BryanN

Many (most) Christians feel very comfortable with the phrase "Grace alone" as a description of how one is saved.

As was discussed/learned in a previous questions I asked (see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlFGx... it would appear that "salvation by Grace alone" is a phrase that to most Christians means "works do not merit salvation."

Now this is where things get interesting. Does the term "Grace alone" really catch the full meaning of your beliefs?

For example: Most Christians accept the idea of the universal resurrection, both of the just and unjust. (Acts 24:15)

Likewise, most Christians accept that the resurrection was wrought by Christ's death on the cross by His atonement.

This is, in a very real sense, “salvation from death” and is thus generally believed by Christians to be universal and with absolutely no conditions whatsoever.

(more details coming)

Okay, I previously asked if you would be comfortable with the statement "Are you saved by God's Graciousness Alone?" Some answered "yes" but usually with the qualification that the conversion has to be real as demonstrated by "works."

Others answered "no" but with qualifications also that seemed to suggest essentially the same thing.

In both cases, there was still some discomfort with the way I worded the question. Pinkadot in particular seemed very concerned that it might suggest that person could be saved without actually repenting, similar to resurrection.

So now let me ask you a set of far more pointed questions.

Mormons are often accused by other Christians of believing that you merrit salvation through your works. So let me test that stereotype by asking Mormons to answer the following questions. Please *answer the question* and *don't give pat answers* to avoid answering the questions. Feel free to follow up with explanations.

I will put the questions in the detail

Whenever I've asked a Christian the question "Do you have to have good works to be saved?" I've pretty well universally been answered: "No" Some Christians will go on to explain that a person that has truly accepted Jesus Christ will have a change of heart (that is they are born again) with the result being good works associated with salvation.

I have come to the conclusion that the very question is too full of religiously loaded words to really get at what I am asking. Apparently Christians have been taught to associate the concept of "Good Works" with Synergism (i.e. salvation comes in part through the merit of your good works impressing God.) or even with full on salvation via merit of works.

So recognizing this, how do you feel about me rewording the question to be “Will any Christian in a truly saved state bring forth good works in their life?” (Assume we are not including someone that accepts Christ and intends to bring forth good works but dies before their chance.) ...

There are many points of view about how good works fit into the Christian religion.

However, please look at my question carefully and try to avoid pat answers: Do you have to have good works to be saved? Please explain.

Mormons: This is a sincere question, not an attempt to embarrass you or your religion, as many use Y!A for.

Whenever I've asked a LDS person the question "Are you saved by Grace alone" I've pretty well universally been answered:. "No" Some LDS people will go on to explain that a person that has not truly accepted Jesus Christ and thus has no change of heart, with the resultant good works associated, could ever by saved.

I have come to the conclusion that the very question is too full of religiously loaded words to really get at what I am asking. Apparently Mormons have been taught to associate the concept of "Grace Alone" with antinomianism (i.e. salvation irrelevant to a honest acceptance of Christ as Lord and Master where you are saved no matter how sinful you are afterwards.)

So recognizing that the word "grace" is actually a synonym for "graciousness" how do you feel about the question rephrased as "Are you saved by God's graciousness alone?"

(more details to come)

For Christians that judge Mitt Romney inappropriate, or incapable, as a president of the USA because he’s Mormon: What are your reasons for not voting for him?

Over 30% of the USA says they either wouldn’t vote for or have reservations about voting for Mitt Romney because he’s Mormon. It’s well known that a large percentage of those people are conservative Christians, especially in the Bible belt.

If you are not American but you would still not vote for Mitt Romney, if you had the chance, because you judge his religion to make him incapable of being a good world leader, I’m fine with you answering too.

What is it that you believe about Mormons that cause you to judge Romney incapable of leading the nation based on his Mormon beliefs?

Please note: if you wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because of his politics, not because of his religion, this question isn’t for you. Obviously if you would vote for Romney, this question isn't for you either.

I asked a similar question not long ago but didn’t give enough explanation and ended up with answers that didn’t really address the underlying question I’m asking.

I will take the time, this time around, to explain this detailed and, I assume, difficult question. I’ll do so in the additional details. PLEASE DON'T POST ANSWERS UNTIL I HAVE POSTED ALL THE DETAILS! People post answers very quickly around here. :)

Also, I would advise you to not post an answer at all unless you are someone that takes seriously the idea of reconciling truths. Ester, last time, said that it didn’t matter because the Bible said so. That’s fine. But isn’t that the same as saying that you know of no way to reconcile it?

A while ago I asked Calvinists a similar question and got a very straightforward and suprisingly honest answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtZn6...

I would like to now pose the same question to non-deterministic Christians - i.e. those that reject Calvinistic pre-destination.

How can a loving God, one that loves infinitely more than an earthly parent, be reconciled to a belief in a punishment in hell that has no end? Please don't *just* quote the Bible to me, that doesn't answer my question. (Though of course quote it if it helps explain the seeming contradiction.)

I've noticed there are a lot of JWs on this board, so I know some of you will be tempted to say "yeah, good question!" So for JWs, please answer how you reconcile a God that destroys someone utterly with a loving God. Would a loving parent do that to a wayward child? How do you reconcile it?

I had a Evangelical friend that told me that "Christians" believe that God choose who to save and who to damn and that humans play no role. Even choosing to believe is something only God can cause a human to do. If God wanted he could save everyone, but he'd rather have most go to hell to show his perfect justice.

When I asked him how he reconciled this doctrine with a belief in a loving God, he could only answer that we all deserved hell anyhow, so it was just.

I feel that if the best answer to the question of "Is this a loving act" is "well, it's just" then in fact that's an admission it’s not loving, only just.

Is there a better answer than the one my friend gave me, or is that the best answer?

Note: I realize now my friend was wrong that all Christians believe this doctrine. But many do. I am looking for a sincere answer from someone that does believe this. If you don't, please do not mock other's beliefs by answering for them.