I served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Georgia. While I was there, I came across many conservative, fundamentalist, Southern Baptists. These folks appeared to be heavily influenced by Calvinist theology. I learned to love the people, but I hated the theology. Perhaps missionaries who serve in the southern U.S. should receive some type of therapy upon the completion of their mission, because I still get a little grouchy whenever I hear the term ‘grace’.
But why should this be? Grace is good isn’t it? Why would one bother to worship a God who either did not, or could not, do anything for mankind?
To understand my reaction to the term ‘grace’, one must understand that every time I hear the word ‘grace’, what I hear is ‘grace alone’. I have heard many evangelical, anti-Mormon types say that any gift that has any strings attached is not a gift at all. And they try to make the point that for ‘grace’ to be ‘grace’, it must be ‘grace alone’.
What bothers me about ‘grace alone’ is that it makes God into a being who acts arbitrarily and randomly. If the gospel of Jesus Christ comes down to God choosing who will be saved, and who will spend an eternity suffering in Hell, based not at all on any merit of the souls involved, but instead based entirely on the random picking of ‘grace alone’, then I would want nothing to do with it.
It is for these reasons that I get rather nervous with the use of the word ‘grace’, even in Mormon circles, without the distinction between ‘grace’ and ‘grace alone’. Given the historical Christian debates over ‘grace alone’, and that many in the Christian world mean ‘grace alone’ when they used the word ‘grace’, we ought to make this distinction clearly in my view.
There may be some who would worry about creating an impression of Mormonism preaching a gospel of ‘works alone’. I currently fail to see the force of such a worry. This seems like something of a hypothetical straw-man to me, as I have not come across any who would even approach that view. It again makes me ask why anyone would bother worshiping a being who either could not, or would not, do anything for us.
I believe that grace can be grace without being ‘grace alone’. An example of this would be obtaining a forgiveness of sins. Christ graciously offers us, through the atonement, a forgiveness of sins. Yet, to fully realize the benefits of this offer of grace, we must have faith in Christ, repent of our sins, and be baptized. Thus, this grace is not ‘grace alone’. This is why I believe many Mormons will speak of ‘covenants’, graciously offered, rather than ‘grace alone’.
Eric Nielson
Small and Simple 
Hi Eric,
I believe in grace, and mostly grace thru faithfulness. I tend to stick with the Hebrew understanding of faith meaning faithfulness rather than intellectual assent or belief.
I agree with Evangelicals that gifts are not earned, and the scriptures do refer to both salvation and exaltation as gifts. However, these gifts must be received. At other places, I’ve described the parable of the pie. I’ll write it up on my blog and post it here soon. I believe it is possible (and necessary) to accept the scriptural description of grace without having to revert to the evils of calvinism. If it takes me too long to get it up, I suggest you read “Believing Christ” and “Following Christ” where Stephen Robinson explains through ancient and modern scripture what it means to be justified and sanctified in modern terms, and shows how these occur through grace.
With regard to missionaries needing counseling, I generally find a lot of people in the church need some counseling, much of it caused by their missions.
psychochemiker:
So do you feel that salvation and exaltation are obtained through winning some grace alone lottery? I think the key is to unpack what it means to ‘receive’, and this act of receiving on our part is the merit that we must show to gain the full benefits of the grace offered. It is this ‘receiveing’ that makes the distinction between grace and grace alone.
psychochemiker:
Also the term faithfulness you use – what does it entail? If faithfulness is required for grace is it really grace alone? I would say no.
Eric, I think you’re falling into the same trap the Evangelicals do. I present a telling of the parable of the pie.
Evangelicals often accuse Mormons of thinking their works save them. One example of this charge is by Gerald McDermott in “Claiming Christ.”
McDermott asks: “Doesn’t this mean that my salvation depends partly on grace and partly on my free will?”
The answer is, yes, your salvation does depend on your free will. That is, Christ freely offers salvation to all, but not everyone will accept, because He has granted that He will maintain their free will. Does this mean that we in anyway earn our salvation, absolutely not.
Now I understand that Evangelicals don’t understand this viewpoint, and that’s why I’ve come up with a way to try to explain our viewpoint.
The Parable of the Pie.
By Psychochemiker
If I bake a pie (imagine your favorite, mine’s definitely blackberry), and invite you over, even when you don’t deserve it, cut a piece out, hand you a fork, and put some ice cream on top. Now there’s a choice, you could sit there and talk about how nice it was for me to make the pie, and talk about how good of a baker I am, or how awesome I am to not require you to do anything to get the pie. But until you choose to actually eat any of the pie, you won’t really know how good it tastes. Would you have gained from the pie without having eaten it, no. Yet, would you really claim boasting rights, or consider it an achievement that you actually ate the pie. Of course not.
