The Gospel According To Church History (Part 7)

The articles in this series have surveyed church history from the book of Acts through the early Middle Ages, asking the question, “What did church leaders from the apostles through the church fathers believe about the essence of the gospel?” Time after time, we have found a common theme repeated: that sinners are justified before God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That was the fundamental message recaptured during the Protestant Reformation.

But how did this message get lost in history, such that the Reformation was necessary? The answer to that question is complex—because the shift took place gradually over centuries of time, as manmade traditions began to obscure the purity of the gospel.

Even in the ante-Nicene period (prior to 325), certain legalistic tendencies had begun to surface. But serious problems began to pour into the church in the fourth century, when the Roman Empire was “converted” from paganism to Christianity. Many former pagans simply Christianized their earlier idolatrous practices, and thus introduced dangerous errors into the church. Once planted, those pagan seeds eventually gave birth to all sorts of corrupt traditions in the medieval church (like the veneration of icons, prayers to the saints, and the elevation of Mary).i Moreover, in an environment where everyone professed to be a “Christian,” medieval preaching naturally focused more on the fruits of a righteous life than on the root of justification by faith.ii Over time that emphasis on external fruit led to a type of moralismiii from which the full-blown sacramental legalism of Roman Catholicism emerged complete in the thirteenth century.

Contributing to this doctrinal corruption was the rise of the papacy. In the west, the city of Rome was the most important center of theological and ecclesiological influence. Initially, that influence was kept in balance by other important Christian centers: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. But those cities were all in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. When the western half of the Roman Empire fell in 476, Rome became isolated. Its authority went unchecked, and as a result the bishopric of Rome was elevated to unprecedented (and unbiblical) heights—developing into the papacy of the Middle Ages.

As early as the mid-400s, Leo I made the argument that the bishop of Rome held a position of elevated authority based on a supposed line of apostolic succession. Being a bishop of Rome himself, Leo contended that Peter was “the rock” in Matthew 16:18—something the early church fathers had not taught.iv Later Roman bishops built on Leo’s arguments; eventually contending that the pope was the most important spiritual leader in the church.

In the late 700s, a document known as the “Donation of Constantine” surfaced. The document claimed that Emperor Constantine (272–337), before he died, had bequeathed the western half of the Roman empire to the bishop of Rome. The Donation was later proven to be a forgery. Nonetheless, from the 8th–13th centuries, popes used it to assert both their religious and political authority in the west.

The 9th and 10th centuries were a period of particularly perverse corruption for the popes of Rome. Those interested in the darkest of the dark ages will find E. R. Chamberlin’s treatment of The Bad Popes (Dorset, 1993) to be especially eye-opening (and disturbing). Suffice it to say, the papacy was fought over by rival groups in Rome who were willing to do it whatever necessary to gain a position of such great political power.

Papal arrogance and corruption resulted in the irreconcilable breach between the eastern and western halves of the Roman church. In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent a delegation to Constantinople demanding that the Patriarch of Constantinople recognize him as the head of all the churches.

When the Patriarch refused, the cardinal leading the delegation excommunicated him. In response, the Patriarch excommunicated the Roman delegation. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have been split ever since.

Around 1230, the western church adopted the idea of a Treasure House of Merit in heaven, from which the pope could dispense indulgences (pardons) to whomever he wished. This system of indulgences became a fundraising opportunity for the Roman popes, providing the means for opulent building projects (like St. Peter’s basilica). The indulgence system allowed corrupt popes to use their religious position to extort money from spiritually desperate people on the false notion that sinners can purchase God’s grace for a price.

Papal authority and the corrupt system of indulgences would prove to be a major point of contention during the Reformation. In fact, it was the sale of indulgences that motivated Luther to write his 95 Theses; and in one of his Table Talks Luther explained:

“The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority. . . . Further he took upon him power, rule, and authority over the Christian church, and over the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God; [claiming that] no man must presume to expound the Scriptures, but only he, and according to his ridiculous conceits; so that he made himself lord over the church.”v

In contrast, the Reformers insisted that Christ alone is the head of the church. Any other self- proclaimed “head” constituted an imposter and a fraud.

