I'll address Fred Phelps and Ghandi in the next quote.

It's assuming that it's unfair that only some people gain salvation, and not everyone. Another way to think about it is this. Everyone has sinned. All sinners go to hell. Jesus paid the price of sin for anyone who accepts Him. So for those who choose to, they can accept the gift, or not.

So rather than think it unfair for everyone not going to heaven, rejoice for all those who will get there and shouldn't have been in the first place without the gift being made available.


Why do you feel Fred Phelps is a christian? Heath said he is a christian too. Do you feel that if christianity is true, then anyone who claims christianity, but acts in any way they want is saved? They can be as honest or dishonest, rescue people or kill people as they choose?

Personally, I think it's a red herring, as I don't believe you would have brought up Fred Phelps if you thought him a christian for real. His name was chosen specifically because of his non christian actions. As such, if someone is not acting christian, we recognize there's a problem going on.

I think that's the wrong question. I think God prefers everyone to choose Him. I believe that everyone who faces God will agree with His judgement, as it is a righteous one.

For example, if you were to face a judge for murder, and the judge sentences you to jail, you would accept your actions as wrong, ans the judge merely sentencing you for your actions. When you face God, you will know and agree with God's judgement.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes.  Fred Phelps is not only a christian, but he has unquestionable fervor in what he does.  In other words, he has extremist levels of faith, and believes he's doing god's work.  In his mind, he's a christian and you are not.

Now, how can we objectively decide who's a christian and who's not?  Salvation?  Even you admit that comes from god deciding, and not us mere mortals.  Faith?  Sorry, but Phelps beats you out on that one.  In the end, works is all we have left.

And that assumes we even agree that there is a god, or that salvation even exists.  Remember, I don't accept that.  Saying "It's all up to a god you don't believe in" is just plain silly to me.  It'd be like saying all you christians will be judged by Buddha.  And before you go back to your judge analogy, I should point out that not only are many trials determined by a jury of your peers, judges are imperfect as well.

It's less an issue of fairness, in my view, as generally setting up something wrong and arbitrary.  I could go around stabbing people unless they gave me $100, and say "instead of thinking it's unfair I stabbed someone, rejoice for all those who didn't get stabbed even though I could have stabbed them!"  Surely you wouldn't accept such a statement (I hope!), but the situation you describe is actually worse, because going to hell is infinitely worse than being stabbed!

The issue is partially the initial premise (you accept that everyone 'should' be sent to hell to be tortured for eternity, whereas I find that completely sadistic, and reject the premise as something only an evil being would implement), and partially the implication (that God cares more about you believing the right thing than doing the right thing, which seems bizarre at best to me).


Well, he certainly acts like he believes it.  He has some kooky views, true, but I see no reason to doubt he thinks he's doing God's will.


That's sort of the "faith alone" doctrine.  What you do doesn't matter, only what you believe.  If you accept Jesus as a sacrifice for your sins, you get into heaven.  That you murdered someone gets forgiven, that you protested at soldiers funerals gets forgiven, that you've done any number of horrible things gets forgiven, as long as you accept Jesus.  That's the "faith alone" doctrine.  It's not "claiming" christianity that matter, but believing it.  And I see no real reason to doubt that Fred Phelps really believes in what he's doing.  He's a nut, sure, but I think he's a sincere nut, not just pretending.


You're part right, and part wrong.  He was indeed chosen for his non-christian actions (or, perhaps "works" would be a better term), but I do really think him a christian for real.  That's why he was chosen, because he has faith but not works (in fairly extreme measures in both cases).  He's not "acting christian" but is "believing christian," if you will.  I chose him to illustrate an extreme example of having faith but not works, and hence someone who gets in to heaven by the "faith alone" doctrine.  The other examples were chosen to be the opposite:  having works but not faith, and hence sent to hell under the "faith alone" doctrine.




Right question or wrong, it'd be nice if you could answer it. ;)  Seriously, though, "would a God that prefers to hang out with Fred Phelps and send Ghandi to eternal torture give you any feelings of uneasiness?"  Even if you don't think that's the case of the God you believe in, it'd at least be good to know how you'd view such a god, to see if we share the same basic ideas about what would make a god good or not.

