A paper for Philosophy 415.

A great dissension in beliefs on the subject of salvation by grace has been a common one between Mormon and Evangelical Christians for many years and still represents a fairly major rift between the two. Mormons have frequently been accused of not being Christians and the issue of works and grace has often been one of the reasons for such a claim. Evangelicals insist that it is through grace only that we are saved and that Mormonism’s claim that works are necessary is unbiblical and therefore unchristian.

Mormon leaders and scholars have responded to the Evangelical claim with arguments on biblical grounds that provide evidence that supports the Mormon view, but such efforts have been difficult, in part, through something of a “tension in LDS thought” on the matter as Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg pointed out. What I hope to do here will be to clarify the Evangelical argument and the general Mormon response while also addressing what the actual Mormon position on the matter as well as to bring in my own take on how the Bible, the Evangelical position and different Mormon perspectives can all be reconciled in a way that doesn’t alienate any particular group but ties each of the different viewpoints into a single common sense understanding of the doctrine.

Craig Blomberg sets out a fairly good presentation of the general Evangelical position on the matter in his co-authored book, How Wide the Divide? The overall idea is fairly simple: it is only through Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice that man can be forgiven of his sin and receive salvation in the next life. Man accepts this grace merely by believing in Christ and not through any merit or good works of his own. He refers to Ephesians 2:8-9 to make his point that, “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.” Multiple other scriptures seem to suggest that it is by faith in grace alone that brings about salvation and that there is no other way that it can come about. Man’s works have no bearing on his salvation.

How then do Evangelicals explain the frequent attention that the Bible gives to works? Blomberg says that although Evangelicals will differ in opinion as to exactly how this occurs, most will agree that after a person is converted to Christ, he will gradually choose to live a Christ-centered life and live according to the commandments because of the conversion. Thus, salvation by grace brings changed behavior, but changed behavior does not bring salvation.

Blomberg provides some scriptures that defend his position such as Ephesians 2:10 which says that, “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” He explains that the good works that we do are merely fruits of the spirit that result from believing in Christ. It occurs when “God’s spirit comes to live in us and begins a process of moral transformation, unique to each person, often frustratingly slow and filled with setbacks, but nevertheless one that inevitably leads to perseverance in good works of all different kinds.” It seems as if the position is that though works are in no way necessary for salvation, they usually result from those who believe in Christ and have accepted him as their Lord. Evangelicals, therefore, will respond that a person who consistently does evil works probably was never truly converted in the first place.

Blomberg does seem to represent a greater part of the Evangelical community when he suggests reservations about the Mormon position on the matter of salvation by grace. One major area is in the simple idea that our works are a required part of salvation. Blomberg brings up quotations from sources such as Bruce R. McConkie that would suggest that our rewards are earned by our works and therefore clearly contradict the Evangelical understanding of grace. It seems strange then, from the Evangelical perspective, that Mormons would continue to insist on the necessity of works as part of the requirements for salvation in the next life.

This is a problem that Mormon leaders and scholars have tried to address for some time – and they have gone about it different ways. Some members of the church have used the scriptures to try to prove outright that works are absolutely necessary. Mormon apologist John A. Tvedtness provides many compelling arguments for this idea that are biblically founded. One points to Paul, the primary source for doctrine on grace, as someone who frequently emphasized the importance of works. Paul frequently admonishes the people to abandon their sinful ways and specifically notes that those who commit many sins will not be saved. In 1 Cor. 6:9 he tells the people that, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” Hebrew 5:9 says that Christ, “became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” If Paul so plainly taught salvation by grace alone, why did he also insist that salvation would be dependent on works of obedience?

He also refers to Christ’s own words and notes that “it is ironic that those who preach salvation by grace alone typically cite the apostle Paul's writings but ignore the teachings of Christ himself.” Christ frequently admonished his followers to repent and keep the commandments and perhaps most explicitly declared that works are necessary when he said that, “Not every one 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.” Furthermore, Christ plainly taught the necessity of the ordinance of baptism, which marks another significant argument in itself.

Paul seems pretty serious about teaching the necessity of baptism to the Romans when he says that, “know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Even more directly, Peter taught the people to “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Though it is easily interpreted in metaphorical ways, the words of Christ to Nicodemus that, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” The important point in these verses is that baptism is indeed a requirement for salvation, and it’s not one that we can simply accept through grace – it’s something we actually have to do.

Perhaps most convincing are the scriptures that clearly state that our works will have an effect on our judgment such as Matthew’s words that, God “shall reward every man according to his works,” or Christ’s reply to the rich young man who asked what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Christ’s response includes no mention of grace or faith but an order to “keep the commandments.” It would appear that the New Testament actually places a pretty high priority on man’s obligation to obey and perform works and considering, it doesn’t seem nearly so strange that the Mormon position refutes the notion of salvation by grace alone.

