Christian and Mormon Debate! Part 2 :: The Gospel

We're gonna transition now to all these subject matters that we're discussing. The first subject is the gospel. We're gonna be talking about that for 30 minutes.

I may jump in here and there. If I hear anything that I would like a more clarification on, I may jump in.

Outside of that, I'm gonna let you guys have the floor. And our first 30 minute topic is the gospel.

Let's see where we go with this, all right? So not sure who has questions first or who wants to jump in there first, but you guys got it, man.

You can go ahead, Jeremiah, since you just spoke. Okay, okay. So I really want to get your idea and understanding of the differences of where we're coming from, but I do have something to maybe get the ball rolling.

So I affirm what's called the grammatical historical method of interpretation. And so I wanted to get your thoughts about that because I really think that this will be a fundamental issue between us.

Did you want to tell me your thoughts on that? Yeah, so yeah, my position is,

I think that kind of, quote unquote, secular methods alone probably are insufficient to make any really good determinations between kind of theological statements.

So, you know, I can kind of, and I'm not, this isn't a knockdown argument against the Holy Scripture Torah because there are advocates of the

Holy Scripture Torah who hold this position. So if you look at like the Westminster Confession of Faith, it says our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the

Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts, right? So I don't think it's necessarily incompatible with your position. Right.

The problem I, sorry, yeah, did you have a... Yeah, so yeah, and I think it's good because we'll definitely,

I want to clarify, it might be good for me to say early on and we can get more in depth, but my understanding of sola scriptura is

I only read the Bible in English and never look outside of it. That would betray me trying to explain various passages of scripture.

So my understanding of scripture alone is, and in short here that it's the final authority, but it doesn't mean that I can't look at creeds, confessions, do exegetical homework, like we're talking about.

And I love the earlier manuscripts in Greek. I don't speak Greek, but I'm trying to learn more and more. And so my understanding of sola scriptura would allow me to do that.

So I might upset my King James only friends with that, but I would not subscribe to that type of methodology.

Sure, no, and I think that, sorry, sorry. Oh, well, so my point is actually,

I think that even including the original languages and commentaries and that sort of thing, I think all of that together still is insufficient.

And that was kind of my argument about the semantic and theological ambiguity is that we would need either the witness of the spirit, an interpretive authority or further scripture to kind of clarify the semantic content of scripture.

And that's because of the distinction between speaker and semantic reference. I think in kind of in principle, we couldn't come to any solid conclusions just from reading anything, even if it includes creeds and stuff.

Sure, I'm gonna make just a few points here to just kind of give you kind of a range of things that you wanna address.

And so I do think we're coming at this from different worldview perspectives. So when you say something like you're not convinced that you can have certainty in some areas,

I totally understand where you're coming from. My worldview does see things a little bit different. And we're definitely gonna hash those out.

And I love how you said, we can't just rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone. That's good for you on a subjective level, but we need something objective to point at, okay?

So when I mentioned the grammatical historical method, I'm sure you're familiar with a lot of what it teaches, but it basically is saying that words have meaning in their context.

The way to do the lexical study, so on and so forth, we need to understand what the words meant in the context in which they're written.

And so in a lot of my study, I use Greek lexicons. I look at Strong's Concordance to just help me piece together information.

And so I wanted to illustrate something real fast, if that's okay. You're gonna help me a lot because I don't understand

Mormonism in all of its grand details, so you'll be able to help me. But as a setup question,

I'm setting you up. But y 'all would believe in baptism by immersion, correct?

Yep, that's right. Okay, so would it be a fair way for me to deduce at least baptism by immersion?

And I'm a Baptist, right? So this would be some level of common ground here. I would look at the

Greek word baptizo, right? And I would look for context clues in various passages of scripture where they say, and then they both went down into the water and baptized him.

So this begins to work for me that I understand baptism is by immersion. I look at other passages that seem like there's a parallel with the gospel and baptism, so it seems to be all -inclusive, right?