From the Mormon point of view, eating the pie is the equivalent of submitting to baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, everything else the church teaches and a life of discipleship. That is how you “come unto Christ.” That’s how you partake of His grace. But just like we didn’t earn the pie, we also don’t enjoy it unless we eat it.
Mcdermott then asks, “Have I not then become, in a sense, a so-savior with Christ?”
And I would answer: “Not unless you also become a co-baker with me for eating my pie.”
The pie is the salvation that Christ has prepared for us, but we MUST choose to follow him, yet we don’t earn the salvation. He moved first, He provides, He saves, but we must react positively and obediently to His message. “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, if ye do not the things which I say unto you.”
Now it’s true Christ doesn’t cut the slice out for everyone, and doesn’t hand the fork to everyone, but He has made the pie for everyone, and invited everyone to come and have some. Those who know the sweetness of that pie, know that Christ is the Baker thereof, and we won’t trade it down for the Walmart, store-bought, creedal, tradition-laden brands that are now being offered us. We’ll take the real thing, from Christ’s own recipe, thank you very much.
/End of parable
And FTR, I reject all of Calvinism. There’s no limited atonement in Amulek’s “infinite and eternal” view of Jesus’ atonement.
Faithfulness entails loyalty and obedience. You really need to read Stephen Robinson’s believing Christ. Disciplship is more than “clubhood”. Discipleship is a familial relationship. Being a member of a club is something you earn. Grace is not something we earn, otherwise it’s not grace.
If you’re going to try and understand why Luther inserted the word “alone” into the margin of his translation of the bible, you must recognize the historical context surrounding WHY he did that. Indulgences. Mormons can easily condemn the indulgences, and in that instance would side with Luther about what he meant. The problem, is that Luther also used this reasoning to explain why he couldn’t overcome
m[some personal tempta]ion, and divorced faithfulness out of faith, morphing faith into mere mental assent.Try and divorce yourself from Modern Christianity’s false understanding of this and try and read it from the scriptures. The scriptures teach we are saved by faith. Christ determines our level of faithfulness. Faithfulness entails pure discipleship, and doing the things that God requires of us, which is often a subset of the “things we do in church.” But the power is in Christ, and there is no other name given. I think the scriptures disagree that requiring faithfulness denies grace. Read the rest of the Pauline epistles (don’t just prooftext Romans) and that becomes clear.
Eric, I like what you said: “There may be some who would worry about creating an impression of Mormonism preaching a gospel of ‘works alone’. I currently fail to see the force of such a worry.”
It’s easy, when arguing against a view, to characterize it more stridently than it should be (or is), and I think you’ve accurately captured it.
I like the parable of the pie, Psychochemiker. For me, the grace of God allows us the opportunity to be resurrected, and to return home. The resurrection is a free gift as clearly taught all over the scriptures. Exaltation must be claimed (accepted, to use your word) by our acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice and of His ordinances as signs of our covenants with Him.
Eric, you also point out another interesting truth: an RM’s world view may be highly influenced by where he serves. I hadn’t thought too much about that before, but what you say makes great sense.
I don’t think I have fallen into any trap. The questions I asked in the comments above were not accusations, they were opportunities to express agreement. And from my perspective we have. I think your parable is pretty awesome. What we do to choose to eat the pie is our part of the ‘covenant’. Thus it is not grace alone (I believe) in your parable, or the gospel. Christ can bake all the pies he wants, but unless people chose to eat it it will have little (if any) benefit.
The only point left would be what is entailed in eating the pie? And whether is involves a little or a lot, it means that there is no ultimate benefit in ‘grace alone’.
Thanks Paul.
Hi Eric.
