Is salvation by faith or by works?
I have studied this topic for years, and the fruits of my study has allowed me to see it much more clearly--in a way that answers to any scripture. There is a very simple answer to it, as there should be, but there is a much more complex answer for those who wish to study it. I will begin and end with the simple answer and give a more detailed answer in between.
The simple answer is this... What we do (faith, repentance, baptism, endure to the end) QUALIFIES us for a salvation we cannot earn for ourselves. We do not earn salvation (satisfy the demands of justice), nor can we. This is stated in the 3rd and 4th articles of faith as well as the scriptures. Again, clearly there is something we must do to qualify for a salvation we cannot earn. Now for the in between as we find in the scriptures.
In 1 Cor 6: 9 we read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” This seems like an open and shut case to me. It is a simple statement. Yet the prevailing belief today is that we only need believe in Christ. Whether we strive to be righteous or not is beside the point.
Even though the idea of how one is saved has changed through the ages, the LDS are criticized for their varying from todays most common belief, claiming falsely that we believe we must earn our way to heaven. As will be seen here, this can easily become a Bible-bashing contest with no winner.
Throughout Judeo-Christian history, salvation has been centered on what we do as well as what we believe. In comparatively more recent history, Christian churches also continued to believe that salvation comes through the grace of God but that God expects us to demonstrate our faith by performing good works, such as baptism. Though the concept of works was challenged by some of the Reformers, most Protestant churches nevertheless continued to admonish good works and to practice baptism and confirmation since the Reformation.
In recent decades however, more and more Christian groups have come to believe on grace alone, contending that baptism (a work), while permitted, is unnecessary for salvation, and that good works, though technically unnecessary, are a gift of the Spirit that comes to believers after they have accepted Christ.
Today this issue has become one of the most prevalent topics among different Christian denominations—the relationship between “faith” and “works” (also known as grace and works) and how they affect our salvation. Although we see the words grace and faith often used interchangeably, we shall see there is a profound difference between the two.
Often the understanding for Evangelicals of “salvation by works” is that it is something erroneous that someone might attempt before or instead of coming to Christ. For Latter-day Saints “salvation by works” is a positive term for serving and obeying Christ as a result of conversion to Him, not unlike their own beliefs. Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals often are talking about different things even though they use the same terms. Unfortunately, however, Evangelical antipathy to the term “salvation by works” (as they define it) is such that if the term even comes up, it ends the discussion and poisons the well—though the LDS usually mean something completely different than they are thinking.
Generally speaking, one Christian group states that we are saved only through "faith" and that our salvation is not dependent on any "works" we may or may not perform. The other point of view, whose group is sometimes called Armenians, states that salvation requires both faith and works; one without the other leaves us incomplete and unacceptable for God's gift. Let's look at both of these points of view a little closer as well.
The first group uses as its reasoning the words of the Apostle Paul, mostly to the Romans and Ephesians. In speaking about how we gain salvation, Paul wrote, "And if [salvation comes] by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work" (Romans 11:6). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8, 9). Notice in this scripture it is said we are saved by grace, through faith.
According to these scriptures, Paul states that salvation is a "gift of God." A gift is usually defined as something received without having to pay for it. It is not something we have worked for, or even necessarily deserve. A gift requires nothing in return, and is voluntarily given out of love for the person who receives it. A gift, then, is something we get for free.
It is said that Paul further explained that if we have to do any "works" –that is, if we have to do something, or perform some act or deed in order to receive salvation, then God's gift is not something we get for free, but becomes something we have earned and therefore deserve. If that's the case, we can boast that we have earned our own salvation, thereby eliminating the need for Christ's atonement.
According to this understanding of the scriptures, it is unnecessary to be baptized, or go to church, or read the scriptures, or do good towards others in order to receive God's gift of salvation. That doesn't mean that works are unimportant, but they are completely irrelevant when it comes to how a person becomes saved.
The most often quoted scripture used to describe how we obtain salvation is, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) The explanation given of this verse is that salvation comes simply by believing that Jesus is our personal Savior. No other condition is attached, no ceremonies are required, no deeds are necessary and no other action is mentioned--not even the need for faith. The only condition to receive this "gift of God" is a sincere, heart felt, proclamation of belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ.
The Apostle Paul further explained it this way, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10) When Paul and his missionary companion were imprisoned in the town of Philippi, the jailer asked them, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 30, 31)
We should understand that such a saving belief comes from exercising one's faith, as given in Ephesians 2:8 above. Therefore, to truly "believe" in Jesus Christ must lead one to have "faith" in Jesus Christ. With such examples, it may seem logical to conclude that salvation comes only through faith alone and not by any works on our part.
Those who support this concept of salvation often go even further. To some, it is their contention that anyone who teaches that works are as necessary as faith to gain salvation, are actually relying on themselves alone and denying the atonement of Jesus Christ, and have, in effect, denied their faith in Him. According to these people, those who teach that we must have both "faith" and "works" are teaching false doctrine, which is akin to blasphemy; and those who speak blasphemy are not entitled to salvation.