So, so far, do you think those are good principles to work with, looking at the Greek word, looking at a definition, then also looking for context clues?

Absolutely, I think it's an important endeavor in religious studies.

In fact, I would say essential to, I don't wanna go that far, epistemically essential, I don't wanna say that, but it's really important, it's worthwhile.

I really enjoy this sort of reading to engage in kind of this grammatical historical method to look at the meaning of words and their context and things.

But I guess what I'm saying is at the philosophical level, and we can, I don't know, maybe we can look at a particular passage.

I don't wanna jump ahead. So like the Acts 5 passage, which we can talk about when we get to the Trinity. So like, you've lied to the

Holy Ghost, and then a couple of verses later, it says, you've lied to God, right? So it's fairly straightforward, like semantically what it's literally saying.

There's two propositions here, you've lied to the Holy Ghost, you've lied to God. The question for me is, can we, based on those two statements, do we get the necessary conclusion that the

Holy Ghost is God? And I think, no, I think we can give parallels in ordinary English that show that, while we might have kind of indications one way or the other based on the context, but we can't really definitively say.

So we can say, imagine that I say to my child, if you lie to me, you're lying to your father, right?

And my point there is, I am your father, and so you're lying to me and to the identical person, which is your father, right?

And so that would say, I and the father are the same referent, the same being. But alternatively, you could imagine that I say to a sibling, if you lie to me, you're lying to mom, right, to mother.

And similarly saying, if you lie to extension, you're lying to our mother, right? And it's not saying

I'm the same person or being as my mother. And so I think both are compatible with the statement, both of these views.

You can interpret it as saying the same being, and you can also interpret it as not. And I think that grammar and context are insufficient to arbitrate that to any degree that's really, like with any degree of confidence.

Some passages are a lot stronger than others, but I think that particular passage is one where I don't think it is clear that they are, that it necessarily teaches

Trinitarianism. So real quick, we'll get more into Acts 5 and the

Trinity here in a little bit. But you know what, a lot of our topics are gonna bleed over. So like,

I'm glad you said that, because I do have a passage in mind, and I wanna kind of guide you my way of thinking.

And really, I think this is what sets the gospel of grace from the triune God distinct from all other systems of thought.

So I just wanted to kind of begin this since the first topic is within, you know, talking about the gospel. So in Romans chapter four, the

Apostle Paul talks about, "'Now to the one who works, "'his wages are not counted as a gift, but as his due.

"'And to the one who does not work, "'but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, "'his faith is counted as righteousness.'"

So Paul is talking about two different words, two different categories in my mind. He's talking about faith, and he's talking about works.

I would say, given the grammatical historical method and using tools like lexicons and strongest concordance,

I can begin to build definitions on what faith means and the object of faith, and I can build a definition of what works is and see how they overlap or influence one another.

Like, hopefully we talk about James 2 in this conversation. And then we're gonna see, hopefully see that they are distinct in many ways as well.

So, and I want your thoughts along, you know, as we go through this, but do you see faith and works being the same thing?

No, no. Okay. Tell me if this is fair in your mind. Would you accept the definition of faith from the

Greek meaning pistis, which means the idea of trust or strong confidence? Sure, I, you know, it's possible that I need to revise that contingent where the conversation goes, but I'm fairly happy with that definition, yeah.

I don't see a problem with that. And even other verses in the Bible kind of give us definitional forms of what faith is, like Hebrews 11, one.

Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. So what I'm beginning to see is assurance, even that word itself means firm trust.

And so this is something that's internal. Faith is of the heart, right?

And it's not pure intellectualism only, but it's a conviction. It's a volitional will, you know, if you're okay with that.

So my point is that faith seems to be, okay. So faith seems to be inward, and I believe faith is going to be contrasted with something.

And so when we start to shift to the idea of works, the Greek word is ergon, right?

So this is where we get the word energy. And this means the conduct of men in human action or exertion.