Though the Councils of Orange (in 441 and 529) condemned the synergism of semi-Pelagianism, the medieval Catholic church eventually came to define justification in synergistic terms (meaning that the church presented salvation as a cooperative effort between God and man).

In the thirteenth century, at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Roman Catholic church officially made salvation contingent on good works by establishing the seven sacraments as the means by which sinners are justified.

As Norm Geisler and Josh Betancourt explain in their book, Is Rome the True Church?:

Roman Catholicism as it is known today is not the same as the Catholic Church before 1215. Even though the split between East and West occurred in 1054, most non-Catholics today would have been able to belong to the Catholic Church before the thirteenth century. Regardless of certain things the church permitted, none of its official doctrinal proclamations regarding essential salvation doctrines were contrary to orthodoxy.

While the development of Roman Catholicism from the original church was gradual, beginning in early centuries, one of the most significant turning points came in 1215, when one can see the beginning of Roman Catholicism as it is subsequently known. It is here that the seeds of what distinguishes Roman Catholicism were first pronounced as dogma. It is here that they pronounced the doctrine of transubstantiation, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and seven sacraments. Many consider this a key turning point in the development of Roman Catholicism in distinction from non-Catholic forms of Christianity.vi

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who was born ten years after the Fourth Lateran Council, also contributed greatly to confusion on the true nature of the gospel. As Gregg R. Allison explains:

More than anyone else, Thomas Aquinas set down the medieval Catholic notion of justification and its corollaries of grace, human effort, and merit. Although a substantial departure from Augustine and the Augustinians of the Middle Ages, his theology became determinative for the Roman Catholic Church. . . . [Thomas] emphasized the grace of God yet prescribed an important role for human cooperation in obtaining salvation. Certainly, God exercises the primary role in achieving and applying salvation, but people have their part to play as well. God moves by initiating grace in a person’s life; then that person moves toward God and moves away from sin, resulting in the forgiveness of sins. Thus, Aquinas believed in a synergy, or cooperative effort, between God and people in justification.vii

To base salvation on a cooperative effort between God’s grace and our good works presents a major problem—since it distorts the biblical teaching about grace. As Paul explained to the Romans, “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Romans 11:6).

To add works into the equation is to frustrate grace. Certainly, good works are the fruit of salvation, but they are not the foundation of it. And it was at that very point that the Catholic church of the late Middle Ages muddled up the gospel.

To our earlier list of twenty-five church fathers (in parts 5 and 6 of this series), we might add several voices from the later medieval period. We will briefly consider two well-known medieval theologians whose work greatly influenced the Reformers.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) is perhaps best remembered for his articulation of the Satisfaction Theory of the Atonement (on which the Reformers built their doctrine of Substitution). In his famous work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), Anselm explained that it was impossible for fallen human beings to satisfy God’s justice through their own efforts. As he said it, “A sinful man can by no means do this, for a sinner cannot justify a sinner.”viii Anselm further noted that remission for sin could only take place “by the payment of the debt incurred by sin, according to the extent of sin.”ix The debt of sin was of such a magnitude that only God could pay it. Yet, Anselm reasoned, only a man could represent mankind in making such a payment. Thus, the Incarnation was necessary so that Jesus Christ—as the God-Man— could both pay an infinite debt and do so on behalf of sinful men and women.

Anselm’s conclusion was that the only way human beings can be saved is through faith in Christ. To those who do not believe the gospel, he argued: “Let them cease from mocking us, and let them hasten to unite themselves with us, who do not doubt that man can be saved through Christ; else let them despair of being saved at all. And if this terrifies them, let them believe in Christ as we do, that they may be saved.”x

Anselm rightly understood that Christ purchased salvation for sinners through His death. He alone could “remit the debt incurred by their sins, and give them what their transgressions had forfeited”xi—namely eternal life. Thus, the sinner’s only hope was Christ. As Anselm explained in another place, “[If God] shall say that you are a sinner, you say: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and you.’”xii In other words, the believer’s eternity rests not on his own good works, but on the perfect work of Christ.