[emphasis added by Tycho]
You use the word "action" here, but are saying that it's faith rather than actions (ie, works) that matter when you get judged.  When we're being judged, what's actually getting weighed up isn't what we've done (remember, everyone, no matter what they've done goes to hell by default under this model.  No need to look at their actions), but what we believe.  And, as I've said already, that's not something we have control over.  You saying "you'll agree with the judgement" is sort of like me saying "you'll agree that I'm right later."  Whether it's true or not, it doesn't really add anything to the discussion because neither of us can prove it one way or the other.  We may as well just say "I'm right!" "no, I'm right!" if we're just going to assert our own rightness as part of our argument.

I would have to agree Fred Phelps is a Christian (at least for this discussion). The bible makes it clear that anyone who is baptized will be reborn, and I think it reasonable to assume Fred was baptized. Unless he has since rejected Jesus (which I think would be an unreasonable assumption. If he has rejected Jesus, it probably wasn't intentional, and I don't know that you can unintentionally reject Jesus).

I also suspect Fred may be psychologically disturbed and in need of medical help, and I don't have a problem with crazy people being blessed, fixed, and getting a free pass. However, for the sake of this discussion, there are plenty of non-crazy, but very mean Christians out there for whom this would not apply.

Ultimately, I really don't have a problem with mean Christians going to heaven. That whole deal is between them and God. My issue is with paradigm of virtue non-Christians going to Hell. Again to look at Ghandi, this is a man who said he would rather starve to death than see a person who is oppressing his country die. If that's not a Christian act, I don't know what is. And he was certainly exposed to Christianity and had a chance to reject it. Yet I am to believe that a man responsible for saving hundreds of millions from oppression, who defined restraint and self-sacrifice, is going to burn in Hell 'just because' and this is somehow justice?

So you didn't answer the question I posted to you about the context of the verse because you don't believe in salvation, and that's why you took a quote about a false prophet and used it towards salvation?

Did I misread that?

I understand samaritans are real in history. But the parable was a story to help understand who your neighbor was.

That doesn't seem to make much sense. Why would the bible argue for how good men are without faith?

Again, I say the context was how to determine who your neighbor is.



I'm claiming it seems there are other sources than just the bible used for these stances, since all of the sources you and I both mentioned have additional articles other than the bible which state the importance of works.

Still, the question I posed was does it seem reasonable that these other articles do influence the way they look at works?

This point remains regardless of any other stance, since all of them have specific statements, or articles that state clearly about the role of works in salvation. I posed the question about to point out how reasonable these articles influence the reading of the bible. It should seem fairly obvious they should influence reading the bible.

That's a fair question, we can look at the context verse by verse.

Keep in mind, we know there are verses that state specifically that salvation comes through faith. In the case of context, in the case of LDS, the bible is actually mistaken, or misread when it says that, right?

I'd like to see a response to the following verse, and why the LDS feel this passage is wrong, mistaken or misread?

Not without faith, but the good Samaritan was a good man despite his faith. And arguably, faith in nothing in particular is still faith.


Like which ones?  You keep misquoting the bible, then referring to these mysterious other sources.


I have absolutely no idea what rhetorical trap you're trying to set, so I'm just going to call a Non Sequitur Fallacy on that one and leave it.

As for your bible quote, did you finish reading it?

So, no matter what you think of salvation, you are still to do good works, for this is *your* purpose for which *you* were created, by *your* own cited holy verse.

  You asked about having more control over works, but not faith. Asking that the salvation should be based on the one thing you have more control is what made me suggest the question was wrong.

Is it a legitimate question? Sure, you could ask it. Considering the context, with a christian God stating the reason because it's not based on works, then I understand why you'd rather it be based on works, and not faith.

If I disagreed with a christian God, I'd rather it not be based on faith as well. I suspect there are some, maybe even many christians who'd agree with statement too. It's human nature to want to do it by your own abilities.


No, It doesn't mean that. It means you're applying a physical aspect to a spiritual concept.

