better translated as faithfulness than faith, and with respect to ritual and law, consider Jesus’ reverence for the temple, which was all about ritual and law.
Again you are confusing what is given as grace and then treating grace as a work. Again that’s fine if you believe that what God gives is a work and thus not grace. I take God’s gifts as grace.
Clark,
If you think following the LDS rules and regulations is not work, but grace, just how exactly do you define work?
Dsc,
Yes…I know…KLS has been telling me repeatedly that this topic has already been debated for 500 years. I guess someone should’ve informed Bishop Bill, poor guy, before he embarrassed himself by opening up this topic once again for discussion.
That could easily bet my question to you. I’d say anything I do is a work, yet you said receiving grace and responding to it wasn’t work. To me getting baptized or repenting is doing something and thus a work. But of course words have their meaning in a context so it’s not like it has an universal meaning. If God gives grace and I respond I am working. You said receiving grace isn’t a work, but if commandments are a gift from God then receiving them isn’t a work by your usage.
Again, while you may not be Calvinist as I said if we have free will to respond to what God offers and to accept it is to act on it, then accepting grace entails our doing something. Call it what you will. If humans aren’t involved, then that’s basically Calvinism. If we can respond and act then that’s my position.
See, Clark….you are doing what Apostle Brad Wilcox does, and you fall into the same error….
You are saying that when we accept Jesus, we accept grace, and along with this acceptance of grace, we get the chance to do the things (the work) we need to do to be exalted. And therefore we are exalted by grace, not our works, and thank goodness to, because we CAN’T be exalted through our works. That would be the wrong approach.
But explain to me then what it would actually look like to seek to be exalted by one’s works without grace? Who does that? What does that even mean? Who goes around saying, “I want to be exalted, but I want to do it through my works. So I am going to wear these garments and put away the coffee and pay my tithing, but I am going to do it as work without grace, rather than as work because of grace.” ? ??
Who does that, Clark?
It’s nonsense. You have taken a nonsensical situation and you have labeled it bad, so your own situation, which for all practical purposes is identical to it, looks Biblical!
Clark, I don’t have much more to add. We can both go around and around. My parting words below, and thanks for the conversation.
Latter-day Saints see Jesus Christ as showing us the way. I don’t see it like that. Nor do millions of other Christians. We see Jesus AS THE WAY. Catholics are included here.
He does indeed show us how we are to live, but in doing this, he is not showing us the Way.
He….and he alone….is the Way.
You have to accept him as the Way. That is not a work. at all.
There is this altar, see…..something has to be put on that altar. There is no way out of it. It has to be either your own lamb, or the Lamb that God provided. Those are the only options. And it can’t be a combination of both. Doesn’t work that way.
There are millions of Christians that understand what I am talking about. And they aren’t necessarily Calvinists…and they certainly don’t believe in “cheap grace.” They paid a high price actually……and the high price got them NOTHING!
That is why they were able to take their own lamb off that altar, and accept the Lamb provided by God. And then the love rushed in. They were healed. You have to experience it. You have to trust it. It’s the bread of life. It’s the living water.
It has nothing to do with any denomination. It is so much bigger than this petty thing called religion.
When did Brad Wilcox become an Apostle? Did I miss something?
John,
As much as I would love to take an opportunity to criticize Bishop Bill, he has nothing to do with this conversation. And the OP (by Stephen Marsh) was not framed as an opportunity to open this particular can of worms.
This question has been asked and answered many times. You haven’t provided anything new to contribute.
Dsc,
Sorry. I should’ve verified first. For some reason I thought Bishop Bill was the OP.
Lehcarjt,
Brad Wilcox isn’t an apostle?! What!? Because for a long time now, Latter-day Saints have been feasting on the Word at the feet of Elder S. Edward Robinson and Elder B. Ray Wilcox, who have provided balm for the sorrowful souls in Zion who are weary of the works-based gospel taught by the lawyer Dallin Oaks and the car salesman Melvin Ballard.