A second medieval theologian, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), similarly emphasized the justification that comes only by grace through faith in Christ. Four hundred years later, Martin Luther would emphasize this same theme.xiii Consider the following statements from Bernard:

“What is hidden about us in the heart of God will be revealed for us and His Spirit testifies and persuades our spirit that we are the children of God. But He convinces us of this by calling and justifying us by grace through faith.”xiv

[Speaking of Christ] “Your justice is mine, because you are made my justice from God.”xv

“For the sake of your sins He will die, for the sake of your justification He will rise, in order that you will be justified through faith and have peace with God.”xvi

“Nobody will be justified in His sight by works of the law. . . . Conscious of our deficiency, we shall cry to heaven and God will have mercy on us. . . . And on that day we shall know that God has saved us, not by righteous works that we ourselves have done, but according to His mercy.”xvii

“Because he believed the one promising, with confidence he repeats the promise, which, arising out of mercy, must be fulfilled out of justice. Hence, the crown Paul awaits is a crown of righteousness, but of God’s righteousness, not his own. It is only that He should deliver what He owes and He owes what He promised. This is the righteousness Paul is relying on, the promise of God, lest, in any way despising it and seeking to establish his own, he might be failing to submit to God’s righteousness”xviii

“The fragrance of Your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him ask of You and You will give it to him. It is well known that You give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for Your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that You are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by Your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, he will let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, have peace with God.”xix

Yet, in spite of glimpses like these (and from the earlier church fathers), the medieval Catholic Church lost sight of the true gospel. As we have already seen, by the thirteenth century, clear testimony to the true gospel within the mainstream church was largely eclipsed. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Scriptures were being held hostage in Latin.

All of this brings us back full circle to the pre-Reformers. By the middle of the twelfth-century, already, the Waldensians were questioning certain errors that they saw in the Roman Catholic Church. They were also translating the Bible and preaching in the language of the people. In the 14th-century, John Wycliffe began doing the same. In the 15th-century, John Huss followed his example, even though it cost him his life. Then, in the 16th century, Martin Luther carried the torch they had passed to him.

All of this returns us to the place where this series started. Did the Reformers invent something new in church history when they emphasized salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?

In fact, the Reformers were themselves avid students of the church fathers. They were absolutely convinced that the Reformation was as much a recovery of patristic teaching as it was of apostolic truth.

To make that point, we close with a final comment from John Calvin. In the preface to his Institutes, Calvin insisted that he could easily defend Reformation teaching using nothing but the church fathers to make his case. Calvin said it this way:

Moreover, (the Roman church) unjustly set the ancient fathers against us (I mean the ancient writers of a better age of the church) as if in them they had supporters of their own impiety. If the contest were to be determined by patristic authority, the tide of victory — to put it very modestly —would turn to our side. Now, these fathers have written many wise and excellent things. . . . [Yet] the good things that these fathers have written they [the Roman Catholics] either do not notice, or misrepresent or pervert. . . . But we do not despise them [the church fathers]; in fact, if it were to our present purpose, I could with no trouble at all prove that the greater part of what we are saying today meets their approval.xx

ii Roman Catholic author Robert Markus notes the change that occurred in the centuries following the Christianization of the Roman Empire: “Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixth century, . . . was fond of saying, in this time of easy conformity, now that the age of persecutions was over and the Church was at peace, everyone was a Christian. There might still be some who did not carry the Christian name; but if there were such, they were marginal, and Gregory was more interested in those who did bear the name but were like the iniqui who ‘deviate from righteousness by the wickedness of their works,’ who were Christians in name only, from outward conformity. . . . Gregory’s world was the result of some two hundred years of cultural development since Augustine’s time, and we must consider this, however briefly, before considering its end-product, the society in which ‘everyone was a Christian’” (Robert A. Markus, Christianity and the Secular [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2006], 77–78).

