Now you're confusing me.

The point of the hypothetical is to entertain the possibility you're correct.  A bit of a straw man argument, I confess.  It's meant to illustrate the contradiction in *your* argument, that only faith matters.  You assume that heaven exists, I do not.

Remember the old John Lennon song: "Imagine there's no heaven... isn't hard to do."  That's the crux of my argument.  Only doing good things matters.

To throw a wee spanner in the works, lets consider the "faith only" position with some examples.

Fred Phelps, the guy with the "god hates fags" webpage and who protests at soldiers funerals.  I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks he's a pretty unpleasant guy.  But at the same time, I don't think anyone can really question his faith.  He believes he's doing God's work, and he's 100% convinced Jesus died for his sins.  He's got plenty of ideas that most christians think are contrary to the bible, but you can't really doubt that he believes.

Mother Teressa, as Katisara mentioned, or perhaps Ghandi.  Someone who clearly worked hard for others, and was a "good person" by any human standard, but who may not have believed in the whole Jesus story.

According to the "faith alone" theory, God would rather hang out with Fred Phelps than a doubtful mother Teressa or a Ghandi.  Not only would he rather not have Ghandi or mother Teressa around, He would prefer that they spend eternity in suffering worse than any torture ever experienced on earth.  If that doesn't cause at least some discomfort to you, I have a very hard time relating. Forgiving Fred Phelps I can handle, but not forgiving Ghandi or Mother Teressa at the same time, to me seems perverse.

I have to agree with Tycho.

BTW, I've read the Mother Teresa statements.  What she was saying, as I recall, is that she has days when she questions her faith, but that she has to do God's work that much more to gain her faith back.

In other words, she seems to agree that faith is an action...i.e., doing God's work.  In some conventional usage, there is a distinction made between "faith works" and "nonfaith works."  To have "faith," you must do faith works, meaning that your faith is demonstrated and built up by using it to do God's work and be righteous.  Nonfaith works would be the nonbelieve doing good deeds.  Then there are the faithful who do not do faith works, and they are not truly "faithful" since they are not exercising their faith by doing God's work.

I think this is consistent with the Catholic beliefs, ancient Christians, as well as LDS and other beliefs.  It is merely those following Martin Luther's teachings who tend to reject this kind of thinking.

In this sense, since Joseph Smith was brought up earlier, it would be interesting to compare Joseph Smith to Martin Luther.

Both said that the current churches were not doing things properly and had deviated from the right way.

Martin Luther created a new branch that spouted numerous religions (Protestantism).  Joseph Smith sought (and according to the LDS, received) revelation from God to found the Church of Christ -- later changed to the Community of Christ and finally to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to distinguish it from other churches with similar names.

Martin Luther's later beliefs are claimed to be his own interpretation of the scripture without claim to divine intervention; Joseph Smith's beliefs are claimed to be based on revelation from God to reestablish Christ's church as it was with the early Christian churches and to make way for continuing revelation.

Therefore, Joseph Smith was establishing a religion based on the original Christianity through revelation and Martin Luther was trying to take the Catholic beliefs back in time to a few hundred years A.D. and instill his own interpretations.  The Catholic Church was established through the Council of Nicea a few hundred years A.D. and has undergone a number of changes throughout the centuries but does make claim to divinity and is thus justified in change, just like the LDS church.  The Protestant churches have various interpretations and changes because they cling to the belief that only faith is really necessary.

Okay, he was a pastor who was a scholar and a teacher.  It was a show on the Discovery Channel looking at the writings of Paul.  My point is simply to show that I am not presenting a solely LDS point of view.  It's also pretty apparent to any casual reader.

Neither would I, but that doesn't mean everything I say, or he said, is the Word of God.

That's not the problem.  The problem is when every word is dissected so much that the big picture gets lost, such as who he was talking to, what was the context, and how did he intend the writing to be taken.