Further, many in this Evangelical belief system would contend that once one is “saved” he is always and forever saved, no matter what he does with his life from that point on. This Calvinist doctrine is known as the irresistibility of grace, or “once-saved-always-saved.” If one does commit a grievous sin after being “saved,” the claim is one of two things. (1) This person never was really saved in the first place, or (2) God may be displeased, but salvation would not be in jeopardy. It is on this point that Evangelicals and Latter-Day-Saints truly part ways. (1Cor 6:9, Gal 5:4; 2 Pet 2:21; 3:17)
The second group with a seemingly opposite point of view of the “saved by faith alone” group also has its basis in the scriptures. The same Apostle Paul told the Philippians, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12) He tells us in Hebrews 5:9 that Jesus is, “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” The Apostle James asked, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? Even so faith, if it hath not works is dead, being alone. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone." (James 2:14,17,24) According to these scriptures, it would appear that in order for a person to be saved, they must have both faith and works; one without the other cannot save a person.
To further illustrate this concept, it was Jesus Himself who said, "He that believeth in me and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) Since baptism is considered a "work", Jesus has linked "faith" (believing in him) with "works" (being baptized) as necessary to receive salvation. Note that Jesus also indicates that when one of these conditions is missing (in this case belief), salvation is not granted. Since one does not get baptized without first believing, the converse is also implied - belief without works is just as damning.
If a confession of faith is all that is necessary without doing any works, why would Jesus make the statement, "Not everyone 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 7:21)
So we see that there seems to be two opposing points of view, both of which seem to be equally supported by the scriptures. Which one is the correct view and which one misunderstands the words of the Bible? Can we find harmony between these scriptures? Obviously, our salvation hangs on the answer to that question.
Now consider these two verses: "By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Romans 3:20) Clearly, this one seems to say that doing something is not what justifies us in God's sight. However, earlier Paul made this comment to the Romans: "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law." (Romans 2:13)
These two statements, made by the same person, seem to contradict each other. In fact, both of these scriptures were written in the same letter less than one page apart! Which is it? Are we justified by doing the law or by not doing the law? Was Paul mixed up when he wrote these verses or is there an explanation?
Commenting on the faith or works issue, I will use quotes from the well-known and widely accepted Christian commentator C. S. Lewis. Speaking on this issue in general, he has said, “It is like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.” Did C. S. Lewis correctly understand Ephesians 2?
One key to understanding this confusion is given in Romans 9: 31, 32. "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law." First, it should be realized that the "law" spoken of here is the Law of Moses, and the works of the law refer to the deeds, ordinances and acts that are required to be performed by this law.
On Mount Sinai, the Lord gave Moses considerably more than just Ten Commandments. The last twenty chapters of the Book of Exodus, as well as most of the Book of Leviticus and the first ten chapters of Numbers contain specific commandments relating to almost every facet of life. The amount of commandments contained in the Law of Moses is mind-boggling. Throughout the centuries, more rules were added to this list in an attempt to help people keep the Law of Moses more faithfully.
Because of the emphasis on keeping this Law, the Jews became obsessed with the mechanics of performing the many commandments. By the time of Jesus, the Pharisees, in particular, were more concerned with preserving the ritual of the Law than in understanding the intent behind them. It was as though the very act of doing what they thought God had commanded was all that mattered. To them, it was doing the act itself that made them holy in God's sight and not whom they were doing it for and why.
We must remember that the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached first to these Jews. Although many of them accepted Christ as being the promised Messiah, most still felt that salvation came by going through the motions of these ritualistic observances contained in the Law of Moses, i.e. circumcision, sacrifices at the Temple, observing certain feast days, etc. And there was good reason to feel that way because Jesus never said that the Law of Moses was obsolete.
The Bible does not invalidate the Law of Moses. It's true that some of the rules men had added (the ceremonial/ritual law) were criticized, but not the Law itself (the moral law). It is also true that the law was “fulfilled” in Christ. But being fulfilled is not the same as being done away. Jesus himself said, “I am not come to destroy the law…but to fulfill.” (Matt 5:17) It was not Jesus’ intention to do away with the basic or moral Law of Moses, for there was nothing wrong with that law. Rather, he wanted to put it in a different perspective, in the light of the higher law. He wanted to give them the law of the gospel. The Law of Moses is encompassed within the Law of the Gospel in the same way that red and the colors of the rainbow are a set and subset of each other. For example, the law forbids murder, but Jesus taught us to avoid its cause, hatred. (Matt 5:21-26) The law forbids sexual sins, but Jesus taught us to avoid lustful thoughts. (Matt 5:27-32) Animal sacrifice was done away and replaced by, “a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” The requirement of circumcision was done away, but the commandments, including the famous “Ten” stayed in tact.