iii This, for example, explains the development of monasticism after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. As Douglass J. Hall explains, “In the heyday of Christendom, when virtually everyone was a Christian by birth, it was understandable that those who intended to take faith seriously should have found their Christian calling in [monastic] communities that at least gave promise of being different from the status quo” (Douglas J. Hall, Professing the Faith [Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1993], 234).

iv For more on the patristic understanding of Matthew 16:18, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy (Calvary Press, 1996).

v Martin Luther, The Table Talk of Martin Luther, trans. and ed. by William Hazlitt (London: Bell & Daldy, 1872), 203–4.

vi Norman Geisler and Josh Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church? [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008], 53–54.

viii Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, 1.23. Medieval Source Book. Online at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.asp#ACHAPTER XI.

xii Anselm of Canterbury, Liber meditationum, Consolatio, PL 158:687; cited from Thomas Oden, The Justification Reader, 58.

xiii Roman Catholic author Franz Posset recently noted the link between Bernard and Luther in his book The Real Luther (Concordia, 2011). According to Posset, “The historical Luther’s doctrine of justification is identical with the one of Saint Bernard” (127).

xiv Bernard of Clairvaux, Dedicatione Ecclesiae 5, 7 (SBO 5, 393). Cited from Else Marie Wiberg Pedersen, “The Significance of the Sola Fide and the Sola Gratia

in the Theologies of Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153) and Martin Luther (1483–1546),” online at: http://web.augsburg.edu/~mcguire/EMWPedersen_Bernard_Luther.pdf.

I guess that to me...if one has belief...the one will want to do what he commands...takes both

Of course someone who has genuine faith will want to obey God.

They are born again of the Spirit and have the Holy Spirit living in them. They can't help but want to obey God.

But they also know that they can't and even if they could and could obey the law in its entirety, there's two problems.

One is that even if we could obey the law perfectly and its entirety after we're saved, it's already too late because of the sin we had already committed.

The other is that no one CAN obey the law even after they're saved even if they want to.

We are too weak and still have the body of flesh to contend with.

I look at what was said about separating the sheep from the goat...” When did we see you hungry., naked, poor? What you did for the least of these , you did to me. Accounts if the judgement make no references to faith alone. But I am no exegete...I would presume that loving Jesus would translate into the desire to do well by the most vulnerable in society. To me, having faith and doing nothing...would be reprehensible. I would not want to stand before my judge and say yea, well, I didn’t do any of that...but hey I believed in you...ain’t that enough?

Actually that discourse is bout the FINAL judgement ..and it is a judgement of rewards.. not salvation.. notice the Goats and the sheep were already separated when the discourse begins.....and one more important point that sheep were not even aware of doing the "good works"..they were not intentional to "earn salvation

Mat 25 ...…32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.…

Notice the elect INHERIT the Kingdom.. not EARN IT

Please read the scripture

The Sheep and the Goats

31And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

34Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. 46And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting. (Douay-Rheims Bible)

False, because it can not be reconciled with James 2: 17 “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone”.

No that is not what James says ...sorry

May I quote James to you ??

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

So the thief is also a murder in Gods eyes.

No where does Jesus say or imply that one is saved by works.

The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation
. It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may SAY, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.

This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.

The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.

To use James’ terminology: The spirit is what makes the body a living body. Likewise works are what make faith a living, saving faith.

But the works are done by the body and the faith is in the spirit. So that analogy would be backwards.

Living faith is what produces works that bring God glory and accomplish His purpose on earth.

As the writer of Hebrews says, faith accomplishes its purpose after the works are done.

Where?

And faith's purpose is accomplished by the works, so in that respect, faith is completed, but faith alone is still what saves someone to go on to produce works.

I think one of the problems is that people can do what are considered good things, good works, for whatever reason, and yet they are not the fruit of faith.

Additionally, the works are works that God prepared before hand for the believer to walk in, not works that people by themselves decide to do thinking that it contributes to attaining salvation.

Thank you...Yes, I was only half-right - but half-wrong!:

Faith makes works into "living" works (James 2:26), while works make faith a "saving" faith (2:14).

Where?