John
You’re not clever. Quit being petty.
John, as you said there’s not a lot to say here since we obviously each have our tradition (although it seems odd you’d be posting on a Mormon oriented blog criticizing Mormon theology). Mormons tend to not use the language of grace as much as many Protestants do. Although I think it’s fairly easy to translate it into more Pauline talk. For Mormons ultimately what matters is following the spirit. I try to obey the commandments because that’s what the spirit directs me to do. If it’s the spirit, that’s one significant aspect of the grace of God. Ultimately it is that experiential encounter with God that matters far, far more than interpreting texts. God approaches me and I can choose to respond.
You can talk about work and grace, but honestly I think you end up equivocating over terms or excluding things as non-work in an ad hoc fashion. What really matters is that God reaches out to me by his spirit and that spirit both transforms me but also gives me direction. I’m baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because God directed me to do so. I follow the commands God directs me (or at least try) because I know God has given them. They are part of God’s grace to me. I listen to modern prophets because God speaks through them. I can find out how to follow commandments by listening to the personal prophecy as the spirit speaks directly to my heart. It’s that physical encounter that ultimately matters.
To the more theological point, some people think if they just do a checklist of “dos” that they’ll be saved. They miss the direct encounter with God and don’t understand that following God’s spirit is ultimately what the commandments point us to. To love as God loves is to be in his spirit and literally feel love towards others the way he does. We become one with God as we act in the spirit. Now of course we’re not always in the spirit in a strong recognizable way. (At least I’m not) And when we sin we break that connection to God and sometimes have to stumble back to practicing and living it again over time. I think those who have a checklist approach to the gospel fundamentally misunderstand the gospel. But I also think those who say it’s Christ without any action (respond) on their part are making the opposite mistake. Salvation is taking hold of God through Christ by living in the spirit and acting as God would have acted. And in the details, the only way to do that is to be able to listen.
I recognize others disagree with that. They don’t recognize continuing scripture (although why would it have ceased?) They don’t recognize all the things I’m talking about. All I can say is that when I listen directly to God he points me in this direction and not the direction you outline.
BTW – I wonder as you mock Oaks and Ballard whether you would have mocked Christ’s apostles as fishermen or taxmen. The scripture I quoted earlier is apt.
“If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:20)
Ok…that was a low blow to mock Ballard and Oaks. But I was really drawing attention to the fact that when Latter-day Saints want to read something about grace, with the exception of recent Uchtdorf talks, the go-to resource has been unofficial writings by people who have not been given the authority from God to expound doctrine.
I do not believe we are ” totally depraved and cut off from God”. We may see through a “glass darkly” but we are continuously embraced by God, continuously given opportunity to show love, continuously forgiven. Christ’s sacrificial redemption redeemed us all, every one. However, by our actions, we can refuse this opportunity, just as by our actions we express, whether we know it or not, the grace of God’s love. The fairly recent view among some religionists that one need only believe and one’s actions are immaterial, may be consistent with Pauline doctrine (I would have to refresh my recollection in this regard), but it is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
John typically the language and terminology we use is that of the atonement or spirit or tp speak directly of the gifts the Father or Christ gives us. However I’d disagree that only Uchtdorf uses grace terminology. I’d just point out that meaning more than terminology matters. I’d say that how Evangelicals often use the term grace obscures as much as it illuminates as our discussion here on responding to grace with works demonstrates. It’s so easy to abstract grace so it’s treated as a term disconnected from what God gives specifically. That is then frequently put in an artificial and misleading opposition with works. To me that’s a fairly Calvinist move but of course many making it aren’t familiar with the theological issues. Because of the lack of familiarity with major theologians it’s easy for people to fall into cheap grace or the closely related prosperity gospel.
Putting grace in opposition to works is hardly a Calvinist move. It is solidly a Lutheran move. Calvin was 8 years old when Luther, at age 34 posting his 95 Theses….whether he really nailed them to a door or not. .