Therefore, initially the Christian Jews rightfully kept the entire Law of Moses, as did the apostles; although they did, under the direction of the apostles, begin to keep it in light of the higher law and do away with the ritual law. Paul was clear in his understanding of this, although not all the apostles were until it was confirmed in Acts 15, as Peter reaffirms his revelation which caused a change in the church’s status on the Gentiles. Although Acts 15 does not condemn the law itself, but only the requirement of the Gentiles to follow certain aspects of it. They were still required to, “Abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:20) In other words, the Gentiles were not required to become Jews before they became Christians.
If the church was still required to obey the moral law, then why does it seem that Paul speaks out so strongly against it? Asked another way, why should the Christianized Jews suddenly not follow the Law of Moses any more? What justification would they have had to disobey the Law God had commanded all Israel to follow? Is there no clear reason? (There may be a clear reason, but not in Biblical history. In 3 Nephi 15:5-9 we see that the law (of sacrifice) was ended in Christ, but the Prophets and commandments were not destroyed. If Jesus taught this to the Nephites, then he may have taught it to the Jews. (see also 3 Nephi 12:19-20) Though not necessary to prove the argument at hand, we will assume the Biblical tradition.) Why, in some of his letters, does Paul seem so outspoken in his condemnation of the Christian Jews keeping the Law? As we shall see, the answer to that question is that it was not what they were doing, but why they were doing it.
It may help us understand this what and why in obedience as we look at a strikingly similar situation in the Old Testament. God Himself was just as critical of the Jews in their observance of the Law of Moses some seven hundred years before Jesus for the exact same reason. He said, "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord; I have had enough of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he goats. Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of your assemblies, I cannot endure; it is iniquity, even the solemn assemblies. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they are an oppressive burden unto me; I am weary of bearing them. And when you spread forth your hands in prayer, imploring help, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1:11,13-15)
No more prayers? This is mind-boggling. Who was it that commanded Israel to offer burnt sacrifices of rams and fed beasts? Who was it that instructed the people to spill the blood of bulls, lambs and male goats? Who was it that explained the use of incense in the Temple of God? Who was it that instituted the new moons, the sabbaths, and the solemn assemblies? Who was it that taught the necessity of prayer? All of these things were commandments from God contained in the Law of Moses. Then why does God tell the Jews that all of these things are an abomination to Him? If the people were doing what God had told them, why does God then condemn them for doing it?
The answer is found in the following verses beginning with 19 of the same chapter of Isaiah. The Lord told the people, "If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. [Look] how the faithful city [Jerusalem] has become an idolatrous harlot, she who was [once] full of justice! Uprightness and right standing with God once lodged in her, but now murderers. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves; every one loves bribes and runs after rewards. They judge not the fatherless nor defend them, neither does the cause of the widow come to them." (Isaiah 19-21,23)
The people of Isaiah's time had become wicked and ungodly, yet they still went to the Temple and offered up sacrifices according to the Law of Moses. However, instead of it symbolizing their faith in God, it meant nothing to them; it was just a meaningless ritual. They observed the sabbath by not doing any work, but on Sunday they bitterly argued with their neighbor, on Monday they lied to their employer, on Tuesday they coveted their neighbor's wife, on Wednesday they stole from a stranger, on Thursday they bore false witness, on Friday they despised the poor, but on the Sabbath they went to church (Synagogue) and prayed and sung hymns and praised God, acting as though they were righteous. They had unfortunately digressed to the point of being guilty of the hypocrisy of insincere worship. Is it any wonder why the Lord considered the Israelites a sinful nation; a people ladened with iniquity (Isaiah 1:4) even though they were keeping the Law of Moses? Isaiah even states, "But we are all as unclean things, and all of our righteousness are as filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6,7)
The various commandments He gave were meant to bring people closer to God (Gal 3:24), but instead, they went through the motions of living the Law rather than spiritually growing from it. Instead of becoming a godly people, they became sinful egotistical hypocrites. Is it any wonder why God was angry with them and looked upon their "works" with disgust? Their true works were their evil deeds, not the motions they went through.
Though perhaps not as sinful, these are the same people with the same attitudes that Paul had to deal with. No wonder he used the same type of language as in Isaiah in an attempt to get them to not put so much weight on their works within the Law. This concept is huge in understanding Paul’s words on salvation.
This is the same way Jesus treated the Pharisees of his day. His harshest criticism was reserved for those who outwardly acted righteous but inwardly were filled with evil, or at the very least were not filled with any hope in Christ. Just as Isaiah did, He even condemned prayer when the intent of it was “to be seen of men” (Matt 6: 6-8). It was this same type of complaint Paul made to the Christianized Jews of his day. They continued to believe that it was through performing the "works" of the Law that they were saved, but Paul's message to them was that these acts, in and of themselves, are not what determines our salvation.