In Hebrews 11, for instance:

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they had been compassed about for seven days."

The walls fell by faith, after the marching, not before. Did they fall by faith alone? No. Would they have fallen by faith if there hadn't been marching? No.

They fell by faith, not by marching...but only after marching. Would they have fallen without the marching? The marching was faith in action. Without the action, what good would their faith have been? It wouldn't have accomplished its purpose without action.

Consider Naaman: Was his leprosy cured before dipping in the Jordan? Would it have been cured without the dipping? Without the action, what would've been accomplished?

And one last example: By faith we have remission of our sins, after baptism. Baptism is faith in action. Without baptism, faith does not accomplish its purpose.

If baptism were that critical to salvation, there there would certainly have been more mention of its necessity in Scripture. The verses that people use as proof text are weak at best and contradict MANY other passages that state that it's through faith. Period.

Circumcision did not save either and that was not required for believers. The Council at Jerusalem addressed the works of the Law issue and made NO mention of the need for baptism.

Since they stated that the Holy Spirit directed them in their instructions to the early church, and baptism was not mentioned, then is is safe to conclude that it is not an issue.

This is the decision and the instructions by the Holy Spirit of what is required.....

Acts 15

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

If baptism were that critical to salvation, there there would certainly have been more mention of its necessity in Scripture.

How many mentions of the action of baptism in remission of sins would it take to convince you?

The verses that people use as proof text are weak at best and contradict MANY other passages that state that it's through faith.

If Hebrews 11:30 said only "By faith the walls of Jericho fell down", would you conclude that marching wasn't necessary? Does that verse contradict itself because it mentions the works of faith necessary for the result to take place?

I guess I just don't see the contradiction you do. How does stating that we're saved by faith mean that we're not saved by grace? How does saying we're saved by grace mean we're not saved by confessing the Christ? How does saying we're saved by confession mean we're not saved by believing? How does saying we're saved by believing mean we're not saved by baptism?

Which ONE saves us?

Since they stated that the Holy Spirit directed them in their instructions to the early church, and baptism was not mentioned, then is is safe to conclude that it is not an issue.

I know you can't mean that. After all, they wrote nothing about faith either. Are you saying faith isn't needed?

I know you wouldn't say that. You'd say (correct me if I misrepresent you) that the letter was written to people who had already heard and obeyed the gospel, so it would be redundant to write them an answer to the question, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (i.e. Acts 16:30)

Well, why mention baptism in a letter, addressed to Christians, that's not about remission of sins, but about circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses?

The article does not provide evidence for or support the supposition that the Church Fathers believed or taught a “reformed” conception of the gospel instead of Catholic doctrine.

The idea that the Church Fathers weren’t Catholic and that the Council of Trent “lost” the Gospels is absurd and unproven as well.

The “evidence” that the Church lost the gospels fails precisely because none of the quotes set forth attributed to the Church Fathers are indeed contrary to Church Doctrine!

This is a straw man set - up: (A) that the Church Fathers foretold justification by faith alone before the reformers (and the implication that their position is contrary to Church Doctrine): therefore (B)the Church Doctors are proto type reformer forerunners, does NOT work. The Church already holds the doctrines that the Fathers set forth in the article! If Catholics tried to make the case that the Fathers meant something different, then there would be a problem, but instead, Catholic Church teaching agrees.

At any rate, all of the points set forth ARE completely compatible with the Doctrine of Justification as taught by the Council of Trent, not to mention the current Catechism of the Church..

The reformed gospel is completely new, starting with the “reformers” in the 1500’s.

The Church Fathers are Catholic beyond doubt; it is not possible to “explain away” their belief in handed down tradition (2 Thes. 2:15) because there is an abundance of preserved writings that show their affirmation in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

For example: St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing circa 80 A.D. wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaean’s wrote:

“...they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...”

The examples of the Church’s Fathers belief in the eucharist are clear and abundant. Also - the eastern church fathers (not Rome) clearly were not prototype reformers either, for the same reasons; they believed in a sacramental Church.

Yet we will be judged according to our works...