I think you need to re-evaluate the way you conceptualize Calvinism in your mind in relation to the Protestant movement. I really do. You are quick to throw up the clay pigeon of Calvinism, and then you shoot it down. But Calvinism is not synonymous with salvation by faith.
One of the reasons you may be so adept at shooting down Calvinism is because the Book of Mormon’s purpose was to shoot down Calvinism. But Protestantism isn’t synonymous with Calvinism. Evangelical Christianity isn’t synonymous with Calvinism. You are having trouble hearing what I have been saying, because you keep hearing Calvinism where Calvinism doesn’t exist. You keep bringing it up. It is getting kind of surreal.
By the way…I thought this was understood, so this isn’t a “gotcha” moment at all. I was a Mormon for 37 years. I know the doctrine and the words Mormons choose to use and the definitions of these words that Mormons prefer.
“The go-to resource has been unofficial writings by people who have not been given the authority from God to expound doctrine.” I have met Brad Wilcox several times. In fact, I had the pleasure of administering a healing blessing with him once. He’s a great man, knowledgeable servant of the Lord, and an expert on grace. But I have never studied his writings. I don’t think most Latter-day Saints turn to Brother Wilcox for doctrinal enlightenment, especially not ahead of the Quorum of the Twelve.
Meanwhile, if I were to give a lesson or a talk on grace, the topics page on lds.org (still the valid URL), points me to two talks by Elder Uchtdorf, and (what do you know?) a talk by President Oaks and one by Elder Ballard. They are both excellent talks. Both emphasize that part of accepting grace is obeying God, and by his grace we are better able to obey him. But they also include passages like this gem: “No matter how hard we work, no matter how much we obey, no matter how many good things we do in this life, it would not be enough were it not for Jesus Christ and His loving grace. On our own we cannot earn the kingdom of God—no matter what we do. Unfortunately, there are some within the Church who have become so preoccupied with performing good works that they forget that those works—as good as they may be—are hollow unless they are accompanied by a complete dependence on Christ. It is this dependence that causes us to want to sing what Alma eloquently referred to as “the song of redeeming love.”
You claim to understand Mormon thought on this subject, but I don’t think you do. So much of what you have said is the standard Evangelical criticism of Mormonism, which, again, has been asked and answered so many times that I wonder why, if you have experience in the Church and know that every over-zealous missionary has a list of scriptures to combat the idea of sola fide, you have presented so many pat arguments from the theologically conservative Evangelical handbook. I’m not suggesting you’re lying, but I am suggesting that your current understanding of what Latter-day Saints actually hold as doctrine may be less than what it once was.
John the comments about lay evangelicals not familiar with theology was me making a broad point about terminology and why I prefer the Mormon way of speaking. It wasn’t calling you a Calvinist in the least nor addressing your particular beliefs which I noted earlier was likely pointless. And yes I know one can be a Lutheran without being a Calvinist. Most congregations that self-identify as Evangelical in the loose sense tend to come out of a Calvinist tradition although my experience is that theology isn’t emphasized but instead vague terms and a kind of experience. I personally think that problematic myself and think it arises out of the rhetorical tradition. Much like some think the Latter Day Saint tradition of emoji zing obedience and doing things is problematic. It was that rhetorical issue that was my concern
I don’t self-identify as an evangelical in that loose sense you are talking about. If I were to pick a religious tradition to identify with, I would be found just across the threshold into Anglo-Catholicism. I lean away from traditional Anglicanism in that I sense there is some truth to the Catholic concept of purgatory and many other things Catholics have traditionally espoused in terms of their, for lack of a better word, “cosmology.” But I lean away from Catholicism and toward modern Anglicanism when it comes to my beliefs about the role of the institutional church. In short, I reject the idea of the necessity of it. I would say the institutional church, and its clergy, serves a purpose, but not a salvific purpose, which is what Catholics and Mormons believe.