Okay, but I showed many more Biblical quotes saying that works is necessary.  The point of faith vs. works is that you can't boast in your works as saving you because even after you do your best, you still need faith and grace.  So works is important.

As we would say in logic, works is necessary but not sufficient.


That's not how I used it.  You won't know a Christian if they don't have works, so such a person is not truly a Christian at all.

How does the verse go?  "Thou shalt know them by their fruits."  It's the standard: you won't know if someone is good by watching what they believe, but rather by what they do.  So, the bible makes it clear that works are more important than faith, since that's the test of a good person.

I have to come back to some posts, but the quick response about knowing them from their fruits wasn't about salvation.

Would it seem reasonable that the context of knowing someone by their fruits was the ability to tell if they were christian?



Reading the verses, what do you think the context is? You can tell if the prophet is false or true by their faults, agree or disagree?

Is anyone using this verse to determine works can show if they have salvation? If so, how or why are you using that context?

Still confused, you allowed for the possibility that heaven existed, but discounted the possibility faith is important because why?

Just to be clear, you stated that if heaven existed, and faith did matter, then you concluded faith would not matter because you don't feel heaven exists. That's a contradictory statement, isn't it? Did I summarize your position incorrectly? I'm fine in starting over, because I still don't understand your explanation for the contradiction.


I don't have any problems understanding you do not feel heaven exists and that christianity is incorrect in their views.

To be clear, you are asking if someone is genuine in their belief, and that all views even if not correct, as long as they are believed, they are considered good?

Like if I really believed that it was good to eat unicorns and poop out rainbows to get to heaven, that is the same as really believing that it is required to feed the hungry to get to heaven?

I know, but an opinion from you and this other guy doesn't eliminate God's word through the letters Paul wrote.

I don't really think there's any disagreement on this. I'm just clarifying it is God's word, and it was kept despite what Paul or anyone else says.

I agree, but the things where it does say Faith alone is enough for salvation is part of God's word.
I did point out that LDS do use other books to come to these ideas. For example, you as a LDS believe that the bible is correct only when given a view that is consistent with LDS beliefs. Is that agreeable?

As a christian, I don't feel the big picture is lost, since the bible and archeology has literally tens of thousands of documents and articles to compare to.
I disagree that you did. But more importantly, I think everyone knows you can't be both left and right at the same time. Either you can have salvation with faith alone, or you cannot. Since the bible does say you can have salvation by faith alone, then clearly it cannot be discounted.

I agree that is logical. It is actually going against the worldly ways to say otherwise.

</quote> You took a quote about knowing if a person was a true christian, and said works is significant to salvation. You even pointed out it being wrong to cherry pick my verses to mean something else.

I was just pointing out the verse didn't apply to salvation, and the context was wrong when your subject was works and salvation.

No.  I'm saying that even if heaven and christianity were true, faith would still not matter.  Again, jesus said: "Thou shalt know them by their fruits."  A good nonbeliever doing good works will have good fruits, while a faithful man with no works will have no fruit at all.

Your view is the contradiction.  You say only faith matters, and works are irrelevant.  But there are numerous places in the christian bible that clearly state the opposite.

Maybe look back at post 47. The context of that verse was about determining a true prophet from a false prophet.

Agree disagree?


I don't think I'll worry about the contradiction anymore. I had some questions from earlier, and since they aren't being brought up, I'm guessing this isn't something open to discussion.

With the bible and verses about salvation, you could show me some where it clearly states the opposite of faith leading to salvation.

Actually, the context of the verse was determining a false teacher or minister.  Since there is an explicit commandment that all christians are to be teachers and ministers, it applies to just about everyone.  In fact, there's a popular church based on just that idea.

I'll also refer you to the parable of the good Samaritan.  He was good because of works, not faith.

As for more specific verses, Heath and others have done a good enough job of stomping your argument into the ground that I feel there's little more I need to add.  If you want to argue that neither is sufficient by itself, I'll entertain that one; but then we'll still be faced with the question of which faith produces superior works.