Does that mean then that "works" have nothing to do with salvation? If that is true, then why did God's Law to Moses require a multitude of works? Obviously, these acts must have some meaning or they are worthless.
Perhaps it would be helpful to examine what the earliest Christians actually believed and practiced--those who knew the original apostles or were taught by those that did. David W. Bercot, an ardent student of the early Christian authors, wrote a book entitled “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.” It is a collection of over seven thousand quotations of the early Christian writers categorized in over seven hundred topics. In another related book titled ‘Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up” he told of his somewhat startling introduction to these early Christian writings:
“When I first began studying the early Christian writing, I was surprised by what I read. In fact, after a few days of reading, I put their writings back on the shelf and decided to scrap my research altogether. After analyzing the situation, I realized the problem was that their writings contradicted many of my own theological views... They frequently taught the opposite of what I believed, and they even labeled some of my beliefs as heretical.
If there’s any single doctrine that we would expect to find the faithful associates of the apostles teaching, it’s the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. After all, that is the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation. In fact, we frequently say that persons who don’t hold to this doctrine aren’t really Christians.
The story we (Protestants) usually hear about church history is that the early Christians taught our doctrine of salvation by faith alone. But after Constantine corrupted the church, it gradually began to teach that works play a roll in our salvation.... Most evangelical writers give the impression that the belief that our own merits and works affect our salvation was something that gradually crept into the church after the time of Constantine and the fall of Rome.
But that’s not really the case. The early Christians universally believed that works or obedience play an essential role in our salvation. This is probably quite a shocking revelation to most evangelicals, but there is no room for doubt concerning the matter.”
Bercot then went on to quote dozens of these writers and then concluded that every early Christian writer who discussed the subject of salvation presented this same view. He was careful to note that these writers also taught that we cannot be saved without the grace of Christ. In other words, he noted that grace and works are inextricably tied together. He then explained the relationship between the two, as follows:
“You may be saying to yourself, “I’m confused. Out of one side of their mouths they say we are saved because of our works, and out of the other side they say we are saved by faith or grace. They don’t seem to know what they believed!
Oh, but they did. Our problem is that Augustine, Luther, and other Western theologians have convinced us that there’s an irreconcilable conflict between salvation based on grace and salvation conditioned on works or obedience. They have used a fallacious form of argumentation known as the “false dilemma,” by asserting that there are only two possibilities regarding salvation: it’s either (1) a gift from God or (2) it’s something we earn by our works. The early Christians would have replied that a gift is no less a gift simply because it’s conditioned on obedience. The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever He chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.”
If one continues to insist that we are saved by faith alone (with no works involved), then it may be wise to truly understand faith. Hebrews 11 gives us a great illustration of what faith really is, and of the relationship between faith and works. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain...By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house...By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went... By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son... By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau... By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph... By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents because they saw he was a proper child... By faith he [Moses] kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood least he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them... By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land... By faith the walls of Jericho fell down... By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not." (see Hebrews 11: 4-31)
Notice that in all of these instances, the person's faith was authenticated by their works. By faith Noah built an ark even when there was no evidence of a coming flood. If he hadn't built the ark, or built it differently than the way God told him to, would we still call him a man of faith? Hardly. It was precisely because Noah did what God told him to do that he had a living faith. He demonstrated to himself and to God that he was indeed a man of faith. Conversely, was Noah a man of faith simply because he built a large boat? Not at all. It wasn't the fact that he performed the feat of building an ark that made him righteous before God; it was the reason he constructed the ark that truly showed his faith.
Abraham was asked to literally kill his only son. Because he was ready and willing to do it, God counted it as a righteous act. But what if Abraham had not done what the Lord asked? What if Abraham had carried out God's order insincerely, or had simply stopped short of his attempt, relying only in his simple belief in God? Would the Lord have been so pleased with him? Would he still be called a man of faith? Hardly not. It was important that Abraham did what God had asked of him.
Obviously then, we see from these scriptural examples, faith in its full meaning is an action word in itself. There is no such thing as faith alone. True faith is never alone. It is men that insist on putting that word after it, that make it something else altogether. The prophet Joseph Smith correctly explained that, “Faith is the principle of action in all intelligent beings.” To separate these two principles and pit them against each other is to create a false dichotomy.
Dieter F. Uchtdorf has taught, “When our wagon gets stuck in the mud, God is much more likely to assist the man who gets out to push than the man who merely raises his voice in prayer—no matter how eloquent the oration.”