So do you think that is a fair definition of the word works given lexical, you know, looking at the lexical

Greek word and how we would understand it? Sure, yeah, I'm happy with that definition. Right, so I think what

Paul is getting at here is you've got internal faith that justifies, that saves a person in terms of our justification, our standing before God, and it's separate and apart from works, which is external, and it's by exertion, or it's our actions.

So this begins to lay the foundation of what the Christians mean when we say we believe in grace alone or faith alone.

We're talking about in a gospel message that is accomplished by God. In my mind, there's two types of religions.

You have divine accomplishment, or you have human merit or human action. And you got under one umbrella all of these other works -based systems.

And then you have Christianity that stands alone and says that that is done, and we receive that finished work by something inward of the heart that trusts in the

Savior, not bringing our works to the table because Jesus did that alone. Do you think that's a fair understanding of what

Paul is talking about in Romans chapter four? So I don't accept that interpretation, and I can give kind of a...

Some kind of background information on the Latter -day Saint view of salvation that might clarify why

I can... Well, I mean, okay, so I'm... Okay, well, okay, let me lay out this first, and then I'll say what

I think about this passage. So the Latter -day Saint view is unique in the way we talk about salvation.

So in a sense, we are pretty strict universalists. So we're not saying that we're going to be so we distinguish between...

So, okay, so in the afterlife for us, after judgment, we don't just have the kind of binary heaven and hell.

We have really three kingdoms of heaven, the celestial, the terrestrial, and telestial. And those all kind of, in a sense, qualify as heaven.

And there's also... So there's this concept of outer darkness, which is maybe equivalent to hell. And we can talk about that a little bit.

I think I have a kind of particular view of what gets one to outer darkness. I think that the common view within the church and kind of from critics of the church is not the way

I see it. But within the heaven, there's three kingdoms, and virtually everyone, everyone who

I think doesn't consciously choose not to will go there. And so, I think it's always this explicit in scripture, but the way that I think a

Latter -day Saint can make this distinction is between salvation and exaltation. So salvation would be entrance into any of the three kingdoms, and that's pretty much everybody.

So in that sense, we're universalists. Exaltation would be kind of like theosis, becoming like God, and it would be just entrance into the highest kingdom.

So we can say, I think the Latter -day Saint can interpret, I don't know that it's the right interpretation of the passage but the

Latter -day Saint can interpret this passage as saying, Paul is right in saying the atonement covers everyone for salvation.

Everyone will be resurrected and everyone will go to a kingdom of heaven regardless of their works. In fact, even the wicked will be in the lowest kingdom of heaven.

So the atonement was sufficient for that. But for exaltation, we have to do some good works.

And so I think that's a peculiar, sorry, yeah, go ahead. Yeah, and I wanna be super respectful and loving towards you.

So sometimes there's a slight delay, so sometimes I just wanna chime in. But would you agree that one of the major differences is

I see a closed canon where God has spoken and given a sufficient word versus you have a larger canon.

And so since we have different epistemologies, we're going to interpret things differently in light of our given worldviews.

Do you think that's fundamentally the difference between us? It's a very important distinction.

Maybe it's not the fundamental one, but yeah, so I should probably clarify for those who don't know. So in the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, we accept the Bible, Old and New Testament with no apocrypha as scriptural, it's within our scriptural canon.

But we additionally have three more books of scripture. We have the Book of Mormon, which is an ancient record of Hebrews in the

Americas, essentially. And we believe that Christ visited the Americas and we have a record of that in the Book of Mormon. Then we have the

Doctrine and Covenants, which is largely revelations given to Joseph Smith, who restored the church in the 19th century.

And then we have the Pill of Great Price, which contains some ancient scripture and some modern scripture and some revisions of the

New Testament. So yes, you're right, I have a lot more data points, right, yeah. So like where I'm coming from is

I'm looking at the 66 books of the Bible. I would reject apocryphal text as you would, but my reason comes from the

New Testament itself, which the Apostle Paul said in Romans three, that the oracles of God were given to the Jews.