Why do you say false teacher or minister when it says prophet in the bible?

But regardless, why did you bring up how to determine a false teacher as a way to determine salvation?


Go on, tell me why you think that man did works and had no faith?

Well, respectfully, we have to agree to disagree that the bible has been squashed on this issue. Clearly there are a lot of people who feel salvation is through Faith. Heath mentioned Evangelical christians as one group that might have this belief.

Why would such a large group of many different denominations come to a conclusion that differs from catholic, or LDS, or Islam? Would it seem reasonable that things other than the bible are used for support of that conclusion, or it unreasonable to say that they have other sources to support that stance?

Because, if you understand Hebrew, the word "prophet" was more or less synonomous with religious teacher.  Here, look it up for yourself at Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prophet


Because he was a *Samaritan*, not a Jew.  There is a difference, you know. The parable was meant to illustrate that he did good works not because he had the same faith, but rather despite it.


And as we step away from one faith and into many, I'll point out that not every religion believes in salvation.  Numerically speaking, they're actually in a slight minority IIRC.  Hinduism and Buddhism strongly believe in good works over simple piety, so I'd say that there isn't the support you claim.

You're also conflating christian denominations with Islam, when they're separate religions; and you accused Mormonism of not being a christian denomination earlier.  There's another contradiction for you.

In the end, we are judged by our works, not our faith.  You may have the strongest faith in the world, the "faith that moves mountains"; but like Katisara's monk on the mountain example, unless it's put into action it's so much mental masturbation.

No.


No.  Under the "faith alone" doctrine, only one belief matters at all.  If you answer yes to the "do you believe Jesus died for your sins, and do you accept that sacrifice" question, then you're in.  Doesn't matter what you believe about anything else, right or wrong.  If you believe that and think you need to eat unicorns and poop rainbows to grow a beard, you're in.  If you believe it, and also believe that 2+2=7 you're in.  All your other beliefs, whether correct or not, are irrelevant to your salvation.  It's just one question.  And on that one question, Fred Phelps gets into heaven, even though he believes plenty of other stuff that most people think contradict the bible.  Even though he does lots of things that most people think contradict the bible.  He gets into heaven by his faith in Jesus' sacrifice, and that's all.  Nothing else is considered.  Likewise for Ghandi.  He's a non-christian, so he doesn't get in.  His other beliefs, no matter how much they might agree with Jesus' teaching, never get considered.  His actions, no matter how in line with Jesus' teachings, never get considered.  That's what "faith alone" means.  And as I said before, the implication is that God thinks its best if Ghandi spend eternity in torment, while Fred Phelps gets eternity in paradise.  That doesn't sound like Justice or Mercy to me, it sounds like cronyism.

To shake things up a bit further:

I think we all agree that our actions are under our own control.  And thus, our works are under our own control.  Not much controversy there, I think.

If I say that our beliefs are not under our control, I imagine I'll get some strong disagreement.  But I would say this is an easily testable hypothesis.  If our beliefs are under our own control, we can change them at will.  If you believe that our beliefs are under our own control, try it.  Pick something you believe very strongly, and simply will yourself into believing it's not true.  Convince yourself that gravity is going to stop working, say.  Or convince yourself that your religion is false (don't worry, you can change right back afterwards).  Or convince yourself that 2+2=7.  If belief is under your control, all it takes to do these things is an act of will, a simple decision.  If you can't do it (and I certainly can't), that would seem to imply that belief isn't under your own control.

If belief isn't under our own control, and works are, what does that say about the faith and works debate?

That particular line is, but the metaphor is used repetitively. Barren trees being cut back, vineyards which produce or don't, servants investing talents. It's pretty clear Jesus is saying "you'll be judged on production".

I think you missed the question I posted to you about even if a reference to a teacher, who did you take a verse about determining a false prophet from a true prophet as a way to tell for salvation?

Who was a Samaritan? It was a parable, the Samaritan would not even exist. The context was to determine your neighbor, not to show a character had salvation through their works.