You take a Brad-Wilcox approach to grace, which is a very LDS approach to grace, which is a very Catholic approach to grace. The church is needed to receive this grace, because the grace comes through the sacraments, if you are Catholic, and the ordinances, if you are Mormon. I get it (Dsc……..I really get it…..I’m not that rusty yet). This is what Ballard taught in 2015. It is in the Church wherein you receive the grace that exalts you.
This is what I reject. This is why I am not full-blown Catholic. I reject Papal Supremacy. I reject Prophet Supremacy, too. It is the same thing.
The Catholic Church is made up of bishops that oversee a diocese full of parishes led by priests. There is one supreme Bishop in Rome. The LDS Church is made up of Stake Presidents (High Priests) that oversee a Stake full of Wards led by Bishops. There is one supreme High Priest in Salt Lake City.
The LDS church is just a corrupt form of Catholicism.But Catholicism is in error in that it believes in papal supremacy. Mormonism is in error for the same reason, but it it is worse, because it claims to hand out Melchizedek Priesthood to thousands of mortal human beings. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes it very clear that there is only one Man who possesses that Priesthood…and he possesses it because he has the power of an endless life, and therefore he will not pass away, and therefore he doesn’t need to transfer his priesthood to anyone else.
Under both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, High Priesthood was/is set apart as the priesthood of redemption and atonement for sins. The office of High Priest under the Old Covenant was only held by one man at a time, and the purpose of this office was to perform the redemptive animal sacrifice for his own sins and the sins of the people once a year. It was a foreshadowing of the New Covenant, in which the High Priesthood is held by only one man, and through this priesthood, he offered himself up once for all for the atonement of sins.
Do you hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, Clark? Are you offering your blood for the sins of mankind? That is what High Priesthood is all about.
You have a firm grasp on the grace that sanctifies you. You are a little off on the details, but you get the broad lay-out of it. You have no clear understanding about the grace that justifies you. Because that requires you to get on your knees and embarrass yourself by saying that stupid sinner’s prayer you find in the back of a Chick Tract.
Wow, John. The sanctimonious grandstanding and open derision was not unexpected, but it is harsher than I would have imagined based on the conversation so far.
Hebrews does not make the assertion you claim it makes. It does make clear that Melchizedek and all other priests of that order performed their functions in anticipation of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. He is the central figure of all the symbolism associated with them. But there is absolutely no reason to interpreter Hebrews as claiming that the order ended with Jesus, since others after Him also acted as priests of a sort and in His name. Did Peter not raise Tabitha from the dead as a type of Christ? Symbolism
The challenging tone to Clark is unnecessarily demeaning and illogical in the context of your argument. Did Melchizedek offer his blood for the sins of mankind? No, and yet he was clearly a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
And no, you don’t get it. That much is clear.
Dsc,
Lent has arrived, and while I am an “on-again-off-again” observer of the traditions of Christianity, I think this year I will give something up for Lent. So this will be my final post, and I am glad it is ending this way, because the Letter to the Hebrews played a significant role in getting me out of the LDS Church. And that was BEFORE I heard the “evangelical” interpretation of it.
Hebrews does not talk at all about mortal men possessing Melchizedek Priesthood. It talks about Jesus possessing Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek. The Latter-day Saint spin on Hebrews is the worst of all possible examples of Mormon proof-texting.
Melchizedek Priesthood and High Priesthood are not synonymous. And this is where I wasn’t being very clear. The Levitical Order had High Priests, one at a time, and none of them had Melchizedek Priesthood. They had to be descendants of Aaron, who was of the tribe of Levi. The Levitical Order also had priests who served the High Priest. These priests were also of the tribe of Levi, but were not descendants of Aaron.
The Levitical High Priest was a type of the High Priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.
The author of Hebrews (probably Paul) mentions Melchizedek to prove the superiority of Jesus’s New Covenant over the Old Covenant. He continues to prove this point all throughout the letter by quoting the prophets and the Psalms, by referencing the rituals and trappings of Jewish temple worship, and by referencing stories from the Jewish history. That is why Melchizedek is mentioned in the first place. Not to give us a definition and description of a form of Priesthood as much as it is to show that Jesus’s Priesthood is superior to even Abraham, who contained in his loins the seed of Levi at the time he paid his tithes to Melchizedek….because the lesser pays homage to the greater.