And when you look at Jewish literature, like in the Talmud, they recognized the apocryphal text was not the word of God, but they recognized it as valuable, right?

But they carried that distinction. And so that helps me understand why I would reject the Dudo canonical books that the

Roman Catholics have. I would say that that's not interpreting scripture in light of itself, taking seriously in what the

Apostle Paul said, because he says the Jews had the word of God. So we can trust the, what is it, 39 books of the

Old Testament. I know the numbers are artificial, right? So that number has changed a little bit, but it's all the content is still the

Old Testament. In the New Testament, I would say it's predicated on Jesus Christ fulfilling many of those messianic scriptures.

And then he sent out apostles. So we're going to get into the fundamental difference between your view of an apostle or of a prophet and my view of apostle, because where I'm coming from is

I'm confined to scripture alone and all of scripture to be what I look to as the ultimate authority in my walk as a

Christian. So I think you probably would agree with me. When I read, and you can help me better understand this passage out of 2

Nephi 25. When I read, for we labor diligently to persuade our children and also our brethren to believe in Christ, to be reconciled to God, for we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do.

This is coming from, you know, Mormonism, Mormon's literature, 2 Nephi. When I look at Romans four, that says we are justified by faith apart from works.

When I read second or Ephesians chapter two, for by grace we are saved, for by grace you've been saved through faith.

It is not your own doing. It is the gift of God, not a result of works. So no one may boast.

You can see from my perspective that I would see these two things as antithetical to one another.

And I get it, it's from our different epistemological foundations because I don't accept a thought that says, well, works actually are necessary.

I believe Paul is making a strong case that how we are saved and justified before God is

Jesus did all that, but in order to receive that forgiveness, you gotta put your inward trust in him.

You can't do any works in order to receive that forgiveness. So you can see where we would draw a hard line and say we can't accept a gospel that seems to bring, yeah, you got some grace over here, but then also it's by works.

That's why I don't subscribe to what many denominations say, you have to be water baptized to be saved.

They're bringing in works just like I think every other religious thought. That's why the reformers, we have such a heavy emphasis on faith alone.

Now we grant that it's a loving faith, a loving faith to our savior. It's a repentant faith and you can put any qualifier on it, but it's something internal and that's the major emphasis of faith alone.

It really means faith apart from works. Do you think that's fair and understanding the differences of worldview where we're coming from?

Yes, I think it's an important part of the difference, but I think I don't necessarily need to appeal to like the

Book of Mormon to make just a preliminary case against the faith alone kind of interpretate reading.

So it seems to me, I agree with you that like just a face value, let's say with kind of no theological background, if you read the passage from 2

Nephi 25 and you read the verse in Romans, they seem to conflict. But I see the same thing happening if you look at,

I know you're aware of this, you look at the passage of Romans as opposed to like James 2 .24

from the KGB version, you see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only.

And I think as well, things like in Matthew 19, if you'll enter into eternal life, keep the commandments. So I understand that what you do is take the passages that emphasize faith alone.

And by that passage, you interpret the passages that seem to suggest that works get us into heaven. And you reinterpret those and say, that's not, it's not saying that.

And so I'm saying I do the reverse, right? I take the passages that in the New Testament that say works play a role in our exaltation and interpret the passages that seem to say works do nothing.

And so I kind of, the kind of approach to scripture exegesis that I was trying to lay out in my opening statement,

I don't see that we have good reason just internally to scripture to prefer one interpretive method over the other.

And so that's why I think we need either a witness of the spirit or interpretive body or further scripture to clarify these issues.

Which I agree with you. We do need the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Really, I think things can be presented in an objective fashion.

But the thing that convinces a person is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. So we can talk about things that we disagree, but we're still pointing to that, which is the standard and objective.

So I would like to turn to James chapter two, because I want to share with you why I think James and Paul are speaking together harmoniously.

I think they're just combating different enemies. You got Paul that's combating this idea of, he is saying by faith alone.

