It comes partially from the book of Revelation;
God will try the works of those who have made it to Heaven by fire. If their works are holy, good, non-selfish, etcetera, they will come out as gold, silver and precious stones, and be eternal rewards.

BUT, if they are bad works, then their deeds will come out as wood, hay and stubble.

There are also "Crowns" that we would receive as rewards in Heaven. Also, I believe that the Parable of the Talents were talking about literal cities we would get in Heaven for our service to him.

In reply to Kathulos (msg #15):

But we don't know how long she doubted god.  Or if she had done so her entire years of service, and simply went through the motions.

And to the hundreds of thousands she helped, it didn't matter.  It wasn't her faith, but her works, that changed the world.

And yet, it wasn't her works that got her to Heaven, so it doesn't matter how long she doubted.

These two segments seem to be in disagreement. She worked whether she doubted or not. But I do wonder, do you think her rewards would have been different if she had worked while in doubt for ten years, rather than one year?

Ah, but I don't accept heaven.

I accept that she changed the world, through works.  Her faith is irrelevant when compared to that fact.  I believe that if there is an afterlife, she deserves a very comfortable place in it-- thanks to her works, not her lack of faith.

If we accept your doctrine about different placements in heaven, then she might end up someplace downwind of the equivalent of the latrines... because she didn't believe.  Somehow, I don't find that at all palatable.

Maybe not. Her faith in Jesus is what got her there, and even if she did doubt, it was probably her belief in Jesus that fueled her good works to start with.

That does not follow.  There are many who believe in Jesus who do outright evil works, and many who do not who have saintly works.

Yes, that's true. However, Salvation is only concurrent in those who have accepted Jesus by trusting in him as their Savior. Once someone accepts Jesus, their conversion is a genuine change of their spiritual nature from being spiritually dead to being spiritually alive. Thus, for those of us who have done well as Christians, it was possibly only because of what God has done for us.

Now, some may be pagan and do outright evil or saintly acts, but the difference is, that the only way to Heaven is by trusting God to get there in the manner he prescribed. :shrug:

Again, I don't accept heaven.

As far as I can tell, those who are "spiritually alive" are the ones who are working to make the world a better place for their fellow humans.  This happens regardless of professed faith.  The reverse is also true: those people who do not work for  a better world in many ways are "spiritually dead", regardless of what they profess.

In fact, if non-christians are capable of doing good acts without the intercession of god, doesn't that mean they're better people in the first place?

That's my point.  If he didn't sin, then he didn't need to be saved.  Therefore, his works were sufficient.  He did not need faith.

Kathulos says Jesus is God and didn't need to be saved.  So for God, faith is not required, but for man faith is required.  I'm not seeing how "being saved" and "having faith" are the one and the same thing.  God did not need faith if he is himself because he can simply go by the old standby:  "I think; therefore, I am."  :)  Did God need to be saved?  That's a different question.  If he didn't sin, he didn't need to be saved because his works were sufficient.

And what exactly is "being saved"?  I hate when people throw that term around because it is not really defined; it's more of a modern day colloquialism.  Different religions have very different interpretations of what being saved means, as well as whether there are different tiers of being saved, as Paul suggests.

If "works are a result of faith" then Jesus never had works at all because he needed no faith.

Regarding Ephesians 2, that is put there to tell us that no one is perfect, so no matter how hard you try, you cannot get into heaven; therefore, grace is needed.  But this does not tell you that works is not important, simply that you should not be prideful because that in itself is a sin.

First, the LDS Church is a Christian church.

Second, the problem with Evangelical churches is often they take Paul too literally.  I heard one pastor state that Paul would never have written some of the epistles had he known they would be dissected and held to so firmly as scripture instead of the writings of a man to various peoples.  (Paul never claimed those were the writings of God.)

Third, the implication of faith versus works in the LDS church is not at all inconsistent with the Bible.  In fact, until recent times where sin became more acceptable in society, sin (i.e., works) was a really big deal--and still is in Catholicism and other traditional Christian religions.  More lately, the Evangelical churches state that sin is not very relevant so long as you have been "saved" by accepting Christ.

I argue that this latter opinion is inconsistent with the Bible and Christian tradition--not just LDS tradition.

Also, from the pure perspective of logic and interpetation, what we do on earth is important beyond just the aspect of having faith and getting baptized.  To say all that is essentially meaningless just doesn't make sense to me.

I will say, however, that if you truly have "faith" you will exercise faith through your works.  As the Bible says, "through their works will ye know them."  Therefore, picking and choosing a few select passages of the Bible to justify a position that what you do on earth is not significant to your salvation is contextually disconcerting and overall contradictory to the Bible...we might as well just throw out the ten commandments too, if that is the case.

The point is this:  you have to do your best to follow Christ, but no matter how hard you try, you will still need his grace for salvation.

From the pure historical perpsective, it was Martin Luther who espoused "sola fide" (faith alone) in breaking off from the Catholic Church.  He based his precepts primarily on Paul's writings in Romans.  Therefore, this idea of faith alone is a relatively new concept and is not really consistent with Catholicism or other early Christian belief systems.