It is bad proof-texting to think that Hebrews is a sermon on Priesthood or on a higher priesthood. It is a sermon on Jesus’s superiority. Priesthood is mentioned as supporting evidence for the thesis, not as the thesis itself. And if it is read in any other way, the point is missed.
You cannot show me one single passage of scripture in the Bible where anyone is explicitly described as doing anything through the power of Melchizedek Priesthood, except Jesus. That is something Mormons read into the text. But it isn’t there. Joseph Smith took Hebrews as source material for Alma 13, but he twisted it terribly because Hebrews wasn’t his only source material for Alma 13.
Smith sets up this system wherein Melchizedek Priesthood is doled out to mortal human beings. The changes to the text introduced in Alma 13 are contrary to what Hebrews is actually saying. So where did Smith get this idea? Well….Smith gives his source material away in one very simple passage. In Alma 13:17-18, Smith gives us a little detail about Melchizedek that he did not find in the Bible. This detail is that Melchizedek’s people had gone to wickedness, but that he brought them back in line. He found this idea in a book titled Antiquities of Freemasonry which had been published in 1801.
AofF spends its first several chapters talking about how Masonry was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and how it was passed down from Adam to Seth and onward to Enoch and beyond even. It talks about Masonry using the same language that Mormons use to talk about Priesthood. It formed the blueprint for Joseph Smith’s understanding of Priesthood.
To Joseph Smith, Masonry was a corrupted form of Priesthood. The book AofF even says that Masonry split after the fall into the true masonry and a corrupted form. Joseph Smith believed he had the true form. Joseph Fielding Smith and Heber Kimball made statements that reflect this thinking also.
“Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry. This I have also seen and rejoice in it…. I have evidence enough that Joseph is not fallen. I have seen him after giving, as I before said, the origin of Masonry.” —J. Fielding Smith.
“There is a similarity of Priesthood in Masonry. Brother Joseph says Masonry was taken from Priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.” —Heber Kimball
John. Do you really think Hebrews was written by Paul? In a context claiming superior scholarship?
Just reflecting on how the comments have gone.
BTW, the Anchor Bible Commentary volume on Hebrews is a good place to begin a deeper appreciation of the volume.
John,
Nice attempt at turning the tables. I accuse you of proof texting Hebrews (albeit, not using those words), so you come back with the old “I know you are but what am I?” defense. For the record, I never claimed that Hebrews is some kind of treatise on priesthood. I agree with you that the purpose of the discussion of priesthood is to show the superiority of Jesus’ authority and priesthood. But to get indignant about Latter-day Saints claiming “to hand out Melchizedek Priesthood to thousands of mortal human beings” is a little hard to square with passages like John 15:16 and the entire book of Acts wherein Jesus appoints mortals to go forth and act and perform miracles in His name.
I’m also not sure you even see the irony in accusing Mormons of prooftexting Hebrews, while Hebrews is itself a Christian prooftext of the Jewish scriptures.
You’ve now doubled down on the claim that Jesus was the only person to do anything under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is nonsensical. This line of authority is described as an “order”, implying multiple persons, Melchizedek being an obvious member of the order baring his name.
One need not turn to Antiquities of Freemasonry to find a source for the notion that Adam passed on authority to Seth and ultimately to Melchizedek. The tradition that these men were pre-Aaronic high priests is in various Midrash and other Jewish traditions. Even assuming the Book of Mormon is a fraud (it’s not), the most basic explanation would be that Smith and Antiquities of Freemasonry drew on the same traditions and legends. Claiming that text as a source for the Book of Mormon is to pull both out of their context in order to prove a point. What’s the word for when people do that again? I think it starts with a “p”…