Other more prominent members of the church have taken different approaches towards defending the Mormon position on salvation by grace. For some, it seems to have depended on the way they have interpreted individual words. Some, such as Bruce McConkie have explained that the word “saved” actually refers to the universal resurrection and not to exaltation, which makes up the equivalent of the Evangelical salvation. Others, such as Steven E. Robinson, suggest that we are saved by grace through faith but that we simply have a more solidified understanding of what it means to actually have faith in Christ. Thus, faith in Christ consists of actually showing faithfulness through obedience to his commandments.

Looking more closely at the words of McConkie, it would seem that he goes the furthest in asserting the importance of works. He explains that there is a difference between unconditional grace, which “consists in the mere fact of being resurrected” and conditional grace, “which comes by grace coupled with gospel obedience, consists in receiving an inheritance in the celestial kingdom of God.” Thus, when we are “saved” by grace, it is in the sense that we are resurrected and receive and degree of glory.

The Evangelical concept of salvation is something different, however. They would consider it returning to Christ and the Father and receiving all that it is possible to receive. McConkie is quite clear that there is no absolute grace when it comes to this kind of glory. “Grace is granted to men proportionately as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness that are part of the gospel plan,” he explains. In other words, it would seem as if we “earn” the amount of grace we receive, though that doesn’t mean that we’re actually “worthy” of it. But he does use the word “earn”. At another time he said that eternal life “is earned by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.”
McConkie wants to make it clear that the salvation of exaltation comes, though in part through grace, also through our actions and obedience.

Stephen E. Robinson, however, has a different take on the matter – he asserts that we are indeed saved by grace. In his book, Believing Christ, he spells it out rather simply, “We humans did not earn or merit the offering of a new covenant…We didn’t earn it – we needed it….The conclusion is inescapable – we are saved by grace.” Robinson is more than happy to use Evangelical terms to describe his understanding of the doctrine and clearly tries to go as far as he can to display unanimity with Evangelical thought. In How Wide the Divide?, he asserts that, “there are still no good works required for justification and remission of sins, of “being saved” in the Evangelical sense, other than accepting the offered gift.”

Though Robinson appears, at the outset, to agree with the Evangelical position completely, his catch lies in the word faith. He explains that, “To have ‘faith’ in Christ must in some degree imply subsequent ‘faithfulness’ to Christ as Lord” Robinson believes that although we are saved completely by faith in Christ’s grace, we must show that we really do have faith in Christ through obedience to him. His explanation is that, “Faith is always willing to try – and to try again and again. While success is not a requirement of the covenant of faith, my best attempts are. The gospel covenant requires this ‘good faith’ effort.”

Though there is no way we can possibly earn our way to salvation, it would seem that Robinson says, we still have to put our hearts into it and show our sincere willingness to serve Christ. “When we accept Christ and enter into his covenant, the demands of justice, which are demands for a perfection we do not have, are met by the grace of God, and we are saved…Christ stands at the door and knocks, but he never kicks it in. we must open the door.” Thus, even though we must make a nod towards Christ, all the real work towards our salvation is done by him. Our nod remains nothing more than a nod.

To a degree, it might seem that Blomberg would agree. He himself admits that, “We have to be willing, at least in principle, to turn over everything to him…salvation is absolutely free, but it will cost us our very lives.” Blomberg seems to want to agree that our faith in him includes accepting his will, but still insists that what we do has absolutely no bearing on the matter. In contrast to McConkie, the differences between Robinson and Blomberg are almost elusive.

Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, but speaking unofficially in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, takes something of a middle ground between McConkie and Robinson and provides an explanation that perhaps reflects the most common understanding of the doctrine among members of the church. He explains, quite simply, that both faith and works are necessary for salvation but neither sufficient. Though Robinson admits that we cannot be saved by grace alone Hafen seems to be more blunt about the necessity of works.

Hafen states that although grace is certainly part of the equation, we still play a major role in obtaining our own salvation through activities that include, “obeying the Lord’s commandments and receiving the higher ordinances performed in the temples, and continuing a repentance process.” Hafen further argues that many of the biblical references to works are actually referring to the law of Moses, and that the message being sent is not one that suggests that Christ’s law is not necessary for salvation, but it is Moses’ law that is no longer complete in itself.

Though Hafen agrees that affirms that certain works are necessary, such as baptism and temple ordinances, he agrees with Robinson that the general works required are, “related less to obeying particular commandments than…to one’s fundamental spiritual character.” Perhaps the best summary of the doctrine comes, as Hafen notes, from Moroni, who says that, “If ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ.”