The question can be asked: Does going to church or doing any other "work" save or not save us? The literal correct answer is, it does not. It's not just what we do but why we do what we do that counts. But can we have the why if we don’t have the what? In other words, can we do anything for the right reason if we are doing nothing at all? Impossible. There is also no difference between doing wrong, doing nothing, or doing the right thing if it is for the wrong reason. They are all an expression of our lack of faith. Paul explained it this way: "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." (Titus 1:16) So not only is faith without works dead, but works without faith as well. Those who profess they know God—i.e. they know He is their personal Savior—but do not obey Him, or are disobedient to His commandments and do the things He tells us not to do, according to Paul, they are the ones who actually deny God. John says the same thing, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4)
As Neil A. Maxwell has said, “The grace of God is best received by those who respond to the light of Christ, not by those who pull down the shades.”
It is interesting to note that the apostle Paul is the only person who speaks in terms of salvation being of grace and not of works. Could it be that his writings are difficult to understand, particularly those writings concerning salvation? The apostle Peter thought so. Here is some of what Peter had to say about the writings of Paul as they relate to salvation: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Pet 3:15-16)
Notice that Peter says that Paul wrote, “according to the wisdom given unto him.” According to this scripture, followers of Jesus at the time of Peter (and now repeated in our own time) were misunderstanding and twisting Paul’s writings on salvation, so much so that they were forfeiting that very salvation. In other words, it could be surmised that they wanted to be saved in their sins, not from their sins (Matt 1:21; Alma 11:37). It is obvious that many today continue to be attracted to this same kind of “easy believism.”
This doctrine has many names, such as antinomianism, once-saved-always-saved, unconditional election, free grace, perseverance of the saints, unconditional assurance, or eternal security. They only vary in meaning depending on the works that are in between, but all lead to the same conclusion--namely, eternal security in salvation. This teaching has made a great resurgence and many continue to love this doctrine and hold tightly to it in a false sense of eternal security. The LDS reject this doctrine and accept the possibility that one may “fall from grace.” (1Cor 6:9, Gal 5:4; 2 Pet 2:21; 3:17) Any threat to this belief is seen as not only a threat to this security, but also a threat to priestcraft (payment for preaching). The benefits of a plan of salvation that does not require the obedience of its recipients are immediately obvious to those who love sin more than God. The advocates of such a system invite lasciviousness in the name of grace. Jude 4 warns us of “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.”
To understand why this doctrine has come to have such wide appeal, it may help to understand how and when the teaching of salvation by grace without the works of the law came into being in modern times. The ancient Jews or Israelites did not believe this. As we have mentioned, the early Christians did not believe it. The generations immediately following the New Testament period also recognized the need for both grace and works for salvation. The famous Didache—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—which dates back to before A.D. 70, is conspicuous for its moralism and legalism. It is also significant that the oldest datable literary document of Christian religion soon after the time of the Apostles—the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the last decade of the first century—emphasizes good works, as it is in the Epistle of James, which may belong to the same time. The second-century document Shepherd of Hermas contains twelve commandments. J.L. Gonzales writes that they “are a summary of the duties of a Christian, and Hermas affirms that in obeying them there is eternal life.”
Even F. F. Bruce, (who contends that Paul taught a doctrine of salvation by faith alone) concurs "sadly" that the doctrine was not a part of the early Christian church. His assessment was correct. Nor, aside from the Gnostics, did any Christian splinter group believe it. The Catholics did not and still do not believe it. Besides the Gnostics, and individual apostates’ beliefs as recorded in The Book of Mormon, the first recorded instance of this teaching among men which lead to a formalized teaching of it is from the reformers, or the fathers of the Protestant movement.
David Bercot noted there was one “religious group, labeled as heretics by the early Christians, who strongly disputed the church’s stance on salvation and works.” This group, he said, taught “that we are saved solely by grace. That works play no role in our salvation.” Then he insightfully observed: “I know what you are thinking: This group of ‘heretics’ were the real Christians and the ‘orthodox’ Christians were really heretics. But such a conclusion is impossible. I say it’s impossible because the group I’m referring to are the Gnostics.” Bercot pointed out that a believer of the Gnostic philosophy was branded by John the Beloved as a “deceiver and an antichrist.” (2 John 1:7) He then concluded his message with this somewhat damning observation: “So, if our evangelical doctrine of salvation [the belief that we are saved by grace alone] is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was taught by ‘deceivers and antichrists’ before it was taught by the church.”
So we see that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, first invented by the Gnostics and erroneously re-enthroned by the Reformers, replaced the true doctrine in much of the Christian world.
It is readily apparent in Holy writ that the Lord wants us to improve ourselves. He asks us many times to repent. He even admonishes us to be perfect and to eventually rise to His level and become “joint-heirs” with Him. (Romans 8:17) We do this by moving from “grace to grace” as Christ did, utilizing repentance as the Lord intended in His plan for us. He admonished us; “come follow me,” and “do the works that I do.” He was baptized. He was tempted in the same way we are. (Heb 4: 15) He increased in wisdom and stature, (Luke 2:52) and He overcame. Differing from us in these things in that He never succumbed to temptation yet paid the price for it infinitely.