So he's combating legalism. And I think James is fighting a different enemy. James is fighting the enemy of somebody that's abusing grace.

You got this licentious message saying, well, yeah, Jesus did all the works necessary, so I can just live it up however

I want. So rather than seeing James and Paul, butting heads, differing with one another, I see them back to back fighting different enemies, totally affirming the same thing.

And so I believe the verse that you quoted, and what was it, James two 24? 24, yeah.

By faith or by works and not by faith alone. I believe the context really is pretty clear starting around verse 14.

And so that's what I want to lay out to you. In verse 14, he says, my brothers, if somebody says that he has faith.

So for one, he's talking about someone that professes to have faith. It's still skeptical what's actually internal and true on the inside.

But from a human to human interaction, we see what somebody says. I hear a lot of people that claim to be a

Christian, right? And so I feel like James is putting that to the test. You see, he's laying the groundwork that the vantage point is human to human.

And then he says in verse 16, and if one of you says to them, go in peace and be warmed and filled without giving them the things that are needed for the body, that is good.

So he says, if one of you says, so you see that there's this dialogue between people.

And verse 18 says, someone will say, you have faith and I have works.

Show me your faith apart from your works and I will show you my faith by my works. So this is a, once again, a dialogue between two people.

And so then in verse 21, he brings up Abraham. So I think this is crucial to James's argument.

And it's interesting because in Romans chapter four, Paul also appeals to Abraham. And he says, was not

Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Then he says, you see, carrying the context of human to human interaction. He says the scripture was fulfilled that says,

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. And he was called the friend of God.

Verse 24, you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So I believe what James is clearly saying, in order to be vindicated and justified in the sight of other people, what you say has to actually match up with how you live your life.

It's interesting because he quotes from Genesis 15, six, which tells us Abraham believed

God. Romans four tells us that this is a trusting faith. That's what justified

Abraham before God by believing, trusting, right? And then later in Genesis 22, you see

Abraham's works. So from a human perspective, we would see his faith vindicated.

So my big point is verse 24, when he says, you see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

From a human perspective, we are justified by works in front of people.

And that's why Romans four two says that if Abraham was justified by works, it would not be before God, right?

We can't see into somebody's heart. That's why works will justify or vindicate us to other people, but not before God.

He can see the heart. He tests the heart. So the moment that somebody truly repents and believes and loves

Jesus, that's where they're justified, declare innocent and not guilty before God.

And so I think when somebody really looks at the context of James two, you can see that he is actually in full agreement with Paul because he quotes

Romans 15, verse six in the same way. But he says, we're vindicated before other people by our works.

And I feel like that is a consistent testimony within the 66 books of the Bible. When you extend that to other literature,

I get you have to reshape your exegesis and your hermeneutics. But do you think that that's fair to look at the immediate context to understand what's being said and then see if it fits across the grid, across the canonical context?

Yeah, so I think that's a solid exegetical method. Certainly, I actually think your interpretation is certainly internally consistent.

I think it's a possible interpretation of these like semantic and theological interpretation of the passages.

But obviously, I can't take it in the direction. So it's interesting, you said you think that James and Paul are kind of battling in different directions.

And I agree just on different points. So for me, I see James combating the idea that faith itself is sufficient.

And Paul is combating the idea that the law of Moses is still required. And I think that there are plausible arguments made that the immediate context of some of the passages in Romans are specifically talking about passages in Moses.

And so, sorry, the law of Moses. And so, yeah, I struggle seeing that.

So while I agree that this sort of like looking at the context and this style of exegesis is important and edifying,

I don't see that we can ever come to a definitive answer on these grounds alone.

Because I think that it's both are plausible readings, essentially. Yeah, and I respect where you're coming from.

The reason why I must interpret James, and like we said, that seems like a possible interpretation, right?

We'll probably get into Matthew 16, where Jesus says to Peter, upon this rock I'll build my church. I will grant there seems to be a few possible ways to understand that text.