Though there are subtle differences in each of their positions, it is still very possible that were McConkie, Hafen and Robinson able to all sit down together and spend the time necessary to explain themselves, that they would all find that they are on the same page theologically. Indeed, Robinson thinks of his own position as reconcilable with McConkie’s , though we don’t know whether McConkie would say the same. The point is, though expressed in different ways, it appears that each are trying to express the same fundamental concept about the relationship between our responsibility and Christ’s grace.

Nevertheless, I still believe that there is an important aspect that each of them fail to fully address in response to the Evangelical position. The problem that I find in both Robinson and Blomberg’s perspective, is that they fail to truly address the extent to which “faith” or “faithfulness” is necessary. Both seem to treat the idea as if it were an all or nothing type of thing. Either you have faith in Christ or you don’t. Either you try hard to keep the commandments or you don’t. If you do, you’re saved through grace. If you don’t, you’re not.

But it’s not that simple. There are seemingly infinite degrees of both faith and faithfulness. The Mormon perspective often says something along the lines of, “you don’t have to be perfect, those who give their best effort will receive the grace of Christ.” But Blomberg notes that that this does not make sense because, “Who of us ever gives a best effort, especially throughout our lives? And if such efforts are “required,” what happens when we inevitably fail to meet those requirements?” Clearly, giving a “best effort” cannot be the requirement for salvation. Robinson waters down the term to a “good faith effort”, but that doesn’t help us much. What constitutes a “good faith effort”? If this is the basis for our understanding of our part in bringing about our salvation, then that’s kind of scary, because I have no idea what a “good faith effort” looks like. Our effort can always be better and it can always be worse. So where’s the line?

Robinson provides an explanation in Believing Christ, that is, as far as I am aware, entirely undoctrinal. He asks, “Do you feel the influence of the Holy Ghost in your life? Do you enjoy the gifts of the spirit? Then you can know that God accepts your faith, repentance, and baptism…we can know that our efforts are acceptable – for now – and that we are justified before God by our faith in Christ. And that is comfort indeed.” Nowhere in LDS doctrine have I seen this taught. In fact, it sounds a lot like the second comforter – to know that you would inherit the Celestial Kingdom were you to die at that moment. That feeling the spirit in our life constitutes this kind of knowledge is not LDS doctrine at all. And yet, many members of the church believe it.

Not only is this kind of belief completely false, but it is also very dangerous as well. Believing that their effort is good enough for salvation, it provides no incentive to be better – to be more like Christ. If what we are already doing is good enough for exaltation, then why go the extra mile? Why challenge ourselves, as the Bishop in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables did, to give to the poor when we hardly have enough for ourselves? Why empty our bank accounts to help a list of strangers, as Oskar Schindler did? Why buy the biggest turkey in the city for the Cratchit’s, as Ebeneezer Scrooge did, when simply smiling and sending a card would be sufficient for inheriting the greatest degree of glory?

The first and most accurate response is that neither the Bishop, nor Schindler, nor Scrooge did the things they did so that they could secure a better place for themselves in the next life. They each acted out of genuine love. But they also acted they way they did because each of them knew, deep down, that what they did was what they “ought” to have done. And I think that each of us know that we ought to live our lives with the same amount of love that these men have.

I know that I ought. And if I live a full life – knowing all the while how I ought to behave – but don’t, then I don’t want receive the greatest amount of glory. I don’t want to receive the same degree of glory that the Bishop of Les Miserables would receive. And I honestly believe that if I don’t live the way he did and come to love the way he did (relative to my circumstances of course), I won’t. This thought isn’t depressing and it’s not overwhelming. It’s actually comforting.

It’s comforting to know, at least in this life, that if we want to truly be happy we don’t have to rely on some sort of “spiritual hug” to make us feel better. It’s comforting to know that we can achieve happiness through choosing to be selflessly loving and choosing to be humble. All the grace in the world cannot force us to be happy when we choose to be proud and selfish. And I believe that holds true for the next life as well as this one.

Robinson’s perspective seems to undermine our potential as free beings with libertarian agency. At one point, Robinson refers to someone possibly being saved who reaches only two percent of the ground towards perfection. If the concept of perfection is an objective one than this analogy is understandable to a degree because each individual has a different amount of difficulty considering their circumstances. But let’s say we change the analogy to refer to the percentage of one’s potential given their circumstances. In that case, would two percent really be enough?

The real answer is, we don’t know. We have no idea. It is the fundamental question in the issue of salvation by grace – and we have no idea. Maybe it’s that way for a reason, so that we’re constantly pushing ourselves to be better. But what if we’re not pushing hard enough? Perhaps we just ought to be the very best we can possibly be – and I think Blomberg, Robinson, McConkie and Hafen would all agree with that statement.

Dec. 10, 2003