If we take on the attitude that we are saved without any further effort needed on our part, the “natural man” that came upon us by the Fall of Adam, will easily take over and sin will be tolerated, even if it was not previously. I have been saddened too many times to see those who profess a belief in Christ free from sin, which I believe is most often authentic, later succumb to sin, justifying it through this very teaching. If Satan wants people to sin, which doctrine do you suppose he would want them to believe?
Often many will emphasize only the parts of Paul’s writings, as well as attend churches and find preachers that will fit into their specific personally formed beliefs or traditions which may include this toleration. Paul spoke of this phenomenon in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” Their insistence on this matter comes from the fact that one can often substitute the word “works” in scripture with obedience, or repentance. This, and the threat to priestcraft, cuts to the root of the whole issue at hand.
Paul was born in a specific time and spoke in his own mannerisms to appeal by letter to a specific people. He was raised up for this purpose. Remember, Peter said that Paul wrote, “according to the wisdom given unto him.” He is merely trying his best to explain to a specific people the true doctrine of Christ. We would be wise to not misinterpret him as we fit his teachings into our day.
On several occasions Jesus was specifically asked, "Master what must I do to inherit eternal life"? (Matthew 19:16, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, 18:18) He clearly answered this question by stating that in order to achieve salvation we must keep the commandments, and He specifically listed most of the Ten Commandments given to Moses. Shortly after the death of Jesus, the apostles—who had traveled with Jesus and had been personally instructed for three years by Him, were again specifically asked what they had to do to be saved. (Acts 2:37) Did they tell the people to only believe in Jesus? Did they tell them there was nothing they could do by their own efforts to be saved? Again, they clearly did not. They told the people that to be saved they had to "repent and be baptized." (Acts 2:38)
The Apostle James said that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). In the Book of Mormon, Amulek gives us a beautiful sermon on what our faith should lead to if it were true faith. He says we should have, “faith unto repentance,” and that, “only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.” (Alma 34) This is exactly the conclusion that David Bercot came to in his review of early Christian writings. In Matthew 3:8, Jesus says we should have, “fruits meet for repentance.” And interestingly enough, in Acts 26:20, Paul says we should have, “works meet for repentance.”
Paul is also the only one who speaks about salvation as being a gift, presumed by some to be received without doing any works. The problem that complicates the situation is that there are several places in the New Testament where it mentions salvation as a “gift” rather than from our works, so much so that it may seem that the scriptures are full of this misunderstood doctrine. But it must be remembered that the great majority of the New Testament in our Bible was written by Paul and all of these statements were made by him, and only by him. Therefore, it would seem that Paul is contradicting what every other person, including Jesus Christ Himself, had to say about what is necessary for salvation. But is he? Let's take a closer look at Paul’s use of this particular word and try to better understand what he is saying.
First we must understand the difference between spiritual salvation and physical salvation. Physical salvation, or to be resurrected and live forever is indeed a gift that all men receive regardless of belief or righteousness. This salvation is truly an absolute gift. It is free salvation. In some cases, this may be the salvation Paul speaks of, but here we are speaking of spiritual salvation, or exaltation. This is a gift that is freely available.
It is a conscious decision on our part to do what Jesus asks of us—to believe on Him. We have it within our own power to do it or not do it. Therefore, contrary to Evangelical teaching, believing is a "work" and they themselves are attaching a condition to this gift.
Then why does Paul say salvation comes as a gift and not because of our works? Simply, because it is indeed a gift, in Paul’s understanding of this particular gift (which we will see below).
Even the Book of Mormon teaches this principle. Mosiah 2:20 states, “If ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.” (see also Alma 34:9, 38:9, 2 Ne 2:4,9, Moroni 6:4, and many more.) However, since salvation is not universally and unconditionally given to all, the best terminology would be to call it a conditional gift. But this only begs the question, (and it is extremely important that we understand the answer) of what exactly the conditions to the gift of salvation are.
The answer is simple enough for a child to understand and though the answer is abundant in scripture, it is stated simply in the LDS 3rd and 4th articles of faith: 3) “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” What are these? 4) We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” At this point a person is saved. Can we then go about and have a sinful life? Would we have a living faith if we did? We need only add Matthew 24: 13, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” (also Mark 13:13)
Another misunderstood doctrine is the matter of who will be saved. Spencer W. Kimball has said, “One man said to me the other day, the only thing I don’t like about the Mormon Church is that it claims to be the only one through which a man could be saved. I said, Oh no, we make no such claim. We say that every good religionist and every good man who is not a religionist will be saved, but there are degrees of salvation.” The early Christians (as shown above) as well as Paul himself spoke of these degrees of glory (1 Cor 15: 40-42; 2 Cor 12: 2), but not clear enough for this lost doctrine to be preserved until the restoration.