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?

I was asking about the differences between the way they look at salvation, and how it's different than an evangelical group.

How does that contradict anything I said/posted?



I guess that is why we are discussing it, and that people come to different conclusions.

To be short, if you earlier asked if they get to heaven because of their faith, and now you're saying they don't get to heaven because their faith was lacking according to the christian bible, doesn't that answer your question?


Your next question is about Fred Phelps, and I am wondering why you think he is saved, and Ghandi is not?

That you are probably asking the wrong question.

Using worldly logic to determine spiritual progression?

I wasn't asking if they get to heaven based on their faith.  That's the "faith alone" doctrine.  I'm saying, "if we accept that this is true, what are the consequences?"  And I pointed out that one of the consequences would be that Fred Phelps gets into heaven (because he has the required faith), but Ghandi, or a doubtful mother Teressa doesn't (because they don't).  Not only do they not get into heaven, they get tortured for eternity (or experience something worse than torture, if you don't like that wording).  I'm suggesting that should make us a little uncomfortable.


Under the "faith alone" doctrine, Fred Phelps is saved because he believes in Jesus and accepts him as a sacrifice for his (Fred's) sins.  All the other kooky stuff he believes and does don't fit into it.  Ghandi, on the other hand, was Hindu, so doesn't get into heaven under the "faith alone" doctrine.

You seem to doubt this from your question, but just to avoid getting stuck in a side-debate, let's just go straight to the question: "would a God that prefers to hang out with Fred Phelps and send Ghandi to eternal torture give you any feelings of uneasiness?"

[Edited per mod request]  I don't believe in salvation, remember?  I believe that this is the test for discovering if someone is a good person.  A good person deserves a better afterlife, regardless of what they believe.


{Edited per mod request]  Samaritans are real people, they actually exist.  A Samaritan is a member of the Samar tribes, who also have a monotheistic faith but do not worship as the Jews do.

The context of the parable is to show that good men exist no matter what their faith is.


Other than futilely trying to defend your position, I have no idea what you're asking anymore.  Please clarify.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:28, Fri 14 Oct 2011.

Moderator Post

GMC, you're being unnecessarily aggressive in your last post.  No need for calling anyone names"  Those are personal attacks, and don't move the discussion forward.  Please modify your post, and refrain from using such attacks in the future.

EDIT--thanks for changing the post.
This message was last edited by the GM at 08:26, Sun 16 Oct 2011.

I have to take issue with this statement.  In fact, the argument has three alternatives, and you engage in a logical fallacy by presuming there is only one:

1) Are these other religions using something beyond the Bible for their interpretation (which could be other books, sources, personal prayer or revelation, etc.) (This it TitL's position.)

2) Are the Evangelicals (or other people relying only on faith and not works) ignoring parts of the Bible to support their view?  (This is my position and why I posted Biblical passages showing that the Bible supports works and faith combined.)

3) Is the text ambiguous enough that two different interpretations are reasonable?  (I'm sure many would also argue this.)

There may be a fourth or fifth, but those were the three I came up with.

Was thinking about this reply a bit more.  At first it seemed like just a "well if you don't see it my way, you're doing it wrong" comment, but I've been trying to figure out if there's more to it than that.

What do you mean I'm "asking the wrong question?"  Is "do we have any control over being saved?" not a legitimate question to ask?  Is it out of bounds for some reason?

You seem to imply that using "worldly" logic is inappropriate here.  Does mean you're saying "sure, it's illogical, but that's okay, God can be illogical if He wants?"  Are you saying there's some other type of logic I should be using instead of the "worldly" type you mention?  What do you feel we should be using to "determine spiritual progression?"  And what do you mean by "determine spiritual progression" exactly.  I was coming at it from a "does the system proposed make any sense" angle.  Do you feel that's not the proper angle to approach it?

All that said, do you agree with the premise laid out in the post your replied to?  That we can control our actions, but our beliefs cannot be change simply by willing them to change?