NO Mormons are not Christian!

[_maklelan]

Tell Maklelan what works did the thief do that produced faith ?

Are you under the impression that I'm arguing that the New Testament is consistent in its soteriology? I'm the first person to point out that the Bible is not univocal. At the same time, we don't know anything at all about the thief's actions prior to being crucified.

He was a criminal and a thief hanging on a cross beside Jesus. i highly doubt he was doing God's work Faith in Christ alone saved him as Jesus points out.

Ah, so now he did do something to be saved. It wasn't just totally arbitrary.

No wonder you are always spouting off about contradictions in the Bible...the way you fit it together it is no wonder. James and Paul are on exactly the same page...

You don't provide any kind of argument for that assertion in your post, so am I to understand your entire response to my quite lengthy engagement of your argument amounts to nothing more than "Nu-uh"?

you just have your filtered glasses on and refuse to consider other possibiilites.

Completely untrue. I do my absolute best to keep my presuppositions out of my exegesis. My education includes Latter-day Saint, secular, and Evangelical universities. I have experience in all different kinds of hermeneutics and have been quite thoroughly disciplined in my exegesis along the way. You save your accusations unless you're prepared to back them up, son.

Again WHAT works did the thief do with regard to justifciation and his salvation?

Again, my explanation of what James asserted about salvation has no bearing whatsoever on the soteriology of the authors of the gospels.

My Jesus just accepted him because he had faith in HIM ...nothing more and nothing less

So you assert that salvation is the product of only one work, namely the expression of faith. That's great. You agree with multiple New Testament authors. Unfortunately, James is not one of them. I'm glad you acknowledge that it's not just completely arbitrary, because no New Testament authors assert that.

[_maklelan]

Malelan you say Paul says Abraham was not justified by works (Rom 4:1-3) and James says Abraham absolutely was justified by works (Jas 2:21-24)

Unbeleivable..... crap man could you are living under the old covenant --- Your scaring me now. lol People absolutely believed that works more than anything was the means to salvation or justification under the old covenant... The new covenant is an entirely different situation...Thanks to the FINISHED work of CHrist on the cross

.

Again you show yourself completely unwilling and unable to engage my case with anything other than naked assertions. Well, thanks for that.

[_huckelberry]

Both totally agree that we are saved by Faith and Grace in Jesus and not by works.

That's why he says three different times that faith without works cannot save.

That is Completely clear in Scripture. Now WHAT we do after we are saved is a sign. ie we DON'T work our way to Salvation ANY MORE THAN THE THIEF ON THE CROSS DID. .

Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works).

Uh, that's not at all what James is saying. James is pointing out that faith is a product of works. One cannot develop faith without first producing works. You are saved by faith, but that faith has to be developed through works. Even Luther understood James' point, which is why he called his letter an "epistle of straw." This newfangled reading whereby James is supposed to refer to post-salvation works is quite recent and quite ridiculous.

Maklelan,

So far I am unable to read James as saying that works are something done after faith as a sign. I cannot find that in the text anywhere. Both to my reading of the words and my understanding of the subject calling works a sign cuts apart something organically hole, something whose unity is essential. I also realize that the idea of sequence and sign have become pretty established in conservation Protestant thinking. Reformed theology might sound,at least to my ears, as overly reliant on consecutive arrangements of principals decisions and events. In this case arranging faith work as time sequence may be insisted upon to preserve a difference from Catholics. It does not appear to exist in the text .

I am also unable to see any where in the text that works come first creating faith. I am sorry, trying, all I see is the proposal that faith and works are so linked that a faith without works doesn't save. I do not think that this view of the relationship implies or requires a time sequence. I also do not think that understanding of the relationship of the two is new.

Catholic Catechism 1993:" Justification establishes cooperation between Gods grace and mans freedom. On mans part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion and in the cooperation of Charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assents."

[_maklelan]

Maklelan,

So far I am unable to read James as saying that works are something done after faith as a sign.

That's because it's not there.

I am also unable to see any where in the text that works come first creating faith.

V. 22 states that works made his faith perfect. V. 23 states that it was then that the scripture was fulfilled which said it was imputed to him for righteousness. V. 24 then states that it is by works that a man is justified. The chronology is unmistakable: works > faith > justification.