  It should be summed up by stating, as a human with senses that are limited to the physical, you're going to have to trust something other than yourself to figure things past the physical senses.

So with spiritual progression, the idea of moving from this life as we know to another one requires a source other than oneself. (Unless oneself is God)

I submit one would read the bible for spiritual truth. Understandably, others will disagree.

No, I don't agree with the premise. I wasn't born a christian, nor raised into it. I became a christian.

Alright Cain. I see questions are not being responded to. I'll take it they are just not interesting or something. I guess I will stop asking you those questions then.





I never said works were bad. A christian is directed to do good works. Good works are a very good thing.

The context was what is needed for salvation, faith and not works.

I don't really see the problem as I don't think anyone said good works were not to be done.

Wrong and arbitrary from who's standards?

The rest of the post I will have to come back to.

First of all, I read your section, did you read mine?  Paul says explicitly that you need both at the very minimum.  Since I don't believe in salvation, that means you need faith even less.  It's works that count, even by the verse you cite.

Now, you're saying essentially that you can be Fred Phelps and have a higher quality of "salvation" than Mother Teresa.  There are multiple bible verses that contradict that, and many of Jesus's teachings-- not Paul, who by definition is of lesser importance than Jesus-- focus on doing good deeds instead of faith.

Ah, gotcha.  I didn't actually ask for salvation to be based on the thing we have more control over.  What asked was what does the fact that it isn't tell us about the issue.  I'm actually trying to get at the implications here, more than asking for it to be changed.


Not sure I follow you here.  When did God state the reason it's not based on works?  I saw what Paul said, but last I checked, he's not the christian God, no?  But even if we accept reason that it's not based on works "so that none can boast," why base it on faith instead?  And what does it tell us that it's based on something we don't control?  Would it have been just as well to base it on skin color or eye color or the like?  And does basing it on faith keep people from boasting anyway?  I would suggest it doesn't.


Perhaps so, but that's sort of a side issue.  What we want doesn't really come into play.  But we can learn something from what we're told the system is, I would posit.  That's more what I'm looking for here.  An examination of the implications a system that's based on something we can't control, rather than a simple "I like the system!" "I hate the system!" sound off.


Sounds like you're not understanding what I'm saying.  Sorry for not being clearer.  I'm not saying that its impossible for us to change our beliefs.  I'd guess that everyone here could come up with a counter example to such a proposition from their own lives.  So yes, if I were claiming such a thing, you having changed your beliefs would shoot down that idea very well.  That's not what I'm saying, though.  We can indeed change our beliefs.  The trouble is, when we do it, it's not an act of will.  It's not something we do on purpose.  It's an unintentional reaction to external events.  We don't will ourselves to do it, we don't make a conscious decision to do it, and it's not something we control.

You used your own conversion as an example, and I hope you don't mind if I carry on with it, as I think it actually illustrates my point very well.  If I recall correctly, your conversion came about when you were actively searching for contradictions in the bible to disprove Christianity.  You goal wasn't to change your beliefs and become a christian.  If anything, your intent was just the opposite.  Your change of belief wasn't an act of will on your part, it happened despite your intention to do just the opposite.

So if the "faith alone" doctrine is correct, you'll be saved because you now believe the right things.  But it's not because you sought out those beliefs.  It's not because you did anything right.  It was a result you were actually opposed to.  You were trying to do the exact opposite.  If you hadn't been so intent on disproving christianity you might never have looked into it further and ended up changing your mind.  Doesn't it seem a little odd to you that the intention on your part that would lead you to being saved was actually completely counter to christianity?  Doesn't it seem a bit strange that the system might end up punishing someone to eternal torment because they weren't quite as anti-christian as you were?

I'd guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you view it more as a reward for changing your view point.  But changing your view point wasn't your decision.  It wasn't what you set out to do.  It was an unintentional reaction.  A bit like blushing, perhaps.  Something you did despite what you wanted to do, rather than something you did on purpose.  It seems odd to me to reward such a thing.  Why reward someone for something they have no control over?  It's like rewarding something for being tall.  Or for being born at on a certain date.  It seems arbitrary to me.  Does it not seem at least a little bit like that to you as well?