Although all men will be saved in a manner of speaking, Bruce R. McConkie tells us that when the word saved is mentioned in the scriptures, it almost always is referring to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, or spiritual salvation.
In deciding who gets the benefits of the atonement, it would be unjust to arbitrarily forgive one person and not another. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10: 34). We are told that Jesus is the Savior of all men (1 Tim 4:10). Not just a few that He has selected beforehand. This belief flies in the face of much of Christianity today, believing in their brand of Predestination—that God has already decided who will be saved.
A just God would have just reason behind such a decision. Since Jesus is such a person who keeps His word, if He says we must be baptized in order to be saved, then we must be baptized. If he says we must keep certain commandments, then we must keep those commandments. If He says that we must endure to the end in faithfulness (Mark 13:13), then we must endure to the best of our ability.
All the electricity in the world will not give us light if we do not have a line, a working mechanism, and a light bulb. In addition, we must keep these in good working order or the light goes out. In other words, the light is conditional. In Alma 5: 10, Alma specifically asks, “On what conditions are [we] saved”? He never mentions baptism or any ordinances (as he is speaking to members of the church and this is understood). Instead he focuses on the “change that was wrought in their hearts” that is the true underlying condition. With this change in place they were “faithful until the end.”
But if being saved involves being faithful to the end and obeying commandments, the question can be asked, do any of us fully measure up to that standard? “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) We will not be able to keep all the commandments all the time, but we can try our best with all our heart, and we can be forgiven along the way. It is precisely in our ongoing attempt and failure to obey the commandments that we are meant to more fully and perfectly be drawn to Christ. In this condition we can then truly tap into the power of the atonement. If we do not make an honest effort to obey Him, we miss out on the whole intent of Him giving us laws and commandments. Repentance is the key principle in this regard. Neal A. Maxwell has said, “Repentance is a continuing process in which each of us needs to draw on the Atonement for real forgiveness, real relief, and real progress.” As long as we are on this repentance and forgiveness road when we die, we will never leave it.
Roger Keller, professor of church history and doctrine, an expert on world religions, and a former Presbyterian minister, can give us a unique perspective in this matter. “We are saved only by the atonement of Jesus Christ—not by faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, or the temple. Each of these is a channel of grace provided by the Lord so that one may tap ever more deeply into the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. Each channel that people refuse creates a diminution in their ability to fully appropriate the atonement into their lives. I do not know any thinking Christians who do not realize that their lives have to change if they are going to follow the Savior. Unfortunately, too many Christians today try to live with one foot in the church and the other in the worldly arena. The word of God found in the scriptures has, for many, become relative. People must respond to God’s grace with discipleship, or to put it another way, grace without works is dead. But can Latter-Day-Saints ever know how they stand with the Lord? Are they not always wondering if they are good enough, as some suggest? Some do wonder, but that may be because they do not understand the atonement well enough. To a Latter-day Saint, the presence of the Holy Ghost in his or her life is God’s personal witness and assurance that that individual is acceptable before the Father, because he or she has put on Christ. In God’s eyes, he or she is perfected because of Christ. Having said this, however, the Holy Spirit will never permit people to stay where they are but will shove and push them to grow. That, too, is part of discipleship; there should always be some discomfort with where we are in our Christian lives. Out of discomfort comes growth. This is a natural product of discipleship that has been a part of historic Christianity from its inception.”
As C. S. Lewis says, “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas.” There were several men mentioned in the Bible that were noted to have become perfect. We can make great strides in becoming perfect as well, if not fully, at least in part. As we do so, we begin to fulfill the prophecy that “we will be like Him.”
As alluded to earlier, the key to receiving this gift is to "believe" in Jesus Christ. But do we really understand exactly what that means in theological terms? If belief alone is enough, then even demons would be saved, since as James stated, “demons also believe, and shudder.” (James 2:19)
In his book, “The Inevitable Apostacy,” Tad Callister gives four insightful principles that, when applied to all the scriptures on grace and works, puts them in harmony--not in conflict:
- An acknowledgment that no one can be saved without the grace of God (works alone can never save a single person).
- An understanding that works are necessary to make us eligible for the grace of God. Our works do not earn us the right to receive God’s grace, but our works do make us eligible to receive grace, because God has decreed it.
- An understanding that when the scriptures suggest we are not justified by the law, they are generally speaking of the law of Moses, not the law of Christ. For example, Paul taught, “Ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13: 39)
- A willingness to apply some common sense, from which theology is not exempt, Isaiah said, “Come now, and let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1: 18) What doctrine makes more sense: that every man is saved who professes a belief in Christ regardless of his lifestyle, or that we are saved by Jesus’ grace, Provided we live the commandments as given to us by God? Which of the foregoing doctrines would make men more godly? Which would make for a better world? Which one would appeal to Satan? Answer those questions, and you will know the doctrine taught in the ancient Church.