I am sorry, trying, all I see is the proposal that faith and works are so linked that a faith without works doesn't save. I do not think that this view of the relationship implies or requires a time sequence. I also do not think that understanding of the relationship of the two is new.

Catholic Catechism 1993:" Justification establishes cooperation between Gods grace and mans freedom. On mans part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion and in the cooperation of Charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assents."

Catholicism tries to have its cake and eat it too by insisting it's some magical kind of cooperation that makes it so salvation both is and is not arbitrary.

[_Megacles]

Jason15,

I am simply at a loss for words. I have taken each of your arguments, point by point, and have shown you where Mormonism fits into Christianity. I have also shown where you are mistaken on what Mormons believe.

You reply by cherry-picking one half of one point I made, and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I asserted.

And that is to say nothing of Maklelan, who has taken his time to respond to your copy and paste jobs, little jabs and rejoinders with lengthy and fair exegesis of what the text actually says.

You reply by not replying at all, and just calling names ("talking donkey, etc.").

Mormons are Christian, Jason15. We believe in the mission of Jesus Christ, that He died so that we might have eternal life with God. In the end, is that not all that matters?

I am done in this thread, I think. This is a lot of wasted time and effort because you are not engaging at all.

[_huckelberry]

"magical"
?
ends that discussion.

[_jordon3]

Jason15,

I am simply at a loss for words. I have taken each of your arguments, point by point, and have shown you where Mormonism fits into Christianity. I have also shown where you are mistaken on what Mormons believe.

You reply by cherry-picking one half of one point I made, and go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I asserted.

And that is to say nothing of Maklelan, who has taken his time to respond to your copy and paste jobs, little jabs and rejoinders with lengthy and fair exegesis of what the text actually says.

You reply by not replying at all, and just calling names ("talking donkey, etc.").

Mormons are Christian, Jason15. We believe in the mission of Jesus Christ, that He died so that we might have eternal life with God. In the end, is that not all that matters?

.
I am done in this thread, I think. This is a lot of wasted time and effort because you are not engaging at all.

Sorry you feel that way Megs. I have not had the time to address each of your points . I have addressed only one to day. So I feel you are being unfair with your assertions. I have not even finished with the works and grace topic. I do have other things happening in life other than spending all day going point by point.

Tell me WHAT works did the Thief on the cross do to deserve Justification and Salvation. He was a criminal so I doubt he did God's work. Maklelan refuses to answer this like he refused to answer Thews. Maybe you can take the time and be honest.

[_maklelan]

Tell me WHAT works did the Thief on the cross do to deserve Justification and Salvation. He was a criminal so I doubt he did God's work. Maklelan refuses to answer this like he refused to answer Thews. Maybe you can take the time and be honest.

This rhetoric is getting pretty played out, and this will be my last contribution should you refuse to address my concerns. Engaging an argument is not as simple as ignoring responses and asking tangential or misguided questions upon which you predicate any and all future participation in the discussion.

As I pointed out, my interpretation of James's soteriology does not bear on the soteriology of the gospels. I am not claiming that James' soteriology is true or universal, I'm just pointing out that James disagrees with Paul and with you. Trying to force me to find James' soteriology is missing the point by light years.

Having said that, your question is also a shot in your own foot. The thief's manifested work was expressing faith in Jesus, but we have no idea what other works he had done prior to his crucifixion. If we insist on imposing James' soteriology, as you obviously think I am somehow obligated to do, then his faith must have been built on some works absent from the narrative. You have no way of knowing for how long he had had this faith in Christ, so your implicit assertion that the only works he possibly could have done would have been done on the cross and shared in the gospel accounts is undermined.

No matter how many of these rhetorical snares you try to set to trap me in some kind of inconsistency, you're never going to win. You will always come back to a faith claim that you cannot empirically support, no matter how many logical fallacies you try to stack on top of those faith claims in an effort to obscure that fact. This is not my first rodeo, Jason, and the people with whom I debate these issues as part of my profession have more letters after their names than you.

[_grindael]

Belief is NOT a work. Paul said so:

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. Romans 4:5 ESV

[_maklelan]

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. Romans 4:5 ESV

Christ (or at least the author of the text, just to be clear) says it is a work in John 6:29:

Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Additionally, Paul is speaking of the works of the Law of Moses, not "work" in the generic sense (as is the case in John 6). Either way, your concerns fail.