I have to say, GMC, I'm not seeing that Paul says you need works in the quote you highlighted.  It says works are what we're created to do, so yes, he views them as a good thing.  But I don't see him saying they're necessary to salvation here.  And if you reject the premise of salvation, that sort of takes you out of the discussion from the get-go, no?  Whether you believe in salvation or not, you sort of have to accept the premise in order to really be involved in a discussion over whether works or faith are necessary for salvation.


In his defense, TitL hasn't said this.  I have, and I think it follows naturally from the "faith alone" position, but TitL hasn't claimed it, and seems to think otherwise.  Until we hear his reasoning on why he doesn't think it follows we can't really judge it.

In general, I think you might make more progress point out the "multiple bible versus that contradict that" that just stating that they exist.  TitL may not agree with your interpretation of them, but at least it'll lead to some discussion of the actual text on which the debate is founded, rather than both sides just asserting that they're right and that the bible backs them up.

Well, it's my opinion I suppose, which is all anyone can fall back on when discussing such things.  Even if we appeal to some other standard, it's still just our own opinion that that standard agrees with our interpretation.  But in any case, yes, I think it's wrong to subject people to infinite torture for any finite crime.  It's worse than anything any human has ever done, or is even capable of doing, since it's infinite and we're limited to finite effects.  To be honest, sending someone to hell is sort of by definition that worst possible thing that can be done.  Not just bad, but as bad as anything can be.  Nothing is worse.  Not murder, not genocide, not rape, nothing.  Doing it because someone didn't believe the right thing (something they don't have direct control over) seems very much wrong to me.

As for arbitrary, basing someone's fate on something they can't control seems very arbitrary to me.  It'd be like basing their salvation on their birthday, or their mother's maiden name, or the color of their eyes.


Cool, cool, no rush.  I may not be able to reply for a few days anyway, as I'll busier the next two or three days than I have the last few.

I still think the following biblical verses are good evidence that the Bible stands for the proposition that Faith is a Necessary, but not Sufficient, condition of salvation, and that works is another Necessary, but not Sufficient condition of salvation.

"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds." (Rom 2:5,6)

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (Rom 1:27)

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." (Rom 2:25)

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31)

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work..." (1 Pet 1:17)

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev 20:13)

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17)

"For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Rom 2:11-13)

I will take this one step further and say:

Salvation = Faith + Works + Proper Ordinance

Each of these is necessary but not sufficient by themselves.

Proper Ordinance means a saving ordinance (like baptism) performed by one who holds authority.  Thus, for example, the Catholics believe you cannot be saved unless you receive baptism by a priest who holds authority.  The LDS church believes the same thing.

The difference with the Evangelical/Protestant churches is that they believe that ordinance is just an outward manifestation of faith (including accepting Jesus) and does not require proper authority, or that authority is not necessarily passed from one who holds authority to another who holds authority.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:17, Mon 17 Oct 2011.

Seems like this discussion has died down, but I was looking back over Heath's versus, and realized that though he got James 2:17, he didn't mention the even more direct James 2:24 ("Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."), which seems to directly contradict the faith alone doctrine held by Paul.  Also James 2:14 asks "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?", which the rest of the chapter answers in the negative.  Also James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Seems like a pretty clear contradiction between Paul's view and James' to me.

For OT references, Ezekiel 18 has some stuff on James' side of the argument:


And also



On the other hand, I think Paul's position is crystal clear as well.  According to him, faith is all that matters.  Works aren't considered, and that's all there is to it.  The only real conclusion, in my view, is that James and Paul didn't agree on this.  They held difference views.  They're both in the bible, but they had theological disagreements about what got a person into heaven.   Maybe one's right, maybe the other's right, or maybe they're both wrong, but it doesn't really seem possible for them both to be right, since they contradict each other.

I disagree with your conclusion, Tycho.  James and Paul do not disagree.

Remember that Paul was writing epistles to explain how things worked, often to the gentiles who were newly converted.  So in their minds, they are thinking that if they just obey the commandments, they don't even need Jesus or salvation (or baptism, for that matter).