But this is why scripture interpreting scripture helps me understand which views are wrong.

And if there's only one left standing that's consistent with everything else, I go with that method. So when someone says, it seems like James could be talking about works do play a part in our justification before God, I say, you know what?

I can kind of see that. Well, I put a question mark on it. And then when Paul in Romans four makes such a strong case that faith and works are different, and it's the one who has faith, that is the person that will be justified.

He says multiple times, faith apart from works. Then that helps guide my interpretation of James chapter two.

I'm kind of submitting to you, at least on my worldview, Romans four cannot be compatible with works being a part of our justification before God.

Now that's given my starting point of the 66 books of the Bible. Internally, I'm rebuking any

Christian that wants to say, yeah, we're justified by grace, but then we also got to do some type of human effort involved.

I'm saying that's an impossible understanding, given if we believe in the 66 books of the Bible, Paul doesn't allow us to be able to do that.

He makes clear distinctions that faith and work are not the same thing. And he makes distinctions that works are external, and that our faith is internal.

So I get how, if you have more books, that's gonna shape your interpretation, and I grant that, and we're gonna get more into that.

But it's really a strong rebuke to anybody that would believe in the 66 books of the Bible that would not see that it's really faith alone that justifies us before God.

Do you think that's fair? I don't know that I can commit to the view fully.

I think it's probably true that it would be, it's certainly more difficult to defend the view of faith and works just in the

Bible alone. I still, I would reject the idea that it's impossible. Like I said, there are some,

I think, very plausible readings of Romans that see him as talking specifically about the law of Moses.

But like I said, I think your position is consistent. Yeah, I think it's internally consistent. Do you know of any points, and I know when we talked previously,

I'm more theological, and that would entail more exegesis and hermeneutics and the grammatical historical method.

But do you have any ways of showing me in Romans 4, and then obviously we can branch into context from Romans 3,

Book of Romans, but how I could possibly interpret what Paul's saying differently than really it's faith apart from works that contributes to our justification before God?

Yeah, I'll be honest, I didn't come prepared to pass that chapter particularly. I mean, I can send you some stuff after if you'd like.

I mean, I will say, like I said, it's actually, it is definitely, I don't know whether it's a common read,

LDS reading of this passage to say that he is specifically talking about salvation and exaltation. Because like I said, our view of the fact that we enter into heaven at all, or the fact that we're resurrected is totally through Christ's atonement, not by works at all.

And so it's possible that a Latter -day Saint could take that, actually agree with your reading of this passage and say that works don't enter into this sort of salvation.

But I don't know whether that's commonly done or not. But you would have, from the

Mormon perspective, you would have to broaden the scope of salvation, which I see, but given a

Christian's perspective within the 66 book, it's ironclad. There's no other way to obtain salvation, meaning justification, having our sins forgiven by internal faith.

You can't bring anything external. And my submission is if you bring externals, which is everything that people do, we're bound by the external actions of who we are, right?

Jesus did everything external by being perfectly obedient to the law, fulfilled the righteousness of the law, and then he was the just dying for the unjust on the cross.

He paid the full punishment for sin, satisfied the wrath of God. That's why it's so important that we can't bring our works to the table.

It's because we said, no, Jesus did that. I've jokingly said, or I've heard it said, Christianity is a religion of works, but it's the works of Jesus.

It's just not the works that we do. We respond internally with faith. So you may agree that it can be seen in that light.

Yeah, it's an interesting argument to say that if you're limited to the 66 books, can we interpret this as saying works? And I'd have to look at that more.

Like I said, since it is compatible with the LDS position that that level of salvation is not by works, then it's certainly possible.

I'd have to be confident assenting to that. I'd have to look at the passage, that chapter more closely, but it's possible that you're right, yeah.

And if I, like I said, I know I'm talking with you, but when we define what justification means, the

Bible does a wonderful job of what that looks like. There's no more condemnation. It's a legal term, meaning that we are innocent before God.