The problem with the "faith alone" doctrine is that Paul doesn't even espouse that idea in Romans:

"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)

See also:

"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)

These make clear that God's acceptance of an individual is contingent upon his good works.

Then there is also the similar admonishment in James as in Romans:

"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)

Anyway, I think it is clear throughout the Bible that faith alone is insufficient.

Heath, google Walter Martin Forum  . . . You'd like it there. I"m known as ActRaiser there.

From the little I read there, it is based on trying to put down Mormonism.  As such, what I saw wasn't even accurate.  That's the problem with sites dedicated to negativity.  They rarely represent the truth and are often presented by people who have no interest in the truth, very little depth of understanding about the religion they are trying to derail, and are not objective at all.

That's what I saw over there about Mormonism...

Seems slightly contradictory.

If there is no heaven, her works count for nothing in the afterlife.

Then it comes up that she might gain less for her works because of lack of faith. Essentially, she is getting a reward based on her works, and not her faith (or rather her lack of faith).

Essentially, I'm  reading if there is an afterlife, you want to be rewarded for your works if good. But if your faith counts, then it's unfair.

It's like you want the benefits, but none of the penalty. Not an unusual thing, as most of us want what benefits us, but not the responsibility.

It doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. Imagine for instance I'm raised Hindu, and I never really encounter Christianity. However, I'm a genuinely good person, and I strive to help people at every turn. Just because I never accepted Christ, does that mean my work, clear evidence of my being a good and moral person, are worthless? THAT seems contradictory. (LDS at least explains this by offering the opportunity to accept God after death, but I've never heard any other Christian churches accept that.)

You are referring to the idea that there's a christian God, but no hindu gods, and that this hindu is a very good person with lots of good works, but has no faith that Jesus died for him, and as such did not accept Jesus's sacrifice for his sins.

Did I rephrase your idea correctly?

Because I would agree with you that every single other faith or belief does want our actions rewarded, and/or to be rewarded for just being our good selves.

To further state it, I think only the bible would state the idea about faith being the only requirement for salvation. I think that goes against something that a "human nature" might desire for an afterlife.

The contradictory part I referred to is that it was said they do not believe in heaven, and as such feel faith is valueless. However, it was added if there is a heaven, then faith still doesn't matter as much as works.

The problem being if there is a heaven, then faith does matter, right?

I think this is one of those agree to disagree moments. When you say christian, and I say christian, we mean different things.

People say a lot of things, and being a pastor doesn't really mean they are qualified to determine what Paul would or wouldn't have written if Paul knew what would be recorded.

Paul wouldn't need to claim it was the word of God to make it the word of God.

So respectfully, I don't see this as a problem to Evangelical churches or any church for that matter to read the bible and see what it speaks of faith and salvation.

I have already shown references from the bible showing where it specifies that works are not important, so that none can boast.

I would agree that ideas on salvation, works and faith have changed over the years.

However, I think due to combining history, and research of the texts have left us with a better understanding of what actually happened, when compared to what research and understanding they might have had 100 or 200 or more years ago. I think it reasonable that views change as more information comes to light, and not inconsistent.



I didn't say meaningless. We're talking what is required for salvation in this instance.



Out of context. You took a quote, such as knowing a christian through their works, as a quote to support salvation through works. When that quote was referring how to recognize a christian. It wasn't how to recognize salvation.

I agree that the grace of God allows for salvation.

You're discussing a hypothetical and a position.

My position is that heaven probably doesn't exist, not in the christian sense of the word, so faith is irrelevant.  Only works matters.

The hypothetical is that heaven does exist, and only faith matters.  But even if that's the case, heaven is by definition the afterlife, and only actions in this life get you into heaven.  That means faith still doesn't matter, since merely having faith is utterly useless if it doesn't translate into visible change, into actions.

In either case, faith really doesn't matter.  It's a form of mental masturbation.  Doing something to change the world-- tangible works, to make the world a better place-- are all that really matter.

Now that's just innapropriate.

What, that it's by works, and not faith, that the world will be saved?  Sorry, it's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Ahem.

"Mental masturbation" is a common term used in intellectual debate for a line of thinking that's self-congratulatory in nature.  I don't apologize for using intellectual terms, and I wonder why you perceived it as sexual?

I think why he would perceive it as sexual is pretty straightforward :P However, I'm also familiar with the phrase used in that context; it's any action you do on your own, that makes you feel better, but doesn't actually make you a better person or help the world around you. And indeed, I can imagine the monk on the mountaintop exemplifies this; he's separated himself from the world, he no longer contributes to those around him who are suffering. He spends all his time in his own headspace. Whether God is real and in a relationship with him or not, the fact that he is sitting their basking in his image of God rather than working God's work would seem to be a selfish position.

I understand that you feel the christian view is incorrect.

This confuses me. If you say we're talking about the idea that heaven exists and faith matters, you still say that can't be because only works count.

It's contradictory.

Maybe you could rephrase to to show the situation as you describe it. You started off by saying the hypothetical is that heaven does exist, and only faith matters, but you reversed your statements without explaining anything other than you don't believe it, so it can't be possible.