So the verse quoted above that says it is "by faith ye are saved" has another translation that says "by faith ye are saved, after all you can do" or something like that.

So Paul is saying that step one is to do everything you are supposed to to the best of your ability, but even then, you still need the grace of Christ because no one is perfect and only through Christ can the blemishes be taken away, and that comes through faith.  The two work in tandem and are not diametrically different concepts.

I dunno, Heath.  I think Paul's position is pretty clear.  Works don't save you.  Not at all.  None, nada, zilch.  Yes, you're supposed to do them, but not because they lead to salvation, but because God wants you to do them.  The view in James indicates a "you need both" position, but nothing in Paul's writing seems to indicate that your works in anyway impact your salvation.  Paul isn't saying "don't do good works," but he is saying "doing good works doesn't lead to salvation, and even so someone without any good works can still get salvation if they have faith."  James says you need to both, Paul says only faith counts.  I think we need to perhaps agree on what Paul's actually said, because you seem to be adding stuff that I don't recall being in there.

I agree that we need to agree on what was actually said by Paul.  Is there a particular quote you are referring to?  (I do always get concerned with quoting Paul because his epistles are not always as 100% reliable as other writings as to their content--and may have been subject to alteration, particularly around the time of the Council of Nicea.

Making the distinction between faith and works has been a large use of energy in my life and at some point I sort of read Galatians 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.", shrugged my shoulders and then moved on.

Faith is what saves, but the only way to know if you have that saving faith is through a life that oozes love.  So making the distinction, while important to scholars, is essentially meaningless for the practical life.

Some might claim that you can have this new agey touchy feely faith that has no action/love along with it and James says, Hey Now "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?"

Abhraham believed God and it was credited unto him as righteousnes, but then God tested his faith with the whole "slaughter your kid" deal.

Does faith alone save?  James (2:23) and Paul (Romans 3:27-4:5) both say "Hells yeah!"

But then they both take care to clarify that that faith is really only evidenced by works.

Messy stuff, but moving on from the distinction between the two was helpful for me at some point.  Probably would get me fired as a pastor since that's about 50% of Protestant lesson plans throw out the window, but it is what it is.

I think perhaps it's important to ask what the viewpoint is for this question as well.

For example, I might say "speed doesn't matter. You'll never drive to New York without gas. Even cars that are stopped have reached New York, as long as they have gas."
But Tycho might say, "a car that has fuel and is going to New York will gain speed in the process. All of the cars that made it to New York did it using fuel, and that fuel lead to speed."

We aren't exactly disagreeing. Tycho's is a more complete view, while mine is emphasizing only the most important detail to the operator.

I think this is the important statement.  This is how Paul demonstrates that works is essentially a subset of faith and is required, but not sufficient in itself, for salvation.  Faith can overcome your weakness, but if you don't behave in a way that demonstrates your faith (i.e., works), then you really don't have faith.

I can see that in Paul, but not at all in James.  James 2:24 is about as crystal clear as it can be on this, in my opinion:

It's not just a "works are good, and if you have faith you'll do works" line.  It specifically rejects the "faith alone" idea espoused by Paul.  Now, for someone trying to figure out whether they should do good works or not, or whether they need faith to get into heaven, the distinction is probably pretty trivial.  But if the question is whether or not Paul and James disagree on this point, I think it's pretty clear they do.  I get a bit frustrated when people say 'they're not actually disagreeing, they're just talking about different things' or the like, because it feels like people are trying to come up with some explanation or rationalization for something that's very simple, and doesn't really need it.  Two people disagreeing about something as nebulous as salvation shouldn't really be at all surprising, in my view.  They have different views, and that's okay!  By trying to force them to actually have the same view, I feel like we end up twisting their positions about into something other than what they actually said, and thus miss out on the more interesting (in my view) question of which, if any, of them was right, and why they had the views that they did.

The problem is that we are trying to separate two things that are inseparable to some extent.

Works alone implies no faith and can't get you anywhere.
Faith alone implies you don't do anything about it so you really must not have faith.
Works and faith combines the two.  One can build off of the other, but naturally if you have faith, then you believe all the writings of the prophets that say to get off your butt and do something about it.  :)