I’m not trying to be combative… I really like your posts. I just meant Evangelicals often force us to discuss things using their worldview, and we both agree their worldview is so wrong. Especially with regard to Calvinists. I just recently found out that not all Evangelicals are Calvinists! Of course, all Calvinists would like you to think you have to be a Calvinist in order to be Christian. They tend to frame things in a way that minimizes our understanding. And that often causes us to disregard things merely because “Baptists believe in that…” Let’s choose to focus on how the scriptures teach us and disregard the Evangelical philosophies of men mingled with scripture. {wink-about your post on it}
I haven’t fully developed the answer to your question. I’ve left it pretty vague, so I’d definitely like some help in that regard. But I think following Alma 32 in praying for faith is eating the pie, I think acting on faith is eating the pie, I think every act of discipleship is eating the pie. But we didn’t earn the faith that God gave us when we prayed. We may have asked for a piece of pie (“Lord, help thou my unbelief”) but he graciously gifted us the faith. Let’s say he choose to withhold for a bit. (“Not until after dinner”). Would you say that your child earned the pie by waiting until after dinner to have it? Perhaps, but not necessarily so. You didn’t have to provide the pie (nor even the dinner, I suppose). You did that out of love, out of grace.
blockquote>Christ can bake all the pies he wants, but unless people chose to eat it it will have little (if any) benefit.
I agree. I guess the point Evangelicals are trying to make is, we don’t earn the gift. And the point you, Church leaders, and I am trying to make is that the gift must be received and used, else what does it profit us–NOTHING.
I guess I just really feel like I need to point out the “Not the labors of my hands, can fulfill all thy demands.” It all comes down to how you choose to interpret 2 Npehi 25:23-27. Are you saved because you’ve done “all you can do?” Or are you saved because you are in a covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ even after you’ve done “all you can do” and what you could do just wasn’t enough.
I was once in a Stake Conference where Elder Eyring spoke at 3 meetings I attended. In the leadership meeting, he taught the principle that “What Christ demands of each of us is the same. He demands our all. Each of our ‘all’ may not be the same.” I agree that there is no benefit in the widespread apostate notion of easy-greasy-grace. But I also believe that the widespread apostate notion of earning either salvation OR exaltation impedes our progress. I am in a covenant relationship with Christ, I do not either my salvation or my exaltation. I am now married, but I’m not any closer to exaltation now than when I was faithful to God and engaged 6 months ago or single and without a girlfriend a year ago. Before that, I used to try and earn marriage, earn exaltation, and merit salvation. God has taught me to call upon Him and rely upon Him and His Son. That fact has freed me. That fact will continue to free me for quite a while.
Again, sorry for coming on strong, I didn’t mean to attack you in any way, and I didn’t interpret an attack either.
I think you are expressing yourself well.
It is still my impression that the earning salvation/exaltation/etc. entirely on our own, without any grace at all from God is not held by anybody. It would boggle my mind if it was. I think this is entirely a straw-man position.
To put this another way. I think it is wrong headed to cast the argument as either grace alone or works alone. Because nobody takes up the works alone side of this forced ‘debate’ (as far as I can tell).
The argument is between grace alone or … accepted grace. We might differ on how much we claim is required to accept the grace, but that is a matter of scale, not of kind.
Psychochemiker, our mutual friend Tom once shared your parable of the pie with me on my blog, and I’ve loved it ever since. I’m glad you’ve now written it yourself. It’s a keeper.
For what it’s worth, I don’t really know the best way to communicate my feelings about grace anymore in words. All I know is that in music, the songs that most resonates with me are songs that speak of God’s grace, more than songs that speak of putting my own shoulder to the wheel.
Songs like “Come Thou Fount”:
“O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.”
And I have to say that Mac Wilberg’s arrangement of “Amazing Grace” (with the bagpipes–a must) has moved me to tears:
“T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.”
There is little doubt that the concept of grace will bring more emotions to the surface than the concept of obedience.
“There is little doubt that the concept of grace will bring more emotions to the surface than the concept of obedience.”
Now if only more of those participating in our Church meetings could understand that…
CC, in my own case, I did not begin to understand the role of grace until I realized I needed it. When strict obedience failed to deliver what I assumed was the promised result, I then realized my own need for grace — it required a more humble approach from me.
I don’t know if that can be taught. I suppose we could talk more about grace and what it means (and perhaps a little less “after all we can do”), but in the end, it took my personal experience and need to teach me, just as my personal experience has given me my testimony over many years.
Eric,
I completely agree with you that it’s uttery stupid to enforce a false dichotomy between grace and works. Therefore, Bob Millets cutely titled book, “Grace Works.” CS Lewis said it’s like trying to separate a pair of scissors and then asking “which side’s more important?”
But there are plenty within the church who do stray too far into the “earning” salvation and exaltation camp, in my opinion. While they may not believe they completely save themselves, they often tend to treat Jesus’ atonement as “the cherry on the top of the sunday of their salvation” insetad of the root cause of their salvation. “They treat Jesus as the cheerleader saying, “Ra Ra Ra, save yourself, perfect yourself, ra ra ra!” Instead of, “By my merits you shall be held clean before the judgement bar (justified) and by my merits shall we expunge all uncleanness from your heart (sanctified).”
