Saved by Grace=Christians or Paulians?

2 Peter 3:16- "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things [that the longsuffering of the Lord is salvation]; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction"

The portions added in brackets come directly from the preceding verse (15) and help explain what Peter is referring to.

I find it quite interesting that one of the leading arguments by other Christians for why LDS-Christians are in fact not Christian is because "they do not believe in salvation by grace alone". First off, we do believe in salvation by grace alone, but we interpret that phrase differently.  We believe it is "alone" in the sense that we have no saving power in and of ourselves, but we do not believe it means that we are not required to do anything to be saved.  That disagreement in interpretation being put aside for the moment, I find it very ironic that the whole grounds for this limitation of our Christian candidacy is based upon a doctrine that CHRIST never himself even came close to talking about.  Christ never once referred to grace or salvation by grace.  No, not once.  In fact most of his teachings were on the side of "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."

So I ask myself, how is this what determines someone being Christian?  In fact, in Acts 11 we find the verse that says that for the first time they were known as "Christians", but the first example of "saved by grace" (at least in the book of Acts) is Acts 15.  So it appears that it was a doctrine that was not emphasized heavily until after Saul's (Paul's) conversion.  Yes, obviously, it occurred numerous times in Paul's teachings which comprises a large portion of the New Testament.  But remember what Peter said previously, Paul's teachings about salvation are hard to understand and are thus wrested, or misinterpreted.  So the fact that "Christians" today use this as the measuring stick for Christianity is a misnomer, it should be the measure for Paulianity.  For me, this is what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 1 when he said, "every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.  Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"  It sounds like to me what most "Christians" are today is truly those that say "I am of Paul" because they covet Paul's teachings more than Christ's.  This is why the Lord explained in D&C 76 that "the glory of the telestial is one, For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. But received not the gospel [in its fullness], neither the testimony of Jesus [the Book of Mormon, possibly], neither the prophets [modern day ones], neither the everlasting covenant [all of the ordinances and covenants through the Priesthood].  These are all they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn [but insist to stay in their own churches]." It seems clear to me that those who profess this form of saved by grace are whom these verses are speaking of.

Let it be noted, for us in the LDS-Church this is no problem because we believe that apostles and prophets speak for the Savior and thus what Paul taught is what the Lord wanted him to teach.  Therefore, for us we can acknowledge what Paul taught is true but misunderstood often (as Peter said) and so we can rely on modern prophets to clarify Paul's teachings, a luxury other religions don't count on.  Let me reiterate, "saved by grace" is a true doctrine, but the point here is that it was not taught during Christ's ministry and so it is hypocritical of other religions to say that it determines what makes a Christian.  They truly are relying on what Paul taught but misinterpreting it.  Where we can believe what Paul taught but rely on what the apostles say today to keep us from "wresting" Paul's teachings.

In addition, the following quote from Martin Luther is an example:  "A man who imagines to arrive at grace by doing all that he is able to do, adds sins to sin, and is doubly guilty".  Although Martin Luther was a very important figure in the reformation which was essential to the restoration, it is clear that his teachings are a cause of this confusion.  Martin Luther was trying to emphasize predestination, a doctrine that many churches today don't maintain anymore, but somehow this portion of his predetermined salvation sneaked through the cracks and was retained by the majority of Christian religions.  It appears to me that 2 Nephi 25:23 was written specifically to counteract this Lutheran teaching (we can add those that say "I am of Luther" to the list in D&C 76 and 1 Corinthians 1).  Someday Martin Luther will have to accept that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do".

Follow-up on Advocacy/Merits of Christ post

Moroni 7:27-28- "to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men; for he hath answered the ends of the law, and he claimeth all those who have faith in him; and they who have faith in him will cleave unto every good thing; wherefore he advocateth the cause of the children of men"

Here we have further demonstration that because of the merits of Christ he has claim upon the rights of mercy from the Father.  And he can apply this to whomever he wishes, and the people he claimeth are those that have faith in him.  Therefore, he is our advocate.  Andrew Skinner explained this verses: "This phrase refers to the Savior's right and ability to decide who receives the full benefits of the Atonement, including forgiveness of sin, and who does not.  (He then quotes D&C 45:3-5)."

Further support of this logic comes from Orson F Whitney: "All men rewarded according to their works- saved according to their works, according to the desire of their Father."  I really like the usage of the word "according".  We know that there are different degrees of salvation just as there are different degrees of good works and men's obedience to law.  So it makes sense to me to say that "we are saved by grace, according to our works".  This goes well with the advocacy idea.  What saves us? Solely the grace and merits of Christ.  He is the one that is able to satisfy justice and take claim on mercy from the Father.  But, since he asks certain things of us, we are saved according to our works, which is what the scriptures call being judged of our works.  At first the Savior acts as our advocate and then he acts as our judge.

The more I think about this format the less I like the phrase "do your best and Christ will make up the rest".  Brad Wilcox does his best to derail this train of thought.  It is really "do your best and Christ has already payed for everything."  As Brad explains, we are not paying Christ back (because he alone satisfied justice) we are simply paying him the amount he has asked of us which in no way adds up or contributes to how much he payed (remember the parable of the piano teacher).