And the only way we can be innocent, forgiven, declared righteous is by receiving a righteousness that's not our own.

That's why I'll rebuke anybody lovingly like Christ would, that you can't bring your works before God because Jesus did all the works necessary.

Right. I don't know if Marlon wants to jump in. Yeah, and I think that's an interesting, I think that's a definite point because that's what

I was thinking about. As we take the atonement into consideration, if the work is finished, Christ died on the cross and said it is finished, it is the work is done, it's complete, why in any way would that entail that there is some additional inner working, if you will, of justification from a human perspective, a human duty, if Christ is clearly saying that what he did on the cross is done, it is finished, the veil is torn and it's completely done away with, if you don't mind diving into that a little bit.

Yeah, sure. So, I mean, like I said, the Latter -day Saint position is compatible with that at a certain level.

Salvation, as opposed to exaltation, so entrance into any kingdom of heaven is by grace alone. And so at that level, when

Christ said it is finished, I can say, yeah, sure, totally by Christ alone, I could add a cent to that. Whether then perfection and exaltation comes by that alone, obviously,

I have to disagree there. But yeah, like passages that seem to clearly say it's by grace alone,

I think the Latter -day Saint can interpret it the same way that you do at the level of salvation.

And Marlon, can I hop in real quick? Yeah, go for it. So I think two other doctrines that are key in this conversation is having a really good biblical understanding of what sanctification is and what regeneration is.

This is why I love reform doctrine because regeneration tells us that we are sinful to the core.

We don't have a debt for God. There's none righteous, no one who seeks after God. So God must do a work in us to even open our eyes to see the kingdom.

That's why Jesus said that one must be born again, right? So regeneration is key. If someone wants to say, well,

Jesus in John six says that you must do the work of God. I'm like, yeah, the context says belief.

And it is a work. Colossians two talks about the powerful working of God. This is regeneration, which changes our heart, changes our will, changes our disposition.

And this is what's neat. The Bible tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. This is now in terms of our sanctification.

Works are huge. It just doesn't contribute to our justification. Works have everything to do with our sanctification, pointing other people to our

Father in heaven to give him glory. But we understand with clear passages like Romans four and Ephesians two that works do not contribute to our justification, which was basically the battle cry of the

Reformation. Yeah, so depending on how we interpret the words, I think I can assent to the distinction there between yeah, works contribute to one, not the other.

But I'm interested to know how you interpret, because I know there are interpretations for those who reject the idea of works in salvation.

Passages like John three that say to enter the kingdom of heaven, you must be born of water and of the spirit, because I do believe in regenerative baptism, right?

So how do you interpret passages like that? They seem at face value to be hard to reconcile with that sort of view. All right, after this response, we'll transition to the next portion, which is the

Trinity, all right? Sure, sure. And Joseph, I think that is an excellent question. I think you gotta be careful, not you, but in general, you gotta be careful not to build a theology on one verse.

You always have to consider the verse in its context. So when we go to John three, we know that Jesus was talking with Nicodemus, and in verse three, it says, truly, truly,

I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot even see the kingdom of God. And I think it's a little bit further down.

Jesus says, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

So what we don't see is anywhere in the immediate context that it's talking about water baptism.

Rather, he's talking about a spiritual birth, something that we have to be born from above.

And earlier in John chapter one, we realized that in order to receive Jesus, we gotta believe on him. And verse 13 tells us that's not of the will of man, that's not of the flesh, but that is of God.

This is parallel with the passage in Ezekiel chapter 36 that says there is a spiritual cleansing that's gonna take place by the spirit, and God's gonna take out that heart of flesh and give you a new living beating heart, one that desires to walk in the commandments of God.

So this water is talking about a spiritual rebirth, a spiritual cleansing. And Nicodemus should understand that because what does he say earlier in the context?

He says that he's a ruler of the Jews. He should know exactly what Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah chapter 31 talks about in terms of the new covenant and God's working in his people.