Yes those who claim their works justify will be judged according to those works. Those who present the credentials of Christ Jesus, another matter:

John 3:

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Even if we are, since the believer who has been born again by faith in Jesus Christ, is good to go because the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to him, credited to his account.

When God looks at that believer, He sees the righteous life of Christ.

_______________________________________________________________

It truly pains me when I see someone who says because they have confessed the name of Jesus Christ they are acceptable and saved to eternal life and then thinks the Lord will ignore the works of that person.

It is easy to mouth the words but harder to do the deed. Taking on the name of Jesus implies good works, without the good works there can be no salvation because there was no conversion. Saying you follow Jesus then having no good works makes you a liar. James says “show me your works and I'll show you your faith.” He also says “faith without works is dead”.

The two are not apart from each other, they go hand in hand, you don't have one if you don't have the other.

The crowd that trumpets grace, and nothing else will be sad and miserable at judgement day, the Savior will say “I never knew you.”

Maybe I am missing something...so by doing works that we are commanded to do...we are scrambling for a better spot in heaven?

No. We are glorifying God with our bodies.

We are testifying to the work of redemption that God has worked in our lives for an unbelieving world to see.

What happened with me with an acquaintance of mine, was that I worked with him at one job, then took another job and found that he had started there just before I did. I knew him at the first job before he accepted Christ, and I saw the incredible change in him at the second job after accepting Christ (sometime between jobs).

I was stunned and I remember the people at work were all sneering about how he had *found religion*, and yet when I saw the change in him I remember thinking *I don't know what he's got but I sure want it.*

They will know we are followers of Christ by our love for one another. It's proof of the reality of the spiritual birth. That rewards are given for it is secondary.

Matter of fact, I'm not even sure what rewards I'll get if any. But one thing I'm feel pretty confident of, is if I'm doing the works to earn the reward, I WON'T get it because the motivation was not right.

Maybe I am missing something...so by doing works that we are commanded to do...we are scrambling for a better spot in heaven?

That's what Mormonism teaches...

Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances.

AFTERLIFE: The Mormon afterlife is divided up into four levels. From the lowest to the highest they are: hell, and then three levels of heaven: the telestial, the terrestrial, and the place where God dwells, the celestial (also called the kingdom of God). The celestial is also divided, the highest level being "exaltation," or becoming a God.

HEAVEN-The Mormon church teaches there are three levels of heaven (three "degrees of glory"):

Telestial - where unbelievers go
Terrestrial - for religious people who aren't Mormons and for Mormons who have not met the requirements of the Church.
Celestial - for Mormons who have kept ALL of the laws and ordinances of their church. What will the celestial heaven (kingdom) supposedly be like for a good Mormon? He will be a god, he will rule over a planet with his wives and spirit children.

HELL: A place of torment from which the worst of sinners are resurrected (if they repent) into the Telestial kingdom; only a limited number remain in hell forever, - the devil and the demons and apostates who consciously reject and work against Mormonism.

Mormonism has taught that those in the Telestial kingdom will have paid for their own sins in spirit prison, a temporary hell which serves as a place of purging before entrance into heaven (cf. D&C 138: 58-59).

Orson F. Whitney preached:

"But those who reject the Gospel altogether and are besotted and crimestained---what of them? It is written that they will be thrust down to hell; even the murderer, the liar, the sorcerer, and the whoremonger. They will, in short, be damned. But they will only be damned to the extent justified by their sins. Even for them there is hope, after they have 'paid the uttermost farthing.' They will be punished, as all men must be, for neglect of duty, for transgression of the laws of God; but after they have been punished sufficiently, they will be brought forth and saved in a glory of which the stars in heaven are typical." ("The Three Great Teachers", May 8, 1898; Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses 1886-1898, v. 5)

Chapter 41 of the 2009 Gospel Principles manual quotes D&C 19 and concurs the same:

"Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, 'Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit' (D&C 19:16-18). After suffering in full for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the telestial kingdom" (Gospel Principles, 2009, p. 244).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

...he that WORKETH not...