I know there are, not just because Stephen Robinson told me so in his classes, but because I’ve witnessed people in and outside of the church saying the same thing. I’ve witnessed church leaders and lay talk about how they perfect themselves. There’s a sizeable population of the church that interprets 2nd Nephi as “after you’ve perfected yourself and no longer sin, then Christ’s atonement will expunge your sins, but not until you’ve stopped yourself from all sin.” I know these types of people are out there because I used to be one. I used to take the hardest line on everyone and apply it directly to myself. I wore myself out trying to be perfect. I cried, and begged to be clean enough to receive the 2nd comftr. I know I’m not the only one who was misguided because even Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk condemning the belief that the Savior’s atonement is only for the self-perfected.
Obviously I hold to a different belief now, I know that I’m not completely in control of everything in my life. There are some “sins” I don’t worry about as much any more, not because I don’t think they need to be fixed, but because I’m working on them “in wisdom and order.” I found that focusing too much on “being perfect” and “not letting myself make a mistake” had lead to severe depression. In order to be emotionally healthy and happy, I had to accept the Savior’s atonement more and more.
Compare CS Lewis “The Great Divorce”, and you’ll see just how much grace is required for all of our steps into action that pleases the divine.
I still think it is a matter of degree, not of kind. It seems it is still an argument of how much, and what kind of individual merit must be shown. Not whether individual merit is absolutely all there is. Perhaps there is a lack of balance – maybe even a profound one. But I can not even imagine an absolute works only individual.
Eric,
You may be right that when we classify it, it’s more of a difference in degree than in kind. My gut feeling, however, is that too many people are “doing it wrong” and are spending way to much energy by doing it the wrong way. That may be what they have to do to learn how to “do it right” (like me in my swimming classes now), but I’d love for a teacher to find a better way to teach me to swim right rather than have me fail fail fail. My hope is that I can use the brain and inspiration God has given to help other people find the better way sooner. I just know how much pain is brought when we do it wrong… and the consequences of that pain is dire enough that regardless if it’s a difference of degree or kind, it must be fixed, and only good pure doctrine can do that. None of this bearing testimony of worldy, western mindsets and philosphies ( I just want to share my testimony of setting goals. I know that goals are eternal principle, and that a man will get closer to God by setting goals than any other way).
This is a fascinating discussion. Eric, if grace alone and works alone are two extreme ends of a continuum, surely there are Latter-day Saints who lean too far towards the works alone end (I say this based on my own observation). And those we call evangelicals rightly call us on it. But it really isn’t a matter of grace alone versus works alone. I love the pie parable. Christ does not show us his grace in saving us after we have done all we can do — no, Christ shows us his grace from the very beginning. No one has claim to a piece of the baker’s pie. And no Christian has claim on salvation even after doing “everything” right. Salvation is a gift, not the end product after going down a checklist. We have hope in Christ, and our good works and faith combined help us feel sure of receiving the gift, but it is still a gift. They err who see salvation as the wages of their obedience, and as their claim to demand after completing their checklists.
I believe in grace. And I believe that if I love the Lord, I will try to keep his commandments. Put these together, and I believe that all things work together for good for those who love the Lord.
ji:
Will all be saved? (I will assume the answer is no).
What is the difference between those saved and those not saved? (I will assume the difference is in something that those saved do, and those not saved do not do.)
Again, I doubt we have a disagreement. Just what we choose to emphasize or not emphasize.
Why would one bother to worship a God who either did not, or could not, do anything for mankind? or why worship a God who acts arbitrarily and capriciously and to whom worship is meaningless?
I think viewing things through a lens of Grace/Works leads to a flawed understanding. I think Surrender/Acceptance is a much better way to look at the power greater than ourselves that saves us when we can not save ourselves.
Excellent question Steve.
Is you second paragraph just using different words for the same thing? What does surrender/acceptance entail, and could it not also be called ‘works’. I am not sure if the concept really changes.
If we look at this as a spectrum, we have the absolute all grace – absolute no works at one end (which makes God unjust and arbirary, and which seems to be Calvinist based theology) and we have absolute all works – absolute no grace at the other end (which leads to functional atheists who nontheless believe in a salvation, and which seems to me to be a straw man). Clearly we should be in the middle somewhere. I have resisted trying to state where on the spectrum we should be, in spite of some of the comments, because I think ‘where’ is a matter of what an individual needs. Some may benefit from an emphasis on grace, some may benefit from an emphasis on works. What is needed may be based on circumstances and the ‘teacher’ may need to rely on the spirit in the moment.
I can not help but wonder if looking at this as a spectrum, or some type of teeter-totter is the wrong way to look at it. Ideally, I am not sure that the concept of grace necessarily robs from works, or that the concept of works necessarily robs from grace. Perhaps both can and should be elevated simultaneously.
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion, everyone. Definitely good ideas to consider. I tend to be humbled and motivated by remembering His grace (which is another way of saying His amazingly good works done for us – just had that insight), then desiring to become like Him and follow in His footsteps. That desire then requires some faith and works on my part. I think that part of the root of the Evangelicals’ problem with the LDS is because we are honestly trying to be like Jesus, and that’s blasphemous. At family night we talked about what to say when asked if we are saved (obviously, yes – through the merits and mercy of Christ), but we wondered about what to say about their next question, which is when we were saved. My husband said that’s like asking a fish when he knew he was wet.
Barbara:
Thanks. I think to give real answers to the questions you mention, it may be important to make the distinction between saved and exalted. Although that can open a can of worms depending on the attitude of those asking.
I normally would not post a comment but psychochemiker claim that “all Calvinists would like you to think you have to be a Calvinist in order to be Christian.” is simply incorrect.
Would you agree if he had said most instead of all? Or many?
Eric,
No I would not agree if he said most or many. The belief that a person must be a Calvinist to be a Christian would be a denial of the sufficiency of Christ and the doctrines of grace.
I am unaware of a single Calvinist (Reformed) confession or catechism that makes such a claim and a pastor in my denomination who preached such a claim would probably be asked for an explanation of why he is preaching doctrines that so clearly run counter to the Westminster Standards.
Alrighty then.
Eric,
I am not trying to interrupt your conversation but only 10% of the Southern Baptist Convention claims to believe the Calvinist doctrines of grace and Southern Presbyterianism is a minority religion. Basically when you refer to fundamentalist Southern Baptists you have pretty much excluded Calvinism. There are two different theological outlooks at work.
I don’t know why but Calvinism is the boogie man for Mormons, but I question if people who decry the Calvinists can recognize them. I am not trying to spark a debate about grace and the unmerited favor of God. My point is simply that Calvinism, or better Reformed theology, cannot on one hand believe in justification by faith alone… and then on the other hand claim that only those who are Calvinists are Christian. The two beliefs are diametrically opposed.
Why then do so many claim that Mormons are not Christians?
Gundeck, Have you ever seen some of the more ardent anti-Mormons on the web? Ask Aaron S.
That’s really all they do. Demand faith alone, and then when you provide examples of faith in Christ they immediately proclaim “Wrong Jesus” or “Wrong Faith” or “Jesus is powerless to save Mormons even if they put their faith in Him.”
One Evangelical gave a good description to his charitable view of Mormons here. FWIW, my comment was rather flippant, and I was just quoting a non-Calvinist baptist. He seemed to think Calvinism was a fairly broad undercurrent within Calvinism, but I admit to not knowing any first hand stats.
Eric,
You asked why so many claim that Mormon’s aren’t Christians. So many what? Calvinists? Baptists? Southerners? Roman Catholics? Eastern Orthodox?
I would say that so many say that Mormons aren’t Christians for the same reason that a Mormon would say that a Calvinist isn’t a Mormon. We believe different things.
There is a Presbyterian Theologian who explains that doctrinal differences do not cause hate and abuse but are only the excuse used to justify hate and abuse.
psychochemiker,
I know Aaron S but I have never heard him say anything that would cause me to believe that he thinks someone must be a Calvinist to be be a Christian.
So many what? You name it.
Christian is and should be a general term, Mormon is a specific one.
Sure, why not. Kinda looses all meaning
Not really. It distinguishes itself for all other world religions, and from the non-religious.
I always figured, even before I attended a church, that if you cannot get past the first line of the Nicene–Constantinopolitan creed without objection or a caveat you might not be a Christian. Otherwise the word Christian doesn’t distinguish a believer from an atheist who believes that Jesus was a historical person and a great moral teacher. Christian would not be the first word to become meaningless in the history of the church, for instance I think “evangelical” is a example of a religious word totally devoid of meaning.
Thankfully some bloggers can write. My thanks for this post…
Thanks Tank.
That was a really incredible post!!
Thanks Cheap.
An all round amazingly written article.