In the end, the people He will save will be His disciples (or followers)—those who not only believe in Him, but who continue to strive to do what He asks. The very connotation of the word denotes a continual process. This discipleship is simply described by the Lord in John 8:31; “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”
It's important to notice who Jesus is making this comment to. The scripture specifically tells us that He said this to "those Jews which believed on him." In other words, Jesus wasn't making this statement to non-believers or those who were not saved but to those who had already confessed with their heart that Jesus is Lord. Jesus himself puts a condition on their discipleship and certainly does not seem to believe that, “once-saved-always-saved.” (The doctrine of “once-saved-always-saved” comes from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election, such as that given in the 9th chapter of Romans and explained well in the LDS Bible dictionary under election.)
Nearly the same thing is said in D&C 41:5, yet a little more clearly, “He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple: and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you.”
Jesus said it best when He stated, "Ye shall know them by their fruits [works]. Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken unto a wise man." (Matthew 7:16, 24) If men are known by their deeds, then the Lord likewise knows who has real faith in Him by the "works" they do. Where there is no work there is not living faith. According to Jesus, those who understand this principle are the ones who are truly wise men. But centering on works alone is a dangerous proposition and can bring us full circle into the realm of the problem the ancient Jews and Israelites had.
Let's make this whole thing much more simple. I have used many words and we have certainly made what should be a simple concept much more difficult, but if you only remember and understand one thing in all of this discussion, I think it would be this one thing: Our works can qualify us for salvation. Salvation is already bought and paid for by Jesus Christ and no man is able to earn it. But we still must qualify for the gift.
Jesus fed the 5,000, but He at first asked for His aposles to bring Him a few loaves and fishes. We are not required to perform the miracle of feeding the 5,000, but we are required to bring the loaves and fishes.
When Jesus was washing His apostles feet, Peter refused. Jesus said if he did not allow this then he had no part in Him. This succumbing was beyond believing or baptism but was still required. We must continue throughout our lives to keep our qualification for salvation intact. This is called enduring to the end.
I love these simple words of Dallin H. Oaks as he brings out the spirit of this entire subject when he said, “The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgement of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become….”
Critics may question, even if I give to you that baptism is necessary, is the Temple necessary for salvation? The scriptures don’t seem to teach that. This is a good, honest question. To answer that, first off, we must realize the Temple is an esoteric or hidden teaching. It was not and is not given to everyone. For this reason, it is not and was not in the scriptures. However there are hints here and there. Paul does in fact mention this “hidden” teaching in 1 Cor 2:6-7, “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.” The Greek word translated "perfect" in verse 6 is teleios, and besides "perfect" it also means "mature" and "initiated."
In the Temple, God offers us more. Just like baptism, when He offers, we would be wise to accept. On the night before Jesus’ betrayal, with His apostles around Him, He offered to wash their feet—an offering with great symbolic meaning. Peter, not understanding at first denied His offering. Jesus in return tells him, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.”
I was once asked by a well-meaning Evangelical if I believed in death-bed repentance unto salvation. I responded that would be highly unlikely for a person to have true repentance on his deathbed. He returned asking, what if it was true repentance, is salvation possible? I then said yes. This blew his mind, but I had in mind a teaching his tradition long purged itself of. That of salvation for the dead. That person can receive baptism and all the blessings a living person can have, including Temple blessings.
As eluded to in the discussion on the problem of evil, any statements on salvation are not complete without a discussion on the realization that billions have lived and died on this Earth with no knowledge of Christ whatsoever. When soteriology or salvation is taken within the context of traditional Christianity, the thought of death is a horror for these billions of good people that have not accepted Christ, or much less even heard His name spoken in their lifetime. But within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as it was in ancient Christianity, death is not as ominous. Although this is without a doubt the time of most importance for man regarding his eternal salvation, the work of salvation does continue beyond the grave for some, as spoken of sufficiently in the Bible (1 Cor 15:29, 1 Pet 3:18-20, 4:6). If acceptance of saving principles and ordinances would have been accepted here, a merciful God will certainly accept them in the hereafter. But if they are rejected here, there is no promise. If we despise the truth here, is it safe to assume that we would subject ourselves to it there? We are told that the same spirit that possesses our bodies here will again have the same power over us again in the next life (Alma 34: 34).
This section fully demonstrates how a simple attack (in this case to say that Mormons believe they must earn their way to heaven) very often requires a lengthy response. I am thankful I belong to a church that does not bend to popular belief; that will stand up and say a person will be accountable for their actions, Christian or not.
For this particular paper I have taken literally years to add, revise, add more, etc. The idea I knew from the start was very simple for me, then as information was added it quickly got much more complicated. Eventually, after all the toil and work it became simple again, as it does for may gospel topics. I do not need all the space here to articulate it... What we do qualifies us for a salvation we could not possibly attain or earn on our own. What is it we can do? Faith, repentance, baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment