PDA

View Full Version : Can someone help me understand the concept of faith w/works and Faith w/out works?



Lady e
Nov 10th 2010, 11:27 PM
Ok,so I am trying to understand the concept of faith and works.Here is my humble understanding: Faith with works is when,after accepting Christ you become a new person,and want to help others-example,someone needs a ride to work,a shoulder to cry on, someone to talk to,or even needing prayer.Helping others makes you feel wonderful inside.My opinion of faith without works is when someone says they are a cHristian,but only help for show,or out of duty,or maybe even don't help at all.Am I right in my thoughts?I am really wanting to grow,and this is one of those scriptures I have a hard time understanding.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

-SEEKING-
Nov 10th 2010, 11:32 PM
I think you have a good idea. Basically it comes down to this. We are saved by grace through faith. PERIOD.

Now having said that, once the Holy Spirit comes into your life, there will be a change. Those changes that He does inside of us, will start reflecting on the outside. Those are the works that James is talking about. As you said, a person can say they are a Christian, but is there enough evidence to show that it's authentic?

Hope that helps.

Lady e
Nov 10th 2010, 11:34 PM
I think you have a good idea. Basically it comes down to this. We are saved by grace through faith. PERIOD.

Now having said that, once the Holy Spirit comes into your life, there will be a change. Those changes that He does inside of us, will start reflecting on the outside. Those are the works that James is talking about. As you said, a person can say they are a Christian, but is there enough evidence to show that it's authentic?

Hope that helps.

Thanks,I appreciate it!

Servant89
Nov 10th 2010, 11:57 PM
Thanks,I appreciate it!

We must have faith and the faith must be active. That means it must show somehow. But the works that validate our faith are definetively not the works of the law (by that I mean, the works that validate your faith have nothing to do with demonstrating that you are good enough). For example, by faith Abraham went to kill his son, by faith Rahab the prostitute became a traitor to her own people and lied to them and in doing sso, saved everyone in her house, by faith the Gebeonites got saved by lying to Joshua (see Joshua chapter 9). Those are not examples of people that kept the law when they demonstrated their faith. For by the works of the law no one will be justified. Gal 2:16, Gal 2:21 Gal 5:4.

The self righteous are the ones that think that the works of the law are the ones that validate our faith, for they measure everyone relative to how good they are and God can't stand being around that kind of People. See John 9:47. Luke 18:9-14 and Isa 65:5.

Shalom

VerticalReality
Nov 11th 2010, 03:29 AM
Works of law = condemnation

Works of faith = justification

chad
Nov 11th 2010, 03:50 AM
Works do not save us, our faith in Christ Jesus does (Jesus as Christ – who laid down his life so we may be forgiven of our sins through his death and by the shedding of his blood, which justifies us and paid the price for our sins).

Once we are saved, our faith should produce good works. Good works being things that we do as a result of our faith, which can include works of charity, kindness and service. We will be rewarded for these works (but our salvation does not depend on them.)


If we say we have faith, but do no good works, then we might want to ask why that is?

crossnote
Nov 11th 2010, 04:17 AM
.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

I often think of Paul ( justified by faith without works) as referring to our merit before God...there is none, it is by the merit of Christ alone. James is referring not to our merit but to the fruit (his word for good works) of our faith. These 'works' or this 'fruit' is not done for merit but is the outcome of true faith as Seeking pointed out in post #2. There is that living element of God working in us so that we may work out and manifest true fruit of His seen by others.

Vhayes
Nov 11th 2010, 05:23 AM
Lady e -

When you love someone, truly love them - what do you do? Do you sit around and smile all day and say, "Gee, I sure do love you!" or do you get up and DO things you think will make THEM smile because you want to SEE them smile. You want to demonstrate your love and gratitude, not because you MUST but because you could not live without doing something. You would explode if you were made to be silent and still.

Does that make any sense at all?
V

Lady e
Nov 11th 2010, 09:50 PM
Thanks everyone.It seems like most of you feel the same as I do-That faith with works is doing things to help others.I am glad to be able to talk about this as it has been mis-used by some as a means to make people feel guilty.GOD bless you all.

ThyWordIsTruth
Nov 13th 2010, 03:24 AM
Ok,so I am trying to understand the concept of faith and works.Here is my humble understanding: Faith with works is when,after accepting Christ you become a new person,and want to help others-example,someone needs a ride to work,a shoulder to cry on, someone to talk to,or even needing prayer.Helping others makes you feel wonderful inside.My opinion of faith without works is when someone says they are a cHristian,but only help for show,or out of duty,or maybe even don't help at all.Am I right in my thoughts?I am really wanting to grow,and this is one of those scriptures I have a hard time understanding.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

Hi Lady e
What I am offering is my understanding of this. Don't take it as Gospel truth, but think through it by yourself, search the Scriptures and see if it makes sense to you.

First, Paul says we are justified by faith. Justified means God acquits us of our sins, and does not cause us to bear the penalty of our sins. We cannot be acquitted from our sins and made righteous by performing works, and works are simply obedience to God's commandments.

To understand this, imagine a private citizen in a country. He obeys the laws of the land perfectly all his life, but he only breaks one law once. He murders someone. His one breaking of the law immediately makes him a criminal, and the wages of his criminal act, is death. No matter how much he obeys the laws of the land even if he lived till 100 years, he will not make up for his crime.

It is the same way for us spiritually. When we break one of God's laws, we immediately become a sinner and the wages of sin is death. No matter how much we obey God's commandments, it will not make up for our sins.

Therefore, only faith in Jesus Christ will justify us and acquit us of our sins. He paid for our sins by his perfect life, and God forgives us on his account, if we believe in Him.

Why then does James say that we are justified not only by faith but by works? I will present my understanding, and you see if it makes sense for you as you read your Bible. I submit that when we read the word "works" we immediately think of good works, of obedience to commands. However I think this is not the kind of works James is talking about here.

James is talking about works which demonstrate and show that we truly believed in God, and in what God had said. James uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab. God had promised Abraham that he will make a great nation out of Isaac his son. Yet later God told Abraham to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham had waited 25 years for this child. If he did not really believe God's promises, he would not have obeyed. Yet he obeyed, because Hebrews told us that Abraham believed that even if he had killed Isaac, God would raise him up again. So he was justified by God because of this act - which demonstrated that he really believed, that his faith was genuine.

Rahab was the same. Her act had nothing to do with obedience to commandments. She did not know God's law, and she had no relationship or familiarity with the Jewish religion. What she did - she saved the spies in order to strike a bargain with them for her life - showed that she really believed that YHWH was the true God, and that all that God had said will come to pass. She really believed, and her works showed she believed, because she risked her own life to save them in order to make a bargain with them for her life, and her family's life.

So both Paul and James are saying the same thing. Paul says we are justified by faith. James says not any kind of faith will do, but faith that really shows itself in our actions (works). When our faith is tested, what we do (our works) will show if we really believe God. And what we do in faith will justify us in God's sight. At the end of the day, it is still faith that prompts the actions, and it is still faith which justifies us, but true faith shows itself in action and decision, and only this kind of faith will save us. (the kind where you just say you believe, but when that faith is tested and your actions show you don't really believe, that will not save us).

The Bible gives us a long list of such works done by faith, and they are listed in Hebrews 11:7 onwards. These people acted, was prompted to action, because in their hearts they really believed everything that God had said. They had genuine faith, the kind that saves.

How does obedience factor into all this? Frankly I'm not sure. I'm still trying to work out that part.

Lady e
Nov 13th 2010, 05:00 AM
Hi Lady e
What I am offering is my understanding of this. Don't take it as Gospel truth, but think through it by yourself, search the Scriptures and see if it makes sense to you.

First, Paul says we are justified by faith. Justified means God acquits us of our sins, and does not cause us to bear the penalty of our sins. We cannot be acquitted from our sins and made righteous by performing works, and works are simply obedience to God's commandments.

To understand this, imagine a private citizen in a country. He obeys the laws of the land perfectly all his life, but he only breaks one law once. He murders someone. His one breaking of the law immediately makes him a criminal, and the wages of his criminal act, is death. No matter how much he obeys the laws of the land even if he lived till 100 years, he will not make up for his crime.

It is the same way for us spiritually. When we break one of God's laws, we immediately become a sinner and the wages of sin is death. No matter how much we obey God's commandments, it will not make up for our sins.

Therefore, only faith in Jesus Christ will justify us and acquit us of our sins. He paid for our sins by his perfect life, and God forgives us on his account, if we believe in Him.

Why then does James say that we are justified not only by faith but by works? I will present my understanding, and you see if it makes sense for you as you read your Bible. I submit that when we read the word "works" we immediately think of good works, of obedience to commands. However I think this is not the kind of works James is talking about here.

James is talking about works which demonstrate and show that we truly believed in God, and in what God had said. James uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab. God had promised Abraham that he will make a great nation out of Isaac his son. Yet later God told Abraham to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham had waited 25 years for this child. If he did not really believe God's promises, he would not have obeyed. Yet he obeyed, because Hebrews told us that Abraham believed that even if he had killed Isaac, God would raise him up again. So he was justified by God because of this act - which demonstrated that he really believed, that his faith was genuine.

Rahab was the same. Her act had nothing to do with obedience to commandments. She did not know God's law, and she had no relationship or familiarity with the Jewish religion. What she did - she saved the spies in order to strike a bargain with them for her life - showed that she really believed that YHWH was the true God, and that all that God had said will come to pass. She really believed, and her works showed she believed, because she risked her own life to save them in order to make a bargain with them for her life, and her family's life.

So both Paul and James are saying the same thing. Paul says we are justified by faith. James says not any kind of faith will do, but faith that really shows itself in our actions (works). When our faith is tested, what we do (our works) will show if we really believe God. And what we do in faith will justify us in God's sight. At the end of the day, it is still faith that prompts the actions, and it is still faith which justifies us, but true faith shows itself in action and decision, and only this kind of faith will save us. (the kind where you just say you believe, but when that faith is tested and your actions show you don't really believe, that will not save us).

The Bible gives us a long list of such works done by faith, and they are listed in Hebrews 11:7 onwards. These people acted, was prompted to action, because in their hearts they really believed everything that God had said. They had genuine faith, the kind that saves.

How does obedience factor into all this? Frankly I'm not sure. I'm still trying to work out that part.

Wow! That makes so much sense! I had never thought of their works like that!.I am going to think about that and pray for understanding-I really think you may be onto something-thank you for sharing! GOD bless

notuptome
Nov 13th 2010, 01:53 PM
What we believe usually dictates what we do. Faith is in its essence belief. The faith by which we receive Gods grace comes through the hearing of Gods word. We believe what we hear from God and God saves us. The life we live after we are saved is through Gods abiding presence in our heart. The Holy Spirit works from within us and in the word of God to have us minister in the name of our Saviour Christ.

Faith is believeing, trusting, or placing an irrevokable confidence in the word of God and in Christ. Believeing, trusting, and having confidence that God will save and keep those who receive Christ as Saviour.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

excubitor
Nov 19th 2010, 11:19 AM
One school of thought is that because we are saved we do good works and if we don't do good works then it is because we were never saved in the first place.
Another school of thought is that we are saved by faith for the purpose of doing good works and if we fail to produce fruit of good works then our faith dies and we fall from grace.

This is all very theoretical, but for practical reasons all Christians do good works. One group do good works to prove to themselves and others that they have a living faith, the other group do good works to remain in the grace and favour of God. It all becomes a giant straw splitting exercise. Point being that they all work. In the end the statement "Salvation by faith alone" just becomes a kind of slogan that protesters put on billboards to wave angrily at other Christians. Nobody actually lives by that mantra, all they do is use it as a divisive tool to keep brothers separated. That's not good enough.

People will say "We are saved by Grace through Faith PERIOD" but in fact there is no PERIOD really because their very next words are "Having said that . . .we have to do good works like James says."

Does anybody really believe that they can believe through faith and be saved by Grace while they do NOTHING, make no changes to their lives, no effort to learn the scriptures, no effort to pray, no effort to do good deeds, no effort to seek God, never go to church, never get baptised, never serve anybody; just sit back like a sluggard and watch TV and wait for the salvation to come? Come on, nobody really believes that. I have heard so many sermons with the mantra "Salvation by faith alone" but they always loudly make the proviso that "this does not mean that we sit back and do nothing". They have to say that because if everybody did no work then the church would not function, nobody would get their cup of tea after the service for a start; and if that's not bad enough, who would preach the gospel, and who would play the hymns, who would sing in the choir, who would publish christian outreach tracts, who would give to the poor? etc. etc.

The parable of the talents should prove that works are required for salvation. The man who did no work and did not exercise his talents and who failed to produce an increase was thrown into outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Point being, that if anybody tells you that you can be saved without good works then they are JUST PLAIN WRONG.

-SEEKING-
Nov 19th 2010, 11:32 AM
People will say "We are saved by Grace through Faith PERIOD"

Absolutely. I say it all the time. It's what Paul says. The works are just an outward expression if what's going on inside. And that's what James says. It can be any more simple.

VerticalReality
Nov 19th 2010, 01:42 PM
One school of thought is that because we are saved we do good works and if we don't do good works then it is because we were never saved in the first place.
Another school of thought is that we are saved by faith for the purpose of doing good works and if we fail to produce fruit of good works then our faith dies and we fall from grace.

This is all very theoretical, but for practical reasons all Christians do good works. One group do good works to prove to themselves and others that they have a living faith, the other group do good works to remain in the grace and favour of God. It all becomes a giant straw splitting exercise. Point being that they all work. In the end the statement "Salvation by faith alone" just becomes a kind of slogan that protesters put on billboards to wave angrily at other Christians. Nobody actually lives by that mantra, all they do is use it as a divisive tool to keep brothers separated. That's not good enough.

People will say "We are saved by Grace through Faith PERIOD" but in fact there is no PERIOD really because their very next words are "Having said that . . .we have to do good works like James says."

Does anybody really believe that they can believe through faith and be saved by Grace while they do NOTHING, make no changes to their lives, no effort to learn the scriptures, no effort to pray, no effort to do good deeds, no effort to seek God, never go to church, never get baptised, never serve anybody; just sit back like a sluggard and watch TV and wait for the salvation to come? Come on, nobody really believes that. I have heard so many sermons with the mantra "Salvation by faith alone" but they always loudly make the proviso that "this does not mean that we sit back and do nothing". They have to say that because if everybody did no work then the church would not function, nobody would get their cup of tea after the service for a start; and if that's not bad enough, who would preach the gospel, and who would play the hymns, who would sing in the choir, who would publish christian outreach tracts, who would give to the poor? etc. etc.

The parable of the talents should prove that works are required for salvation. The man who did no work and did not exercise his talents and who failed to produce an increase was thrown into outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth. Point being, that if anybody tells you that you can be saved without good works then they are JUST PLAIN WRONG.

This is 100% true in my view. So many today want to separate salvation from works at such a level that I believe it clouds the truth. They try so hard to separate salvation from works, and in the process they totally miss what the scriptures say in that regard. Truth is, it is works of law that cannot save. It is works of law that cannot justify. If you are performing works of law what this implies is that you are doing so simply because you are required to; not because you truly have a desire in your heart to do so. This is what God meant when He said of the Israelites, "They serve me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me." Works of the law take the heart right out of the equation. It's all about performing and putting on a facade of holiness or right-standing with God. It's about having a proud heart that says my good deeds can earn God's love. It's saying that God will look upon me with favor because I am so great.

The truth is, faith and works go hand-in-hand. They are inseparable. This is why James clearly says that Abraham was justified by his works. So, how can Paul say in Romans 4 that Abraham was NOT justified by works and then James follows that up with the statement that Abraham WAS justified by works?

The true and scriptural harmony here is this:

Works of law = condemnation
Works of faith = justification

excubitor
Nov 19th 2010, 01:47 PM
The true and scriptural harmony here is this:

Works of law = condemnation
Works of faith = justification
Very good way of putting it. Well done.

Firstfruits
Nov 19th 2010, 02:56 PM
Thanks,I appreciate it!

Just to add to Seeking, to show that we are Christs disciples we should show love to one another.

Jn 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Jn 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Jn 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

God bless you!

Firstfruits

watchinginawe
Nov 19th 2010, 03:26 PM
People will say "We are saved by Grace through Faith PERIOD" but in fact there is no PERIOD really because their very next words are "Having said that . . .we have to do good works like James says." Hello excubitor. The statement is important to connect with to understand grace. Are you suggesting that grace was given you by God because of some works you performed? Did you perhaps accomplish a pilgrimage to be saved? Did you become saved by giving up smoking?

The orthodox faith and works discussions are not solely about what we do AFTER THE PERIOD. They are and can only occur by what happens BEFORE THE PERIOD. We might rephrase what -SEEKING- offered as: We begin our walk with Jesus because Jesus, while we were yet sinners, died for us. PERIOD. We didn't ask Him to do that, it is already accomplished. We begin our walk with Jesus then because of God's grace already offered in the matter. Now the works split comes there. Is God's grace appropriated, administered, and earned by good works of men? Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Or is God's grace received by faith in the proposition of the Gospel alone, PERIOD?

Anyway, put me in the grace through faith camp. And I haven't had that to cause me to recline in my easy chair either. However, it has brought a rest to me even much better than that.

VerticalReality
Nov 19th 2010, 04:06 PM
Hello excubitor. The statement is important to connect with to understand grace. Are you suggesting that grace was given you by God because of some works you performed? Did you perhaps accomplish a pilgrimage to be saved? Did you become saved by giving up smoking?

The orthodox faith and works discussions are not solely about what we do AFTER THE PERIOD. They are and can only occur by what happens BEFORE THE PERIOD. We might rephrase what -SEEKING- offered as: We begin our walk with Jesus because Jesus, while we were yet sinners, died for us. PERIOD. We didn't ask Him to do that, it is already accomplished. We begin our walk with Jesus then because of God's grace already offered in the matter. Now the works split comes there. Is God's grace appropriated, administered, and earned by good works of men? Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? Or is God's grace received by faith in the proposition of the Gospel alone, PERIOD?

Anyway, put me in the grace through faith camp. And I haven't had that to cause me to recline in my easy chair either. However, it has brought a rest to me even much better than that.

I would say a good way to phrase it would be that by God's grace we are saved through faith demonstrated by works.

watchinginawe
Nov 19th 2010, 04:19 PM
I would say a good way to phrase it would be that by God's grace we are saved through faith demonstrated by works. I don't mind that but that isn't my testimony. So while I can accept your statement as a teaching, I don't think we put our faith on display by calling out our demonstrated good works. How are we saved? By grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Do we proclaim a "dead faith"? No, but it does make for an interesting conversation. :)

VerticalReality
Nov 19th 2010, 04:22 PM
I don't mind that but that isn't my testimony. So while I can accept your statement as a teaching, I don't think we put our faith on display by calling out our demonstrated good works. How are we saved? By grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Do we proclaim a "dead faith"? No, and it does make for an interesting conversation. :)

I guess I really don't understand your stating that, "I don't think we put our faith on display by calling out our demonstrated good works."

If you are "calling out" your demonstrated good works then I would doubt they are really good works at all. Could you clarify what you mean by "calling out" our good works?

watchinginawe
Nov 19th 2010, 04:27 PM
I guess I really don't understand your stating that, "I don't think we put our faith on display by calling out our demonstrated good works."

If you are "calling out" your demonstrated good works then I would doubt they are really good works at all. Could you clarify what you mean by "calling out" our good works? By adding the "demonstrated by works" portion to our testimony instead of applying it as a teaching. The works are a result of being saved (continuing in Jesus) and not what saves us.

Butch5
Nov 20th 2010, 01:41 AM
OK,so I am trying to understand the concept of faith and works.Here is my humble understanding: Faith with works is when,after accepting Christ you become a new person,and want to help others-example,someone needs a ride to work,a shoulder to cry on, someone to talk to,or even needing prayer.Helping others makes you feel wonderful inside.My opinion of faith without works is when someone says they are a Christian,but only help for show,or out of duty,or maybe even don't help at all.Am I right in my thoughts?I am really wanting to grow,and this is one of those scriptures I have a hard time understanding.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

Hi Lady E,

This issue is really quite simple if we a few things in mind. When Paul speaks of not being saved by works, he is speaking of circumcision and the Mosaic Law. He is not speaking of good deeds and obedience to Christ. Any time you see Paul speaking of "not of works" read the passage in context and look at the surrounding chapters and you will inevitably find references to the Mosaic Law. One problem that Paul dealt with in his ministry and it may have been the biggest problem he had was that there were Jews from Jerusalem going behind him telling his converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to keep the Mosaic Law. This is the context of Paul's "not of works" statements, Paul argues repeatedly that the "Works" of the Law will not justify anyone. In Act 15 Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with the other apostles to get them to weigh in on this to help confirm his teaching, notice what we have recorded in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1-2 ( KJV )
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


So, Paul met with the other apostles, yet there were some in the church at Jerusalem that also said the Gentiles needed to keep the Law of Moses.


Acts 15:4-5 ( KJV )
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

So, this was not a settled issue. After discussing it James give the answer.


Acts 15:6-21 ( KJV )
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

So, James concludes that it is not necessary that the Gentiles adhere to the Law of Moses. He says,

Acts 15:22-29 ( KJV )
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So, when you see "not of works" look for references to circumcison and the Law of Moses. Concerning good works Paul is in agreement with the rest of the apostles when he says,

Romans 2:5-9 ( KJV )
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Paul says by dong good one is seeking eternal life.

mailmandan
Jul 20th 2011, 11:51 AM
Hi Lady E,

This issue is really quite simple if we a few things in mind. When Paul speaks of not being saved by works, he is speaking of circumcision and the Mosaic Law. He is not speaking of good deeds and obedience to Christ. Any time you see Paul speaking of "not of works" read the passage in context and look at the surrounding chapters and you will inevitably find references to the Mosaic Law. One problem that Paul dealt with in his ministry and it may have been the biggest problem he had was that there were Jews from Jerusalem going behind him telling his converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to keep the Mosaic Law. This is the context of Paul's "not of works" statements, Paul argues repeatedly that the "Works" of the Law will not justify anyone. In Act 15 Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with the other apostles to get them to weigh in on this to help confirm his teaching, notice what we have recorded in Acts 15.

Acts 15:1-2 ( KJV )
And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


So, Paul met with the other apostles, yet there were some in the church at Jerusalem that also said the Gentiles needed to keep the Law of Moses.


Acts 15:4-5 ( KJV )
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

So, this was not a settled issue. After discussing it James give the answer.


Acts 15:6-21 ( KJV )
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

So, James concludes that it is not necessary that the Gentiles adhere to the Law of Moses. He says,

Acts 15:22-29 ( KJV )
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So, when you see "not of works" look for references to circumcison and the Law of Moses. Concerning good works Paul is in agreement with the rest of the apostles when he says,

Romans 2:5-9 ( KJV )
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Paul says by dong good one is seeking eternal life.

This is the same erroneous argument that I heard in the Roman Catholic church that I grew up in. Paul did not limit "not of works" strictly to the works of the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5 he affirmed that it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." In 2 Timothy 1:9 he also mentioned that He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. So it is not just works of the law but any works which follow saving faith that are the insufficient means of our salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that we are saved through faith "and good deeds"...not of works of the law of Moses. Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, there is no distinction between works of the law and good deeds/obedience to Christ. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

Paul could not have limited the concept of "works" to the Law of Moses. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote: "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" For if Abraham was justified by "works," he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” In this context "works" could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of "works" exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general.

Paul never once said that we are saved "by" works. Paul said that we are saved for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 2:10). In Romans 2:5-9, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. The context of Romans 2 relates to the judgment of God (see vs. 3). And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context Paul would stress the works that are a manifestation of the faith by which one receives eternal life (2:6-7).

Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians).

Patient continuance in well doing - Note carefully that this phrase does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

Butch5
Jul 20th 2011, 12:45 PM
This is the same erroneous argument that I heard in the Roman Catholic church that I grew up in. Paul did not limit "not of works" strictly to the works of the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5 he affirmed that it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." In 2 Timothy 1:9 he also mentioned that He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. So it is not just works of the law but any works which follow saving faith that are the insufficient means of our salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that we are saved through faith "and good deeds"...not of works of the law of Moses. Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, there is no distinction between works of the law and good deeds/obedience to Christ. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

Paul could not have limited the concept of "works" to the Law of Moses. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote: "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" For if Abraham was justified by "works," he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” In this context "works" could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of "works" exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general.

Paul never once said that we are saved "by" works. Paul said that we are saved for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 2:10). In Romans 2:5-9, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. The context of Romans 2 relates to the judgment of God (see vs. 3). And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context Paul would stress the works that are a manifestation of the faith by which one receives eternal life (2:6-7).

Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians).

Patient continuance in well doing - Note carefully that this phrase does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

Let me guess Dan, it only "Seems" to be saying that but it really isn't, right?

uric3
Jul 20th 2011, 02:03 PM
This is the same erroneous argument that I heard in the Roman Catholic church that I grew up in. Paul did not limit "not of works" strictly to the works of the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5 he affirmed that it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." In 2 Timothy 1:9 he also mentioned that He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. So it is not just works of the law but any works which follow saving faith that are the insufficient means of our salvation.

Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that we are saved through faith "and good deeds"...not of works of the law of Moses. Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, there is no distinction between works of the law and good deeds/obedience to Christ. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

Paul could not have limited the concept of "works" to the Law of Moses. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote: "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" For if Abraham was justified by "works," he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” In this context "works" could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of "works" exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general.

Paul never once said that we are saved "by" works. Paul said that we are saved for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 2:10). In Romans 2:5-9, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. The context of Romans 2 relates to the judgment of God (see vs. 3). And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context Paul would stress the works that are a manifestation of the faith by which one receives eternal life (2:6-7).

Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians).

Patient continuance in well doing - Note carefully that this phrase does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

I think the problem here is you're looking at it wrong... I noticed you stated things such as this statement "Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?"

I'm not trying to put words into Butch5's mouth but I don't think he is trying to say you have to do X amount of any thing to be saved. We can't earn our salvation. The question becomes do we do good works and deeds to be saved? Or is it because we are saved? I think its the later.

If you are saved and don't do anything then I guess you'd have to question your salvation... being a Christian you should be spurred to do good works. Look at James 2:14-26 again... you noted it above however it notes that faith without works is dead... thus works whether it be helping a brother or sister or preaching the gospel as a Christian these are things you should be doing. Once again not to be saved but because your saved.

I like how Isa 64:6 puts it "...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;..." granted I know I can't earn my salvation however I know and want to good works to try and be Christ like... once again not to be saved but because I'm saved... I also know my good works are like filthy rags because I am no where near perfect... however to say works aren't part of our salvation is kind of ignoring various parts of scripture such as James 2... we are to do good works... once again not to be saved but because we are saved.

RollTide21
Jul 20th 2011, 02:33 PM
Thanks everyone.It seems like most of you feel the same as I do-That faith with works is doing things to help others.I am glad to be able to talk about this as it has been mis-used by some as a means to make people feel guilty.GOD bless you all.Read Galatians 5:22-23 where it talks about the Fruits of the Spirit. This is what we should expect when we are in an intimate relationship with Christ. Yes...helping others is part of this. Love, kindness and goodness are all Fruits of the Spirit. There is also joy, peace, forbearance, gentleness, and self-control.

It's really an overall condition of the heart that leads us to do good "works" when we are in Christ. These works should be a reflection of the Fruits of the Spirit.

Butch5
Jul 20th 2011, 05:32 PM
This is the same erroneous argument that I heard in the Roman Catholic church that I grew up in. Paul did not limit "not of works" strictly to the works of the law of Moses. In Titus 3:5 he affirmed that it is "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." In 2 Timothy 1:9 he also mentioned that He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. So it is not just works of the law but any works which follow saving faith that are the insufficient means of our salvation.

Why don’t we let Paul tell us what he means by “Works of Righteousness”.

Philippians 3:9(KJV)
9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

According to Paul, the works of righteousness he spoke of came through keeping the Law.

Let’s stick with what the Scriptures say.



Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say that we are saved through faith "and good deeds"...not of works of the law of Moses. Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?

Here we go with the fallacies again. This is known as the fallacy of the beard. How many hairs does it take to make a beard?


When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, there is no distinction between works of the law and good deeds/obedience to Christ. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18).

What does he say of this? Can that faith save him?

James 2:14-16(KJV)
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Dan, you’re making my arguments for me.


Paul could not have limited the concept of "works" to the Law of Moses. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote: "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?" For if Abraham was justified by "works," he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness.” In this context "works" could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of "works" exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general.


Not at all. Read chapter 3, it’s all about the Law. What better way to prove a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law than to show a man who was justified before the Law even existed? Paul’s argument is that a man is not justified by the works of the Mosaic Law, but rather by faith. In order to prove his point he looks to Abraham, a guy who was justified by God long before the Mosaic Law was ever given. Thus, his point is proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Abraham believed God and was justified, and this long before the Mosaic Law. He’s made his case.


Paul never once said that we are saved "by" works. Paul said that we are saved for good works, not by good works (Ephesians 2:10). In Romans 2:5-9, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. The context of Romans 2 relates to the judgment of God (see vs. 3). And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context Paul would stress the works that are a manifestation of the faith by which one receives eternal life (2:6-7).

You keep saying this, however, it’s not the case. Firstly, Paul doesn’t say they were saved for good works, he said they were “Created” for good works. Secondly, again, we have assumptions.


Dan---And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow.

When we look at Paul’s words we find that they are not in accord with you statement above.

Romans 2:5-7(KJV)
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

According to what you’ve said the believer is doing good deeds because he has eternal life (salvation). However, Paul said those who do good deeds are seeking eternal life (salvation). If one is seeking eternal life then one doesn’t presently have it. If as Paul says, doing good deeds is seeking eternal life then it would seem that good deeds are necessary to obtain eternal life (salvation), just as James said.



Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians).

Patient continuance in well doing does describe a believer, your error is in the assumption that the believer has already obtained salvation. Peter said,

1 Peter 1:6-9(KJV)
6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Notice Peter said receiving the “END” of you faith, the salvation of your soul. He didn’t say the beginning of your faith or the middle of your faith, he said the end of your faith. That’s the same thing Jesus said.

Matthew 10:22(KJV)
22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

He didn’t say he who endures in the beginning or he who endure til the middle, but he who endures to the end.



Patient continuance in well doing - Note carefully that this phrase does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

He we go with the qualifiers again, “genuinely saved”.

Let’s do that, let’s carefully note the passage.

Romans 2:5(KJV)
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Paul writing to the “believers” in Rome said, after the hardness of your heart you're treasuring up wrath for yourself in the day of judgment.

Romans 2:6(KJV)
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Then he says God will render judgment to every man, not just the believers, but every man according to his works, not according to his theological position but according to his works.

Then he give some details of this judgment.

Romans 2:7-10(KJV)
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Obviously this judgment ins for salvation because through it some receive eternal life and some will suffer the wrath of God. Then He tells how they will be judged. He says those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life and immortality, that is salvation. On the other hand, He says that those who are contentious and don’t obey the truth are seeking wrath. Paul is quite clear here. He doesn’t say this how you can tell a genuine believer from a false believer. He doesn’t say this is the behavior of the “Genuine” believer and the false believer. No, he says God will judge every man according to his works and then he gives the outcome of each type or works.

mailmandan
Jul 20th 2011, 09:41 PM
I think the problem here is you're looking at it wrong... I noticed you stated things such as this statement "Since you believe that we are saved based on our good deeds/obedience to Christ, then tell me, how many "good deeds," how much "obedience" must we accomplish and add as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us? How much is enough?"

I'm not trying to put words into Butch5's mouth but I don't think he is trying to say you have to do X amount of any thing to be saved. We can't earn our salvation. The question becomes do we do good works and deeds to be saved? Or is it because we are saved? I think its the later.

If you are saved and don't do anything then I guess you'd have to question your salvation... being a Christian you should be spurred to do good works. Look at James 2:14-26 again... you noted it above however it notes that faith without works is dead... thus works whether it be helping a brother or sister or preaching the gospel as a Christian these are things you should be doing. Once again not to be saved but because your saved.

I like how Isa 64:6 puts it "...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;..." granted I know I can't earn my salvation however I know and want to good works to try and be Christ like... once again not to be saved but because I'm saved... I also know my good works are like filthy rags because I am no where near perfect... however to say works aren't part of our salvation is kind of ignoring various parts of scripture such as James 2... we are to do good works... once again not to be saved but because we are saved.

I agree with you my friend. We are to do good works...not to become saved but because we are saved.

Good works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of saving faith, but not the essence of saving faith and not the means of our salvation. However, Butch is saying that good works are the actual basis of our salvation. Just read his response in thread #28. His arguments are exactly the same arguments that I hear from Roman Catholics. hhmmm...

zeke77
Jul 20th 2011, 10:53 PM
I think you have a good idea. Basically it comes down to this. We are saved by grace through faith. PERIOD.


Aren't we saved by grace through faith that works through love, i.e., obedient faith? Is obedience something man must do to be saved?



For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(Galatians 5:6 ESV)

mailmandan
Jul 21st 2011, 03:08 AM
Aren't we saved by grace through faith that works through love, i.e., obedient faith? Is obedience something man must do to be saved?



For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(Galatians 5:6 ESV)

We are saved through faith in Christ, not through our best efforts to love and produce obedience/works. Does Ephesians 2:8 or Romans 5:1 say "obedient" faith or faith? So why does faith work through love? Because we receive the love of God in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5) who was given to us when we BELIEVED (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13) and we then became new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Believing in Christ for salvation is something that man must do to become saved (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). Obedience (works) which follow saving faith is something that man does because he is saved, not to become saved.

mailmandan
Jul 21st 2011, 03:19 AM
Let me guess Dan, it only "Seems" to be saying that but it really isn't, right?

Actually, none of the passages that you cited said that we are saved "by" works, but of course that is what they "seem" to say to you. So show me which passage of Scripture says that we are saved through faith "and good deeds" or faith "and obedience to Christ." You continue to confuse the fruit of salvation (good works) with the root of salvation (faith in Christ).

NHL Fever
Jul 21st 2011, 03:32 AM
In a person's life, if there are works, that is not proof or faith. But if there are no works, that is proof of no faith. Works should automatically occur if faith is present. Just like a husband who asks his wife what she wants to feel affection. By telling him each time, it proves there probably is no affection. If affection, the the acts follow automatically. Its a condition of the heart. Every person in a love relationship knows this inherently, and God knows our hearts likewise.

zeke77
Jul 21st 2011, 03:37 AM
We are saved through faith in Christ, not through our best efforts to love and produce obedience/works.


Was Paul wrong when he said - *in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.* What does "working through love" mean? Are you saying one can be saved without obeying from the heart the gospel of grace - the doctrine once delivered?



But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

(Romans 6: 17,18 ESV)


If I obey God from the heart that which God requires am I earning my own salvation? Does obedience to God negate the work of Christ on the cross? Did you not obey from the heart the gospel of Christ at your conversion?



"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, ..." (1 Sam 15)

mailmandan
Jul 21st 2011, 11:46 AM
Why don’t we let Paul tell us what he means by “Works of Righteousness”.

Philippians 3:9(KJV)
9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

According to Paul, the works of righteousness he spoke of came through keeping the Law.

That is our own righteousness that Paul was talking about in Philippians 3:9 through keeping the Law. He didn't define works of righteousness as strictly keeping the Law and good works were not the alternative to keeping the Law and being found in Him either. The alternative is the righteousness which is of God by faith. So what about works of righteousness that we accomplish after we are saved through faith? In Titus 3:5, Paul said that it's not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Notice that he did not say that it was according to our good works either. He saved us and called
us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (2 Timothy 1:9). In Acts 10:35, Peter said, But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. So was Peter talking about the Law? Do we have a contradiction?


Let’s stick with what the Scriptures say.

The Scriptures do not say that we are saved by keeping the Law or that we are saved by good works either.


What does he say of this? Can that faith save him?

James 2:14-16(KJV)
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Dan, you’re making my arguments for me.

In James 2:14, we read of one who "says he has faith" but has no works. This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith. James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. SHOW me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish. Big difference. I am certainly not making your "saved by works" arguments for you.

In James 2:15-16, we see that the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" Is neglecting such a brother or sister breaking the second great commandment? "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) Is this commandment not found written in the Law of Moses? (Leviticus 19:18). Paul simply says "works" in Ephesians 2:9 and James simply says "works" in James chapter 2. When it comes to the moral aspect of the Law, you can't escape the Law of Moses. Your argument is bogus. We are not saved by works of the Law, works of righteousness or good works (regardless of how you define your terms), but through FAITH.


Read chapter 3, it’s all about the Law. What better way to prove a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law than to show a man who was justified before the Law even existed? Paul’s argument is that a man is not justified by the works of the Mosaic Law, but rather by faith. In order to prove his point he looks to Abraham, a guy who was justified by God long before the Mosaic Law was ever given. Thus, his point is proven beyond a shadow of doubt. Abraham believed God and was justified, and this long before the Mosaic Law. He’s made his case.

I know that a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law. Man is justified by faith (Romans 5:1). So what did Paul say about Abraham? In Romans 4:2-3, For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (Not justified by works). For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." You keep saying that we are saved by good works (not of the Law) but where does the Bible say this?


You keep saying this, however, it’s not the case. Firstly, Paul doesn’t say they were saved for good works, he said they were “Created” for good works. Secondly, again, we have assumptions.

Paul clearly stated that we are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, and that we are created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) yet you say that we are not saved for good works and somehow you equate this to saved "by" good works? What Paul said is crystal clear my friend. You are the one who has assumptions.


When we look at Paul’s words we find that they are not in accord with you statement above.

Romans 2:5-7(KJV)
5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

According to what you’ve said the believer is doing good deeds because he has eternal life (salvation). However, Paul said those who do good deeds are seeking eternal life (salvation). If one is seeking eternal life then one doesn’t presently have it. If as Paul says, doing good deeds is seeking eternal life then it would seem that good deeds are necessary to obtain eternal life (salvation), just as James said.

For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). He who believes in the Son has (not could have) eternal life (John 3:36). Salvation is spoken of in three tenses. Justification - saved from the PENALTY of sin. Sanctification - being saved from the POWER of sin. Glorification - will be saved from the PRESENCE of sin. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, we read, Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. This is what those who have already been saved through faith are seeking (glorification). They are not seeking to become saved through faith.

Since you are confusing justification with glorification, it only seems to you that good deeds are the necessary means to obtain eternal life (1 Corinthians 2:14). Where does the Bible say that we are saved through good deeds? We are saved through FAITH. James did not say that we are saved by works either. As I explained to you before, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. For James, “faith only” means a bogus kind of faith, mere intellectual agreement without a genuine personal trust in Christ for salvation that results in producing good works in one’s life. Once we are genuinely saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, our life will SHOW it. Those works, however, do not gain us any more salvation or help us keep salvation. They are the result of accepting Christ and are the by product of our faith and salvation.


Patient continuance in well doing does describe a believer, your error is in the assumption that the believer has already obtained salvation.

For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Your error is confusing justification with glorification. The believer has not already obtained salvation in the third tense (glorification) but they will. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30).


Peter said,

1 Peter 1:6-9(KJV)
6Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

That is GLORIFICATION for those who are JUSTIFIED.


Notice Peter said receiving the “END” of you faith, the salvation of your soul. He didn’t say the beginning of your faith or the middle of your faith, he said the end of your faith. That’s the same thing Jesus said.

The end of our faith is salvation in the third tense, GLORIFICATION. Glorification is not found at the beginning of our faith (Justification) or the middle of our faith (ongoing Sanctification) but it will be found at the end of our faith when we are glorified.


Matthew 10:22(KJV)
22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

He didn’t say he who endures in the beginning or he who endure til the middle, but he who endures to the end.

The same one's who endure or stand firm to the end are the same one's who have been saved through faith. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). If we don't endure, then our faith was never genuine to begin with (1 John 2:19). If they would have been of us, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH US.

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

He will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:8)


Romans 2:6(KJV)
6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Then he says God will render judgment to every man, not just the believers, but every man according to his works, not according to his theological position but according to his works.

Believers receive eternal life and unbelievers receive eternal damnation (John 3:18). At the Judgment Seat of Christ, we see, If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. So much for saved by works.


Obviously this judgment ins for salvation because through it some receive eternal life and some will suffer the wrath of God. Then He tells how they will be judged. He says those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life and immortality, that is salvation. On the other hand, He says that those who are contentious and don’t obey the truth are seeking wrath. Paul is quite clear here. He doesn’t say this how you can tell a genuine believer from a false believer. He doesn’t say this is the behavior of the “Genuine” believer and the false believer. No, he says God will judge every man according to his works and then he gives the outcome of each type or works.

Those who have already been saved through faith are seeking immortality, glorification. That is the third tense of our salvation. So once again, Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians). Patient continuance in well doing does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

zeke77
Jul 21st 2011, 10:06 PM
For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness."


The "faith" demonstrated by Abraham was a faith that 'works through love'. What does a faith "working through love" mean? The faith that Abraham had was a faith that obeyed - i.e., obedient faith...



"by faith Abraham obeyed...



You confuse belief (mental assent) with obedient faith. Mental assent alone does not equate to true faith. The demons believe. The faith that saves is a faith that obeys from the heart. We were all once "slaves of sin" but those believers who became "obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching" that was presented in the NT have been "set free from sin" and have become "slaves of righteousness" through the blood of Christ. Were you obedient 'from the heart' to the gospel of Christ - do you have a faith that works (obeys) through love?

zeke77
Jul 21st 2011, 10:16 PM
The end of our faith is salvation in the third tense, GLORIFICATION. Glorification is not found at the beginning of our faith (Justification) or the middle of our faith (ongoing Sanctification) but it will be found at the end of our faith when we are glorified.


But isn't salvation also noted as a 'past event"? God saved us (past tense) "through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5). Can't I - as a disciple of Jesus Christ - accurately say, "I have been saved already through the blood of Christ"?

mailmandan
Jul 22nd 2011, 10:52 AM
Was Paul wrong when he said - *in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.* What does "working through love" mean? Are you saying one can be saved without obeying from the heart the gospel of grace - the doctrine once delivered?



But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

(Romans 6: 17,18 ESV)


If I obey God from the heart that which God requires am I earning my own salvation? Does obedience to God negate the work of Christ on the cross? Did you not obey from the heart the gospel of Christ at your conversion?



"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, ..." (1 Sam 15)

Paul was not wrong when he said in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. "Working through love" does not add an additional requirement to becoming saved after we place our faith in Christ for salvation. Once we are saved through faith, our faith then works through love because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:5) Our faith works through love because we are saved, not to become saved.

When we place our faith in Christ for salvation, we have obeyed from the heart the gospel of grace. In Romans 10:16, we see: But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" We can clearly see that we obey the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the only means of our salvation (Romans 1:16). Through obeying the gospel by choosing to believe the gospel, we are not earning our salvation. We are trusting solely in the One who earned it for us. Choosing to believe the gospel is an act of obedience. This act of obedience does not negate the work of Christ on the cross. I did obey from the heart the gospel of Christ at my conversion. There is a difference between obeying the gospel to become saved and then obeying the Lord after we are saved through faith.

mailmandan
Jul 22nd 2011, 11:33 AM
The "faith" demonstrated by Abraham was a faith that 'works through love'. What does a faith "working through love" mean? The faith that Abraham had was a faith that obeyed - i.e., obedient faith...



"by faith Abraham obeyed...



You confuse belief (mental assent) with obedient faith. Mental assent alone does not equate to true faith. The demons believe. The faith that saves is a faith that obeys from the heart. We were all once "slaves of sin" but those believers who became "obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching" that was presented in the NT have been "set free from sin" and have become "slaves of righteousness" through the blood of Christ. Were you obedient 'from the heart' to the gospel of Christ - do you have a faith that works (obeys) through love?

I already explained to you what "working through love" means. It does not mean working through love in order to become saved by works. Abraham had a faith that obeyed, but Abraham was saved through faith, not works. In James 2:21, notice closely that James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God's accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before he obeyed God through the work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So was Abraham saved when he believed the Lord in Genesis 15:6 or not until many years later, after he obeyed by attempting to sacrifice Isaac? The work of Abraham did not merit his salvation, but it proved or manifested the genuineness of his faith.

So by or out of faith Abraham obeyed, but Abraham obeyed by attempting to sacrifice Isaac because he was saved, not to become saved.

I certainly do not confuse (mental assent) belief with faith that trusts in Christ alone for salvation and results in obedience. I understand that mental assent belief which merely acknowledges certain historical facts about Christ but does not trust in Him alone for salvation does not equate to true faith. In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also "believe" that there is "one God" but where in this passage does it say that demons believe or trust in the Savior God sent for redemption? Scripture reveals that the only thing they trusted the Son of the most high God for when He was on earth dealing with them was their eventual sentence to the pit! The faith of demons is only "mental assent." Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. The word "believe" can describe "mere mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance" (Acts 16:31). Saving faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving faith is a complete trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ as the only means of our salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 1:16). Is this the kind of faith that you have or are you also trusting in your works for salvation?

The faith that saves is the faith that trusts in Christ alone for salvation (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16). This faith results in further obedience because we are saved, not to become saved. This faith has obeyed from the heart the gospel of grace. We are then set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness through the blood of Christ, not through our works. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. (Romans 5:9) Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24-26)

Once again, yes I have been obedient from the heart to the gospel of Christ. Were you or are you trying to reconcile yourself to God through your works and then call that obeying the gospel of Christ? My faith works (obeys) through love because I am saved (Romans 5:5), not to become saved. What about you?

mailmandan
Jul 22nd 2011, 11:40 AM
But isn't salvation also noted as a 'past event"? God saved us (past tense) "through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5). Can't I - as a disciple of Jesus Christ - accurately say, "I have been saved already through the blood of Christ"?

Absolutely! Amen! For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Just because we have not yet been glorified does not mean that we have not yet received the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit and have been saved through faith.

zeke77
Jul 22nd 2011, 10:10 PM
I already explained to you what "working through love" means. It does not mean working through love in order to become saved by works. Abraham had a faith that obeyed, but Abraham was saved through faith, not works.


You are not quite right here my friend. Abraham was justified by a faith that worked through obedience - ...by faith Abraham obeyed.... Are you saying one who believes but refuses to obey God will be saved? The demons believe. Isn't there something one must DO to be saved? Mustn't one believe and "obey from the heart" the gospel of Christ in order to be saved?

zeke77
Jul 22nd 2011, 10:21 PM
I already explained to you what "working through love" means. It does not mean working through love in order to become saved by works.


Are you sure there are no "works" that we must do to be saved? Isn't belief itself a work of God that man must do on order to be saved? Are we not required to "work the works of God"? Did Abraham 'work the works of God'?



"What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
(John 6:28, 29)

mailmandan
Jul 23rd 2011, 10:57 AM
You are not quite right here my friend. Abraham was justified by a faith that worked through obedience - ...by faith Abraham obeyed.... Are you saying one who believes but refuses to obey God will be saved? The demons believe. Isn't there something one must DO to be saved? Mustn't one believe and "obey from the heart" the gospel of Christ in order to be saved?

Abraham's faith was the root of his salvation and his obedience which followed was the fruit of his salvation. His faith was genuine and it was demonstrated by his obedience. Abraham was saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:1-3); yet his faith was substantiated and confirmed by his works (James 2:21). Those who believe do not refuse to obey God at all, but at the same time, nobody perfectly obeys Him after they believe either. The demons believe "mental assent" that there is "one God" (James 2:19) but the demons do not believe (trust) in Christ for salvation (Acts 16:31). Big difference.

When we believe the gospel by trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the only means of our salvation, we have obeyed from the heart the gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16). It's not believe "and" obey, but obey by believing (Romans 10:16). The gospel is a message of grace to be received through faith. It's not a code of laws to be obeyed or a check list of good works to accomplish. It simply sets forth Christ crucified and risen as the Savior of all who believe (trust) in Him alone for salvation (Romans 1:16).

mailmandan
Jul 23rd 2011, 11:10 AM
Are you sure there are no "works" that we must do to be saved? Isn't belief itself a work of God that man must do on order to be saved? Are we not required to "work the works of God"? Did Abraham 'work the works of God'?


"What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
(John 6:28, 29)



In John 6:28, they thought Jesus was saying that God required them to work for their salvation by accomplishing a list of works to receive eternal life, which they thought they would be able to do. But Jesus answers: "The work (singular) of God is that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). We are required to believe in Him to receive salvation, not accomplish a list of works to merit our salvation. Believing is clearly not a work that merits our salvation. Through believing, we are completely trusting in "Another's work," (Christ's finished work of redemption). Through believing, we are simply accepting the free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8). No merit for us. Christ gets all the merit for our salvation. Good works which follow saving faith are the fruit of our salvation, not the root. If these works are the necessary means of our salvation, then that would add merit on our part to our salvation because then we would be saved based on Christ's finished work of redemption "plus our works." These works would add to the cross of Christ and turn Him into an insufficient Savior. Believing does not add to the cross, it accepts the cross. Do you believe (trust solely) in Christ for salvation or are you also trusting in your works for salvation?

In regards to Abraham, he did not accomplish a list of works to save himself. He believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

While on the surface the idea of requiring works in addition to faith for salvation may sound noble, in essence it disqualifies faith. Here's why: We receive eternal salvation by placing our faith (our trust, our reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. To say that we must add our works in order to become saved is to say that Christ’s finished work of redemption is insufficient to secure our salvation, and what we really mean then, is that we lack the trust and reliance that He alone can eternally save us. This lack of trust and reliance in Christ as the only means of our salvation is the opposite of placing faith in Him. Believing in Him and our works to save us is not believing in Him. Salvation through faith is not hard to understand, just hard for many people to accept. Many people just can't let go of their works in order to take hold of Christ through faith.

zeke77
Jul 23rd 2011, 01:35 PM
In John 6:28, they thought Jesus was saying that God required them to work for their salvation by accomplishing a list of works to receive eternal life, which they thought they would be able to do. But Jesus answers: "The work (singular) of God is that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). We are required to believe in Him to receive salvation, not accomplish a list of works to merit our salvation. Believing is clearly not a work that merits our salvation.

Then are we in agreement - we must "work the works of God" if we are to be saved? Those works are not "works of the law" and they are not "works of merit" done to earn salvation but they are nonetheless works - works that God requires man to do.

Butch5
Jul 23rd 2011, 07:16 PM
Actually, none of the passages that you cited said that we are saved "by" works, but of course that is what they "seem" to say to you. So show me which passage of Scripture says that we are saved through faith "and good deeds" or faith "and obedience to Christ." You continue to confuse the fruit of salvation (good works) with the root of salvation (faith in Christ).

I've given them to you many times Dan, you've simply danced around them with fancilful exageratioins of the text. The text of Scripture is clear for the one who "Wants" to know the truth.

James said a man is justified by works, Scripture is clear that no one is saved unless they are justifed. There is proof Dan.

Butch5
Jul 23rd 2011, 07:22 PM
That is our own righteousness that Paul was talking about in Philippians 3:9 through keeping the Law. He didn't define works of righteousness as strictly keeping the Law and good works were not the alternative to keeping the Law and being found in Him either. The alternative is the righteousness which is of God by faith. So what about works of righteousness that we accomplish after we are saved through faith? In Titus 3:5, Paul said that it's not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Notice that he did not say that it was according to our good works either. He saved us and called
us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began (2 Timothy 1:9). In Acts 10:35, Peter said, But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. So was Peter talking about the Law? Do we have a contradiction?



The Scriptures do not say that we are saved by keeping the Law or that we are saved by good works either.



In James 2:14, we read of one who "says he has faith" but has no works. This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith. James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. SHOW me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish. Big difference. I am certainly not making your "saved by works" arguments for you.

In James 2:15-16, we see that the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" Is neglecting such a brother or sister breaking the second great commandment? "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) Is this commandment not found written in the Law of Moses? (Leviticus 19:18). Paul simply says "works" in Ephesians 2:9 and James simply says "works" in James chapter 2. When it comes to the moral aspect of the Law, you can't escape the Law of Moses. Your argument is bogus. We are not saved by works of the Law, works of righteousness or good works (regardless of how you define your terms), but through FAITH.



I know that a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law. Man is justified by faith (Romans 5:1). So what did Paul say about Abraham? In Romans 4:2-3, For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (Not justified by works). For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." You keep saying that we are saved by good works (not of the Law) but where does the Bible say this?



Paul clearly stated that we are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, and that we are created in Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:8-10) yet you say that we are not saved for good works and somehow you equate this to saved "by" good works? What Paul said is crystal clear my friend. You are the one who has assumptions.



For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). He who believes in the Son has (not could have) eternal life (John 3:36). Salvation is spoken of in three tenses. Justification - saved from the PENALTY of sin. Sanctification - being saved from the POWER of sin. Glorification - will be saved from the PRESENCE of sin. In 1 Corinthians 15:51-53, we read, Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. This is what those who have already been saved through faith are seeking (glorification). They are not seeking to become saved through faith.

Since you are confusing justification with glorification, it only seems to you that good deeds are the necessary means to obtain eternal life (1 Corinthians 2:14). Where does the Bible say that we are saved through good deeds? We are saved through FAITH. James did not say that we are saved by works either. As I explained to you before, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. For James, “faith only” means a bogus kind of faith, mere intellectual agreement without a genuine personal trust in Christ for salvation that results in producing good works in one’s life. Once we are genuinely saved by grace through faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, our life will SHOW it. Those works, however, do not gain us any more salvation or help us keep salvation. They are the result of accepting Christ and are the by product of our faith and salvation.



For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Your error is confusing justification with glorification. The believer has not already obtained salvation in the third tense (glorification) but they will. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30).



That is GLORIFICATION for those who are JUSTIFIED.



The end of our faith is salvation in the third tense, GLORIFICATION. Glorification is not found at the beginning of our faith (Justification) or the middle of our faith (ongoing Sanctification) but it will be found at the end of our faith when we are glorified.



The same one's who endure or stand firm to the end are the same one's who have been saved through faith. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). If we don't endure, then our faith was never genuine to begin with (1 John 2:19). If they would have been of us, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH US.

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

He will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:8)



Believers receive eternal life and unbelievers receive eternal damnation (John 3:18). At the Judgment Seat of Christ, we see, If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; (of reward) but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. So much for saved by works.



Those who have already been saved through faith are seeking immortality, glorification. That is the third tense of our salvation. So once again, Patient continuance in well doing, seeking glory and honour and immortality gives us a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. They who are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, gives us a description of unbelievers (non-Christians). Patient continuance in well doing does not describe the way of salvation but the way the saved conduct their lives. In other words, their doing good gives clear evidence that they are genuinely saved. So the "patient continuance in well doing" is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal.

Dan,
I’m not going spend time writing out long posts to you anymore. I’ve given you a multitude of information. I’ve pointed out the contradictions with Scripture, I’ve pointed out the Logical Fallacies, and the fanciful explanations. Yet you keep making the same statements so there’s really no point, my time can be spend working with Christians who are interested in the truth.

mailmandan
Jul 24th 2011, 11:27 AM
Then are we in agreement - we must "work the works of God" if we are to be saved? Those works are not "works of the law" and they are not "works of merit" done to earn salvation but they are nonetheless works - works that God requires man to do.

In John 6:29, Jesus did not say that we must work the works (plural) of God. He did not give us a list of multiple works that we must do to be saved. Jesus simply said, this is the work (singular) of God that you believe in Him whom He sent. Believing is not a work of merit. Through believing, we are accepting the free gift of eternal life. Additional works which follow saving faith would be works of merit if they were the means of receiving salvation so it appears that we are not in agreement. After we are saved through faith, we are then created in Christ Jesus for good works. We are saved for good works not by good works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

mailmandan
Jul 24th 2011, 12:44 PM
I've given them to you many times Dan, you've simply danced around them with fancilful exageratioins of the text. The text of Scripture is clear for the one who "Wants" to know the truth.

James said a man is justified by works, Scripture is clear that no one is saved unless they are justifed. There is proof Dan.

I have not danced around anything. I have simply harmonized Scripture with Scripture in order to reach the proper interpretation of these passages. So you interpret James 2:24 to mean "saved by works" but now you have a problem because you did not harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching your conclusion. Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. So Paul is saying that Abraham was not justified by works and he is discussing the legal sense of being justified. In verse 3, Paul goes on to say, For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness (and he was saved) many years before he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and was said to be justified by works in James 2:21. hhmmm... Obviously for James then, "justified by works" meant "shown to be righteous" not accounted as righteous.

In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaiovw" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

In the Bible Paul often uses the word "justified" in the "legal" sense (Romans 3:24,28; 5:1; 5:9; 8:30 etc...).

"To justify" is also used in a "declarative sense." James has this aspect of justification in mind. As we have seen, his concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine by the works they produce.

God is said to have been "JUSTIFIED" (KJV) by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Was God "justified" in the "legal" sense (accounted not guitly of His sins)? Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right..." This is the sense in which
God was justified DECLARATIVE SENSE. AMEN!

In Job 32:2, "Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he "JUSTIFIED" (KJV) himself rather than God. Now did Job "justify" himself in the legal sense (account himself not guilty of his sins)? Elihu was angry that Job tried to "justify" (vindicate) himself rather than God. My point is crystal clear.

In Luke 10:28-29, "And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live." But he, wanting to JUSTIFY himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" Did this Lawyer "justify" himself in the "legal" sense (account himself not guilty of his sins)? Something to really think about.

In Luke 16:14-15, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. And He said to them, "You are those who JUSTIFY yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Did these Pharisees "justify" themselves in the "legal" sense (account themselves not guilty of their sins)? Only God can forgive sins. The Pharisees belief was that their own goodness was what justified them. This is the very definition of "self-righteousness." But, as Jesus explained, their righteousness was flawed, being an external appearance only. That might be enough to justify them before (deceived) men, but not before God, because He knew their hearts.

Don't ignore the context of James 2:24. In James 2:14, we read of one who says he has faith but has no works. This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith. James gives us the test for genuine faith: like the faith of Abraham, it results in works, but James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine.
Show me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish. Big difference! If we are SHOWING our faith by our works, then faith and salvation is already established and the good works which follow are the demonstrative evidence of our faith and salvation, not the means of establishing it.

Now in James 2:21, we read: Was not Abraham our father justified by works or "considered righteous" - NIV when he offered his son Isaac on the alter? Now do we have a contradiction with Romans 4:2-3? If Paul and James are using the word "justified" in the same legal sense, then yes we have a contradiction, but there are no contradictions in the Word of God. This is how we are justified by works, shown to be righteous, not accounted as righteous. There is your proof Butch. READ IT ALL and quit fighting the truth. This is no minor disagreement, salvation is at stake here.

We are saved by that kind of faith accompanied (confirmed, authenticated) by works. We are justified by faith but only by a true faith, a faith proved to be true if it is followed by good works. We are not doing good works to become saved, we are doing good works because we were already saved by an authentic faith in Jesus which trusts in Him alone for salvation. Man is saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:2-6; Ephesians 2:8-9); yet faith, if it is true, will be substantiated and confirmed by good works (James 2:14-24). *PERFECT HARMONY*

Now you need to ask yourself Butch, if James is teaching that we are saved by works, then why didn't Paul say in Romans 5:1 that we are justified by faith and works? Why didn't he say in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved through faith and works? Once again, faith is the ROOT and good works are the FRUIT of our salvation. No fruit demonstrates no root (James 2:14). Are you ready to BELIEVE?

mailmandan
Jul 24th 2011, 01:01 PM
Dan,
I’m not going spend time writing out long posts to you anymore. I’ve given you a multitude of information. I’ve pointed out the contradictions with Scripture, I’ve pointed out the Logical Fallacies, and the fanciful explanations. Yet you keep making the same statements so there’s really no point, my time can be spend working with Christians who are interested in the truth.

Salvation by works is not the truth and genuine Christians know that. It truly amazes me to see how everything that I have explained to you just continues to go right over your head. I've read through your multitude of information and it's a real shame to see so much zeal wasted on UNBELIEF. If the truth is what you are looking for, then you will find it in what I have already shared with you. If accommodating your "works based" false gospel is the only thing that you are interested in, then you won't accept the truth no matter many times that I share it with you. Continue to seek for the truth and God Bless. I will continue to pray for you my friend.

Butch5
Jul 24th 2011, 01:21 PM
I have not danced around anything. I have simply harmonized Scripture with Scripture in order to reach the proper interpretation of these passages. So you interpret James 2:24 to mean "saved by works" but now you have a problem because you did not harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching your conclusion. Romans 4:2 - For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. So Paul is saying that Abraham was not justified by works and he is discussing the legal sense of being justified. In verse 3, Paul goes on to say, For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness (and he was saved) many years before he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and was said to be justified by works in James 2:21. hhmmm... Obviously for James then, "justified by works" meant "shown to be righteous" not accounted as righteous.

This is perfect example Dan. I've dealt with this passage several times yet you continue to present it. You've not harmonized the Scriptures, you've manipulated them. This is yet another example. You said,


Obviously for James then, "justified by works" meant "shown to be righteous" not accounted as righteous.

So now we have justified being defined to fit you theological position. However, Let see what James really meant. He quotes Genesis 22

Genesis 22:15-19(KJV)
15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
19So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
According to James it was this event in which Abraham was justified by works. The Lord said, “because thou hast done this thing,” “because thou hast obeyed my voice”. That my friend is works. James said that Abraham was justified based on this event and it was the Lord who justified him. There’s nothing here about showing Abraham justified, it was strictly based on Abraham’s actions.
The whole promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Christ coming through their line and the all nations being blessed through them and the eternal inheritance of the land and Abraham being the father of a great nation are “ALL” based on Abraham’s “OBEDIENCE”.Genesis 26:1-5(KJV)
1And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

There you have it. From God's own lips, Abraham was justified because he obeyed God.

mailmandan
Jul 25th 2011, 11:59 AM
This is perfect example Dan. I've dealt with this passage several times yet you continue to present it. You've not harmonized the Scriptures, you've manipulated them.

When have you dealt with Romans 4:2-3? This passage clearly states that if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness "not his works" (and he was saved) many years before he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and was said to be justified by works or "considered righteous" in James 2:21. So here you have manipulated the Scriptures to teach that when Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous, he was still lost until many years later, after he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and then was finally saved by works. Not according to Romans 4:2-3.


This is yet another example. You said, So now we have justified being defined to fit you theological position.

So according to you, the term "justified" has a broad brushed definition of "accounted as righteous?" As I already showed you in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaiovw" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

So the Strong's is wrong? So Paul and James contradict each other? Romans 4:2 - not justified by works. James 2:21 - justified by works. So God was "justified" (KJV) "accounted as righteous" or "declared or pronounced
to be righteous" by those who were baptized by John the Baptist? (Luke 7:29). The NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right..." This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God is righteous. DO YOU DENY THIS?

In Job 32:2, we see that Job "justified" himself rather than God. So how does the term justified fit with your broad brushed definition here? How does it fit with Luke 10:28,29; 16:14,15? So who is defining the term "justified"
to fit their theological position? That would be you my friend. Greek scholar AT Robertson says of justified by works. Present passive indicative of dikaiow, here not "is made righteous," but "is shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God. Amen! The harmony of Ephesians 2:8,9 and James 2:24 with is seen in the differing ways that Paul and James use the term "justified." Paul, when he uses the term, refers to the legal (judicial) act of God by which He declares the sinner righteous. James, however is using the term to describe those who would prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do.


Let see what James really meant. He quotes Genesis 22

I already showed you what James really meant, but you seem determined to contradict Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:2-3.


Genesis 22:15-19(KJV)
15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
19So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.
According to James it was this event in which Abraham was justified by works. The Lord said, “because thou hast done this thing,” “because thou hast obeyed my voice”. That my friend is works. James said that Abraham was justified based on this event and it was the Lord who justified him. There’s nothing here about showing Abraham justified, it was strictly based on Abraham’s actions.

Because Abraham obeyed God, we see that the Lord blessed Abraham, multiplying his descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and his descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. We see many blessings poured out on Abraham because of his works, but his being accounted as righteous (saved) was not based on his works, but on his FAITH. You continue to say that Abraham was saved based on his works. But Paul clearly states in Romans 4:2-3, For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was "accounted to him for righteousness" (which means he was saved) in Genesis 15:6 many years before he accomplished these works in Genesis 22, yet you say that James uses the term justified in James 2:21 to mean that Abraham was saved by his works in contradiction to Romans 4:2-3. So since Abraham was saved through faith and not works (Romans 4:2-3) then James is using the term justified to mean that Abraham was shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous, not made righteous by his works. Otherwise we have a contradiction in Scripture and there are NO contradictions in Scripture, just misinterpretations made by man.


The whole promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Christ coming through their line and the all nations being blessed through them and the eternal inheritance of the land and Abraham being the father of a great nation are “ALL” based on Abraham’s “OBEDIENCE”.Genesis 26:1-5(KJV)
1And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
[B]5Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and [U]kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Yes, based on Abraham's obedience, all of these blessings were poured out. But it was based on Abraham's faith that he was accounted as righteous, not his obedience/works (Romans 4:2-3). There you have it. From God's own lips, Abraham was justified (accounted as righteous) through faith, not works (Romans 4:2-3) and Abraham was justified (shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous) because he obeyed God (James 2:21). Are you now ready to accept the truth Butch? Are you ready to repent and BELIEVE the gospel? I hope and pray that you are.

Butch5
Jul 26th 2011, 01:32 AM
Salvation by works is not the truth and genuine Christians know that. It truly amazes me to see how everything that I have explained to you just continues to go right over your head. I've read through your multitude of information and it's a real shame to see so much zeal wasted on UNBELIEF. If the truth is what you are looking for, then you will find it in what I have already shared with you. If accommodating your "works based" false gospel is the only thing that you are interested in, then you won't accept the truth no matter many times that I share it with you. Continue to seek for the truth and God Bless. I will continue to pray for you my friend.

Dan,

I've already addressed your information. It is fallacious, contradictory, and fanciful. Look at the passage from James that you are addressing now. You want to define Justified according to your doctrine. I've pointed out the passage the James is referring to. In that passage God explicitly says to Abraham, because you obeyed my voice. That is deeds my friend no matter how you look at it. God says because you did what I said Abraham, I am going to sware an oath to fulfill the promises I made to you. That is the justification that James is speaking of, and God clearly said because you obeyed my voice, you did what I said. James isn't talking about Abraham being shown as justified, both passages the one James and the passage he quotes in Genesis say that Abraham was justified based on his actions (deeds).

The problem you're having is that this doesn't fit with Martin Luther's "Faith alone" doctrine which you are espousing. If you prefer the doctrines of men that is your prerogative, I however, prefer the doctrines of God, Therefore, I will accept the words of the apostle James over those of the Reformer Martin Luther.

On another note, if Luther' doctrine is correct as you say, can you explain why no one taught it for the first 1400 years of church history? How come this doctrine only appears in church history since the Reformation, 1500's?

Butch5
Jul 26th 2011, 02:40 AM
When have you dealt with Romans 4:2-3? This passage clearly states that if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness "not his works" (and he was saved) many years before he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and was said to be justified by works or "considered righteous" in James 2:21. So here you have manipulated the Scriptures to teach that when Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous, he was still lost until many years later, after he attempted to sacrifice Isaac and then was finally saved by works. Not according to Romans 4:2-3.
You’re premise is flawed. When have I dealt with Romans 4? Which time are you referring to? I’ve dealt with it numerous times you just keep asking the same thing. One more time, the context of Romans 4 is justification by faith versus justification by the Mosaic Law, read chapter 3. Paul is arguing that a man is “Not” justified by the works of the Mosaic Law, but rather by faith. To prove his point he turns to Abraham, a man who live before the Law was given. He says Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. This proves his point beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a man was justified before the Law was given then justification cannot be by the Mosaic Law.
Concerning the Statement from Paul in Romans 4, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, Paul doesn’t tell us which passage he is quoting. He may be quoting the same passage James is. However, we have Abraham being counted righteous in Genesis 15. Abraham was obeying God long before this point. God told Abraham to leave the land he was in and Abraham obeyed. His obedience shows that he believed God. This happened long before he was deemed righteous.
In the beginning I said your premise was flawed. You indicated that Abraham being deemed righteous meant that he was saved. That is not the case. Just because a man is deemed righteous by God doesn’t mean he is saved. God Himself makes this clear.

Ezekiel 3:18-19(KJV)
18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Ezekiel 33:18(KJV)
18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
And Paul said that Abraham received the promise “After” he endured.

Hebrews 6:13-16(KJV)
13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Part of that promise was the eternal inheritance of the Land, this is eternal life.
In addition, can you explain how someone could be saved while still in their sins? Since Christ hadn’t died yet how exactly was Abraham saved.

Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
So, you see, Christ’s death was retroactive reaching back for those in the past. So, there is no way that Abraham was “Saved” when he was deemed righteous.
So, you see my friend, I have not manipulated the Scriptures at all. Yet once again we have Scripture contradicting the doctrines that you are espousing.




So according to you, the term "justified" has a broad brushed definition of "accounted as righteous?" As I already showed you in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaiovw" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

So the Strong's is wrong? So Paul and James contradict each other? Romans 4:2 - not justified by works. James 2:21 - justified by works. So God was "justified" (KJV) "accounted as righteous" or "declared or pronounced
to be righteous" by those who were baptized by John the Baptist? (Luke 7:29). The NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right..." This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God is righteous. DO YOU DENY THIS?
As I’ve said so many times Dan, here we have a logical fallacy, we have straw man. This has been the case all along and one of the reasons I said I wasn’t going to continue the discussion. I didn’t deny that the word justification can be used the way you used it. What I did was go to the Scriptures and show that the way you used it is not the way James used it. And here you are going to a verse in Luke to try to prove your point. The verse in Luke has nothing to do with the context of James. The word can be used two ways, I didn’t deny that. However, just because Luke uses the word in a certain way does not meant that James is using it the same way. There is no logic there. The word “Wind” can be used two ways. If I read the word in one book that doesn’t necessitate the word means the same thing in another book.
I’ve already pointed out that there is no contradiction between James and Paul. The contradiction comes from attempting to force Martin Luther’s “Faith alone” doctrine on the Scriptures. When one says that Paul is saying that no good deeds are necessary for salvation. However, that is not Paul’s stance but rather Martin Luther’s. We see Paul’s stance is that good deeds are necessary in Romans 2.




In Job 32:2, we see that Job "justified" himself rather than God. So how does the term justified fit with your broad brushed definition here? How does it fit with Luke 10:28,29; 16:14,15? So who is defining the term "justified"
Do you understand what it means to be justified? It simple means to be declared righteous. It can be done by anyone, if one declares themselves righteous, we call them self righteous. Anyone can declares someone righteous.



to fit their theological position? That would be you my friend. Greek scholar AT Robertson says of justified by works. Present passive indicative of dikaiow, here not "is made righteous," but "is shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God. Amen! The harmony of Ephesians 2:8,9 and James 2:24 with is seen in the differing ways that Paul and James use the term "justified." Paul, when he uses the term, refers to the legal (judicial) act of God by which He declares the sinner righteous. James, however is using the term to describe those who would prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do.
No, my friend, it wouldn’t be me. Let me ask you, does A.T Roberson’s opinion trump logic? Does logic bow to A.T. Robertson? I don’t think so. So, if A.T Roberson’s commentary does not fall within the parameters of logic then he must be wrong. So, I’ll let James speak. Faith without works is dead. So, how does faith that has no works produce works? You can go with Robertson if you like, I will go with God created logic.
On a side note, you may want to check Robertson’s conclusion. He has been known to conclude things based on his theological position. See his argument for “eis” in Acts 2:38. He forced a meaning on “eis” for which he was taken to task by other scholars.




I already showed you what James really meant, but you seem determined to contradict Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:2-3.
I’ve not contradicted anything, I’ve simply put them in context. You should try it.




Because Abraham obeyed God, we see that the Lord blessed Abraham, multiplying his descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and his descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. We see many blessings poured out on Abraham because of his works, but his being accounted as righteous (saved) was not based on his works, but on his FAITH. You continue to say that Abraham was saved based on his works. But Paul clearly states in Romans 4:2-3, For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So Abraham's faith was "accounted to him for righteousness" (which means he was saved) in Genesis 15:6 many years before he accomplished these works in Genesis 22, yet you say that James uses the term justified in James 2:21 to mean that Abraham was saved by his works in contradiction to Romans 4:2-3. So since Abraham was saved through faith and not works (Romans 4:2-3) then James is using the term justified to mean that Abraham was shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous, not made righteous by his works. Otherwise we have a contradiction in Scripture and there are NO contradictions in Scripture, just misinterpretations made by man.
The only contradiction as I said is your forcing Martin Luther’s doctrine on the Scriptures. It’s not I who has the contradiction it is you, simply because you must interpret James incorrectly in order to hold the doctrine of Martin Luther.
As I’ve already pointed out, your premise is flawed. Abraham was not saved when he was declared righteous. Being declared righteous is not salvation. It is simply one element required to be saved. As I’ve pointed out Paul said that Abraham did not receive the promise until he had endured. This is in accord with the words of Jesus, he who endures to the end shall be saved. It also accords with Peter’s words, receiving the “end” of you faith the salvation of your soul. Salvation comes are the end of faith not the beginning.
And as I’ve pointed out Abraham was obedient to God long before he was deemed righteous.




Yes, based on Abraham's obedience, all of these blessings were poured out. But it was based on Abraham's faith that he was accounted as righteous, not his obedience/works (Romans 4:2-3). There you have it. From God's own lips, Abraham was justified (accounted as righteous) through faith, not works (Romans 4:2-3) and Abraham was justified (shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous) because he obeyed God (James 2:21). Are you now ready to accept the truth Butch? Are you ready to repent and BELIEVE the gospel? I hope and pray that you are.

From God’s own lips? You see my friend, you’ve done the same thing you’ve done in the past, you simply repeated the same thing you’ve already said. You’ve not taken Romans 4 in context, which clearly is faith versus the works of the Mosaic Law. Instead you’ve applied Paul’s argument to your own or Martine Luther’s definition of works. That is why you are force to incorrectly interpret James. If you would simply let Paul speak for himself you wouldn’t have to interpret James incorrectly.

mailmandan
Jul 26th 2011, 12:11 PM
Dan,

I've already addressed your information. It is fallacious, contradictory, and fanciful. Look at the passage from James that you are addressing now. You want to define Justified according to your doctrine. I've pointed out the passage the James is referring to. In that passage God explicitly says to Abraham, because you obeyed my voice. That is deeds my friend no matter how you look at it. God says because you did what I said Abraham, I am going to sware an oath to fulfill the promises I made to you. That is the justification that James is speaking of, and God clearly said because you obeyed my voice, you did what I said. James isn't talking about Abraham being shown as justified, both passages the one James and the passage he quotes in Genesis say that Abraham was justified based on his actions (deeds).

The problem you're having is that this doesn't fit with Martin Luther's "Faith alone" doctrine which you are espousing. If you prefer the doctrines of men that is your prerogative, I however, prefer the doctrines of God, Therefore, I will accept the words of the apostle James over those of the Reformer Martin Luther.

On another note, if Luther' doctrine is correct as you say, can you explain why no one taught it for the first 1400 years of church history? How come this doctrine only appears in church history since the Reformation, 1500's?

God said to Abraham, because you have obeyed my voice, I will account that as righteousness to you? (Genesis 15:6) NO. I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. All of these blessings were poured out based on Abraham's obedience many years AFTER Abraham believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was credited to him for righteousness. That is not salvation by deeds no matter how you look at it. Prior to what James said in verse 21, pay close attention to what he said in verses 14-18. Claims to have faith but has not works. Can that faith save him? Show me your faith by your works. As I already explained many times before, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Now you can understand how James uses the term justified. Shown to be righteous (James 2:18).

In James 2:21, we read, was not Abraham our father justified by works or "considered righteous" when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? This took place many years later, after Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness. So was Abraham saved when he believed God in Genesis 15:6 or not until many years later in Genesis 22? Paul gives us the answer. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So James is using the term "justified" to mean that Abraham was shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous, not made righteous by his works. Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac on the altar as proof of the faith that he already had. My argument fits together perfectly.

If justified by works means saved by works in James 2, then why didn't Paul say so? In Romans 5:1, Paul said that we are justified by faith, not faith and works. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul said that we are saved through faith, not works, not faith and works. In Luke 7:50, we read, Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you, not your works have saved you. In Matthew 27:39-43 (the story of the thief on the cross), we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" and placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Now how many good works did that thief accomplish on the cross in those final moments before he died? If the thief would have been allowed to live, you would have seen a changed life in the thief demonstrated by good works, but the point is that he was saved through faith, apart from whatever works he may have accomplished later. I can't find one single verse in the Bible that says we are "saved by works." You can self righteously trust in your works for salvation if you like, that is your prerogative, but I will continue to trust in CHRIST ALONE for salvation. I prefer the doctrines of God over your doctrines of men.

I never once quoted Martin Luther. I didn't come to place my faith in Christ for salvation many years ago based on the words of Martin Luther, but based on the words of Scripture. If you prefer the doctrines of God so much, then why do you constantly quote the church fathers (men) to back up your claims? You are more concerned about what men taught throughout church history than you are about what the Bible says. The Bible has not changed throughout church history. You can believe the sales pitch of the Roman Catholic church if you like. I'll stick with the Scriptures.

glad4mercy
Jul 26th 2011, 01:59 PM
Just clicking and I havent read all the posts, but to me faith always requires an action at some point. For example, when Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda, He said "Take up your bed and walk". If the man had not gotten up, picked up his bed and walked, he would have had no real faith, no matter how much he may have claimed to believe. Another example is the raising of Lazarus. Jesus told the people to take away the stone. When Martha protested that his body stunk by then, Jesus said, " Didnt I tell you if you believe you will see the Glory of God. Martha truly believed and exercised her faith by having the stone removed. So faith is not merely intellectual assent, it must be exercised. It must be faith that works, ie operational faith.

Do works save us? Certainly not! Works cannot save us anymore than the mere act of rolling the stone away from the tomb alone could have raised Lazarus. Lazarus was not saved by Martha's faith, He was saved by the powerful Word of Christ who said "Lazarus, come forth!" The man who was healed at the pool of Bethesda was not healed by the effort he put forth to stand up and walk, he was healed the power of Christ. It is God alone who saves and only His power is sufficient. We are not saved by faith, we are saved by Grace through faith.

As far as works of love, I believe that when a person has been saved it is God's desire that person should not only be filled with the Holy Spirit, but should be overflowing with the Holy Spirit. God wants the Spirit to flow out from within us like a river or a fountain, not just rest within us like a pool.

Luke 7:37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

When we receive Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc... I think the word fruit refers to love, and all the other things listed are characteristics of that love. So if a believer lets God have His way, and does not grieve or quench the Spirit, their life will not only be filled with love, but the love of Christ will flow out from within them, touching the people they meet and know. In conclusion, love is always active. Love does not stand by and let people go hungry, or without clothing, or worst of all, perish eternally. The love of Christ shows compassion.

So faith to me involves faith God-ward which is loving obedience, hope inward, and love outward which is loving ministry.

Firstfruits
Jul 26th 2011, 02:07 PM
Ok,so I am trying to understand the concept of faith and works.Here is my humble understanding: Faith with works is when,after accepting Christ you become a new person,and want to help others-example,someone needs a ride to work,a shoulder to cry on, someone to talk to,or even needing prayer.Helping others makes you feel wonderful inside.My opinion of faith without works is when someone says they are a cHristian,but only help for show,or out of duty,or maybe even don't help at all.Am I right in my thoughts?I am really wanting to grow,and this is one of those scriptures I have a hard time understanding.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

The works spoken of are works of love that we should all strive to do and live by.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

1 Thess 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

Heb 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

Firstfruits

mailmandan
Jul 27th 2011, 01:08 PM
You’re premise is flawed. When have I dealt with Romans 4? Which time are you referring to? I’ve dealt with it numerous times you just keep asking the same thing. One more time, the context of Romans 4 is justification by faith versus justification by the Mosaic Law, read chapter 3. Paul is arguing that a man is “Not” justified by the works of the Mosaic Law, but rather by faith. To prove his point he turns to Abraham, a man who live before the Law was given. He says Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. This proves his point beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a man was justified before the Law was given then justification cannot be by the Mosaic Law.

It's actually your premise that is flawed. Paul could not have limited the concept of "works" to the Mosaic Law. Abraham lived many years before the Mosiac Law so it did not even apply to him. Romans 4:2 simply says, For if Abraham was justified by works, not works of the Mosaic Law. The works that Paul is talking about here are the works that Abraham accomplished apart from when he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. As I explained to you before, Paul has not only argued that man is not justified by works of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 2:16) but works in general (Romans 4:2) not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5) not according to our works (2 Timothy 1:9) etc... This proves his point beyond the shadow of a doubt. Paul makes it clear that man is justified by FAITH, not faith and works. Faith is not works. Faith is believing. Obedience which follows is works.


Concerning the Statement from Paul in Romans 4, Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, Paul doesn’t tell us which passage he is quoting. He may be quoting the same passage James is. However, we have Abraham being counted righteous in Genesis 15.

Abraham BELIEVED God and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6) many years before Abraham accomplished any further works (Genesis 22-26).


Abraham was obeying God long before this point. God told Abraham to leave the land he was in and Abraham obeyed. His obedience shows that he believed God. This happened long before he was deemed righteous.

So what does that have to do with Abraham being accounted as righteous on the basis of his faith, not his works in Genesis 15:6?


In the beginning I said your premise was flawed. You indicated that Abraham being deemed righteous meant that he was saved. That is not the case. Just because a man is deemed righteous by God doesn’t mean he is saved. God Himself makes this clear.

Your premise here is the epitome of flawed! So Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, but according to you, he was still lost until many years later, after he accomplished a list of works. Romans 4:2-3 completely proves you wrong. In Romans 4:5 we read, But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Does that equate to "still lost" as well according to your flawed theology? For by grace, we already have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8), but according to you, we are simply placed on probation through faith and not actually saved until later, after we accomplish enough works. So how much is enough? How much was enough for the thief on the cross who died moments after he placed his faith in Christ for salvation? Ezekiel 33:18 is often used by eternal IN-securists to prove that a saved person can lose their salvation, yet you are trying to use this verse to prove that people who's faith is accounted for righteousness are not even saved. hhmmm...


Ezekiel 3:18-19(KJV)
18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Your point is not proven here at all.


Ezekiel 33:18(KJV)
18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
And Paul said that Abraham received the promise “After” he endured.

Notice in Ezekiel 33:12, When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Did you read that? “If he trust in his OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS.” This is the heart of the matter here. This is describing a righteousness which is by the law rather than that which is by faith.
The New Testament states in Romans 10:3-4 - “For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Your point is not proven here at all either. Paul said that Abraham would receive WHAT promise AFTER he endured? I'll address that below.


Hebrews 6:13-16(KJV)
13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Part of that promise was the eternal inheritance of the Land, this is eternal life.
In addition, can you explain how someone could be saved while still in their sins? Since Christ hadn’t died yet how exactly was Abraham saved.

In Hebrews 6:13-14, the promise to Abraham was "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you." And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. These blessings that Abraham received as a promise were after he believed God and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness. Inheritance of the land does not equate to eternal life. Moses was not allowed to enter into the promised land (Numbers 20:12). Does that mean Moses did not receive the promise of an eternal inheritance? Of course not. You are trying to manipulate the word "promise" to fit your self righteous works system. You continue to read your own preconceived ideas into passages which simply are not there.


Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
So, you see, Christ’s death was retroactive reaching back for those in the past. So, there is no way that Abraham was “Saved” when he was deemed righteous.
So, you see my friend, I have not manipulated the Scriptures at all. Yet once again we have Scripture contradicting the doctrines that you are espousing.

Here there is a definite statement that the real value in the typical sacrifices under the Old Testament system was in the realization in the death of Christ. It is Christ's death that gives worth to the types that pointed to him. So then the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation of all who are saved before the Cross and since. So what does that have to do with Abraham being saved through faith? Abraham was clearly saved through faith when he believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him as righteousness (Romans 4:2-3) just as we are saved through faith when we do not work but believe on Him who justifies the ungodly, our faith is accounted as righteousness (Romans 4:5). So here you make a desparate attempt to declare Abraham as a lost man when he was clearly deemed as rightoues through faith in order to accommodate your flawed theology. You have clearly manipulated the Scriptures and you are too blind to see it (2 Corinthians 4:3,4; 1 Corinthians 2:14).


As I’ve said so many times Dan, here we have a logical fallacy, we have straw man. This has been the case all along and one of the reasons I said I wasn’t going to continue the discussion. I didn’t deny that the word justification can be used the way you used it. What I did was go to the Scriptures and show that the way you used it is not the way James used it.

So you finally admit that the word "justification" can be used in more than one way. Progress! Keep coming all the way to the truth that James does not use the word "justified" to mean "saved by works" and agree with Paul (Romans 4:2-3; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9).


And here you are going to a verse in Luke to try to prove your point. The verse in Luke has nothing to do with the context of James.

I did not say that the verse in Luke was within the context of James. I was proving my point that the word "justifed" can be used in two different ways, which you finally agree with.


The word can be used two ways, I didn’t deny that. However, just because Luke uses the word in a certain way does not meant that James is using it the same way. There is no logic there.

There is absolute logic there. James is discussing the proof of faith (James 2:14-18) not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2,3).


The word “Wind” can be used two ways. If I read the word in one book that doesn’t necessitate the word means the same thing in another book.

The same thing with the word "promise" which you tried to manipulate above by mixing Hebrews 6:14 with Hebrews 9:15 and turning works salvation into a promise.


I’ve already pointed out that there is no contradiction between James and Paul. The contradiction comes from attempting to force Martin Luther’s “Faith alone” doctrine on the Scriptures. When one says that Paul is saying that no good deeds are necessary for salvation. However, that is not Paul’s stance but rather Martin Luther’s. We see Paul’s stance is that good deeds are necessary in Romans 2.

There is absolutely no contradiction between James and Paul. The contradiction comes when trying to force the "works salvation" doctrine of the Roman Catholic church on the Scriptures. Notice that James does not say that good works can save a person, nor does he say that justification results from some kind of mixture of faith and works--like 50% faith and 50% works. What he does say is that faith without works is dead. And he does indicate that good works are definitely associated with saving faith (fruit, by product, demonstrative evidence). Notice that Paul does not say that any kind of faith saves a person, nor does he say that saving faith doesn't result in good works. What he does say is that a person is saved through faith and not by works. And he does indicate that works are not the basis of salvation. Faith is the root and works are the fruit of our salvation.

The Scriptures have taught this truth way before Martin Luther. What a genuine believer means by salvation through "faith (in Christ) alone" and what James means by "faith only" is not the same message. Don't let the word "alone" fool you. Faith (the act of trusting) in Christ "alone" for salvation and faith that remains "alone" in producing good works are two separate alones in connection with two different things. The word "alone" in regards to salvation through faith in "Christ alone" conveys the message that Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone," not on the merits of our works. It is by faith alone (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). Simple!
But the natural man cannot grasp this truth because the gospel is HID from him.

It truly amazes me to see you use Romans 2 to negate Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8,9. Deeds are a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof) not the means of our salvation. Notice that all who will receive eternal life (believers) fall into the category of patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality and all who will not receive eternal life (unbelievers) fall in the category of those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness. Paul is not teaching salvation by works here as your itchy ears so desparately want to hear.


Do you understand what it means to be justified? It simple means to be declared righteous. It can be done by anyone, if one declares themselves righteous, we call them self righteous. Anyone can declares someone righteous.

In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaiovw" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

It all depends on the context.


Let me ask you, does A.T Roberson’s opinion trump logic? Does logic bow to A.T. Robertson? I don’t think so.

Who's logic? Your human logic? Why should I believe you over A.T. Robertson?


So, if A.T Roberson’s commentary does not fall within the parameters of logic then he must be wrong.

But he isn't wrong. He understands that James is discussing the proof of faith (James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being set right with God (Romans 4:2-3). Your logic is a contradiction.


So, I’ll let James speak. Faith without works is dead.

As I already explained to you many times, when James says that faith without works is dead, he does not teach that we are saved by works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith PROFESSED by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. SHOW me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish. Do you know the difference?


So, how does faith that has no works produce works?

It must become a living faith first (saved through faith - created in Christ Jesus) and then it can produce works - for good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Let me ask you Butch, does a fruit tree produce fruit in order to become a living tree or because it's a living tree? Does the source of life for that tree come through the fruit of the tree or the root of the tree? Now apply that same question to a living faith and works.


You can go with Robertson if you like, I will go with God created logic.

You go with natural man human logic, not God created logic (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).


On a side note, you may want to check Robertson’s conclusion. He has been known to conclude things based on his theological position. See his argument for “eis” in Acts 2:38. He forced a meaning on “eis” for which he was taken to task by other scholars.

So now you're out to attack and discredit A.T. Robertson for the purpose of supporting your flawed theology. Whatever it takes. In regards to Acts 2:38, A.T. Robertson said:

One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.

Amen! How does that discredit A.T. Robertson? You have concluded several things based on your theological position. Don't be hypocritical.


I’ve not contradicted anything, I’ve simply put them in context. You should try it.

I have consistently put things in context. You manipulate the context to say what you self righteously want to hear, "salvation by works."


The only contradiction as I said is your forcing Martin Luther’s doctrine on the Scriptures. It’s not I who has the contradiction it is you, simply because you must interpret James incorrectly in order to hold the doctrine of Martin Luther.

Actually, the only contradiction as I said is your forcing the Roman Catholic church's doctrine on the Scriptures. It is clearly you who has the contradiction simply because you must interpret James incorrectly in order to hold the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church.


As I’ve already pointed out, your premise is flawed. Abraham was not saved when he was declared righteous. Being declared righteous is not salvation. It is simply one element required to be saved.

So faith accounted as righteousness is not salvation? (Romans 4:5). Abraham was not saved through faith, but by works? (Romans 4:2-3). We are not saved through faith? (Ephesians 2:8). Faith is simply one element required to be saved? (Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). Ephesians 2:8 clearly says, for by grace you have been (past tense) SAVED THROUGH FAITH, yet you say no, that is simply one element required to be saved. If you can believe that Butch, then you can believe ANYTHING and I am simply wasting my time beating a dead horse.


As I’ve pointed out Paul said that Abraham did not receive the promise until he had endured.

The promise of many blessings. Abraham was already saved through faith (Genesis 15:6) before he received the promise of these blessings.


This is in accord with the words of Jesus, he who endures to the end shall be saved.

The same one who endures to end is the same one who has been saved through faith. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). Those who do not endure demonstrate that they were never saved to begin with.


It also accords with Peter’s words, receiving the “end” of you faith the salvation of your soul. Salvation comes are the end of faith not the beginning.

The third tense of salvation GLORIFICATION comes at the end of faith. The first tense of salvation JUSTIFICATION comes at the beginning of our faith. I already explained this to you and you simply ignored it.


And as I’ve pointed out Abraham was obedient to God long before he was deemed righteous.

And how does that negate Romans 4:2-3?


From God’s own lips? You see my friend, you’ve done the same thing you’ve done in the past, you simply repeated the same thing you’ve already said. You’ve not taken Romans 4 in context, which clearly is faith versus the works of the Mosaic Law. Instead you’ve applied Paul’s argument to your own or Martine Luther’s definition of works. That is why you are force to incorrectly interpret James. If you would simply let Paul speak for himself you wouldn’t have to interpret James incorrectly.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times that I repeat the truth. You just don't have ears to hear it. Romans 4:2 does not say works of the Mosaic Law and it does not say that Abraham was justified or saved by works not of the Mosaic Law. Abraham lived many years before the Mosaic Law so it cannot even apply to him. You say the argument is faith versus works of the Mosaic Law, so where does faith verses works not of the Mosaic Law fit in? You try to force James to teach salvation by works not of the Mosaic Law, yet when it comes to the MORAL aspect of the law, there is no distinction between works of the law and good works. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18). Paul simply says "works" in Ephesians 2:9 and James simply says "works" in James chapter 2. If you would just simply accept the truth that we are saved through faith, not works, but instead you've applied Paul's argument to your own or the Roman Catholic church's definition of works. That is why you are forced to incorrectly interpret James and you are also forced to try and "shoe horn" works into the word faith. If you would simply let Paul speak for himself (he didn't limit the word "works" strictly to works of the law of Moses) you wouldn't have to interpret James incorrectly.

Well Butch, since your faith is not in Christ alone for salvation and you have so much faith in works to save you, now you need to figure out how many works that you must accomplish as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save you. Let me know when you find that answer. You seem to be thoroughly indoctrinated into this "works based" false gospel that you are teaching and your conscience appears to be seared, but I will continue to pray for you my friend. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the truth.

Butch5
Jul 28th 2011, 02:18 AM
God said to Abraham, because you have obeyed my voice, I will account that as righteousness to you? (Genesis 15:6) NO. I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. All of these blessings were poured out based on Abraham's obedience many years AFTER Abraham believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was credited to him for righteousness. That is not salvation by deeds no matter how you look at it. Prior to what James said in verse 21, pay close attention to what he said in verses 14-18. Claims to have faith but has not works. Can that faith save him? Show me your faith by your works. As I already explained many times before, James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Now you can understand how James uses the term justified. Shown to be righteous (James 2:18).

I didn’t say James teaches we are saved by works. He teaches that one is justified by works. It is necessary to be justified in order to be saved. However, because one is justified it does not guarantee that one will be saved.


In James 2:21, we read, was not Abraham our father justified by works or "considered righteous" when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? This took place many years later, after Abraham's faith was credited to him for righteousness. So was Abraham saved when he believed God in Genesis 15:6 or not until many years later in Genesis 22? Paul gives us the answer. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." So James is using the term "justified" to mean that Abraham was shown, declared or pronounced to be righteous, not made righteous by his works. Abraham attempted to sacrifice Isaac on the altar as proof of the faith that he already had. My argument fits together perfectly.


The flaw in your argument is that Paul is speaking of the works of the Mosaic Law, not “Good works” which is what James is speaking of, read chapter 3. Paul’s conclusion in chapter 4 is based on his argument in chapter three.You however, are taking Paul’s argument against the Law out of context and are attempting to use it as an argument against “Good works”



If justified by works means saved by works in James 2, then why didn't Paul say so? In Romans 5:1, Paul said that we are justified by faith, not faith and works. In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul said that we are saved through faith, not works, not faith and works. In Luke 7:50, we read, Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you, not your works have saved you. In Matthew 27:39-43 (the story of the thief on the cross), we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. Yet, moments later, we see that one of the thieves had a "change of mind" and placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Now how many good works did that thief accomplish on the cross in those final moments before he died? If the thief would have been allowed to live, you would have seen a changed life in the thief demonstrated by good works, but the point is that he was saved through faith, apart from whatever works he may have accomplished later. I can't find one single verse in the Bible that says we are "saved by works." You can self righteously trust in your works for salvation if you like, that is your prerogative, but I will continue to trust in CHRIST ALONE for salvation. I prefer the doctrines of God over your doctrines of men.

Dan, are you paying attention to my argument? I never said anyone was saved by works. I said that works were necessary to be saved. That's why you need the Scriptures in context. You acknowledged that the blessings were given to Abraham based on his obedience. Well, one of those promises was eternal life and you have acknowledged that it was given to him based on works. One of the promises made to Abraham was,


Genesis 13:14-15(KJV)
14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

That my friend is eternal life. In order for Abraham to receive that land forever, it requires that he live forever, eternal life. And you've agreed that he received this promise based on his works in addition to his faith.



I never once quoted Martin Luther. I didn't come to place my faith in Christ for salvation many years ago based on the words of Martin Luther, but based on the words of Scripture.

It doesn’t matter if you quoted him, the doctrines you espouse are his. It would seem that would make on a follower of Luther


If you prefer the doctrines of God so much, then why do you constantly quote the church fathers (men) to back up your claims? .

I don’t quote them to back up my claims unless those claims regard church history. In which case that would be expected.


You are more concerned about what men taught throughout church history than you are about what the Bible says. The Bible has not changed throughout church history. You can believe the sales pitch of the Roman Catholic church if you like. I'll stick with the Scriptures.Ah, but you’re not sticking with Scripture, you’re sticking with Luther. Dan, you denounce the early writers if you like, however, you can’t by pass the evidence. Any Christian who desires to investigate can easily find that the “Faith Alone” doctrine came into the church in the 1500’s with Martin Luther. Any Christian can look at church history and see that this doctrine was not taught in the church prior to Luther. So, one must ask themselves, If Luther is correct, how is it that for 1400 years no one in the Christian faith had the truth. If Luther was right, that means that those taught by Christ, didn’t have the truth, those taught by Paul didn’t have the truth, those taught by Peter, John, James, and so on, didn’t have the truth. Are you really willing to go to that extent to protect the doctrines of a Man who lived in the 1500’s?
As a matter of fact those who followed after the apostles actually taught the exact opposite of what Luther taught.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. VI.—The Threefold Kind of Man Feigned by These Heretics: Good Works Needless for Them, Though Necessary to Others: Their Abandoned Morals.


2. Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things; such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith, while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are these persons. Wherefore also they maintain that good works are necessary to us, for that otherwise it is impossible we should be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

These Gnostics that Irenaeus is addressing acknowledging that Christians need to do works (their conduct). On the other hand they claimed that they (the Gnositcs) didn't need to worry about their conduct because it had no bearing on their salvation. Doesn't this sound like modern Christianity? They claim there is no need for works, yet when these Gnostics said the same thing Irenaeus called them heretics.

Here is a quote from Justin the Martyr. He wrote this around 160 Ad. Only about a generation after the last apostle.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He enjoined as follows: “Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matt. 5:34, 27) And that we ought to worship God alone, He thus persuaded us: “The greatest commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve, with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, the Lord God that made thee.” (Mark 12:30) And when a certain man came to Him and said, “Good Master,” He answered and said, “There is none good but God only, who made all things.” (Matt. 19:6, 17) And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever heareth Me, and doeth My sayings, heareth Him that sent Me. And many will say unto Me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity. Then shall there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works ye shall know them. And every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.” (Matt. 7:21, etc.; Luke 13:26; Matt. 13:42, 7:15, 16, 19) And as to those who are not living pursuant to these His teachings, and are Christians only in name, we demand that all such be punished by you.

Notice Justin quotes Jesus' words. Jesus was speaking of Christians when He said that. The men in His statement were casting out demons, yet Jesus said, depart from me you who work iniquity. There are many passages of Scripture that affirm this we just have to accept what they say.
Here are the words of the apostle John, they also refute Luther’s doctrines.

1 John 2:3-6(KJV)
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Butch5
Jul 28th 2011, 02:24 AM
Dan-So faith accounted as righteousness is not salvation? (Romans 4:5). Abraham was not saved through faith, but by works? (Romans 4:2-3). We are not saved through faith? (Ephesians 2:8). Faith is simply one element required to be saved? (Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). Ephesians 2:8 clearly says, for by grace you have been (past tense) SAVED THROUGH FAITH, yet you say no, that is simply one element required to be saved. If you can believe that Butch, then you can believe ANYTHING and I am simply wasting my time beating a dead horse.

Dan, I'm not spending the time to reply to all of the post, there's really no point. It appears to me that you've not thought things through. I pointed out the errors you've presented so there's really no point to continue to do so. The statement above is an example. I never said that Abraham was not saved by faith, yet you post the question. I never said we aren't saved through faith, yet you've posted the question. Faith is one element of Salvation.

You say that Abraham was saved when he was declared righteous. Let me ask you Dan, how is one saved who has not had his sins remitted? Abraham's sins were not remitted until Christ died on the cross, so how exactly was he saved when he was declared righteous?

Butch5
Jul 28th 2011, 10:13 AM
Dan,You know Dan, I could also turn your argument around and use it in opposition to your argument. You say Paul is using the word justified in a judicial sense and that James is using it in the sense of showing a man justified. I could just a easily say the James is using justified in a judicial sense and that Paul is using justified in the sense of showing a ma a justified.

mailmandan
Jul 28th 2011, 12:14 PM
I didn’t say James teaches we are saved by works. He teaches that one is justified by works. It is necessary to be justified in order to be saved. However, because one is justified it does not guarantee that one will be saved.

If you are not saying that James teaches we are saved by works when he says that we are justified by works, then what are you talking about? Accounted as righteous or to show, declare or pronounce to be righteous? In Romans 5:1 we read, Therefore, having been (past tense) justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 2:8 Paul clearly says, For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith. So when we place our faith in Christ for salvation (and not in our works) we already have been justified and already have been saved. How can you say that there is no guarantee that one will be saved when they already are saved from the PENALTY of sin? I believe what you are trying to say is that there is no guarantee that one will be glorified or saved from the PRESENCE of sin. But Paul clearly states:

Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). Paul speaks of glorification as if it were already accomplished. There is the guarantee for those of us who really are justified.

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 5:5).


The flaw in your argument is that Paul is speaking of the works of the Mosaic Law, not “Good works” which is what James is speaking of, read chapter 3. Paul’s conclusion in chapter 4 is based on his argument in chapter three. You however, are taking Paul’s argument against the Law out of context and are attempting to use it as an argument against “Good works”

Did Paul says works "of the Mosaic Law" in Romans 4:2 or "works?" Did James say "good" works in James 2 or "works?" Paul also simply said "works" in Ephesians 2:9. If the only way that we could be saved by works is to perfectly keep the Law, then what makes you think we could be saved by works short of perfectly keeping the Law? For the sake of arguments, let's just say that Paul was speaking of works of the Mosaic Law in Romans 4:2, even though it was non existent when Abraham lived. Paul said that Abraham was not justified or saved by works, so what was the alternative? Abraham BELIEVED God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness (Romans 4:3). Paul didn't say that Abraham performed good works and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul also did not say that Abraham obeyed God's voice, and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws and it was accounted to him for righteousness either. So the works of the law vs. good works argument doesn't settle the issue for you in Romans 4:2-3.


Dan, are you paying attention to my argument? I never said anyone was saved by works. I said that works were necessary to be saved.

We are not saved by works but works are necessary to be saved? That is an oxymoron. Good works do not have intrinsic merit to save us, but they do prove or manifest the genuineness of our faith. Maybe that's what you meant.


That's why you need the Scriptures in context. You acknowledged that the blessings were given to Abraham based on his obedience. Well, one of those promises was eternal life and you have acknowledged that it was given to him based on works. One of the promises made to Abraham was,

Eternal life or all the land that he sees? Now you are back to saved by works.


Genesis 13:14-15(KJV)
14And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

All the land that he sees was given to him and his seed as a blessing. So based on Abraham's obedience all of his seed received eternal life as well? Don't forget, and to thy seed.


That my friend is eternal life. In order for Abraham to receive that land forever, it requires that he live forever, eternal life. And you've agreed that he received this promise based on his works in addition to his faith.

The land was given to him and his seed forever does not mean that Abraham was saved by works. Abraham received the promise of many blessings based on his works, but he received salvation based on his faith. So if Abraham was saved based on his works in addition to his faith, then you are saying that Abraham was saved by works, which you denied previously. Is that what Romans 4:2-3 teaches us? What works did the thief on the cross accomplish that saved him in those final moments before he died after he placed his faith in Christ for salvation?


It doesn’t matter if you quoted him, the doctrines you espouse are his. It would seem that would make on a follower of Luther

You keep mentioning Luther as if I personally know him. Are you a follower of the Roman Catholic church?


I don’t quote them to back up my claims unless those claims regard church history. In which case that would be expected.

They are still fallible men. The Word of God is infallible.


Ah, but you’re not sticking with Scripture, you’re sticking with Luther. Dan, you denounce the early writers if you like, however, you can’t by pass the evidence. Any Christian who desires to investigate can easily find that the “Faith Alone” doctrine came into the church in the 1500’s with Martin Luther. Any Christian can look at church history and see that this doctrine was not taught in the church prior to Luther. So, one must ask themselves, If Luther is correct, how is it that for 1400 years no one in the Christian faith had the truth.

Luther may have been the first person to coin the phrase "faith alone" (which is misunderstood by many to mean we are saved by the kind of faith that remains alone and never produces any good works) but the Bible clearly teaches that we are saved through faith (rightly understood) alone. We are saved the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation.


If Luther was right, that means that those taught by Christ, didn’t have the truth, those taught by Paul didn’t have the truth, those taught by Peter, John, James, and so on, didn’t have the truth. Are you really willing to go to that extent to protect the doctrines of a Man who lived in the 1500’s?

You already said that you don't teach we are saved by works but now you are trying to say that Christ, Paul, Peter, John, James and the church fathers teach that we are saved by works?


As a matter of fact those who followed after the apostles actually taught the exact opposite of what Luther taught.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. VI.—The Threefold Kind of Man Feigned by These Heretics: Good Works Needless for Them, Though Necessary to Others: Their Abandoned Morals.


2. Animal men, again, are instructed in animal things; such men, namely, as are established by their works, and by a mere faith, while they have not perfect knowledge. We of the Church, they say, are these persons. Wherefore also they maintain that good works are necessary to us, for that otherwise it is impossible we should be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

These Gnostics that Irenaeus is addressing acknowledging that Christians need to do works (their conduct). On the other hand they claimed that they (the Gnositcs) didn't need to worry about their conduct because it had no bearing on their salvation. Doesn't this sound like modern Christianity? They claim there is no need for works, yet when these Gnostics said the same thing Irenaeus called them heretics.

Here is a quote from Justin the Martyr. He wrote this around 160 Ad. Only about a generation after the last apostle.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

And with regard to our not swearing at all, and always speaking the truth, He enjoined as follows: “Swear not at all; but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matt. 5:34, 27) And that we ought to worship God alone, He thus persuaded us: “The greatest commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve, with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, the Lord God that made thee.” (Mark 12:30) And when a certain man came to Him and said, “Good Master,” He answered and said, “There is none good but God only, who made all things.” (Matt. 19:6, 17) And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever heareth Me, and doeth My sayings, heareth Him that sent Me. And many will say unto Me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity. Then shall there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works ye shall know them. And every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.” (Matt. 7:21, etc.; Luke 13:26; Matt. 13:42, 7:15, 16, 19) And as to those who are not living pursuant to these His teachings, and are Christians only in name, we demand that all such be punished by you.

Notice Justin quotes Jesus' words. Jesus was speaking of Christians when He said that. The men in His statement were casting out demons, yet Jesus said, depart from me you who work iniquity. There are many passages of Scripture that affirm this we just have to accept what they say.

Here you go again condemning Luther, yet you are quoting the church fathers (men) as if they are infallible.


Here are the words of the apostle John, they also refute Luther’s doctrines.

I agree with John and he is not teaching salvation by works.


1 John 2:3-6(KJV)
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

We know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. It doesn't say that we are saved by keeping His commandments. We keep His commandments because we are saved, not to become saved.

mailmandan
Jul 28th 2011, 12:34 PM
Dan, I'm not spending the time to reply to all of the post, there's really no point. It appears to me that you've not thought things through. I pointed out the errors you've presented so there's really no point to continue to do so. The statement above is an example. I never said that Abraham was not saved by faith, yet you post the question. I never said we aren't saved through faith, yet you've posted the question. Faith is one element of Salvation.

So when I say that we are saved through faith, not works, but works substantiate and confirm our faith, I'm in error? The Bible says that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) yet you say no, that is only one element. What other elements were mentioned in Ephesians 2:8? You said that we are not saved by works but works are necessary to be saved. You can't have it both ways.


You say that Abraham was saved when he was declared righteous. Let me ask you Dan, how is one saved who has not had his sins remitted? Abraham's sins were not remitted until Christ died on the cross, so how exactly was he saved when he was declared righteous?

Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3) just as our faith is accounted for righteousness (Romans 4:5). Now you are saying that Abraham's sins were not remitted until Christ died on the cross, so that means that Abraham's faith was not accounted to him for righteousness?

mailmandan
Jul 28th 2011, 12:36 PM
Dan,You know Dan, I could also turn your argument around and use it in opposition to your argument. You say Paul is using the word justified in a judicial sense and that James is using it in the sense of showing a man justified. I could just a easily say the James is using justified in a judicial sense and that Paul is using justified in the sense of showing a ma a justified.

You could turn it around, but it would be in error.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2011, 12:24 AM
You could turn it around, but it would be in error. It's a valid argument Since it is a valid argument it proves that your argument is not necessitated. Since the judicial use can be argued both James and Paul your argument that James is not using it in the judicial sense falls apart.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2011, 12:58 AM
So when I say that we are saved through faith, not works, but works substantiate and confirm our faith, I'm in error? The Bible says that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) yet you say no, that is only one element. What other elements were mentioned in Ephesians 2:8? You said that we are not saved by works but works are necessary to be saved. You can't have it both ways.

Is Ephesians 2:8 the only verse in your Bible? It doesn't seem that you understand what faith is. It is not simply belief, James said the devils belief. They're not saved. Simple belief doesn't save. Let Paul define faith,

Hebrews 11:1(KJV)
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

He goes on to say that by faith numerous people acted. In other words they believed God and acted accordingly. God told Abraham to go to a land that He would tell him of. If Abraham hadn't gone he wouldn't have gotten the land. Just because he believed what God said did not get him the land. It was his going as God told him to that got him the land. God told him he would have a son of promise through which God would make him the father of many nations. If Abraham had said, I believe you God but Sarah don’t float my boat any more so I’m not going to do the husband thing with her, he wouldn’t have received the promised son.


You said that we are not saved by works but works are necessary to be saved. You can't have it both ways.
There is a difference, if I fell into a hole and someone came along and heard me calling out for help and lowered a rope down and pulled me out, I could say I was saved by him. I was not saved by the rope, but, the rope was necessary for me to be saved. That is the difference. Works in and of themselves do not save, if they did faith would not be necessary. However, belief in and of itself doesn’t save either. The devils believe.



Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3) just as our faith is accounted for righteousness (Romans 4:5). Now you are saying that Abraham's sins were not remitted until Christ died on the cross, so that means that Abraham's faith was not accounted to him for righteousness?
Dan, it seems to me that you have been indoctrinated. Look at the words on the page, read them, forget about what you’ve been taught, just read the words on the page. I didn’t say Abraham wasn’t counted righteous. I said, being counted righteous is not being saved. How is one saved who is dead in trespasses and sins? Until Christ died on the cross there was no remission of sins. The OT makes this clear as does Paul.

Hebrews 10:1-6(KJV)
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
He also makes it clear in this passage.

Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2011, 01:02 AM
A simple question for you Dan, how does "dead Faith" save?

mailmandan
Jul 29th 2011, 11:09 AM
It's a valid argument Since it is a valid argument it proves that your argument is not necessitated. Since the judicial use can be argued both James and Paul your argument that James is not using it in the judicial sense falls apart.

Paul clearly states, therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Paul also clearly states, for by grace we have been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). There is no doubt that Paul is using the term justified in the judicial sense and Paul NEVER once said that we are "justified by works" or "saved by works." Paul says that Abraham was not justified by works and that Abraham believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:2-3). Paul also said that our faith (not works) is accounted to us for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

In the context of James 2:21, where James says that Abraham was justified by works, we read in verse 14, What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works ? Can that faith save him? This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith. James gives us the test for genuine faith: like the faith of Abraham, it results in works. Works are the demonstrative evidence of our faith, not the means of our salvation. So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith PROFESSED by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. James says SHOW me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish.

Since Paul NEVER once said that we are "justified by works" or "saved by works" and James said claims to have faith but has no works, can that faith save him, show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works, your argument that James is using the term justified in the judicial sense which equates to saved by works falls short. Abraham was saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:1-3); yet his faith was substantiated and confirmed by his works (James 2:21). We are justified by faith but only by a true faith, a faith proved to be true if it is followed by good works. We are not doing good works to become saved, we are doing good works because we were already saved through faith and these good works show that our faith is genuine.

mailmandan
Jul 29th 2011, 12:05 PM
Is Ephesians 2:8 the only verse in your Bible? It doesn't seem that you understand what faith is. It is not simply belief, James said the devils belief. They're not saved. Simple belief doesn't save. Let Paul define faith,

If Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved through faith, then we are saved through faith. Another verse in the Bible does not negate that. I understand what saving faith is. Saving faith trusts in Christ alone for salvation. It does not just simply believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ. In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also "believe" that there is "one God" but where in this passage does it say that demons believe or trust in the Savior sent for redemption? Scripture reveals that the only thing they trusted the Son of the most high God for when He was on earth dealing with them was their eventual sentence to the pit! The faith of demons is only "mental assent." Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. Of course the demons are not saved. That kind of belief does not save. The word "believe" can describe "mere mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance" (Acts 16:31). Saving faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving faith is a complete trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ as the only means of salvation (Romans 1:16). So it seems that you don't understand what faith is.


Hebrews 11:1(KJV)
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Amen!


He goes on to say that by faith numerous people acted. In other words they believed God and acted accordingly. God told Abraham to go to a land that He would tell him of. If Abraham hadn't gone he wouldn't have gotten the land. Just because he believed what God said did not get him the land. It was his going as God told him to that got him the land. God told him he would have a son of promise through which God would make him the father of many nations. If Abraham had said, I believe you God but Sarah don’t float my boat any more so I’m not going to do the husband thing with her, he wouldn’t have received the promised son.

In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was by or out of faith that they accomplished all of these things. Their faith was genuine and it was proved by their actions (works). So yes, all of these things in Hebrews 11 were done by or out of faith, but none of these things are the essence of faith, only the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand. We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later. If Abraham would have refused to go to the land that was promised to him and would have refused to conceive a son of promise with Sarah, then he would have demonstrated that his faith was not genuine, but either he believed God or else he didn't and we see that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:16; Romans 4:3).


There is a difference, if I fell into a hole and someone came along and heard me calling out for help and lowered a rope down and pulled me out, I could say I was saved by him. I was not saved by the rope, but, the rope was necessary for me to be saved. That is the difference. Works in and of themselves do not save, if they did faith would not be necessary. However, belief in and of itself doesn’t save either. The devils believe.

If all you had to do to get out of the hole was trust that someone would pull you out then you would grab the rope. If you didn't trust them to pull you out then you would not grab the rope and try to climb out yourself. You would be saved by the person that pulled you out through the rope. We are saved by Christ through faith. Christ is the means of our salvation and faith is the instrumental means by which we receive salvation. The right kind of belief in of itself does save us. The kind of belief that trusts in Christ alone for salvation. The devils do not have that kind of belief. Just because that kind of belief results in good works does not mean that we are saved by those good works.


Dan, it seems to me that you have been indoctrinated. Look at the words on the page, read them, forget about what you’ve been taught, just read the words on the page. I didn’t say Abraham wasn’t counted righteous. I said, being counted righteous is not being saved. How is one saved who is dead in trespasses and sins? Until Christ died on the cross there was no remission of sins. The OT makes this clear as does Paul.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I was clearly not indoctrinated into what I believe now. I believe what I believe now because I searched it out for myself through reading the Bible. So if Abraham was accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:3) and we are accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:5) and we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) then how was Abraham not saved when his faith was accouted to him for righteousness? So according to your logic, Abraham was lost, even after he died until many years later, after Christ died on the cross? Are you sure that's what Paul is teaching? So what happened to people who died before the cross?


Hebrews 10:1-6(KJV)
1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
He also makes it clear in this passage.

That still does not negate (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3).


Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

It's Christ's death that gives worth to the types that pointed to him. So the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation of all who are saved before the Cross and since. This verse still does not teach that Abraham was saved based on his works. This verse speaks of all who were under the first testament. Now tell me Butch, what did the thief on the cross accomplish in those final moments before he died on the cross after he placed his faith in Christ for salvation and Jesus told him, Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). So Abraham was not saved until he accomplished many works according to you, yet the thief on the cross simply said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" then died moments later. You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is. You are trying to pull every string that you can in order to make your theology fit.

mailmandan
Jul 29th 2011, 12:13 PM
A simple question for you Dan, how does "dead Faith" save?

Dead faith does not save because it does not trust in Christ alone for salvation. The lack of works demonstrates this. Once faith does trust in Christ alone for salvation, then we become saved and good works become the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our saving faith, but not the essence of our saving faith and not the means of our salvation.

Two simple questions for you Butch. Does a living fruit tree produce fruit in order to become a living tree or because it's a living tree? Does a living faith produce works/fruit in order to become a living faith or because it's a living faith?

hopefulagain
Jul 29th 2011, 12:36 PM
To Lady E;

A couple of thoughts. Jesus in the book of Luke gives a parable about someone leaving and giving some minas to his workers. On his return he finds one that turned it into 10 so he put him over 10 cities. The next turned it into 5 and he put him over 5 cities. The next one did nothing with his and had a excuse why he did nothing, It did not fair well for that one. "and slay them before me" King James Luke 19:27

Which group had works and which one did not?

You also mentioned helping people. Doing nice things after learning about Jesus. "If you, then, bad as you are, know how to give your children what is good for them." Mat 7:10 New English Bible

So bad people know how to give. But Jesus gives us a command,"Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the Law and the Prophets." verse 12

When it comes to faith , James 1:5 and 6 would be good to read. Why? For one to take in lots of understanding from God. But, if you are not sincere and honest and you really don't have true faith it will be in vain. "But he must ask in faith." 1:6 He then writes what it is like for one without faith.

Would sugest to read the whole account by James several times. At 4:10 he says,"Humble yourselves before God and he will lift you high."

Hope this helps a little.

Saved7
Jul 30th 2011, 07:06 PM
Faith without works is dead....
If someone tells you there's a deadly tornado barreling down your street, and that you should take cover....if you say you believe them, and don't take cover, you're likely dead meat. So since you didn't take cover, when you said you believed, where is the proof that you believed, because your actions proved the opposite.

That's the simplest terms I can put it in.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2011, 12:37 AM
Dead faith does not save because it does not trust in Christ alone for salvation. The lack of works demonstrates this. Once faith does trust in Christ alone for salvation, then we become saved and good works become the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our saving faith, but not the essence of our saving faith and not the means of our salvation.

If dead faith doesn't save, you have two options, one James is wrong, or two works are necessary in order to be saved.



Two simple questions for you Butch. Does a living fruit tree produce fruit in order to become a living tree or because it's a living tree? Does a living faith produce works/fruit in order to become a living faith or because it's a living faith?

Your premise is flawed. If a tree isn't living it cannot produce anything. Only a living tree can produce fruit. If faith is a tree, James says with out works it is dead. So, how does a dead tree produce fruit?

Butch5
Jul 31st 2011, 12:49 AM
Paul clearly states, therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1). Paul also clearly states, for by grace we have been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). There is no doubt that Paul is using the term justified in the judicial sense and Paul NEVER once said that we are "justified by works" or "saved by works." Paul says that Abraham was not justified by works and that Abraham believed the Lord and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:2-3). Paul also said that our faith (not works) is accounted to us for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

In the context of James 2:21, where James says that Abraham was justified by works, we read in verse 14, What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works ? Can that faith save him? This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith. James gives us the test for genuine faith: like the faith of Abraham, it results in works. Works are the demonstrative evidence of our faith, not the means of our salvation. So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith PROFESSED by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. James says SHOW me your (alledged) faith without your works and I will SHOW you my (genuine) faith by my works (James 2:18). SHOW, not establish.

Since Paul NEVER once said that we are "justified by works" or "saved by works" and James said claims to have faith but has no works, can that faith save him, show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works, your argument that James is using the term justified in the judicial sense which equates to saved by works falls short. Abraham was saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:1-3); yet his faith was substantiated and confirmed by his works (James 2:21). We are justified by faith but only by a true faith, a faith proved to be true if it is followed by good works. We are not doing good works to become saved, we are doing good works because we were already saved through faith and these good works show that our faith is genuine. Well, Dan, you’ve given your opinion, but does that carry any weight? You can claim what James means that doesn’t mean that is what he means. James doesn’t say anything about a bare profession of faith. He just says faith. You see, here we go again with the qualifiers. James says faith, that’s all, just faith. He doesn’t need to qualify it because he just means faith. He doesn’t say anything about showing the reality of faith. It’s really simple when you don’t have a doctrine to protect. James said faith if it has no works is dead. You’ve already admitted that dead faith can’t save, so it would seem the discussion has come to an end and the conclusion is that works are necessary for salvation.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2011, 01:03 AM
Dan---Scripture reveals that the only thing they trusted the Son of the most high God for when He was on earth dealing with them was their eventual sentence to the pit! The faith of demons is only "mental assent." Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. Of course the demons are not saved. That kind of belief does not save. The word "believe" can describe "mere mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance" (Acts 16:31). Saving faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving faith is a complete trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ as the only means of salvation (Romans 1:16). So it seems that you don't understand what faith is.

Dan, please, explain the difference. You've clearly indicated works in your statement above and then said it is not works. Please explain the difference between faith that is "Mental assent" and faith that is trust and reliance.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2011, 01:29 AM
[/quote]If Ephesians 2:8 says that we are saved through faith, then we are saved through faith. Another verse in the Bible does not negate that. Then why do you ignore the other verses? Why won’t you use Ephesians 2:8 in context?
I understand what saving faith is. Saving faith trusts in Christ alone for salvation. It does not just simply believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ. [/quote]
But that’s exactly what you are saying saves. You are saying belief alone saves.

In James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also "believe" that there is "one God" but where in this passage does it say that demons believe or trust in the Savior sent for redemption?
Do you know what he foundation of the church is?

Matthew 16:16-18(KJV)
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus said He would build His church on this foundation.

Matthew 8:28-29(KJV)
28And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
29And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Luke 8:28(KJV)
28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
The demons acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, they believe who He is.


In Hebrews 11, notice in all of these occurences that it was by or out of faith that they accomplished all of these things. Their faith was genuine and it was proved by their actions (works). So yes, all of these things in Hebrews 11 were done by or out of faith, but none of these things are the essence of faith, only the evidence (fruit) of faith. That is absolutely critical to understand. We are saved by faith at it's origin, not at some time later. If Abraham would have refused to go to the land that was promised to him and would have refused to conceive a son of promise with Sarah, then he would have demonstrated that his faith was not genuine, but either he believed God or else he didn't and we see that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:16; Romans 4:3).
You miss the point. It was by both their faith and works that they receive the promises. It is not faith alone.


If all you had to do to get out of the hole was trust that someone would pull you out then you would grab the rope. If you didn't trust them to pull you out then you would not grab the rope and try to climb out yourself. You would be saved by the person that pulled you out through the rope. We are saved by Christ through faith. Christ is the means of our salvation and faith is the instrumental means by which we receive salvation. The right kind of belief in of itself does save us. The kind of belief that trusts in Christ alone for salvation. The devils do not have that kind of belief. Just because that kind of belief results in good works does not mean that we are saved by those good works.
Dan, if you grab the rope, you are doing works.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I was clearly not indoctrinated into what I believe now. I believe what I believe now because I searched it out for myself through reading the Bible. So if Abraham was accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:3) and we are accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:5) and we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) then how was Abraham not saved when his faith was accouted to him for righteousness? So according to your logic, Abraham was lost, even after he died until many years later, after Christ died on the cross? Are you sure that's what Paul is teaching? So what happened to people who died before the cross?
I don’t see how anyone would come to the conclusions you have from reading the Bible.
There is nothing ambiguous about Paul’s statement

Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ is the redemption for the sins that were committed under the first covenant. That means that the sins under the first covenant were not remitted before Christ died. Therefore Abraham could not have been saved before Christ came.

So if Abraham was accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:3) and we are accounted as righteous through faith (Romans 4:5) and we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) then how was Abraham not saved when his faith was accouted to him for righteousness?
It’s simple. The problem you are faced with is caused by your understanding that salvation is a onetime event. In reality no one is actually saved completely until they are resurrected. Salvation is a process that culminates at the resurrection. That’s why the Scriptures you past present and future tenses when speaking of salvation. When Abraham died in faith, his salvation was assured, even though he did not yet possess it. It is the same with all believers, Paul said that the believer has the “Down Payment” on their inheritance. The down payment not the full payment.

Ephesians 1:14(KJV)
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Paul says the Holy Spirit is the down payment of the inheritance, “UNTIL” the redemption of the purchased possession. The redemption comes at Christ’s return.


That still does not negate (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3).
Of course it doesn’t, it does however, show that no one in the OT had their sins forgiven prior to Christ’s dying on the Cross

It's Christ's death that gives worth to the types that pointed to him. So the atoning sacrifice of Christ is the basis of the salvation of all who are saved before the Cross and since. This verse still does not teach that Abraham was saved based on his works. This verse speaks of all who were under the first testament. Now tell me Butch, what did the thief on the cross accomplish in those final moments before he died on the cross after he placed his faith in Christ for salvation and Jesus told him, Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). So Abraham was not saved until he accomplished many works according to you, yet the thief on the cross simply said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" then died moments later. You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is. You are trying to pull every string that you can in order to make your theology fit.
On the contrary my friend, It’s not me who is adding the qualifiers and redefining what James says. I’m simply taking the Scriptures at face value, I’m reading what they say. As for the thief, obviously one his death bed cannot do many works, however, that doesn’t negate the need for those who have the opportunity. Read the parable of the talents. Each is given a different amount, it is what one does with what they are given that God looks at, not how much.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2011, 01:42 AM
[/quote]If you are not saying that James teaches we are saved by works when he says that we are justified by works, then what are you talking about? Accounted as righteous or to show, declare or pronounce to be righteous? In Romans 5:1 we read, Therefore, having been (past tense) justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 2:8 Paul clearly says, For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith. So when we place our faith in Christ for salvation (and not in our works) we already have been justified and already have been saved. How can you say that there is no guarantee that one will be saved when they already are saved from the PENALTY of sin? I believe what you are trying to say is that there is no guarantee that one will be glorified or saved from the PRESENCE of sin. But Paul clearly states: [/quote]

The problem is that you’re equating justified with saved. The terms are not interchangeable. It is necessary for one to be justified in order to be saved, however, being justified alone is not being saved. You keep going back to Ephesians 2:8, yes Paul uses the past tense for save. Again, that is not the only verse in the Bible. Scripture also uses the word saved in the present and future tenses. This indicates that salvation is a process and not a one time event.




Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). Paul speaks of glorification as if it were already accomplished. There is the guarantee for those of us who really are justified.

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).

Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 5:5).

Let me suggest a more accurate translation. The Spirit is given as deposit or a down payment, that is what a guarantee is. It is a deposit. It is not saying the anything guaranteed in the sense that it absolutely will happen.


Did Paul says works "of the Mosaic Law" in Romans 4:2 or "works?" Did James say "good" works in James 2 or "works?" Paul also simply said "works" in Ephesians 2:9.

Look at the context. You don’t have the authority to define what works are being spoken of the author does. Paul makes it clear in chapter 3 that he is speaking of the works of the Law. James likewise defines his works.


If the only way that we could be saved by works is to perfectly keep the Law, then what makes you think we could be saved by works short of perfectly keeping the Law?

I didn’t say anyone could be saved by keeping the Law. Paul said.

Galatians 3:21(KJV)
21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.



For the sake of arguments, let's just say that Paul was speaking of works of the Mosaic Law in Romans 4:2, even though it was non existent when Abraham lived. Paul said that Abraham was not justified or saved by works, so what was the alternative? Abraham BELIEVED God and it was accounted to Him as righteousness (Romans 4:3). Paul didn't say that Abraham performed good works and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul also did not say that Abraham obeyed God's voice, and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws and it was accounted to him for righteousness either. So the works of the law vs. good works argument doesn't settle the issue for you in Romans 4:2-3.

Dan, you’ve said this over and over. If you’re not going to address Paul’s statements in context you’re not going to understand what he is saying. His argument is not the argument that you are making, therefore you’ve got his statement out of context. Here is the context in which Paul brings up Abraham.

Romans 3:19-31(KJV)
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Paul makes it crystal clear when he says a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. The Judaizers were telling his converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to keep the Law of Moses. Notice Paul’s words “Apart from the deeds of the Law”. In order to prove that a man in justified apart from the works of the Law he turns to a man who was deemed righteous before the Law was given, Abraham. If Abraham was deemed righteous before the Law was given then Paul has proven his case. He has proven that a man is justified apart from the deeds of the Law.
His argument is dealing with the issue of faith versus the works of the Mosaic Law. There is no need for him to mention anything about good works, they are nowhere in the context of his argument. Suppose I am arguing a point with someone and I say you must have oil in your car for it to run and they say no you don’t. Just because I didn’t mention anything about gas doesn’t mean you don’t need gas. Gas is not the issue, oil is. Therefore I am not going to mention gas.


We are not saved by works but works are necessary to be saved? That is an oxymoron. Good works do not have intrinsic merit to save us, but they do prove or manifest the genuineness of our faith. Maybe that's what you meant.

That’s not what I meant, and it’s not an oxymoron. I gave the illustration of the rope earlier. If I was in a pit and some lowered a rope and pulled me out, he saved me, not the rope. However, the rope was necessary for me to be saved.


Eternal life or all the land that he sees? Now you are back to saved by works.

The land inheritance was to Abraham “Forever”. That is eternal life and that promise was given to him based on his obedience to God.


All the land that he sees was given to him and his seed as a blessing. So based on Abraham's obedience all of his seed received eternal life as well? Don't forget, and to thy seed.

When God said to his seed, He used the singular seed meaning one individual, not all of his seed(s) the nation of Israel. Paul makes this point in Galatians. The seed is Christ.

Galatians 3:16(KJV)
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
The land was promised to Abraham and Christ. David also prophesied about this

Psalms 2:1-12(KJV)
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

The land was given to him and his seed forever does not mean that Abraham was saved by works. Abraham received the promise of many blessings based on his works, but he received salvation based on his faith. So if Abraham was saved based on his works in addition to his faith, then you are saying that Abraham was saved by works, which you denied previously. Is that what Romans 4:2-3 teaches us? What works did the thief on the cross accomplish that saved him in those final moments before he died after he placed his faith in Christ for salvation?
I didn’t say he was saved by works, I said, works are necessary to be saved. The eternal inheritance of the land was given to Abraham because he believed and obeyed. God said because you have obeyed my voice. The vow was sworn after Abraham obeyed. In order for Abraham to inherit the land as an everlasting possession Abraham must live forever. That is eternal life.

You keep mentioning Luther as if I personally know him. Are you a follower of the Roman Catholic church?
No, because I don’t follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. There is much error there. However, as I said, the doctrines you are espousing are those of Martin Luther not the apostles. I’ve already pointed out that the doctrines that he espoused are not found taught in the church prior to the 1500’s. That’s easy to see. If his doctrines are correct, then that means that the entire church didn’t have the truth of the gospel for 1400 years, until Luther came along. I’m sorry but I find it impossible to believe that all of those taught by Jesus and the apostles were all wrong, that none of them had the truth. I find it much easier to accept the idea that Martin Luther didn’t have the truth.

They are still fallible men. The Word of God is infallible.
Yes, they are fallible men, and God’s word is infallible. However, they do give us the evidence of what took place after the close of the Scriptures. They were fallible men who wrote about American history, do you believe any of that? Do you reject everything written regarding American history? Every history you read was written by fallible men. The Scriptures are also interpreted by fallible men. When you bolded the word “guarantee” it was translated by fallible men. The translations were made by fallible men, the commentaries were written by fallible men. Since you don’t have the original autographs, all you have are copies made by fallible men. So, what makes modern a commentator (fallible man) more knowledgeable than a first century church leader (fallible man) who was actually there, who actually spoke Koine Greek as his native language, someone who lived in that culture, someone who still had the oral traditions of the apostles available to him? That first or second century Church leader also had much more material available to him. He had other letters available to him. Many things that apostles taught were still in people’s memories. The modern commentator has none of these advantages, why would we think he would somehow be more knowledgeable? That’s like saying a modern writer of American history has more knowledge of what George Washington was doing at Valley Forge, than those who were there.


Luther may have been the first person to coin the phrase "faith alone" (which is misunderstood by many to mean we are saved by the kind of faith that remains alone and never produces any good works) but the Bible clearly teaches that we are saved through faith (rightly understood) alone. We are saved the moment that we place our faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ alone for salvation.
He is the first to teach the doctrine, not just coin the phrase. The doctrine doesn’t appear in the history of the church until Luther.

You already said that you don't teach we are saved by works but now you are trying to say that Christ, Paul, Peter, John, James and the church fathers teach that we are saved by works?
No, not saved by works. Works are necessary to be saved. One is saved by God, however, God has placed conditions on that salvation, one of which is to place faith in Christ, another is to abide in Christ, and another is to obey Christ. You can find those statements from Jesus Himself.

Here you go again condemning Luther, yet you are quoting the church fathers (men) as if they are infallible.
No not at all. I’m simply pointing out history. I’m showing that the the church only one generation after the apostle John taught the exact opposite of Martin Luther. Luther’s doctrines are 1400 years after the apostles, Irenaeus and Justin’s are 60-80 years after the apostles. A lot of error can creep in in 1400 years. The fact that Luther’s doctrines can only be traced back to the 1500’s proves that they are not apostolic.

I agree with John and he is not teaching salvation by works.
We know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. It doesn't say that we are saved by keeping His commandments. We keep His commandments because we are saved, not to become saved.
You’re putting your doctrinal spin on John’s words. John didn’t say we keep his commandments because we are saved. He said, we know him “IF” we keep his commandments. He’s talking about Christians because he includes himself, then he says he who does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. That‘s a Christian, a Christian who says he knows Christ, yet is not obedient, is a liar and the truth is not in him. Didn’t Jesus say, I am the way, the truth, and the life? If the truth is not in him it seems Christ is not in him.

mailmandan
Jul 31st 2011, 12:06 PM
If dead faith doesn't save, you have two options, one James is wrong, or two works are necessary in order to be saved.

Works are necessary to SHOW the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine according to James. So James is not wrong and you overlooked a third option. Works are not necessary means of our salvation, but they are necessary to show that our faith is genuine and we are already saved. Faith without works is dead because the lack of works demonstrates the lack of faith. The absence of evidence could be construed as evidence of absense. So works do not cause our faith to become alive but they prove that our faith is alive.


Your premise is flawed. If a tree isn't living it cannot produce anything. Only a living tree can produce fruit. If faith is a tree, James says with out works it is dead. So, how does a dead tree produce fruit?

My premise is not flawed. Like you said, if a tree isn't living it cannot produce anything. Exactly! Only a living tree can produce fruit. A fruit tree that never produces any fruit demonstrates that it's a dead tree. A fruit tree does not produce fruit in order to become a living tree but because it's a living tree. With no life flowing through the root of the tree, the tree is dead and there will be no fruit. Likewise, a faith that never produces any works/fruit demonstrates that it's a dead faith. Faith does not produce works/fruit in order to become a living faith but because it's a living faith. With no life flowing through the root (faith) there will be no works/fruit.

So how does our faith become alive? It becomes alive in Christ.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (Ephesians 2:5)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18)

So we are made alive by the Spirit, not by works. Good works are the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and not the source of life in our faith. We are created in Christ Jesus first (saved through faith) and then unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). You continue to put the cart before the horse.

mailmandan
Jul 31st 2011, 12:38 PM
Well, Dan, you’ve given your opinion, but does that carry any weight? You can claim what James means that doesn’t mean that is what he means. James doesn’t say anything about a bare profession of faith. He just says faith. You see, here we go again with the qualifiers. James says faith, that’s all, just faith. He doesn’t need to qualify it because he just means faith. He doesn’t say anything about showing the reality of faith. It’s really simple when you don’t have a doctrine to protect. James said faith if it has no works is dead. You’ve already admitted that dead faith can’t save, so it would seem the discussion has come to an end and the conclusion is that works are necessary for salvation.

Once again the truth has gone right over your head. James clearly states that if we claim to have faith but have no works, that faith cannot save us. Works are not the means of our salvation but they do prove or manifest the genuineness of our faith. To claim that you have faith but then have no works to back it up is clearly a bare profession of faith. James states that the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19) so there is more than one kind of faith. One that saves and one that does not. One that trusts in Christ for salvation and shows the reality of this faith by producing works and the other that does neither. James clearly states that we SHOW our faith by our works (James 2:18). James did not say establish your faith by your works. If we are showing our living faith by our works, then our living faith is already an established fact.

You seem to believe that ALL belief is the same "except for the lack of good works." You just can't grasp a DEEPER faith which actually trusts in Christ alone for salvation. This explains why you have so much faith in works to save you. This is why you need a qualifier to help you understand what James is really teaching and it's not saved by works.

A dead faith cannot save because it has not been made alive in Christ by grace through faith in Him for salvation (Ephesians 2:5-9). Once it has been made alive in Christ, then the saved person will prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do. The person who merely claims to have faith but lacks works to back it up demonstrates that their faith is dead. It's really simple to understand, but you make if difficult.

mailmandan
Jul 31st 2011, 12:51 PM
Dan, please, explain the difference. You've clearly indicated works in your statement above and then said it is not works. Please explain the difference between faith that is "Mental assent" and faith that is trust and reliance.

I will be more than happy to Butch. Mental assent faith may actually acknowledge certain facts about Christ, that He exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened." The demons believe all of this to be true. But trust and reliance faith in Christ not only acknowledges the facts that Christ exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened" but this faith also TRUSTS SOLELY IN WHAT HAPPENED to receive eternal life. Saving faith is a complete trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ as the only means of salvation. This is what it means to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16).

shepherdsword
Jul 31st 2011, 01:05 PM
It's a valid argument Since it is a valid argument it proves that your argument is not necessitated. Since the judicial use can be argued both James and Paul your argument that James is not using it in the judicial sense falls apart.

Absolutely,falls apart. The works James is speaking of prove the life and validity of our faith. Without such works then faith is dead and unable to save.

What testimony do we have if our faith does not have enough power to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance?

jandl
Jul 31st 2011, 04:06 PM
James is a difficult book and IS contradictory to Romans through Philemon, no matter how you dice it up. Paul, the disciple to the Gentiles, preached salvation from Hell by grace through faith without works or the deeds of the law. THIS much is plain. JAMES is a seemingly difficult book that a lot of folks hang their theological necks on. James, first of all, has a TARGETED audience: Jews. What is written in James is written BEFORE Paul pens a single letter to any church, and if you don't look at the Bible dispensationally and chronologically, you will get in a lot of trouble. James has a lot of verses targeted at tribulation Jews who are somewhat under a works system as can be seen in Matthew 25. I say, that whenever a verse conflicts with Pauline doctrine, DON'T apply it to yourself doctrinally.

mailmandan
Aug 1st 2011, 11:26 AM
QUOTE]But that’s exactly what you are saying saves. You are saying belief alone saves.[/QUOTE]

Belief that trusts in Christ alone for salvation, not the kind of belief that remains alone in producing good works. There is a difference. Saving faith results in good works, so it's not alone in that sense but it's the faith (belief, trust, reliance) in Christ part of the equation that "alone" is the instrumental means by which we become saved (Ephesians 2:8). Good works are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our saving faith (James 2:14-18), but good works are not the instrumental means by which we become saved (Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9).


Do you know what he foundation of the church is?

Peter is, along with the prophets and the other apostles, part of the foundation on which the church is built. The church is built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20).


Matthew 16:16-18(KJV)
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus said He would build His church on this foundation.

So you believe that Jesus Christ builds his church on the faith confessed by the apostle Peter and not simply Peter himself?


Luke 8:28(KJV)
28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
The demons acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, they believe who He is.

The demons "acknowledge" Jesus as the Son of God (mental assent belief), but they do not trust in Him for salvation (saving faith). Big difference.


You miss the point. It was by both their faith and works that they receive the promises. It is not faith alone.

You keep missing the point. We are saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9), yet you keep saying that we are saved through faith "and works." We are saved the moment that we place our faith in Christ alone for salvation, but this kind of faith does not remain alone in producing good works. Just because saving faith results in good works (a living faith produces works) does not mean that we are saved by these works.


Dan, if you grab the rope, you are doing works.

If you grab the rope, you are doing a single work, not works (plural). You are reaching out for someone else to save you. We take hold of Christ through faith, which is the work of God (John 6:29) but is not a list of works. Through faith, we are reaching out to Christ to save us, not accomplishing a list of works to help save ourselves. Big difference.


I don’t see how anyone would come to the conclusions you have from reading the Bible.
There is nothing ambiguous about Paul’s statement

There is nothing ambiguous about Paul's statement. Saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS (Ephesians 2:8,9). Yet you read this as if it says saved through faith "and works."


Hebrews 9:15(KJV)
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ is the redemption for the sins that were committed under the first covenant. That means that the sins under the first covenant were not remitted before Christ died. Therefore Abraham could not have been saved before Christ came.

So everyone who died before Christ came could not be saved? Before the cross we see in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham BELIEVED God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. After the cross, we see in Romans 4:5 that to him who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Your argument is flawed.


It’s simple. The problem you are faced with is caused by your understanding that salvation is a onetime event.

Salvation/Justification is a one time event. Therefore having been (past tense) justified by faith (Romans 5:1). For by grace you have been (past tense) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). The problem you are faced with is caused by confusing the three tenses of salvation. Justification, Sanctification, Glorification.


In reality no one is actually saved completely until they are resurrected.

Those who are justified (saved from the penalty of sin) are not yet glorified (saved from the presence of sin), but those who are justified will be glorified (Romans 8:30).


Salvation is a process that culminates at the resurrection.

Justification is not a process, but Sanctification is a process that culminates at the resurrection. It's called Glorification. Even though believers are not yet glorified, we are still justified by faith. Salvation is not hanging in the balance for those who are justified.


That’s why the Scriptures you past present and future tenses when speaking of salvation.

I clearly understand the past, present and future tenses.


When Abraham died in faith, his salvation was assured, even though he did not yet possess it. It is the same with all believers, Paul said that the believer has the “Down Payment” on their inheritance. The down payment not the full payment.

The Holy Spirit is the down payment and is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (Ephesians 1:13-14). The full payment is yet to come and is guaranteed.


Ephesians 1:14(KJV)
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Paul says the Holy Spirit is the down payment of the inheritance, “UNTIL” the redemption of the purchased possession. The redemption comes at Christ’s return.

I understand this. What you don't understand is that those who have received the down payment will receive the inheritance. It's God not us who made the down payment and it's God not us who is making the promise.


Of course it doesn’t, it does however, show that no one in the OT had their sins forgiven prior to Christ’s dying on the Cross

You did not prove your point about works salvation at all.


On the contrary my friend, It’s not me who is adding the qualifiers and redefining what James says. I’m simply taking the Scriptures at face value, I’m reading what they say.

I did not redefine what James said. claims to have faith, can that faith save him, show you my faith by my works. The term "justified" has more than one meaning as you already admitted and James uses it to describe those who would prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do. You added a qualifier to Romans 4:2, in which Paul simply said "works" and you added "of the Mosaic Law." You did the same thing with Romans 5:1 and Ephesians 2:8. These verses simply say, justified by faith, saved through faith and you add the qualifier "and works." You only take certain Scriptures at face value when they appear to say what you want them to say.


As for the thief, obviously one his death bed cannot do many works, however, that doesn’t negate the need for those who have the opportunity.

The thief had no time to accomplish a few works let alone many works, so how was he saved? Through FAITH.


Read the parable of the talents. Each is given a different amount, it is what one does with what they are given that God looks at, not how much.

The parable of the talents had to do with ability, not time restrictions and not salvation by works.

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 01:08 AM
The problem is that you’re equating justified with saved. The terms are not interchangeable. It is necessary for one to be justified in order to be saved, however, being justified alone is not being saved. You keep going back to Ephesians 2:8, yes Paul uses the past tense for save. Again, that is not the only verse in the Bible. Scripture also uses the word saved in the present and future tenses. This indicates that salvation is a process and not a one time event.

Justified by faith (Romans 5:1) saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). The present (being saved from the power of sin) and future (will be saved from the presence of sin) tenses do not negate being justified by faith and saved through faith (from the penalty of sin) in the past tense. Justification is a one time event. Ongoing sanctification is a process for those who have been justified until the day we are glorified. Justification is not a process.


Let me suggest a more accurate translation. The Spirit is given as deposit or a down payment, that is what a guarantee is. It is a deposit. It is not saying the anything guaranteed in the sense that it absolutely will happen.

What is guaranteed? Our INHERITANCE. The Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory (NKJV). It will absolutely happen. Those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30). Amen! Praise God!


Look at the context. You don’t have the authority to define what works are being spoken of the author does. Paul makes it clear in chapter 3 that he is speaking of the works of the Law. James likewise defines his works.

Paul simply said "works" in Romans 4:2 and James simply said "works" in James 2:21. Paul does not strictly limit works to works of the Law. James defines his works in James 2:15-16. "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18). Are you going to deny that loving our neighbor as ourself is not found in the law of Moses? When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, there is no good work that is outside of loving God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind and loving your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Your works of the law vs. good works argument to accommodate your works salvation argument is bogus.


I didn’t say anyone could be saved by keeping the Law. Paul said.

Galatians 3:21(KJV)
21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

So if the only way that we could be saved by works is by perfectly keeping the law, then what makes you think that we can be saved by works short of perfectly keeping the law?


Dan, you’ve said this over and over. If you’re not going to address Paul’s statements in context you’re not going to understand what he is saying. His argument is not the argument that you are making, therefore you’ve got his statement out of context. Here is the context in which Paul brings up Abraham.

You are just not ready to accept the truth. Faith is the alternative to keeping the law, not faith and works.


Romans 3:19-31(KJV)
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28[B]Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Paul makes it crystal clear when he says a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law. The Judaizers were telling his converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to keep the Law of Moses. Notice Paul’s words “Apart from the deeds of the Law”. In order to prove that a man in justified apart from the works of the Law he turns to a man who was deemed righteous before the Law was given, Abraham. If Abraham was deemed righteous before the Law was given then Paul has proven his case. He has proven that a man is justified apart from the deeds of the Law.
His argument is dealing with the issue of faith versus the works of the Mosaic Law. There is no need for him to mention anything about good works, they are nowhere in the context of his argument. Suppose I am arguing a point with someone and I say you must have oil in your car for it to run and they say no you don’t. Just because I didn’t mention anything about gas doesn’t mean you don’t need gas. Gas is not the issue, oil is. Therefore I am not going to mention gas.

You continue to try and use human logic to understand sprititual truth. It does not work (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). Paul never once said, we are not saved by keeping the law, but we are saved by good works. He says over and over again that we are saved through FAITH. Faith is not a list of good works. Faith is not trusting in our works for salvation but is trusting in Christ alone for salvation.


That’s not what I meant, and it’s not an oxymoron. I gave the illustration of the rope earlier. If I was in a pit and some lowered a rope and pulled me out, he saved me, not the rope. However, the rope was necessary for me to be saved.

The person who pulled you out of the pit represents Christ and the rope represents faith. You reached out in faith and the person saved you through the rope. Christ saves us through faith. You did not save yourself by climbing out of the pit yourself which represents works. For you to say that we are not saved by works, but we must do works to become saved is an oxymoron no matter how much you try and sugar coat it.


The land inheritance was to Abraham “Forever”. That is eternal life and that promise was given to him based on his obedience to God.

The land inheritance was to Abraham AND HIS SEED forever. That land of promise was given to him based on his obedience to God. Receiving eternal life was based on his FAITH (Genesis 15:6).


When God said to his seed, He used the singular seed meaning one individual, not all of his seed(s) the nation of Israel. Paul makes this point in Galatians. The seed is Christ.

Paul made that point in Galatians 3:16, but that is not the point which was made in Genesis 13:15. In Genesis 13:15, we read, "thy seed" in the KJV yet the NKJV and the NAS translations of the Bible read "your descendents" (plural, not singular).

The very next verse (vs. 16) says, And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. That is not singular meaning one individual. The author does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in Genesis 13:15,16 or even in Genesis 17:7 - And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. The NKJV and the NAS translations of the Bible read "your descendants" (plural).


Galatians 3:16(KJV)
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
The land was promised to Abraham and Christ. David also prophesied about this

So this negates Genesis 13:15-16? Christ is One and is not numbered as the dust of the earth.


I didn’t say he was saved by works, I said, works are necessary to be saved.

That is an oxymoron. Sugar coated double talk.


The eternal inheritance of the land was given to Abraham because he believed and obeyed.

Eternal life was given to Abraham because he BELIEVED (Genesis 15:6). Eternal inheritance of the land was given to Abraham and his desendants because he obeyed.


God said because you have obeyed my voice. The vow was sworn after Abraham obeyed. In order for Abraham to inherit the land as an everlasting possession Abraham must live forever. That is eternal life.

The vow was sworn many years after Abraham BELIEVED God and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3). He was already going to live forever. Now, in addition to that, he was blessed with the land and more.


No, because I don’t follow the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. There is much error there.

Could have fooled me. The Roman Catholic church quotes the church fathers a lot and teaches salvation by works and eternal IN-security. So does the restoration movement (Campbellism).


However, as I said, the doctrines you are espousing are those of Martin Luther not the apostles.

I have continuously quoted the apostles and not Martin Luther to make my points. You quote the church fathers a lot. You are completely brain washed.


I’ve already pointed out that the doctrines that he espoused are not found taught in the church prior to the 1500’s. That’s easy to see.

Which church? Christians were heavily persecuted during the early years of the church from the apostles' time to the early 4th century. About that time, the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, and a few years later, another Roman Emperor made Christianity mandatory throughout the Roman Empire. Some people might expect this to have been a positive development for the cause of Christianity, but actually it was disastrous.


If his doctrines are correct, then that means that the entire church didn’t have the truth of the gospel for 1400 years, until Luther came along. I’m sorry but I find it impossible to believe that all of those taught by Jesus and the apostles were all wrong, that none of them had the truth. I find it much easier to accept the idea that Martin Luther didn’t have the truth.

The truth of the gospel has always been found in the BIBLE. False doctrine had crept into the church early on, but that does not mean that everyone in the church subscribed to a false gospel of works salvation. Judas Iscariot was taught by Jesus Christ Himself and he was wrong. His faith was vain and he betrayed Jesus. I find it impossible to believe that ALL of these church fathers were correct about everything and we are subject to them as, "thus saith the church fathers." They are not infallible and they did not even agree on everything, just like leaders of the church today.


Yes, they are fallible men, and God’s word is infallible. However, they do give us the evidence of what took place after the close of the Scriptures. They were fallible men who wrote about American history, do you believe any of that? Do you reject everything written regarding American history? Every history you read was written by fallible men. The Scriptures are also interpreted by fallible men. When you bolded the word “guarantee” it was translated by fallible men. The translations were made by fallible men, the commentaries were written by fallible men. Since you don’t have the original autographs, all you have are copies made by fallible men. So, what makes modern a commentator (fallible man) more knowledgeable than a first century church leader (fallible man) who was actually there, who actually spoke Koine Greek as his native language, someone who lived in that culture, someone who still had the oral traditions of the apostles available to him?

Your arguments here are all based on human logic, not Scripture. So you really hate the word "guarantee" don't you? That means it's up to you to contribute to your salvation and take credit. So according to you, we receive the Holy Spirit as a pledge of our inheritance "with no guarantee" that we will receive our inheritance? So once we BELIEVE the gospel (Ephesians 1:13) are sealed in Him for how long? Unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30). So God's earnest deposit is no good? God does not glorify those He justifies? (Romans 8:30). You can believe what you want. I believe God.


That first or second century Church leader also had much more material available to him. He had other letters available to him. Many things that apostles taught were still in people’s memories. The modern commentator has none of these advantages, why would we think he would somehow be more knowledgeable? That’s like saying a modern writer of American history has more knowledge of what George Washington was doing at Valley Forge, than those who were there.

More human logic. You have to consider how these church leaders interpreted what they heard. You don't know their hearts. What false teachings could have also got mixed in? These men were not infallible. Period. So to say, "I'm going to interpet Scripture exactly the way these men did is very dangerous!" What if they were not right about everything?


He is the first to teach the doctrine, not just coin the phrase. The doctrine doesn’t appear in the history of the church until Luther.

So ALL of the church fathers specifically said that we are saved through faith "and works?" If so, they were all wrong. Here are some quotes on faith below made many years before Martin Luther.

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."
Those who believe in God live by faith as a consequence of salvation, not as an additional requirement to become saved.

Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ." Did you see that Butch? Faith alone.

Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not." Did you see that again Butch? Faith alone.

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed." Did you see that again Butch? Faith alone.

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...[/B ]whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, [B]being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God." There it is. Faith alone again. hhmmm...


No, not saved by works. Works are necessary to be saved.

Oxymoron. Sugar coated double talk.


One is saved by God, however, God has placed conditions on that salvation, one of which is to place faith in Christ,

Condition(s) or condition, faith in Christ (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8).


another is to abide in Christ,

Those who believe abide in Him. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:56) Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. The eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood metaphorically symbolizes the need for believing in Him to receive eternal life.


and another is to obey Christ. You can find those statements from Jesus Himself.

Obeying Christ after we are saved through faith is works. So if we must obey Christ in addition to believing in Him for salvation, then how much must we obey Him before He can save us? This makes salvation based on our obedience (works) and not Christ alone. That is salvation by works my friend no matter how much you try and sugar coat it. You clearly don't BELIEVE in Christ alone for salvation. You also believe in yourself.


No not at all. I’m simply pointing out history. I’m showing that the the church only one generation after the apostle John taught the exact opposite of Martin Luther. Luther’s doctrines are 1400 years after the apostles, Irenaeus and Justin’s are 60-80 years after the apostles. A lot of error can creep in in 1400 years. The fact that Luther’s doctrines can only be traced back to the 1500’s proves that they are not apostolic.

The quotations from the church fathers that I quoted proves you wrong. You are basing your argument on human logic Butch. You need to place your faith in Christ alone for salvation and quit trusting in your works to save you. Salvation is at stake.


You’re putting your doctrinal spin on John’s words. John didn’t say we keep his commandments because we are saved. He said, we know him “IF” we keep his commandments.

Actually, you are putting your doctrinal spin on John's words. You left out some words. 1 John 2:3 says, Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. This is the evidence that we know Him. You make it sound like John is saying that we finally come to know Him and become saved after we keep His commandments. We know Him first and then we keep His commandments.


He’s talking about Christians because he includes himself, then he says he who does not keep his commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him. That‘s a Christian, a Christian who says he knows Christ, yet is not obedient, is a liar and the truth is not in him.

Christians know Him and keep His commandments. He who "does not keep His commandments" and "is a liar" and "the truth is not in him" does not describe a Christian.


Didn’t Jesus say, I am the way, the truth, and the life? If the truth is not in him it seems Christ is not in him.

Amen, and that means the person who does not have the truth in him, does not have Christ in Him and is not a Christian.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:04 AM
Works are necessary to SHOW the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine according to James. So James is not wrong and you overlooked a third option. Works are not necessary means of our salvation, but they are necessary to show that our faith is genuine and we are already saved. Faith without works is dead because the lack of works demonstrates the lack of faith. The absence of evidence could be construed as evidence of absense. So works do not cause our faith to become alive but they prove that our faith is alive.

You still ignore the plain teaching of the passage in favor of your interpretation. You can make all the claims in the world Dan, the bottom line is Faith if it has no works is dead. You need to explain how dead faith can saved.




My premise is not flawed. Like you said, if a tree isn't living it cannot produce anything. Exactly! Only a living tree can produce fruit. A fruit tree that never produces any fruit demonstrates that it's a dead tree. A fruit tree does not produce fruit in order to become a living tree but because it's a living tree. With no life flowing through the root of the tree, the tree is dead and there will be no fruit. Likewise, a faith that never produces any works/fruit demonstrates that it's a dead faith. Faith does not produce works/fruit in order to become a living faith but because it's a living faith. With no life flowing through the root (faith) there will be no works/fruit.

So how does our faith become alive? It becomes alive in Christ.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (Ephesians 2:5)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18)

So we are made alive by the Spirit, not by works. Good works are the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and not the source of life in our faith. We are created in Christ Jesus first (saved through faith) and then unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). You continue to put the cart before the horse.

It is flawed. You're assuming that works are the product of faith, that "IS NOT" what James said. This is basic English, Faith without works is dead. if the tree is dead it cannot produce anything. James says without works the tree is dead. Therefore, "Works" give life to faith. All of the dancing and bobbing and weaving won't get around that fact, faith without works is dead. That is the bottom line. So, again, you need to explain how dead faith saves.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:06 AM
Dan---The very next verse (vs. 16) says, And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. That is not singular meaning one individual. The author does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in Genesis 13:15,16 or even in Genesis 17:7 - And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. The NKJV and the NAS translations of the Bible read "your descendants" (plural).


It doesn't matter what your translations say, the original language is singular and that is the point that Paul makes. It seems the problem is your reliance on English transaltions which are not always correct. I find it funny that you would speak of how the Ante-Nicene writers are fallible men, yet you are basing your theology on fallible men. At least the Ante-Nicene writers had closer proximity to the apostles and events of the New Testament than those you are using as a base for your theology.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:17 AM
James is a difficult book and IS contradictory to Romans through Philemon, no matter how you dice it up. Paul, the disciple to the Gentiles, preached salvation from Hell by grace through faith without works or the deeds of the law. THIS much is plain. JAMES is a seemingly difficult book that a lot of folks hang their theological necks on. James, first of all, has a TARGETED audience: Jews. What is written in James is written BEFORE Paul pens a single letter to any church, and if you don't look at the Bible dispensationally and chronologically, you will get in a lot of trouble. James has a lot of verses targeted at tribulation Jews who are somewhat under a works system as can be seen in Matthew 25. I say, that whenever a verse conflicts with Pauline doctrine, DON'T apply it to yourself doctrinally.

That's funny Peter said that it was Paul who was difficult to understand, he said many twist Paul's words to their own destruction. You stated the key to the whole issue in your post.


Paul, the disciple to the Gentiles, preached salvation from Hell by grace through faith without works or the deeds of the law.

As you quoted, Paul is addressing the deeds of the Law. That is the point, "The deeds of the Law". James is "NOT" addressing the deeds of the Law. He is addressing obedience to Christ. There is no difficulty between James and Paul when one looks at thier writings in context.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:24 AM
I will be more than happy to Butch. Mental assent faith may actually acknowledge certain facts about Christ, that He exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened." The demons believe all of this to be true. But trust and reliance faith in Christ not only acknowledges the facts that Christ exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection "happened" but this faith also TRUSTS SOLELY IN WHAT HAPPENED to receive eternal life. Saving faith is a complete trust in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ as the only means of salvation. This is what it means to believe the gospel (Romans 1:16).

But what's the difference? What is the difference between believing in Christ and placing trust in Christ? It seems to me you're palying with words. You say believe and trust are the difference, yet "pisteuo" means both believe and trust.

jandl
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:30 AM
As you quoted, Paul is addressing the deeds of the Law. That is the point, "The deeds of the Law". James is "NOT" addressing the deeds of the Law. He is addressing obedience to Christ. There is no difficulty between James and Paul when one looks at thier writings in context.Compare James 2:24 to Galatians 2:16. They ARE talking about the same thing. THAT is the problem and THAT is what makes the book of James so difficult.... difficult enough to create more cults than you can shake a stick at!

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:34 AM
Once again the truth has gone right over your head. James clearly states that if we claim to have faith but have no works, that faith cannot save us. Works are not the means of our salvation but they do prove or manifest the genuineness of our faith. To claim that you have faith but then have no works to back it up is clearly a bare profession of faith. James states that the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19) so there is more than one kind of faith. One that saves and one that does not. One that trusts in Christ for salvation and shows the reality of this faith by producing works and the other that does neither. James clearly states that we SHOW our faith by our works (James 2:18). James did not say establish your faith by your works. If we are showing our living faith by our works, then our living faith is already an established fact.

You seem to believe that ALL belief is the same "except for the lack of good works." You just can't grasp a DEEPER faith which actually trusts in Christ alone for salvation. This explains why you have so much faith in works to save you. This is why you need a qualifier to help you understand what James is really teaching and it's not saved by works.

A dead faith cannot save because it has not been made alive in Christ by grace through faith in Him for salvation (Ephesians 2:5-9). Once it has been made alive in Christ, then the saved person will prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do. The person who merely claims to have faith but lacks works to back it up demonstrates that their faith is dead. It's really simple to understand, but you make if difficult.

Bottom line, faith if it has no works is dead. How does dead faith save? Dan, you can say whatever, James simply leaves "NO" room for yours and Martin Luther's interpretation.

You also didn't answer my other question. Please explain how it is that no one in the church had the truth of the Gospel until the 1500's.
Please explain how all of those Christians who were taught by Christ and the Apostles all misunderstood what they were taught.
Are you aware of the implications of the doctrine? The doctrine implies that a mere man, Martin Luther or Calvin, were able to preach their doctrines and have them last for at least 500 years so far, yet Christ and the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught their doctrines but they were able to have them last a single generation.
Are you really willing to accept that for the doctrines of men?

DDGresham1
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:40 AM
The theif on the cross was told he would be in paradise with Christ that day...he had done nothing but believe. Having said that, you obiously can't do whatever you want after you believe. Trying to earn your way in with works won't work though. Works are evidence of belief and fruits of the spirit but they don't save you. If you are truly saved though, your faith will be made evident in the works of the spirit that you perform because you love God.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:41 AM
Compare James 2:24 to Galatians 2:16. They ARE talking about the same thing. THAT is the problem and THAT is what makes the book of James so difficult.... difficult enough to create more cults than you can shake a stick at!

They're talking about the same thing??? Paul states clearly in Galatians 2:16 that he is speaking of the works of the Law. James is speaking of obedience to God. They are not the same. James explains that Abraham was justified because he obeyed God. Paul is saying that a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law.

Again, you said that James was hard to understand. Why, Peter tells Christians that it is Paul who is difficult to understand. Do you have some insight that the apostle Peter didn't. There is nothing hard to understand about James, unless one is trying to adhere to the the doctrines of Martin Luther.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 02:42 AM
The theif on the cross was told he would be in paradise with Christ that day...he had done nothing but believe. Having said that, you obiously can't do whatever you want after you believe. Trying to earn your way in with works won't work though. Works are evidence of belief and fruits of the spirit but they don't save you. If you are truly saved though, your faith will be made evident in the works of the spirit that you perform because you love God.

Faith if it has no works is dead. Please explain how a person is aved by dead faith.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2011, 03:33 AM
So ALL of the church fathers specifically said that we are saved through faith "and works?" If so, they were all wrong. Here are some quotes on faith below made many years before Martin Luther.

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."
Those who believe in God live by faith as a consequence of salvation, not as an additional requirement to become saved.

Athanasius: "Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ." Did you see that Butch? Faith alone.

Ambrose: "Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man, that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, his "faith is imputed for righteousness" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "Through faith, without the works of the law, the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, God justified him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not." Did you see that again Butch? Faith alone.

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Chrysostom: "Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed." Did you see that again Butch? Faith alone.

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works follow after a justified person; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...good works, following after justification, show what a man has received."

Augustine: "Now, having duly considered and weighed all these circumstances and testimonies, we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ,--in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace."

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...put all your confidence in this death alone. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, when not even our righteousness can answer for itself? Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...[/B ]whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, being justified by faith alone, he shall have peace with God." There it is. Faith alone again. hhmmm...


First of all, let's get it correct. I said the Ante-Nicene writers, there liminates most of your list. Secondly pulling a single sentence out of context doesn't prove anything. However, that is what you've been doing with the Scriptures also. How about going back and giving a little context

Here is another quote from Clement of Rome, it shows that he didn't believe an was saved by faith alone.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. XXI.—Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.
Take heed, beloved, [b]lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight.
Polycarp
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. II.—An Exhortation to Virtue. “Wherefore, girding up your loins,” (Comp. 1 Pet. 1:13; Eph. 6:14) “serve the Lord in fear” (Ps. 2:11) and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” (1 Pet. 1:21) and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things(Comp. 1 Pet. 3:22; Phil. 2:10) in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. (Comp. Acts 17:31) His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him.5III-1-5 But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise (Comp 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom. 8:11) up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, falsewitness; “not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing,” (1 Pet. 3:9) or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: “Judge not, that ye be not judged; (Matt. 7:1) forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; (Matt. 6:12, 14; Luke 6:37) be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; (Luke 6:36) with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; (Matt. 7:2; Luke 6:38) and once more, “Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 5:3, 10; Luke 6:20)
Notice Irenaeus says that to believe in Christ is to do His will.

Irenaeus
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

5. And for this purpose did the Father reveal the Son, that through His instrumentality He might be manifested to all, and might receive those righteous ones who believe in Him into incorruption and everlasting enjoyment (now, to believe in Him is to do His will); but He shall righteously shut out into the darkness which they have chosen for themselves, those who do not believe, and who do consequently avoid His light. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like 469 others, have seen, but have not, like others, believed.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Against Heresies, Book 4, chapter 41

3. For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God,—those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, “Sinners are alienated from the womb; their anger is after the likeness of a serpent.” (Ps. 58:3, 4) And therefore did the Lord term those whom He knew to be the offspring of men “a generation of vipers;” (Matt. 23:33) because after the manner of these animals they go about in subtilty, and injure others. For He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matt. 16:6) Speaking of Herod, too, He says, “Go ye and tell that fox,” (Luke 13:32) aiming at his wicked cunning and deceit. Wherefore the prophet David says, “Man, being placed in honour, is made like unto cattle.” (Ps. 49:21) And again Jeremiah says, “They are become like horses, furious about females; each one neighed after his neighbour’s wife.” (Jer. 5:8) And Isaiah, when preaching in Judea, and reasoning with Israel, termed them “rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah;” (Isa. 1:10) intimating that they were like the Sodomites in wickedness, and that the same description of sins was rife among them, calling them by the same name, because of the similarity of their conduct. And inasmuch as they were not by nature so created by God, but had power also to act rightly, the same person said to them, giving them good counsel, “Wash ye, make you clean; take away iniquity from your souls before mine eyes; cease from your iniquities.” (Isa. 1:16) Thus, no doubt, since they had transgressed and sinned in the same manner, so did they receive the same reproof as did the Sodomites. But when they should be converted and come to repentance, and cease from evil, they should have power to become the sons of God, and to receive the inheritance of immortality which is given by Him. For this reason, therefore, He has termed those “angels of the devil,” and “children of the wicked one,” (Matt. 25:41, 13:38) who give heed to the devil, and do his works. But these are, at the same time, all created by the one and the same God. When, however, they believe and are subject to God, and go on and keep His doctrine, they are the sons of God; but when they have apostatized and fallen into transgression, they are ascribed to their chief, the devil—to him who first became the cause of apostasy to himself, and afterwards to others.

So, you see, when we look at their writings as whole we see that they do not support your doctrine. They did in fact believe that those who didn’t keep Christ’s commands would be condemned.
It is no surprise to see them say a man is justified by faith since that what Scripture says, however, Scripture doesn’t say what Martin Luther said, a man is justified by faith alone.

Context, context, context.
Don’t you tire of opposing the word of God?

John 14:23-24(KJV)
23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

John 15:10(KJV)
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
You see, one remains in Christ’s love “IF” they keep His commandments.

1 John 1:6-7(KJV)
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Depending on where one walks (an action) determines one’s outcome. If one walks in the light, they have fellowship with Christ, if they walk in darkness the truth is not in them.

1 John 2:3-4(KJV)
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
How do we know we are Christians? If we keep His commandments, again, keeping His commandments is an action.

So far your doctrine has opposed the words of Jesus, John, James, Paul, and the teaching of the Ante-Nicene church. If you won’t believe the words of Jesus and three apostles, I doubt anything I can say will make any difference.

jandl
Aug 2nd 2011, 03:53 AM
They're talking about the same thing??? Paul states clearly in Galatians 2:16 that he is speaking of the works of the Law. James is speaking of obedience to God. They are not the same. James explains that Abraham was justified because he obeyed God. Paul is saying that a man is not justified by keeping the Mosaic Law.

Again, you said that James was hard to understand. Why, Peter tells Christians that it is Paul who is difficult to understand. Do you have some insight that the apostle Peter didn't. There is nothing hard to understand about James, unless one is trying to adhere to the the doctrines of Martin Luther.Justification is THE subject... in BOTH verses. ONE says that we are justified by grace WITHOUT works. The other says that we are JUSTIFIED by works and NOT faith only. They DON'T say the same thing. I'm not saying that James is hard to understand. I am SAYING that it is difficult in that you have read it, and read it, and then reread it for the context and take the book as a whole to understand what he is saying.

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 10:57 AM
You still ignore the plain teaching of the passage in favor of your interpretation. You can make all the claims in the world Dan, the bottom line is Faith if it has no works is dead. You need to explain how dead faith can saved.

I certainly did not ignore CLAIMS to have faith, but has no works, can THAT faith save him, SHOW you my faith by my works (James 2:14-18) as you did in favor of your erroneous interpretation that works are the source of life in our faith and the means of our salvation. The bottom line is faith without works is dead because a living faith demonstrates that it is alive by the works that it produces. If there is no fruit (works) then there is no root (faith). You admit that a fruit tree must be alive first before it can produce fruit, but then you just can't accept that our faith must be alive first before it can produce fruit/works.


It is flawed. You're assuming that works are the product of faith, that "IS NOT" what James said. This is basic English, Faith without works is dead. if the tree is dead it cannot produce anything. James says without works the tree is dead. Therefore, "Works" give life to faith. All of the dancing and bobbing and weaving won't get around that fact, faith without works is dead. That is the bottom line. So, again, you need to explain how dead faith saves.

I'm not assuming anything. Works are the product of faith. James said I will SHOW you my faith by my works, not establish my faith by my works. Big difference. Notice that James does not say that we are saved by works. What he does say is that faith without works is dead, so he does indicate that good works are definitely associated with saving faith. That does not mean that works give life to our faith. Works are the product of the life that is in our faith when our faith is made alive by the Spirit. You need more than a basic English lesson, you need the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). To say that works give life to our faith is the same thing as saying that fruit which grows on a fruit tree gives life to that tree. The tree is alive FIRST Butch and fruit is the product of that tree. The same with out faith and our works. A dead faith cannot save because it is not alive in Christ. You need to explain how a dead tree can produce fruit and then apply that to a dead faith.

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 11:12 AM
It doesn't matter what your translations say, the original language is singular and that is the point that Paul makes. It seems the problem is your reliance on English transaltions which are not always correct. I find it funny that you would speak of how the Ante-Nicene writers are fallible men, yet you are basing your theology on fallible men. At least the Ante-Nicene writers had closer proximity to the apostles and events of the New Testament than those you are using as a base for your theology.

What my translations say? I didn't write these translations. So the Ante-Nicene writers have their own special translation? So when a translation of the Bible does not agree with your theology, then the translation is wrong? So the original language (you have the original copies?) says that the number of the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered is singular? Your descendants is singular? Yeah right! In Genesis 22:16-18 we read, "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son-- blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; (is that singular?) and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. Don't you ever get tired of fighting the truth?

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 11:20 AM
But what's the difference? What is the difference between believing in Christ and placing trust in Christ? It seems to me you're palying with words. You say believe and trust are the difference, yet "pisteuo" means both believe and trust.

We must first believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ before we can believe (trust) in Him alone for salvation. There are no word games here. You just don't understand because you don't BELIEVE (2 Corinthians 4:3,4). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), *especially reliance upon Christ for salvation*; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent (James 2:19) or also include trust and reliance (Acts 16:31). The demons certainly don't trust in Christ. See the difference yet?

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 11:29 AM
Bottom line, faith if it has no works is dead. How does dead faith save? Dan, you can say whatever, James simply leaves "NO" room for yours and Martin Luther's interpretation.

You also didn't answer my other question. Please explain how it is that no one in the church had the truth of the Gospel until the 1500's.
Please explain how all of those Christians who were taught by Christ and the Apostles all misunderstood what they were taught.
Are you aware of the implications of the doctrine? The doctrine implies that a mere man, Martin Luther or Calvin, were able to preach their doctrines and have them last for at least 500 years so far, yet Christ and the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit taught their doctrines but they were able to have them last a single generation.
Are you really willing to accept that for the doctrines of men?

You still just don't get it. Why is faith without works dead? Why is a fruit tree that never produces any fruit dead? Because the fruit is the source of life for that tree? NO! The problem is with the ROOT. The lack of fruit demonstrates the lack of root. The lack of fruit/works demonstrates the lack of root (faith). Living faith first, then fruit becomes the product of our faith. Saved through faith, created in Christ Jesus FIRST then unto good
works (Ephesians 2:8-10). The Bible clearly teaches this. You don't need to resort to the teachings of men in order to change this truth.

I already answered your question. The truth of the Gospel has always been in the BIBLE way before the 1500's regardless of what other men before then taught. Look to the Scriptures for the truth, not flawed human logic.

mailmandan
Aug 2nd 2011, 12:26 PM
First of all, let's get it correct. I said the Ante-Nicene writers, there liminates most of your list.

First of all Butch, you said that Martin Luther is the first to teach the doctrine of faith alone, not just coin the phrase and that the doctrine doesn’t appear in the history of the church until Luther. Yet I just showed you where Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom and Bernard of Clairvaux all said FAITH ALONE. So the Ante-Nicene writers argument does not change the fact that these men before Luther said FAITH ALONE. I'm so glad that I have the Scriptures to teach me the truth and I don't have to depend on which group of men should be right and which group of men might be wrong! Just man up and admit that you were wrong Butch.


Secondly pulling a single sentence out of context doesn't prove anything. However, that is what you've been doing with the Scriptures also. How about going back and giving a little context

Don't try to back peddle on me Butch. Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom and Bernard of Clairvaux all said FAITH ALONE and this was before Luther.


Here is another quote from Clement of Rome, it shows that he didn't believe an was saved by faith alone.

Clement of Rome clearly said: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" If that's not faith alone, then I don't know what is! Works that we have done in holiness Butch. He didn't say works of the Mosaic Law. Your argument continues to crumble.


Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. XXI.—Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.
Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight.
Polycarp
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Chap. II.—An Exhortation to Virtue. “Wherefore, girding up your loins,” (Comp. 1 Pet. 1:13; Eph. 6:14) “serve the Lord in fear” (Ps. 2:11) and truth, as those who have forsaken the vain, empty talk and error of the multitude, and “believed in Him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave Him glory,” (1 Pet. 1:21) and a throne at His right hand. To Him all things(Comp. 1 Pet. 3:22; Phil. 2:10) in heaven and on earth are subject. Him every spirit serves. He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead. (Comp. Acts 17:31) His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him.5III-1-5 But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise (Comp 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom. 8:11) up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, falsewitness; “not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing,” (1 Pet. 3:9) or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: “Judge not, that ye be not judged; (Matt. 7:1) forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; (Matt. 6:12, 14; Luke 6:37) be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; (Luke 6:36) with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; (Matt. 7:2; Luke 6:38) and once more, “Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 5:3, 10; Luke 6:20)
Notice Irenaeus says that to believe in Christ is to do His will.

Actually, none of what I just read said "saved by works." I think the problem is not with what he said, but how you interpreted what he said. For the most part, I just read descriptions of a Christian, not a requisite for salvation. As for Irenaeus saying that to believe in Christ is to do His will. In John 6:40 we read, "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." The will of God for us to receive salvation is that we believe in Christ for salvation. So what's the problem? The problem is with your understanding of what was said. You interpret that as doing His will after we are saved through faith (good works) are the means of our salvation, which equates to salvation by works. Once again, what did Clement of Rome say? We are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians). Amen!


So, you see, when we look at their writings as whole we see that they do not support your doctrine.

Actually, they did not support your doctrine of salvation by works.


They did in fact believe that those who didn’t keep Christ’s commands would be condemned.

Those who don't keep Christ's commands are unbelievers. That's why they will be condemned. You confuse cause and effect. Those who do obey Christ's commands (though not perfectly) are believers.


It is no surprise to see them say a man is justified by faith since that what Scripture says, however, Scripture doesn’t say what Martin Luther said, a man is justified by faith alone.

Justified by faith, not faith and works (Romans 5:1). The Bible clearly teaches in over 100 passages of scripture that we are saved through faith/belief "apart from additions or modifications." You don't need to add the word "alone" next to faith/belief in each of these passages to figure out that the words "faith/belief" stand alone in these 100 plus passages in connection with receiving salvation. Do these passages say faith plus something else? NO. So then it's faith (rightly understood) alone. Faith alone equates to Christ alone saves us. Luther wasn't the only one to say faith alone. I quoted four other men that said faith alone before Luther.


Context, context, context.
Don’t you tire of opposing the word of God?

Context, context, context still didn't support your works based false gospel. Do I get tired of opposing the word of God? LOL! That statement is the epitome of irony.


John 14:23-24(KJV)
23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

If a man loves me, he WILL keep my words. We love Him because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). We receive the love of God in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5) who was given to us when we BELIEVED (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13) and we then became new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). We don't just conjure up genuine agape love in our flesh apart from Christ. Description of a Christian, not a requisite for salvation.


John 15:10(KJV)
10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.
You see, one remains in Christ’s love “IF” they keep His commandments.

IF we keep His commandments, we abide in His love and demonstrate that we are saved. If we don't keep His commandments, then we don't abide in His love and are not saved. By this we know that we have (past tense) come to know Him if we keep His commandments. (1 John 2:3) Demonstrative evidence, not additional requirement for salvation.


1 John 1:6-7(KJV)
6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Depending on where one walks (an action) determines one’s outcome. If one walks in the light, they have fellowship with Christ, if they walk in darkness the truth is not in them.

First of all, Christians are not in darkness, but are only in the light (2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:8; Colossians 1:12,13). It's not about how we walk but where we walk, in the light. If one walks in the light, it's because they are saved and they have fellowship with Christ. If the walk in darkness, they are not saved and the truth is not in them. There are only two camps here.


1 John 2:3-4(KJV)
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
How do we know we are Christians? If we keep His commandments, again, keeping His commandments is an action.

We do know that we (already) know Him, if we keep His commandments. Believers keep his commandments because they are saved, not to become saved. How do we KNOW that we are Christians, not how do we become Christians, again, by keeping His commandments. He that says I know Him and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in them because he is lost.


So far your doctrine has opposed the words of Jesus, John, James, Paul, and the teaching of the Ante-Nicene church. If you won’t believe the words of Jesus and three apostles, I doubt anything I can say will make any difference.

These are exactly my words to you Butch. If the truth is what you are looking for, then you will find it in the Scriptures. If accommodating your false gospel of works salvation is the only thing you are interested in, then I doubt anything I can say will make any difference. Continue to seek for the truth and God Bless. I will continue to pray for you my friend.

zeke77
Aug 3rd 2011, 12:07 AM
I'm so glad that I have the Scriptures to teach me the truth and I don't have to depend on which group of men should be right and which group of men might be wrong!

<snip>

Clement of Rome clearly said: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" If that's not faith alone, then I don't know what is!

But Clement (an uninspired writer) did not write “faith alone” - did he? And the Scriptures do not teach faith alone – do they? The Bible clearly states we are saved by grace through faith that works through love, i.e., we are saved via obedient faith? Isn’t obedience something man must do to be saved?



For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6 ESV)


Belief itself a work of God that man must do in order to be saved - right? Are we not required to "work the works of God"? There is no ‘faith alone’ here – we must “work the works of God” – mustn't we? Were you obedient to the faith of Christ at your conversion? Was there something you were required by God to do?



"What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:28, 29)

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 03:27 AM
We must first believe in the existence and historical facts about Christ before we can believe (trust) in Him alone for salvation. There are no word games here. You just don't understand because you don't BELIEVE (2 Corinthians 4:3,4). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), *especially reliance upon Christ for salvation*; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent (James 2:19) or also include trust and reliance (Acts 16:31). The demons certainly don't trust in Christ. See the difference yet?

First of all, I didn't say "pistis", I said "pisteou".

Secondly, yoy still haven.t told me rhe difference between believing in Chtist abd placing trust in Chtist. What's the difference?

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 03:31 AM
I certainly did not ignore CLAIMS to have faith, but has no works, can THAT faith save him, SHOW you my faith by my works (James 2:14-18) as you did in favor of your erroneous interpretation that works are the source of life in our faith and the means of our salvation. The bottom line is faith without works is dead because a living faith demonstrates that it is alive by the works that it produces. If there is no fruit (works) then there is no root (faith). You admit that a fruit tree must be alive first before it can produce fruit, but then you just can't accept that our faith must be alive first before it can produce fruit/works.



I'm not assuming anything. Works are the product of faith. James said I will SHOW you my faith by my works, not establish my faith by my works. Big difference. Notice that James does not say that we are saved by works. What he does say is that faith without works is dead, so he does indicate that good works are definitely associated with saving faith. That does not mean that works give life to our faith. Works are the product of the life that is in our faith when our faith is made alive by the Spirit. You need more than a basic English lesson, you need the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). To say that works give life to our faith is the same thing as saying that fruit which grows on a fruit tree gives life to that tree. The tree is alive FIRST Butch and fruit is the product of that tree. The same with out faith and our works. A dead faith cannot save because it is not alive in Christ. You need to explain how a dead tree can produce fruit and then apply that to a dead faith.

You still have not answered, faith if it has no works is dead. How can dead faith save? How can dead faith produce works?

mailmandan
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by zeke77


But Clement (an uninspired writer) did not write “faith alone” - did he? And the Scriptures do not teach faith alone – do they? The Bible clearly states we are saved by grace through faith that works through love, i.e., we are saved via obedient faith? Isn’t obedience something man must do to be saved?

Clement of Rome wrote: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" So if faith and works which we have done in holiness or heart make up the equation and you take away works which we have done in holiness or heart, what if left? FAITH "apart from additions or modifications" ALONE. You don't need to add the word "alone" next to what Clement said in order to figure that out. Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom and Bernard of Clairvaux all said FAITH ALONE. The Scriptures do teach that we are saved through faith, not works, so it's faith (rightly understood) alone. Paul said saved by grace through FAITH "apart from additions or modifications," NOT WORKS (Ephesians 2:8,9). He did not say that we are saved by grace through faith and love or by grace through faith and obedience.


For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6 ESV)

Galatians 5:6 says faith working through love. We are saved through faith first and then our faith works through love because we are saved, not to become saved. Placing our faith in Christ alone for salvation is an act of obedience that man must do to be saved. Obedience (works) which follow is the fruit of our faith but not the means of our salvation.


Belief itself a work of God that man must do in order to be saved - right? Are we not required to "work the works of God"? There is no ‘faith alone’ here – we must “work the works of God” – mustn't we? Were you obedient to the faith of Christ at your conversion? Was there something you were required by God to do?

I had already previously explained this to you. In John 6:28, they thought Jesus was saying that God required them to work for their salvation by accomplishing a list of works to receive eternal life, which they thought they would be able to do. But Jesus answers: "The work (singular) of God is that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). Believe "apart from additions or modifications" alone. In John 6:29, Jesus did not say that we must work the works (plural) of God. He did not give us a list of multiple works that we must do to be saved. Jesus simply said, this is the work (singular) of God that you believe in Him whom He sent. We are required to believe in Him to receive salvation, not accomplish a list of works. Choosing to place our faith in Christ alone for salvation is an act of obedience which saves us. Obedience which follows is works and we are not saved by works.


"What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:28, 29)

This is the work (singular) of God that you BELIEVE. How many times does the Lord have to say BELIEVE and be saved before you accept the truth and quit trying to add your works as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save you? (John 3:16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 Romans 1:16 etc...).

mailmandan
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Butch


First of all, I didn't say "pistis", I said "pisteou".

And I gave you the definition for both pistis and pisteou. Once again, the word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere mental assent (James 2:19) or also include trust and reliance (Acts 16:31). How did you miss that?


Secondly, yoy still haven.t told me rhe difference between believing in Chtist abd placing trust in Chtist. What's the difference?

Wow! I did explain the difference between simply believing "mental assent" in Christ and placing trust in Christ. Are you even reading what I write? The demons believe "mental assent" in Christ. They believe that Christ exists, is the Son of God and in the historical facts about Christ, but they are not trusting in His finished work of redemption as the only means of their salvation. They are not trusting in Him for salvation at all.
I believe that George Washington existed and was the first President of the United States and other historical facts about him, but I am not trusting in him to save my soul. See the difference? If you are trusting in works to save you and not Christ alone, then you are not trusting in Christ for salvation. Whatever you are actually trusting in to save you, that's what you believe/have faith in to save you. Was that clear enough?

mailmandan
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Butch


You still have not answered, faith if it has no works is dead. How can dead faith save? How can dead faith produce works?

I already explained this to you. Dead faith cannot save. Faith must be alive first before it can save. It takes a living faith to produce genuine good works. A dead faith does not produce works in order to become a living faith, but because it's a living faith. Just as a dead fruit tree does not produce fruit in order to become a living tree, but because it's a living tree. The tree must be alive FIRST before it can produce fruit. Our faith must be alive FIRST before it can produce works. Ephesians 2:5 - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved). He has made alive together with Him by grace through faith, not works. Saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus FIRST then UNTO good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are not created in good works unto a living faith. When will you BELIEVE?

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Butch



I already explained this to you. Dead faith cannot save. Faith must be alive first before it can save. It takes a living faith to produce genuine good works. A dead faith does not produce works in order to become a living faith, but because it's a living faith. Just as a dead fruit tree does not produce fruit in order to become a living tree, but because it's a living tree. The tree must be alive FIRST before it can produce fruit. Our faith must be alive FIRST before it can produce works. Ephesians 2:5 - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved). He has made alive together with Him by grace through faith, not works. Saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus FIRST then UNTO good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are not created in good works unto a living faith. When will you BELIEVE?


I already explained this to you. Dead faith cannot save. Faith must be alive first before it can save. It takes a living faith to produce genuine good works

There it is Dan, in your own words. You said dead faith can't save. Faith without works is dead, therefore, works are necessary.

zeke77
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:29 PM
You don't need to add the word "alone" next to what Clement said in order to figure that out.


Then why must you insist on adding it? Do we agree - Clement of Rome never wrote we are saved by “faith alone” and the Bible never says we are "saved by faith alone"? Scripture does say we must have a faith that works (obeys) through love. In your theology can one be saved and not do that which God requires?


He did not give us a list of multiple works that we must do to be saved. Jesus simply said, this is the work (singular) of God that you believe in Him whom He sent.

Actually, Jesus said “work the works (plural) of God”, i.e., we must do ALL that God requires, belief being but one of those works. Did you repent at your conversion? Is repentance something that you DID before you were saved? When you repented did you EARN salvation or is repentance something we must do to work the works of God?

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:30 PM
Justification is THE subject... in BOTH verses. ONE says that we are justified by grace WITHOUT works. The other says that we are JUSTIFIED by works and NOT faith only. They DON'T say the same thing. I'm not saying that James is hard to understand. I am SAYING that it is difficult in that you have read it, and read it, and then reread it for the context and take the book as a whole to understand what he is saying.

I agree they are both speaking of justification, however, they are not speaking of the same method of justification. Paul is addressing the Mosaic Law, James, good works or obedience to the commands of Christ.

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:33 PM
I certainly did not ignore CLAIMS to have faith, but has no works, can THAT faith save him, SHOW you my faith by my works (James 2:14-18) as you did in favor of your erroneous interpretation that works are the source of life in our faith and the means of our salvation. The bottom line is faith without works is dead because a living faith demonstrates that it is alive by the works that it produces. If there is no fruit (works) then there is no root (faith). You admit that a fruit tree must be alive first before it can produce fruit, but then you just can't accept that our faith must be alive first before it can produce fruit/works.


I'm not assuming anything. Works are the product of faith. James said I will SHOW you my faith by my works, not establish my faith by my works. Big difference. Notice that James does not say that we are saved by works. What he does say is that faith without works is dead, so he does indicate that good works are definitely associated with saving faith. That does not mean that works give life to our faith. Works are the product of the life that is in our faith when our faith is made alive by the Spirit. You need more than a basic English lesson, you need the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). To say that works give life to our faith is the same thing as saying that fruit which grows on a fruit tree gives life to that tree. The tree is alive FIRST Butch and fruit is the product of that tree. The same with out faith and our works. A dead faith cannot save because it is not alive in Christ. You need to explain how a dead tree can produce fruit and then apply that to a dead faith.


I'm not assuming anything. Works are the product of faith. James said I will SHOW you my faith by my works, not establish my faith by my works.

Exactly, James has living faith, those he speaks of don't. What's the difference? James has works, those he speaks of don't.

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2011, 11:51 PM
Dan---More human logic. You have to consider how these church leaders interpreted what they heard. You don't know their hearts. What false teachings could have also got mixed in? These men were not infallible. Period. So to say, "I'm going to interpet Scripture exactly the way these men did is very dangerous!" What if they were not right about everything?

This is classic, I quote men who were right there and you ask what false teachings may have gotten in, yet you quote guys 1500 years later as if there is no chance that any error entered in. Ignatius and Polycarp were appoointed bishop by the apostles.

Butch5
Aug 4th 2011, 12:22 AM
What my translations say? I didn't write these translations. So the Ante-Nicene writers have their own special translation? So when a translation of the Bible does not agree with your theology, then the translation is wrong? So the original language (you have the original copies?) says that the number of the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered is singular? Your descendants is singular? Yeah right! In Genesis 22:16-18 we read, "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son-- blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; (is that singular?) and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. Don't you ever get tired of fighting the truth?

Now you’re contradicting yourself. I posted two quotes from the Ante-Nicene writers, to show what the early church believed, and you denounced them saying,


Butch5---I don’t quote them to back up my claims unless those claims regard church history. In which case that would be expected.


Dan---They are still fallible men. The Word of God is infallible.

You denounce them saying they are fallible men and that the word of God is infallible. Then you turn around and present fallible men to oppose the word of God that you said was infallible.


Butch5---When God said to his seed, He used the singular seed meaning one individual, not all of his seed(s) the nation of Israel. Paul makes this point in Galatians. The seed is Christ.


Dan---Paul made that point in Galatians 3:16, but that is not the point which was made in Genesis 13:15. In Genesis 13:15, we read, "thy seed" in the KJV yet the NKJV and the NAS translations of the Bible read "your descendents" (plural, not singular).

The very next verse (vs. 16) says, And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. That is not singular meaning one individual. The author does not say that Christ is specifically referred to in Genesis 13:15,16 or even in Genesis 17:7 - And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. The NKJV and the NAS translations of the Bible read "your descendants" (plural).


Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ filled with the Holy spirit said, when God made the promises to Abraham and his seed, he was using “Seed” in the singular not the plural, he said, who is Christ.


Earlier you said the word of God was inspired, yet now you say that because the NKJV and the NAS use the plural it must be plural. This would mean that the apostle Paul was wrong,

What happened to God’s word is inspired Dan??? Now you’re raising your “FALLIBLE” men above the Scriptures. Who has the final authority Dan, fallible men or the Scriptures? If I had to guess I would say it was Dan who has the final authority. This tells me that it really doesn’t matter, the final authority goes to whichever is most expedient to your argument.

As I said, it doesn't matter what your translations say, Paul said it was singular. The Hebrew and the Greek are also both singular. I'm afraid it is your "Infallible" translators who are worng, Dan.

Dan, I’ve shown that the argument you’re using is flawed, fallacious, and illogical. You’ve not be able to show how dead faith can do anything. Faith if has no works is dead, no matter how one twists things works must precede a saving faith, they must be what gives faith life. That is simple logic.

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 10:26 AM
There it is Dan, in your own words. You said dead faith can't save. Faith without works is dead, therefore, works are necessary.

You left out something. Faith without works is dead because the lack of works demonstrates that our faith is dead. Our faith is alive FIRST before it produces good works. You admit that a living fruit tree must be alive FIRST before it can produce fruit and that the fruit is not the source of life for that tree, yet when it comes to faith and works, you reverse the order. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Works are referred to as fruits in Scripture. Works are necessary to show that our faith is alive, but our faith is alive in Christ before we produce these works. Faith is the root and works are the fruit of our salvation.

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by zeke77

Then why must you insist on adding it? Do we agree - Clement of Rome never wrote we are saved by “faith alone” and the Bible never says we are "saved by faith alone"? Scripture does say we must have a faith that works (obeys) through love. In your theology can one be saved and not do that which God requires?

Clement of Rome said that we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith. Take away the works from the equation as Clement of Rome did and all you have left is justified through faith. Did Clement of Rome need to spell out the word "alone" in order for you to figure that out? Did he say that we are justified through faith plus something else? NO. So then it's faith "apart from additions or modifications" alone. The Bible says that we are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, not faith and works. Take away the works from the equation and what do you have left? Faith alone. Scripture says faith working through love, not must have a faith that works (obeys) through love in order to become saved. Faith works through love because we are saved, not to become saved. Faith in Christ alone for salvation is what God requires for us to become saved (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9).


Actually, Jesus said “work the works (plural) of God”, i.e., we must do ALL that God requires, belief being but one of those works.

In John 6:28, Jesus was asked the question, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work (not works) of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." Jesus did not say, "work the works (plural) of God" and Jesus did not say that belief was but one of those works either. We must believe (trust) in Christ alone for salvation because Jesus did ALL that God requires to save us. Through faith, we are accepting the free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8). Adding our works to Christ's finished work of redemption as an additional requirement to become saved perverts the gospel of grace.


Did you repent at your conversion? Is repentance something that you DID before you were saved? When you repented did you EARN salvation or is repentance something we must do to work the works of God?

Of course I repented at my conversion. Repentance in salvation involves a change of mind about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ alone for salvation. Two sides to the same experience. Repentance is something that I did as I placed my faith in Christ alone for salvation. A person cannot believe (trust) in Christ alone for salvation without repenting (changing his mind) in the process. Of course I did not earn my salvation when I repented. Believing is clearly not a work that earns our salvation. Through believing, we are completely trusting in "Another's work," (Christ's finished work of redemption). Repenting is not a work that earns our salvation either. We must first repent "change our mind" before we can believe (trust in Christ's finished work of redemption) to save us. Through repentance/faith, Christ is still the object of our complete trust in receiving salvation. Works that follow saving faith would help earn our salvation if they were necessary for salvation because then we would be saved based on Christ's finished work of redemption "plus our works." Through repentance/faith, we are simply accepting the free gift of salvation. Through works which follow, we are working for the gift of salvation. Repentance is something that we must do to in order to accomplish the work of God and that is believe in Him whom He sent. If we don't repent "change our mind" then we won't believe.

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 11:25 AM
Exactly, James has living faith, those he speaks of don't. What's the difference? James has works, those he speaks of don't.

Those who don't have a living faith show their lack of having a living faith by their lack of works. If their faith was alive in Christ FIRST, then they would show their living faith by their works, just as James did. You can't show your living faith by your works unless your faith is alive to begin with.

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 11:35 AM
This is classic, I quote men who were right there and you ask what false teachings may have gotten in, yet you quote guys 1500 years later as if there is no chance that any error entered in. Ignatius and Polycarp were appoointed bishop by the apostles.

Who am I quoting 1500 years later? When have I quoted Martin Luther to defend my position? False teachings have crept into the church while the Bible was still being written. It didn't take 1500 years later for that to happen. As for Ignatius, he wrote: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Amen! Ignatius didn't say saved by works. As for Polycarp, he wrote: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians). Amen! Polycarp didn't say saved by works either. When are you going to quit fighting the truth?

ProjectPeter
Aug 4th 2011, 11:46 AM
As for Polycarp, he wrote: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians). Amen! Polycarp didn't say saved by works either. When are you going to quit fighting the truth?He sure enough said that... and like others it is all about context because this is what he said as well just a few lines further down.

Polycarp 2:2
Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we
do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He
loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of
money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or
railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing;

Polycarp 2:3
but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God.

Just sayin. :)

Firstfruits
Aug 4th 2011, 12:11 PM
With regards to the following scriptures we are expected to do the will of God, is this not regarded as work?

Mt 7:21 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.

Mt 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Jn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Firstfruits

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 12:22 PM
Now you’re contradicting yourself. I posted two quotes from the Ante-Nicene writers, to show what the early church believed, and you denounced them saying, You denounce them saying they are fallible men and that the word of God is infallible. Then you turn around and present fallible men to oppose the word of God that you said was infallible.

So the early church believed that the number of the dust of the earth, then shall THY SEED also be numbered and YOUR DESCENDANTS as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore is singular? When did I present fallible men to oppose the word of God? Your ramblings are getting hard to follow.


Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ filled with the Holy spirit said, when God made the promises to Abraham and his seed, he was using “Seed” in the singular not the plural, he said, who is Christ.

In Galatians 3:16, but "seed" is obviously not being used in a singular sense to negate a plural number of people in these passages in Genesis.

Genesis 13:16 KJV

And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

Genesis 15:5 KJV

And he brought him forth abroad, and said , Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 15:13 KJV

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Genesis 17:7 KJV

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. You are trying to use Galatians 3:16 to negate these passages in Genesis. Why?


Earlier you said the word of God was inspired, yet now you say that because the NKJV and the NAS use the plural it must be plural. This would mean that the apostle Paul was wrong,

I didn't use the NKJV and the NAS to say that the apostle Paul used it in a plural number in Galatians 3:16. I was talking about those passages in Genesis.


What happened to God’s word is inspired Dan??? Now you’re raising your “FALLIBLE” men above the Scriptures.

That is absolutey a false accusation. Are you now resorting to dishonesty?


Who has the final authority Dan, fallible men or the Scriptures?

The Scriptures of course. You should ask yourself that as you continuously quote fallible men to defend your doctrine.


If I had to guess I would say it was Dan who has the final authority. This tells me that it really doesn’t matter, the final authority goes to whichever is most expedient to your argument.

How ironic for you to say that. If being dishonest is your game plan then I am just wasting my time with you. You couldn't even admit that you were wrong when you said that "faith alone" was never taught before the 1500's and I quoted 4 different men from church history that said "faith alone." You then tried to back peddle and say, well they were not Ante-Nicene and then changed the subject.


As I said, it doesn't matter what your translations say, Paul said it was singular. The Hebrew and the Greek are also both singular. I'm afraid it is your "Infallible" translators who are worng, Dan.

So thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered is a singular number of dust? Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be is a singular number of stars? So all the dust of the earth and all the stars in heaven only equate to one? This is the point that I'm trying to make. What is your point here and how does it accommodate your works salvation theology? Are you trying to say that "thy seed" is singular in Genesis but used in a collective way? There is more than one speck of dust on the earth. There is more than one star in heaven.


Dan, I’ve shown that the argument you’re using is flawed, fallacious, and illogical.

Actually, that is exactly what I've shown you.


You’ve not be able to show how dead faith can do anything.

I never said that dead faith can do anything. It must be alive FIRST before it can do anything, produce works. You are still determined to put the cart before the horse.


Faith if has no works is dead, no matter how one twists things works must precede a saving faith, they must be what gives faith life. That is simple logic.

So works precede a living faith just as fruit precedes a living tree? That is not simple logic. That works precede a living faith and are the source of life for that faith is natural man logic (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). So where does being made alive in Christ fit into your equation? (Ephesians 2:5-9). It doesn't because it's all about YOU and not all about Christ.

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by ProjectPeter
He sure enough said that... and like others it is all about context because this is what he said as well just a few lines further down.

So Polycarp said that we are not saved by works, but in context, we find that he contradicts himself by saying that we are saved by all of these works below? Was he addressing these works as descriptive of what a Christian practices or was he saying that we must perfectly accomplish all of these works as an additional requirement to become saved? Clement of Rome said, "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Would this list of works that Polycarp listed qualify as "works which we have done in holiness or heart?"


Polycarp 2:2
Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; if we do His will and walk in His commandments and love the things which He loved,

In Romans 8:11, the Bible says, But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. We receive the Holy Spirit when we BELIEVE the gospel (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13) before we accomplish anything further. So is Polycarp saying that doing His will, walking in His commandments and loving the things which He loved is descriptive of those who BELIEVE and have received the Holy Spirit and will receive salvation, or is he saying that we need to accomplish these additional works before we receive the Holy Spirit and become saved?

Those who believe in Him for salvation have done God's will in receiving eternal life (John 6:40). Those who are saved keep His commandments. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3). This is God's will for us after we are saved through faith. Those who are not saved do not keep His commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:4). So those who are lost have not done God's will before or after salvation because they are unbelievers who have no salvation. We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). The love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us (Romans 5:5). This is descriptive of those who are saved.


abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing;

Abstaining from ALL unrighteousness? All sin is unrighteousness. So we must become sinless and perfect as an additional requirement to become saved? My Bible says that we are saved through faith, not works.


Polycarp 2:3
but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

So is Polycarp teaching here that Christians are not to judge, are to forgive and have mercy as an additional requirement for salvation? Who is Jesus addressing here? Certain things that Polycarp says seem to be ambiguous.


Just sayin.

I'm just saying certain things that Polycarp says seem to be either contradictory or ambiguous. At least he had this right, "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ."

mailmandan
Aug 4th 2011, 11:09 PM
With regards to the following scriptures we are expected to do the will of God, is this not regarded as work? Mt 7:21 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.

In John 6:40, we see "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Choosing to believe in Him for salvation is considered the work of God (John 6:29), but is not a work of merit. Through believing in Him for salvation, we are simply accepting the free gift of eternal life. Salvation by works is not God's will for us as many who trust in their so called many wonderful works to save them (and not Christ alone) will find out the hard way on the day of judgment (Matthew 7:22,23).


Mt 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Those who believe in Him for salvation have done His will in receiving everlasting life (John 6:40). God's will for us after we are saved through faith is that we keep His commandments, which believers do, but unbelievers do not (1 John 2:3-4). No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (saved). By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God (not saved), nor the one who does not love his brother (1 John 3:9-10). Believers do the will of the Father. Unbelievers do not do the will of the Father.


Jn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

These works follow faith and salvation.

Firstfruits[/QUOTE]

Butch5
Aug 5th 2011, 02:25 AM
So the early church believed that the number of the dust of the earth, then shall THY SEED also be numbered and YOUR DESCENDANTS as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore is singular? When did I present fallible men to oppose the word of God? Your ramblings are getting hard to follow.



In Galatians 3:16, but "seed" is obviously not being used in a singular sense to negate a plural number of people in these passages in Genesis.



Genesis 13:16 KJV

And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.

Genesis 15:5 KJV

And he brought him forth abroad, and said , Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 15:13 KJV

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

Genesis 17:7 KJV

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. You are trying to use Galatians 3:16 to negate these passages in Genesis. Why?



I didn't use the NKJV and the NAS to say that the apostle Paul used it in a plural number in Galatians 3:16. I was talking about those passages in Genesis.



That is absolutey a false accusation. Are you now resorting to dishonesty?



The Scriptures of course. You should ask yourself that as you continuously quote fallible men to defend your doctrine.



How ironic for you to say that. If being dishonest is your game plan then I am just wasting my time with you. You couldn't even admit that you were wrong when you said that "faith alone" was never taught before the 1500's and I quoted 4 different men from church history that said "faith alone." You then tried to back peddle and say, well they were not Ante-Nicene and then changed the subject.



So thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered is a singular number of dust? Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be is a singular number of stars? So all the dust of the earth and all the stars in heaven only equate to one? This is the point that I'm trying to make. What is your point here and how does it accommodate your works salvation theology? Are you trying to say that "thy seed" is singular in Genesis but used in a collective way? There is more than one speck of dust on the earth. There is more than one star in heaven.

I didn't say anything about the early church and Galatians 3:16. Are you paying attention? Paul said,


Galatians 3:7-8(KJV)
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Galatians 3:16(KJV)
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The promises that were made to Abraham that Paul is speaking of are those in Genesis, and Paul said the Seed was Christ, that is singular. You can continue to believe your “Infallible” translators if you like. However, you are raising them above the Scriptures. How exactly do you give final authority to the Scriptures and at the same time give that authority to the translators?


How ironic for you to say that. If being dishonest is your game plan then I am just wasting my time with you. You couldn't even admit that you were wrong when you said that "faith alone" was never taught before the 1500's and I quoted 4 different men from church history that said "faith alone." You then tried to back peddle and say, well they were not Ante-Nicene and then changed the subject.

All you’ve done is show that you can proof-text the Church writers also. I gave you quotes from the Ant-Nicene writers showing that they also believed one “Must” be obedient to Christ. That proves that they didn’t believe faith alone as you do.

Just because you see the words faith alone, it doesn’t necessitate that they define faith the same way you do.

The quotes I posted show that they didn’t hold you understanding of faith. This indicates to me that you are not very familiar with their writings, but rather that you just proof-texted a few statements.


You couldn't even admit that you were wrong when you said that "faith alone" was never taught before the 1500's and I quoted 4 different men from church history that said "faith alone."

This statement also shows me that you didn’t do your homework. There is a “HUGH” difference between four quotes and a doctrine being taught in the Church. Just because 4 men may have said the words faith alone doesn’t mean it was a church doctrine.



I never said that dead faith can do anything. It must be alive FIRST before it can do anything, produce works. You are still determined to put the cart before the horse.

Well, according to James, unless faith has works it is dead. If it must first be alive, it must first have works




So works precede a living faith just as fruit precedes a living tree? That is not simple logic. That works precede a living faith and are the source of life for that faith is natural man logic (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). So where does being made alive in Christ fit into your equation? (Ephesians 2:5-9). It doesn't because it's all about YOU and not all about Christ.

Your premise is flawed. The fruit and the tree are not a equivalent analogy since the fruit does not give life to the tree.

Butch5
Aug 5th 2011, 02:32 AM
Who am I quoting 1500 years later? When have I quoted Martin Luther to defend my position? False teachings have crept into the church while the Bible was still being written. It didn't take 1500 years later for that to happen. As for Ignatius, he wrote: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Amen! Ignatius didn't say saved by works. As for Polycarp, he wrote: "I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians). Amen! Polycarp didn't say saved by works either. When are you going to quit fighting the truth?

No one is arguing saved by works, Dan, that is the straw man (another Logical fallacy) that you keep presenting.

zeke77
Aug 5th 2011, 02:33 AM
Clement of Rome said that we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith. Take away the works from the equation as Clement of Rome did and all you have left is justified through faith. Did Clement of Rome need to spell out the word "alone" in order for you to figure that out?


Again Dan – you are reading into Clement what he is not saying. Context is always king and Clement wrote extensively. All you really need to do is read what he had to say about baptism to know he did not teach ‘faith alone”. What do you think Clement was saying when he wrote that one is “regenerated and born again of water and of God” in reference to John 3:5? If Clement meant what you are forcing his words to mean why did he say that without faith and baptism it is impossible to attain salvation? Are you really an expert on what was in the mind of Clement?



"when you are REGENERATED AND BORN AGAIN OF WATER and of God...you shall be able to attain salvation; but OTHERWISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Jesus said, 'unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [Jn 3:5] ...there is IN THESE WATERS A CERTAIN POWER OF MERCY...souls are consecrated by baptism." "...these WATERS, for they ALONE can quench the violence of the future fire, and concerning he who delays to approach them, it is clear that the idol of unbelief remains in him. ...the WATERS WHICH BESTOW SALVATION." ~ Clement of Rome (Bk IV, Chapter 8-9)



We must believe (trust) in Christ alone for salvation because Jesus did ALL that God requires to save us. Through faith, we are accepting the free gift of salvation (Ephesians 2:8). Adding our works to Christ's finished work of redemption as an additional requirement to become saved perverts the gospel of grace.

<snip>

Repentance is something that I did as I placed my faith in Christ alone for salvation

'Repentance is something you did'. Well which is it Dan faith alone or faith plus repentance? Remember faith is not repentance and repentance is not faith. You can’t have it both ways. You have added repentance to faith because Jesus said that unless one repents he will perish. This truth is one more the nail in the coffin for the “faith only” notion. As Clement pointed out, Jesus also said one must "believe and be baptized" and THEN one “shall be saved”. Again we clearly see that faith alone is a non-biblical notion. The truth remains – one must do more that believe – one must also repent and be baptized and then that one shall be saved.



He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 ASV)

Butch5
Aug 5th 2011, 02:35 AM
You left out something. Faith without works is dead because the lack of works demonstrates that our faith is dead. Our faith is alive FIRST before it produces good works. You admit that a living fruit tree must be alive FIRST before it can produce fruit and that the fruit is not the source of life for that tree, yet when it comes to faith and works, you reverse the order. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Works are referred to as fruits in Scripture. Works are necessary to show that our faith is alive, but our faith is alive in Christ before we produce these works. Faith is the root and works are the fruit of our salvation.

As I said, you analogy doesn't work. You are comparing apples and oranges.

mailmandan
Aug 5th 2011, 11:15 AM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2724633]I didn't say anything about the early church and Galatians 3:16. Are you paying attention? Paul said,

Galatians 3:7-8(KJV)
7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Galatians 3:16(KJV)
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The promises that were made to Abraham that Paul is speaking of are those in Genesis, and Paul said the Seed was Christ, that is singular. You can continue to believe your “Infallible” translators if you like. However, you are raising them above the Scriptures. How exactly do you give final authority to the Scriptures and at the same time give that authority to the translators?

I didn't disagree with the Seed was Christ, that is singular (Galatians 3:16). The point that I was making is thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered does not equate to one, but many. Were you paying attention? I didn't raise infallible translators above the Scriptures. So how does the point that you are making support works salvation? They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, not faith and works.


All you’ve done is show that you can proof-text the Church writers also. I gave you quotes from the Ant-Nicene writers showing that they also believed one “Must” be obedient to Christ. That proves that they didn’t believe faith alone as you do.

Clement of Rome - "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, (obedience/works) but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians) does not equate to we must be obedient to Christ to be saved. It equates to we MUST have faith in Christ to be saved. So if we must be obedient to Christ in addition to placing our faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved, then tell me Butch, HOW OBEDIENT MUST WE BE BEFORE CHRIST CAN SAVE US? Where do you draw the line in the sand and say, I was obedient ENOUGH, now the Lord will be able to save me? Is that salvation through faith or salvation by works? We are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, regardless of what you or these men taught. Which of these men said we are saved by works? Certain statements sounded like that is what they were saying, but it's hard to tell for sure as I found certain statements to be ambiguous.


Just because you see the words faith alone, it doesn’t necessitate that they define faith the same way you do.

Regardless, the words "faith alone" were said. So how many ways can you define faith alone? Two ways. The kind of faith that remains "alone" in producing works (this is what James is talking about - James 2:17). The kind of faith that trusts in Christ "alone" for salvation (this is what Paul is talking about - Ephesians 2:8,9). I define salvation through faith alone as saved through faith, not works. How did they define it?


The quotes I posted show that they didn’t hold you understanding of faith. This indicates to me that you are not very familiar with their writings, but rather that you just proof-texted a few statements.

What was their understanding of faith? not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" is clear to me.


This statement also shows me that you didn’t do your homework. There is a “HUGH” difference between four quotes and a doctrine being taught in the Church. Just because 4 men may have said the words faith alone doesn’t mean it was a church doctrine.

So these men taught faith alone outside of the church? Why did they say it if they did not teach it?


Well, according to James, unless faith has works it is dead. If it must first be alive, it must first have works

Quit trying to use James to trump Paul. How can a dead faith produce works? It can't. So are we created in Christ Jesus unto good works or are we created in good works unto Christ Jesus? (Ephesians 2:9-10). It takes a living tree to produce fruit and it takes a living faith to produce works. Period. Faith without works is dead because it takes a living faith to produce works. Something that is dead cannot produce anything.


Your premise is flawed. The fruit and the tree are not a equivalent analogy since the fruit does not give life to the tree.

They are absolutely an equivalent analogy. The fruit does not give life to the tree. The life in the tree produces fruit. Our works do not give life to our faith. The life in our faith produces works. In Matthew 17:17, Jesus said, "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. Jesus applied this analogy to us. Jesus didn't say, a bad tree bears good fruit in order to become a good tree. The tree must be good FIRST in order to bear good fruit.

mailmandan
Aug 5th 2011, 11:22 AM
No one is arguing saved by works, Dan, that is the straw man (another Logical fallacy) that you keep presenting.

That is not a straw man. If we are saved based on works that we accomplish (as you teach), then we are saved by works. If we are saved through faith, not works (as I teach), then we are not saved by works. Tell me which of these three people will be saved.

1. This man claims to have faith, but has no works.

2. This man has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation and has demonstrated by the works that he has produced that his faith is genuine.

3. This man has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation on his death bed, but died seconds later before he had a chance to produce any good works.

mailmandan
Aug 5th 2011, 12:06 PM
Again Dan – you are reading into Clement what he is not saying. Context is always king and Clement wrote extensively. All you really need to do is read what he had to say about baptism to know he did not teach ‘faith alone”. What do you think Clement was saying when he wrote that one is “regenerated and born again of water and of God” in reference to John 3:5? If Clement meant what you are forcing his words to mean why did he say that without faith and baptism it is impossible to attain salvation? Are you really an expert on what was in the mind of Clement?


How could I read something different into "not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Water baptism is not a work done in holiness? Is it an unholy work? Faith is not baptism and faith preceds baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple. I don't have to be an expert on Clement to know that he is dead wrong about being regenerated and born again in the waters of baptism. This is a false teaching of the Roman Catholic church. Now I see why Catholics love to quote the church fathers to back up their theology.

[
INDENT]"when you are REGENERATED AND BORN AGAIN OF WATER and of God...you shall be able to attain salvation; but OTHERWISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Jesus said, 'unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [Jn 3:5] ...there is IN THESE WATERS A CERTAIN POWER OF MERCY...souls are consecrated by baptism." "...these WATERS, for they ALONE can quench the violence of the future fire, and concerning he who delays to approach them, it is clear that the idol of unbelief remains in him. ...the WATERS WHICH BESTOW SALVATION." ~ Clement of Rome (Bk IV, Chapter 8-9) [/INDENT]

Absolutely FALSE. John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow the direct result of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that “water” signifies baptism. If “water” is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism” in John 7:38. If this sounds foolish, it is no more so than the idea that baptism is the source or the means of being born again. Simply reading this verse in context would give one no reason to assume Jesus was speaking of water baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology. To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted. Some would argue that the natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh" (3:6). Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water"); the second is a metaphorical, "Spirit" birth into God’s family. However, there is a spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23). Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration."

We should also not lose sight of the fact that when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. This important inconsistency in interpreting Scripture is seen when one asks those who believe baptism is required for salvation why the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized to be saved. A common reply to that question is: “The thief on the cross was still under the Old Covenant and therefore not subject to this baptism. He was saved just like anyone else under the Old Covenant.” So, in essence, the same people who say the thief did not need to be baptized because he was “under the Old Covenant” will use John 3:5 as “proof” that baptism is necessary for salvation. They insist that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be baptized to be saved, even though he too was under the Old Covenant. If the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized (because he was under the Old Covenant), why would Jesus tell Nicodemus (who was also under the Old Covenant) that he needed to be water baptized to be saved?


'Repentance is something you did'. Well which is it Dan faith alone or faith plus repentance? Remember faith is not repentance and repentance is not faith. You can’t have it both ways. You have added repentance to faith because Jesus said that unless one repents he will perish. This truth is one more the nail in the coffin for the “faith only” notion. As Clement pointed out, Jesus also said one must "believe and be baptized" and THEN one “shall be saved”. Again we clearly see that faith alone is a non-biblical notion. The truth remains – one must do more that believe – one must also repent and be baptized and then that one shall be saved.

Repentance is something that I did as I placed my faith in Christ alone for salvation. Not something that I did afterward. It's not faith plus repentance, it's repentance/faith. Repentance precedes faith. You can't place your faith in Christ alone for salvation unless you first repent "change your mind" about your sinful position and need for Christ to save you and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ alone for salvation. Two sides to the same coin. Where you have one you must have the other. If you believe, then you already repented in the process of coming to place your faith in Christ alone for salvation and are saved. It's not believe the gospel and then repent. It's repent and believe the gospel. Just because we need to repent "change our mind" in the process of coming to place our faith in Christ alone for salvation does not mean that we are not saved the moment that we place our faith in Christ alone for salvation. It's not about having it both ways. Either we are saved by trusting or we are saved by trying. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it. You can't have it both ways. Your argument about repentance does not nail the coffin shut on salvation through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8,9) which does not equate to what James calls "faith only." For James, “faith only” means a bogus kind of faith, mere intellectual agreement without a genuine personal trust in Christ that results in producing good works in one’s life as evidence of one's faith. So if water baptism is also required for salvation, then why did God make so many statements in which He promises salvation to those who simply BELIEVE? (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; 5:24; 6;40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 John 5:13 etc...).



He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 ASV)


In Mark 16:16, if we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. 2—He who does not believe shall be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. In interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse. While Jesus does give the positive condition of baptism (whoever is baptized) in Mark 16:16, nowhere in the Bible do we find the negative condition of baptism being taught (such as whoever is not baptized will not be saved). If water baptism is required for salvation, then why did Jesus Himself not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. In Mark 16:16, Jesus is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. Clement was WRONG. This is why I only trust the infallible word of God, not these fallible men. The Roman Catholic church loves to quote the church fathers to back up their claims and that church is full of many errors. So are you mixed up in Catholicism or in the Restoration Movement?

mailmandan
Aug 5th 2011, 12:11 PM
As I said, you analogy doesn't work. You are comparing apples and oranges.

You are absolutely wrong, but tell me Butch, if works are the source of life in our faith, as you erroneously teach, then how many works does it take to make our faith come alive and save us. Where does being made alive with Christ, saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:5-10) fit into your equation?

Butch5
Aug 5th 2011, 03:51 PM
You are absolutely wrong, but tell me Butch, if works are the source of life in our faith, as you erroneously teach, then how many works does it take to make our faith come alive and save us. Where does being made alive with Christ, saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:5-10) fit into your equation?

Dan,

I've already explained all of that. Your question regarding how many works is fallacious, it's known as the fallacy of the beard. How many hairs does it take to make a beard, two, two thousand, two hundred thousand? Whether you have two thousand or two hundred thousand you still have a beard. Christ gives different amounts of work to different people, just look at the parable of the talents.

mailmandan
Aug 5th 2011, 10:38 PM
Dan,

I've already explained all of that. Your question regarding how many works is fallacious, it's known as the fallacy of the beard. How many hairs does it take to make a beard, two, two thousand, two hundred thousand? Whether you have two thousand or two hundred thousand you still have a beard. Christ gives different amounts of work to different people, just look at the parable of the talents.

You tried to explain it away, but you did not explain it. So Jesus does not save us through faith but through accomplishing whatever amount of work that He gives us to do? How much work has He given you to do? Have you accomplished it yet? Is that the means of your salvation? So Jesus shed His blood on the cross just so He could give us work to do to help save ourselves? Try again. Salvation is a free gift received through faith, not a debt received by works. So if the parable of the talents represents salvation by accomplishing various amounts of work for various people, what does the parable of the ten minas represent? In Luke 19:11-27, we see that one of the ten servants said, "Master, your mina has earned ten minas." And he said to him, "Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities." And the second came, saying, "Master, your mina has earned five minas. Likewise he said to him, "You also be over five cities." Does ten and five cities represent the free gift of salvation to you?

Did Jesus say to the woman in Luke 7:50, accomplish a list of works and I will save you or your faith has saved you?

Did Jesus say in John 3:16 that whosoever accomplishes his amount of work or whosoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish but have eternal life?

Did Paul say in Acts 16:31 to accomplish your amount of work and you will be saved or BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved?

Once again, where does being made alive with Christ, saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:5-10) fit into your equation? Those who are created in Christ Jesus unto good works have already been (past tense) saved through faith. We are not saved by works but we are saved for good works. Good works are the evidence that one has been saved, not the means of becoming saved. One can know for sure whether they have placed their faith in Christ ALONE for salvation or not, but how can one know for sure that they have accomplished "enough works" to help save themselves? See your confusion? You can continue to work for your salvation if you like (Romans 4:5), but I will continue to BELIEVE and KNOW that I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Praise God! Are you ready to BELIEVE? I hope and pray that you are.

Firstfruits
Aug 5th 2011, 11:23 PM
Does anyone disagree that works can cause us to go to the lake of fire?

Firstfruits

zeke77
Aug 6th 2011, 01:06 AM
Water baptism is not a work done in holiness? Is it an unholy work?

That is an odd, non-biblical statement my friend – a statement you should retract. The ordinance of baptism is from God and it is an ordinance of the Lord’s church “until He comes”. The hatred some hold against that which God has ordained is amazing. Are you really saying that when I obeyed God from the heart in obedience to His command to be baptized I was committing an unholy act? Wow!


I don't have to be an expert on Clement to know that he is dead wrong about being regenerated and born again in the waters of baptism.

Then you finally admit that Clement didn’t teach your "faith alone” dogma? And for the record – you are correct, you are not an expert on Clement or God's word - not even close.


Absolutely FALSE. John 3:5 has often been misused as if being born again is somehow the direct result of water baptism. It is assumed, without any proof whatsoever, that “water” signifies baptism. If “water” is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism” in John 7:38. If this sounds foolish, it is no more so than the idea that baptism is the source or the means of being born again.

Yes – your post sounds foolish and non-biblical. The Lord’s church has correctly taught for over 2000 years that the new birth of “water and Spirit” includes God’s ordinance of baptism in water. Water is water and Spirit is Spirit. You remain confused my friend.

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 03:03 AM
I didn't disagree with the Seed was Christ, that is singular (Galatians 3:16). The point that I was making is thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered does not equate to one, but many. Were you paying attention? I didn't raise infallible translators above the Scriptures. So how does the point that you are making support works salvation? They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. Foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, not faith and works.

It’s another straw man. The argument was that the promises were made to Abraham and his “seed.”
Paul said that the “Seed” was singular and that it was Christ. The promises were made to Abraham and Christ


Clement of Rome - "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, (obedience/works) but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians) does not equate to we must be obedient to Christ to be saved. It equates to we MUST have faith in Christ to be saved. So if we must be obedient to Christ in addition to placing our faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved, then tell me Butch, HOW OBEDIENT MUST WE BE BEFORE CHRIST CAN SAVE US? Where do you draw the line in the sand and say, I was obedient ENOUGH, now the Lord will be able to save me? Is that salvation through faith or salvation by works? We are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, regardless of what you or these men taught. Which of these men said we are saved by works? Certain statements sounded like that is what they were saying, but it's hard to tell for sure as I found certain statements to be ambiguous.

I didn’t find “(obedience/works)” in my copy of Clements’s letter. However, I did find this.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1.

Epistle to the Corinthians.

Chap. XXI.—Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.


Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “The Spirit of the Lord is a candle searching the secret parts of the belly.” (Prov. 20:27) Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than [offend] God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; (Comp. Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12, 13) let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring (Comp. 1 Tim. 5:21) one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God—how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him—how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1


Chap. XXX.—Let Us Do Those Things That Please God, and Flee from Those He Hates, That We May Be Blessed.


Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change,58I-1-58 all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. “For God,” saith [the Scripture], “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” (Prov. 3:34; James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5) Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. For [the Scripture] saith, “He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking.”59I-1-59 Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

I think it is obvious that Clement didn’t believe what you are calling “Faith Alone”.
No one is arguing that anyone is saved by works. However, as has been pointed out Clement didn’t believe faith alone as you do. Clement also believed one must be obedient also in order to be saved.

I’ve dealt with the fallacy of the beard also. How many works? How many did Christ give you to do?

Matthew 25:14-30(KJV)
14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Regardless, the words "faith alone" were said. So how many ways can you define faith alone? Two ways. The kind of faith that remains "alone" in producing works (this is what James is talking about - James 2:17). The kind of faith that trusts in Christ "alone" for salvation (this is what Paul is talking about - Ephesians 2:8,9). I define salvation through faith alone as saved through faith, not works. How did they define it?
Well, as we have seen, they believed that Faith included works just as James said. They didn’t argue that a man was saved by believing and then did works. They argued that works were a part of faith, just as James said.
Another issue is whether they are referring to initially coming to Christ or being saved in the end. It already been acknowledged that works are not required for a person to come to Christ initially, but that they are necessary to be saved in the end.

What was their understanding of faith? not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" is clear to me.
Justified is “NOT” saved. It is an element of salvation.


So these men taught faith alone outside of the church? Why did they say it if they did not teach it?
As I’ve shown they didn’t believe “Faith Alone” as you have presented it. However, as I said, just because someone makes a statement doesn’t mean it is accepted church doctrine. There are Christians who make statements about universalism, that doesn’t mean it is an accepted church doctrine. Martin Luther defined “Faith Alone” in opposition to the Catholic Church. He saw the errors and abuse and instead of coming to a Biblical understanding he went to the opposite extreme. Instead of getting the balanced Biblical view he simply said no works all faith (Belief). He tried to remove the book of James from the Scriptures, calling it an epistle of straw, and he disparaged the book of Hebrews, because they taught in opposition to his doctrine. Does that sound like someone who is seeking the truth of Scripture?




Quit trying to use James to trump Paul. How can a dead faith produce works? It can't. So are we created in Christ Jesus unto good works or are we created in good works unto Christ Jesus? (Ephesians 2:9-10). It takes a living tree to produce fruit and it takes a living faith to produce works. Period. Faith without works is dead because it takes a living faith to produce works. Something that is dead cannot produce anything.
I’m not using James to trump Paul. I’ve already explained the difference. I have no difficulty reconciling both Paul and James without having to redefine the definitions of the terms they used. I let them speak and there is no contradiction. On the other hand you keep saying that faith produces works, yet you agree that dead faith cannot produce anything. This requires that you redefine James. The bottom line is, James said, faith if it has no works is dead. Dead faith cannot be living faith unless it has works.


They are absolutely an equivalent analogy. The fruit does not give life to the tree. The life in the tree produces fruit. Our works do not give life to our faith. The life in our faith produces works. In Matthew 17:17, Jesus said, "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. Jesus applied this analogy to us. Jesus didn't say, a bad tree bears good fruit in order to become a good tree. The tree must be good FIRST in order to bear good fruit.
Then why is faith dead without them?
You keep saying this over and over, surely you can see it is a contradiction?

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 03:27 AM
You tried to explain it away, but you did not explain it. So Jesus does not save us through faith but through accomplishing whatever amount of work that He gives us to do? How much work has He given you to do? Have you accomplished it yet? Is that the means of your salvation? So Jesus shed His blood on the cross just so He could give us work to do to help save ourselves? Try again. Salvation is a free gift received through faith, not a debt received by works. So if the parable of the talents represents salvation by accomplishing various amounts of work for various people, what does the parable of the ten minas represent? In Luke 19:11-27, we see that one of the ten servants said, "Master, your mina has earned ten minas." And he said to him, "Well done, good servant; because you were faithful in a very little, have authority over ten cities." And the second came, saying, "Master, your mina has earned five minas. Likewise he said to him, "You also be over five cities." Does ten and five cities represent the free gift of salvation to you?

Come on Dan, the straw man arguments are getting rather tiresome. No one said that faith isn't necessary and no one said anyone was saved by works.
Well Dan, since those authority over those cities is in the Kingdom of God, I would say yet is about salvation.


Did Jesus say to the woman in Luke 7:50, accomplish a list of works and I will save you or your faith has saved you?

Did Jesus say in John 3:16 that whosoever accomplishes his amount of work or whosoever BELIEVES in Him shall not perish but have eternal life?

Did Paul say in Acts 16:31 to accomplish your amount of work and you will be saved or BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved?

Dan, your problem would go away if you would just accept what James said. If works are a part of faith as he said then these passages do not present any difficulty. However, because you are holding to Martin Luther's understanding you are having difficulty with many passages of Scripture.

Once again, where does being made alive with Christ, saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:5-10) fit into your equation? Those who are created in Christ Jesus unto good works have already been (past tense) saved through faith. We are not saved by works but we are saved for good works. Good works are the evidence that one has been saved, not the means of becoming saved. One can know for sure whether they have placed their faith in Christ ALONE for salvation or not, but how can one know for sure that they have accomplished "enough works" to help save themselves? See your confusion? You can continue to work for your salvation if you like (Romans 4:5), but I will continue to BELIEVE and KNOW that I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Praise God! Are you ready to BELIEVE? I hope and pray that you are.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're presenting the straw man. No one is saved by works. I've explained this several times. one is not saved by works however, they are necessary in order to be saved. When I go to work in the morning I drive my truck, my truck takes me to work, however, it requires gasoline. I must have gasoline in order to drive my truck. I don't say, gas got me to work today or I drove gas to today, I say I drove my truck. However, that doesn't mean I can get to work without gas. My truck is faith, the gas is works. Without gas my truck (faith) is dead. It must have gas (works) to be alive and get me to work.

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 03:36 AM
That is not a straw man. If we are saved based on works that we accomplish (as you teach), then we are saved by works. If we are saved through faith, not works (as I teach), then we are not saved by works. Tell me which of these three people will be saved.

1. This man claims to have faith, but has no works.

2. This man has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation and has demonstrated by the works that he has produced that his faith is genuine.

3. This man has placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation on his death bed, but died seconds later before he had a chance to produce any good works.

Now you're cahnging the parameters. throughout the discussion you've been talking about a person being saved "Past Tense". Now, you are asking about he future tense of salvation.

You've got several issues here. Firstly, Man 1 and man 3 are in the same boat. Both have professed faith, yet neither has any works. Therefore, the deicision is in God's hands not man's.

Let me ask you a question Dan, You've used the phrase "faith in Christ alone for salvation". Where does Scripture teach that this is the criteria for being saved?

mailmandan
Aug 6th 2011, 11:17 AM
[QUOTE=zeke77;2725108]That is an odd, non-biblical statement my friend – a statement you should retract. The ordinance of baptism is from God and it is an ordinance of the Lord’s church “until He comes”. The hatred some hold against that which God has ordained is amazing. Are you really saying that when I obeyed God from the heart in obedience to His command to be baptized I was committing an unholy act? Wow!

You misunderstood. The point that I was making is that Clement of Rome said, we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith. Now why would Clement say that and then later say, oh by the way, we are also saved by water baptism? My question to you is, "isn't water baptism a work done in holiness or heart? Of course I know that it's not an unholy work. It would be a contradiction to say that we are not saved by works which we have done in holiness or heart, but we are saved by water baptism because baptism is a work done in holiness or heart. Wow! How did you miss my point?


Then you finally admit that Clement didn’t teach your "faith alone” dogma? And for the record – you are correct, you are not an expert on Clement or God's word - not even close.

I admitted that what Clement said would be a contradiction. We are still saved through faith "apart from additions or modifications" alone (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8,9). What part of "not of works" do you not understand?


Yes – your post sounds foolish and non-biblical.

That's it? No rebuttal, just insults? I quoted Scripture to prove my point.


The Lord’s church has correctly taught for over 2000 years that the new birth of “water and Spirit” includes God’s ordinance of baptism in water.

The Lord's church or what soon developed into the Roman Catholic church? John 3:5 does not teach your baptismal regeneration dogma. The Bible has taught salvation through FAITH for over 2000 years. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple.


Water is water and Spirit is Spirit. You remain confused my friend.

Notice in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. *Did you see that? We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture. There is a spiritual application to water in Scripture as well. Do you deny this? If “water” is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism” in John 7:38. If this sounds foolish, it is no more so than the idea that baptism is the source or the means of being born again. You remain confused because you don't BELIEVE (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).

mailmandan
Aug 6th 2011, 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2725163]It’s another straw man. The argument was that the promises were made to Abraham and his “seed.”
Paul said that the “Seed” was singular and that it was Christ. The promises were made to Abraham and Christ

How does your argument here support your works based false gospel?


I didn’t find “(obedience/works)” in my copy of Clements’s letter. However, I did find this.

What you did find was not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians) and that does not equate to we must be obedient to Christ to be saved. It equates to we MUST have faith in Christ to be saved. So if we must be obedient to Christ in addition to placing our faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved, then tell me Butch, HOW OBEDIENT MUST WE BE BEFORE CHRIST CAN SAVE US? Where do you draw the line in the sand and say, I was obedient ENOUGH, now the Lord will be able to save me? Is that salvation through faith or salvation by works? You have no sure answer for that. Your parable of the talents did not answer that question.


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1.


Epistle to the Corinthians.

Chap. XXI.—Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.


How much obedience?



Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “The Spirit of the Lord is a candle searching the secret parts of the belly.” (Prov. 20:27) Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than [offend] God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; (Comp. Heb. 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12, 13) let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring (Comp. 1 Tim. 5:21) one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God—how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him—how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.

That is a lot of rambling with no answer to my question. HOW MUCH OBEDIENCE DOES IT TAKE?


I think it is obvious that Clement didn’t believe what you are calling “Faith Alone”.

Then Clement did not understand what he was saying when he said, "we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Faith is believing (trusting) in Christ alone for salvation. Obedience which follows is works. Take faith and works done in holiness or heart, then eliminate works from the equation, as Clement did and what do you have left? Faith alone. Of course, faith (rightly understood) alone. Faith that trusts in Christ alone for salvation. Good works follow as the fruit, not the root of our salvation.


No one is arguing that anyone is saved by works. However, as has been pointed out Clement didn’t believe faith alone as you do. Clement also believed one must be obedient also in order to be saved.

Then he should not have contradicted himself by saying, "not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." That is why I don't trust these fallible men to teach me the infallible word of God, as you do.


I’ve dealt with the fallacy of the beard also. How many works? How many did Christ give you to do?

Christ didn't give me a list of works to do to help save myself. He did it all. The works that I accomplish for the Lord are done out of love and gratitude for what He has done for me, not out of pride and expectation that He is going to save me based on my works. Jesus Christ is an allsufficient Savior who needs no supplements.


Well, as we have seen, they believed that Faith included works just as James said.

Faith resulted in works. They showed their faith by their works as James said. If you believe in Christ for salvation, then you are trusting in Him alone to save you. This belief will to one degree or the other result in actions appropriate to the belief - but the actions are NOT INHERENT in the belief.


They didn’t argue that a man was saved by believing and then did works.

Does the Bible say that a man is saved by believing? (John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16). Paul said that we are saved through faith, not works, then we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:8-10). Saved through faith then unto good works. That does not equate to faith includes works, but faith results in producing good works.


They argued that works were a part of faith, just as James said.

Which verse said that works were a "part" of faith? Take off your natural man bifocals and read it again.


Another issue is whether they are referring to initially coming to Christ or being saved in the end. It already been acknowledged that works are not required for a person to come to Christ initially, but that they are necessary to be saved in the end.

Is that what we learned from these passages of Scripture? (Romans 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9). Try again.


Justified is “NOT” saved. It is an element of salvation.

So justifed by faith (Romans 5:1) equates to "not saved?" Saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) equates to "not saved?" Yeah right!


As I’ve shown they didn’t believe “Faith Alone” as you have presented it.

I'm more concerned about what the Bible says, not what these men said. We are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS. That equates to faith that "trusts in Christ alone" for salvation. Not faith only (faith that remains alone in producing works), as condemned by James. There is a difference.


However, as I said, just because someone makes a statement doesn’t mean it is accepted church doctrine. There are Christians who make statements about universalism, that doesn’t mean it is an accepted church doctrine.

Which church?


Martin Luther defined “Faith Alone” in opposition to the Catholic Church. He saw the errors and abuse and instead of coming to a Biblical understanding he went to the opposite extreme. Instead of getting the balanced Biblical view he simply said no works all faith (Belief). He tried to remove the book of James from the Scriptures, calling it an epistle of straw, and he disparaged the book of Hebrews, because they taught in opposition to his doctrine.

Martin Luther was correct about the Catholic church. The balanced Biblical view is man saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9); yet faith, if it is true, will be substantiated and confirmed by good works (James 2:14-18). Did Martin Luther teach that? I don't call the book of James an epistle of straw. I also have no problem at all with the book of Hebrews. Do you still believe that I came to faith in Christ because of what Martin Luther taught?


Does that sound like someone who is seeking the truth of Scripture?

Regardless of what his motives were, that does not change the fact that the Bible teaches we are saved through faith, not works. Blindly following fallible men to understand what the Bible teaches does not sound like someone who is seeking the truth, but it sounds like someone who is looking to justify what they already believe. The Roman Catholic church loves to quote the same men that you quote to prove their doctrines, yet you admit that there are errors in the Catholic church. These men who you quote were fallible men. Do you even know for a fact that these men were saved? Which church held onto all of their writings over the years?


I’m not using James to trump Paul. I’ve already explained the difference. I have no difficulty reconciling both Paul and James without having to redefine the definitions of the terms they used. I let them speak and there is no contradiction. On the other hand you keep saying that faith produces works, yet you agree that dead faith cannot produce anything. This requires that you redefine James. The bottom line is, James said, faith if it has no works is dead. Dead faith cannot be living faith unless it has works.

Your idea of reconciling both Paul and James is redefining faith to include works. The Roman Catholic church calls it faith "infused" with works. This is erroneous. Saved through faith, not works, saved through faith and works is a contradiction. James said, I will show you my faith by my works. Show, not establish. Faith cannot produce works unless it is living just as a fruit tree cannot produce fruit unless it is living.


Then why is faith dead without them?

Because the lack of works show that our faith is dead.


You keep saying this over and over, surely you can see it is a contradiction?

No contradiction here. You don't understand because you don't BELIEVE. The blinders have not yet been removed.

mailmandan
Aug 6th 2011, 12:33 PM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2725178]Come on Dan, the straw man arguments are getting rather tiresome. No one said that faith isn't necessary and no one said anyone was saved by works.
Well Dan, since those authority over those cities is in the Kingdom of God, I would say yet is about salvation.

Your accusations of the straw man arguments are getting rather tiresome. You keep saying that you don't teach that we are saved by works, yet you continue to say we are saved based on our works. Having authority over 10 cities and over 5 cities is "in addition" to the Kingdom of God. It's not about receiving the free gift of salvation based on our works.


Dan, your problem would go away if you would just accept what James said. If works are a part of faith as he said then these passages do not present any difficulty.

Your problems would go away if you would just accept what Paul said. James did not say that works are a "part" of faith. He said that our works show the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine.


However, because you are holding to Martin Luther's understanding you are having difficulty with many passages of Scripture.

I already told you that I came to faith in Christ through reading the Scriptures, not the writings of Martin Luther. When have I quoted Martin Luther?

Once again, where does being made alive with Christ, saved through faith, not works, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Ephesians 2:5-10) fit into your equation? Those who are created in Christ Jesus unto good works have already been (past tense) saved through faith. We are not saved by works but we are saved for good works. Good works are the evidence that one has been saved, not the means of becoming saved. One can know for sure whether they have placed their faith in Christ ALONE for salvation or not, but how can one know for sure that they have accomplished "enough works" to help save themselves? See your confusion? You can continue to work for your salvation if you like (Romans 4:5), but I will continue to BELIEVE and KNOW that I have eternal life (1 John 5:13). Praise God! Are you ready to BELIEVE? I hope and pray that you are.


Again, you're presenting the straw man. No one is saved by works. I've explained this several times. one is not saved by works however, they are necessary in order to be saved.

No straw man on my part. Oxymoron on your part.


When I go to work in the morning I drive my truck, my truck takes me to work, however, it requires gasoline. I must have gasoline in order to drive my truck. I don't say, gas got me to work today or I drove gas to today, I say I drove my truck. However, that doesn't mean I can get to work without gas. My truck is faith, the gas is works. Without gas my truck (faith) is dead. It must have gas (works) to be alive and get me to work.

More flawed human logic to explain away a spiritual truth.

jandl
Aug 6th 2011, 02:39 PM
Here are some verses to counter the idea that works play ANY part in our salvation from Hell or that we keep ourselves:
II Timothy 2:13- "IF WE BELIEVE NOT, yet he abideth faithful."
Romans 4:5- "But to him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
Worried about "enduring to the end?" Look at I Corinthians 1:8- "Who (Jesus Christ) SHALL also CONFIRM you UNTO THE END, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Just a little food for thought.

zeke77
Aug 6th 2011, 02:47 PM
You misunderstood.

Did I misunderstand or when you said “Water baptism is not a work done in holiness? Is it an unholy work” were you saying the ordinance of baptism instituted by the Lord was unholy? If not, what were you saying? Did you obey the Lord’s command to be immersed in water Dan? Is the ordinance of baptism from God or is it from man? Is baptism in water optional in your theology or is it necessary to the gospel of Christ?


The point that I was making is that Clement of Rome said, we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith. Now why would Clement say that and then later say, oh by the way, we are also saved by water baptism?

And as has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion you are simply erecting your silly straw-man. No one on this thread is advocating we can save ourselves through works of merit - we can’t. The truth remains – if you are trying to use Clement to float the “faith alone” notion then your boat has already sunk.


My question to you is, "isn't water baptism a work done in holiness or heart?

Baptism in water - like faith and repentance – is a work of God that man must work, i.e., all three are acts of obedience "from the heart" required by God. Are we condemned for obeying from the heart that which God requires? Is that what you are saying?


How did you miss my point?

What exactly is your point Dan – that Clement taught ‘faith alone”? He didn’t. Read his words regarding God’s ordinance of baptism one more time and let me know what you come up with.


I admitted that what Clement said would be a contradiction

Good. Then we can agree that Clement is not on the ‘faith only’ bench?


What part of "not of works" do you not understand?

What part of the definition of ‘work’ do you stumble over? Is believing not “a work” – a work of God? Are we not required by God to believe? Did you repent before you were saved? Is repentance not a work that God requires? You may be confused about the different types of ‘work’ noted in the Bible my friend.


That's it? No rebuttal, just insults?

What needs a rebuttal? There was no rebuttal required and it wasn’t an insult – you asked if your post sounded foolish and I said it did sound foolish and I pointed out that your knowledge of Clement’s writings and what God’s word reveals was deficient.


The Lord's church or what soon developed into the Roman Catholic church? John 3:5 does not teach your baptismal regeneration dogma.

Another straw-man – no one is teaching “baptismal regeneration” and the apostolic church always taught the truth that one must be born of *water (baptism) and the Spirit* in order to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus was quite clear that both *belief and baptism* take place before one “shall be saved”. Are you suggesting Jesus taught “baptismal regeneration”?



He who believes and is baptized will be saved... (Mark 16:16 NKJV)



The Bible has taught salvation through FAITH for over 2000 years. Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. It's just that simple.
Notice in John 7:38-39

Are you saying the passage in John 7 somehow trumps the words of Jesus that belief and baptism are to happen before salvation? You reference to John 7:38-39 is a moot point as it relates to the birth of water and Spirit in the new birth. The new birth is clearly one birth with two element water and Spirit. You can't change what God has revealed Dan - not even to fit your pet dogma. Water is water (the kind that gets you wet) and Spirit is Spirit.

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 11:10 PM
Here are some verses to counter the idea that works play ANY part in our salvation from Hell or that we keep ourselves:
II Timothy 2:13- "IF WE BELIEVE NOT, yet he abideth faithful."
Romans 4:5- "But to him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
Worried about "enduring to the end?" Look at I Corinthians 1:8- "Who (Jesus Christ) SHALL also CONFIRM you UNTO THE END, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Just a little food for thought.

What is the context of those pasages? This is just proof texting, the same thing Dan is doing. I you want to understand the Scriptures, be sure to read them in context. None of the passages that you posted say that a person is the saved apart from doing those things that Christ said.

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 11:20 PM
How does your argument here support your works based false gospel?


It’s simple, Abraham received the promise of the eternal inheritance of the land because he obeyed God. Eternal inheritance requires eternal life


What you did find was not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians) and that does not equate to we must be obedient to Christ to be saved. It equates to we MUST have faith in Christ to be saved. So if we must be obedient to Christ in addition to placing our faith in Christ for salvation in order to be saved, then tell me Butch, HOW OBEDIENT MUST WE BE BEFORE CHRIST CAN SAVE US? Where do you draw the line in the sand and say, I was obedient ENOUGH, now the Lord will be able to save me? Is that salvation through faith or salvation by works? You have no sure answer for that. Your parable of the talents did not answer that question.

That is a lot of rambling with no answer to my question. HOW MUCH OBEDIENCE DOES IT TAKE?

That decision is up to God


Then Clement did not understand what he was saying when he said, "we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Faith is believing (trusting) in Christ alone for salvation. Obedience which follows is works. Take faith and works done in holiness or heart, then eliminate works from the equation, as Clement did and what do you have left? Faith alone. Of course, faith (rightly understood) alone. Faith that trusts in Christ alone for salvation. Good works follow as the fruit, not the root of our salvation.

Clement didn’t understand???

This man traveled around with Paul, lived with Paul, heard Paul preach countless times. He no doubt had discussions with Paul about the Scriptures. He asked Paul questions. And you say he didn’t understand, yet Dan who lives 2000 years later and has only a handful of writings has if all figured out? Dan is the one who understands, yet the man who was there with Paul, an eyewitness of Paul’s preaching doesn’t understand? Are you serious? Really?

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 11:23 PM
Dan, you didn't answer my question. Where do the Scriptures teach that the criteria for salvation is to, fully trust in Christ alone for salvation?

Butch5
Aug 6th 2011, 11:25 PM
Dan,

One man comes into the church and says, I believe in Jesus Christ. Man two comes into the church and says, I have fully trusted in Jesus for salvation. According to what you've said, man one is not saved, but man two is. What did man two do that man one didn't that got man two saved?

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2725182]Now you're cahnging the parameters. throughout the discussion you've been talking about a person being saved "Past Tense". Now, you are asking about he future tense of salvation.

Whether past tense (justification) or future tense (glorification) the answer is the same because those He justified, He also glorified (Romans 8:30).


You've got several issues here. Firstly, Man 1 and man 3 are in the same boat. Both have professed faith, yet neither has any works. Therefore, the deicision is in God's hands not man's.


No, man 1 has merely professed faith and man 3 has genuinely placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation but died before he had a chance to produce good works. Is it the object of his faith (Jesus Christ) that is the means of his salvation or good works that he never had a chance to accomplish?


Let me ask you a question Dan, You've used the phrase "faith in Christ alone for salvation". Where does Scripture teach that this is the criteria for being saved?

Do you need the word alone spelled out for you in Scripture to understand that Jesus Christ alone is our Savior and is the object of our faith in receiving salvation? It's not Jesus Christ plus ourselves or Jesus Christ plus our works.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him (believes in Him plus something else, no, Him alone) shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

He who believes in Him (plus what else, Him alone) is not condemned; (John 3:18)

...whosoever believes in Him (plus what else, Him alone) shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

...even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ... (Romans 3:22) Jesus Christ plus what else? Jesus Christ alone.

to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)faith in Jesus plus what else? Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:26) What else are you believing (trusting) in to save you? What is the object of your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in receiving salvation? Is it Christ alone or Christ plus something else? works

Butch5
Aug 7th 2011, 11:19 AM
[QUOTE]


No, man 1 has merely professed faith and man 3 has genuinely placed his faith in Christ alone for salvation but died before he had a chance to produce good works. Is it the object of his faith (Jesus Christ) that is the means of his salvation or good works that he never had a chance to accomplish?

What's the difference Dan?




Do you need the word alone spelled out for you in Scripture to understand that Jesus Christ alone is our Savior and is the object of our faith in receiving salvation? It's not Jesus Christ plus ourselves or Jesus Christ plus our works.

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him (believes in Him plus something else, no, Him alone) shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

He who believes in Him (plus what else, Him alone) is not condemned; (John 3:18)

...whosoever believes in Him (plus what else, Him alone) shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

...even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ... (Romans 3:22) Jesus Christ plus what else? Jesus Christ alone.

to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)faith in Jesus plus what else? Jesus Christ alone (Romans 3:26) What else are you believing (trusting) in to save you? What is the object of your faith (belief, trust, reliance) in receiving salvation? Is it Christ alone or Christ plus something else? works

No one's question whetber or not one has to believe in Christ. The question is where does saovation teach that believing on Christ alone is the criteria for salvation? In other words, what must one believe? What do you mean by trust in Christ alone for salvation?

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 01:04 PM
zeke77;2725267]Did I misunderstand or when you said “Water baptism is not a work done in holiness? Is it an unholy work” were you saying the ordinance of baptism instituted by the Lord was unholy? If not, what were you saying? Did you obey the Lord’s command to be immersed in water Dan? Is the ordinance of baptism from God or is it from man? Is baptism in water optional in your theology or is it necessary to the gospel of Christ?

I never said that water baptism is not a work done in holiness. I sarcastically asked you if water baptism was an unholy work to make my point that water baptism is a work which is done in holiness or heart, and show you that for Clement of Rome to say that we are not justified through works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith, but then later say that we must be water baptized to be saved (a work done in holiness or heart) is a contradiction. Of course I obeyed the Lord's command to be water baptized after I was saved through faith. The ordinance of water baptism is from God, but is something that man must accomplish. Show me one verse in the Bible which says that whoever is not baptized will not be saved. The gospel of Christ is the good news of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone that BELIEVES (Romans 1:16). Water baptism is not even a part of the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17). Cornelius's family received the Holy Spirit and were manifesting the gifts of the Spirit after believing the gospel but before being baptized (Acts 10:43-48). Water baptism was a command (Acts 10:48) that they were expected to obey. However, it was not obedience to this command that saved them, but their believing in Christ (Acts 10:43). Water baptism is regularly associated with conversion and salvation, rather than absolutely required for salvation.


And as has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion you are simply erecting your silly straw-man. No one on this thread is advocating we can save ourselves through works of merit - we can’t. The truth remains – if you are trying to use Clement to float the “faith alone” notion then your boat has already sunk.

There is no straw man here. If water baptism along with other good works stand between us and heaven, then there would be merit on our part for accomplishing these works. Either Christ's finished work of redemption is the all sufficient means of our salvation or else we must add our works as a supplement to Christ's finished work of redemption in order to help Him save us. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it. You can't have it both ways. If Clement taught salvation through faith plus works which we have done in holiness or heart, then he contradicted himself and his boat has already sunk. I don't need a fallible man to teach me that salvation is through faith, not works (Ephesians 2;8,9). I have the infallible word of God.


Baptism in water - like faith and repentance – is a work of God that man must work, i.e., all three are acts of obedience "from the heart" required by God.

In John 6:29, Jesus said that the work of God is that we BELIEVE in Him in Him whom He sent." No mention of water baptism. Repentance does not need to be mentioned because once we believe, we already repented in the process of coming to believe. Repentance in salvation is a "change of mind" about our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ alone for salvation. Two sides to the same experience. In regards to salvation, when only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other. Repentance and faith are inseparable in salvation. Not so with baptism. You can believe and not yet be baptized.


Are we condemned for obeying from the heart that which God requires? Is that what you are saying?

God never said that whoever is not baptized will not be saved, but God did say, he who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). Believing (trusting) in water and works as supplements to help save you and not believing in Him alone to save you is not believing (trusting) in Him alone for salvation. While on the surface the idea of requiring works in addition to faith to receive salvation may sound noble, but in essence it disqualifies faith. Here's why: We receive eternal salvation by placing our faith (our trust, our reliance) in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. To say that we must add our works is to say that Christ’s finished work of redemption is insufficient to secure our salvation, and what we really mean then, is that we lack the trust and reliance that He alone can eternally save us. This lack of trust and reliance in Christ alone to save us is the opposite of placing faith in Him for salvation.


What exactly is your point Dan – that Clement taught ‘faith alone”? He didn’t. Read his words regarding God’s ordinance of baptism one more time and let me know what you come up with.

He said, we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (faith plus what else? faith "apart from works which we have done in holiness or heart" alone. That is my point. I read his words regarding God's ordinance of baptism and here is what I came up with. Clement says that we are not justified by works which we have done in holiness or heart, and then contradicts himself by teaching that we are saved by a work that is done in holiness or heart. I don't need Clement to teach me that we are saved through faith, not works. I have the Bible to teach me that. That is the main point.


Good. Then we can agree that Clement is not on the ‘faith only’ bench?

"Faith only" (James 2:24) does not equate to faith in Christ alone for salvation (Ephesians 2:8,9). Make sure you get that straight. Regardless of what bench Clement is on, the Bible still teaches that we are saved through faith, not works.


What part of the definition of ‘work’ do you stumble over?

Exactly my question to you. Do you know the difference between work being accomplished to accept the free gift of salvation and work being accomplished to merit salvation?


Is believing not “a work” – a work of God?

Yes, but what work is accomplished through believing? We are choosing to accept the free gift of salvation. That is not a work of merit. Christ gets all the merit for our salvation.


Are we not required by God to believe?

Yes.


Did you repent before you were saved?

Yes, I repented in the process of choosing to believe.


Is repentance not a work that God requires?

Jesus said, unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish (Luke 13:3). Repentance is a change of mind and believing is the new direction of this change of mind. Once we believe, we already repented in the process of choosing to believe. Repentance and believing are inseparable in salvation. When Jesus said that the work of God is believing, He did not exclude repentance because we must first change our mind before we can believe.


You may be confused about the different types of ‘work’ noted in the Bible my friend.

I'm not confused about different types of work noted in the Bible. You may be confused about what type of work that repentance/faith is and what type that good works are which follow saving faith.


What needs a rebuttal? There was no rebuttal required and it wasn’t an insult

I explained to you that in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. We also see this LIVING WATER in John 4:10,14. Water baptism is not the only "water" mentioned in Scripture. The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." You simply said, Yes – your post sounds foolish and non-biblical. You remain confused my friend. You said nothing about these Scriptures, only what fallible men have taught you about baptism.


you asked if your post sounded foolish and I said it did sound foolish and I pointed out that your knowledge of Clement’s writings and what God’s word reveals was deficient.

I didn't ask if my post sounded foolish. I said, if “water” is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living baptism” in John 7:38. If this sounds foolish, it is no more so than the idea that baptism is the source or the means of being born again. Clement's writings and God's word are not in harmony.

Clement said, when you are REGENERATED AND BORN AGAIN OF WATER and of God...you shall be able to attain salvation; but OTHERWISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! For Jesus said, 'unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' [Jn 3:5] ...there is IN THESE WATERS A CERTAIN POWER OF MERCY...souls are consecrated by baptism." "...these WATERS, for they ALONE can quench the violence of the future fire, and concerning he who delays to approach them, it is clear that the idol of unbelief remains in him. ...the WATERS WHICH BESTOW SALVATION." That has Roman Catholicism written all over it. The Bible does not teach that. The blood of Christ bestows salvation, not water baptism.


Another straw-man – no one is teaching “baptismal regeneration” and the apostolic church always taught the truth that one must be born of *water (baptism) and the Spirit* in order to enter the kingdom of God.
The apostolic church or the church which soon developed into the Roman Catholic church? Big difference! John 3:5 does not say one must be born of water (baptism) and the Spirit. God's word says *born of water and the Spirit.* This is adding to God's word. Since you don't understand the washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23) you turn to H20 because natural water is the only thing that the natural man can understand. You fell for the sales pitch of the Roman Catholic church.


Jesus was quite clear that both *belief and baptism* take place before one “shall be saved”. Are you suggesting Jesus taught “baptismal regeneration”?

Notice how you ignored the second half of Mark 16:16 - but he who does not believe will be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. While Jesus does give the positive condition of baptism (whoever is baptized) in Mark 16:16, nowhere in the Bible do we find the negative condition of baptism being taught (such as whoever is not baptized will be condemned). Therefore, we cannot say that baptism is necessary for salvation based on Mark 16:16. Those that do so are basing their argument on faulty logic. If water baptism is required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 7:38; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions in each of these complete statements? BELIEVES. What happened to baptism? The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Jesus is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. Like the thief on the cross.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved... (don't forget the rest of the verse) but he who does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

Whosoever believes in Him (and is baptized? NO) believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). hhmmm...


Are you saying the passage in John 7 somehow trumps the words of Jesus that belief and baptism are to happen before salvation?

John 7:38-39 is in harnomy with John 3:5 and the water is not water baptism. Jesus said that whoever does not believe will be condemned, not whoever is not baptized will be condemned, so Jesus did not say that baptism happens before salvation. Neither did Peter (Acts 10:43-48). You have to isolate the first half of Mark 16:16 and ignore the second half of the verse and what Jesus said in John 3:16,18 to draw that conclusion.


You reference to John 7:38-39 is a moot point as it relates to the birth of water and Spirit in the new birth.

What do you think John 3:5 is a reference to? John 7:38,39 is certainly not a moot point. Spiritual cleansing, not H20 my friend.


The new birth is clearly one birth with two element water and Spirit.

Living water-spiritual cleansing, Holy Spirit.


You can't change what God has revealed Dan - not even to fit your pet dogma.

I didn't change John 7:38,39. You changed what God has revealed. You added the word (baptism) to born of water in John 3:5 to fit your dogma.


Water is water (the kind that gets you wet) and Spirit is Spirit.[/QUOTE]

Not LIVING WATER. That is not the H20 of water baptism.

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 01:18 PM
Butch5;2725454]It’s simple, Abraham received the promise of the eternal inheritance of the land because he obeyed God. Eternal inheritance requires eternal life

Eternal inheritance of the land for Abraham and his descendants was in addition to receiving eternal life. Abraham already believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6) many years before he obeyed God (Genesis 22). It is simple.


That decision is up to God

So we can't know for sure if we are saved?


Clement didn’t understand??? This man traveled around with Paul, lived with Paul, heard Paul preach countless times. He no doubt had discussions with Paul about the Scriptures. He asked Paul questions. And you say he didn’t understand, yet Dan who lives 2000 years later and has only a handful of writings has if all figured out? Dan is the one who understands, yet the man who was there with Paul, an eyewitness of Paul’s preaching doesn’t understand? Are you serious? Really?

Judas Iscariot traveled around with Jesus, heard Jesus preach countless times. No doubt he had discussions with Jesus about the Scriptures. Judas didn't understand. There are many people who heard Paul's preaching. That does not mean they were all saved. You know for sure that Clement was saved? You know his heart? Are his writings infallible? Are all of his writings his writings? You know all of this with 100% certainty? Not everything that I read in Clements writings are in agreement with Scripture so Scripture trumps Clement. The Roman Catholic church agrees with you about Clement. They quote the church fathers all the time to defend their doctrine, yet you agree that their are errors taught in the Roman Catholic church. Are you really serious?

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 01:20 PM
Dan, you didn't answer my question. Where do the Scriptures teach that the criteria for salvation is to, fully trust in Christ alone for salvation?

I already answered your question.

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 01:22 PM
Dan,

One man comes into the church and says, I believe in Jesus Christ. Man two comes into the church and says, I have fully trusted in Jesus for salvation. According to what you've said, man one is not saved, but man two is. What did man two do that man one didn't that got man two saved?

Fully trust in Jesus for salvation. The works that man two produced proved that his faith was genuine, but they were not the means of his salvation. The lack of works proved that the faith of man 1 was not genuine.

mailmandan
Aug 7th 2011, 01:28 PM
What's the difference Dan?

The difference is trusting in Christ alone for salvation and not trusting in Christ alone for salvation? One faith is alive and results in producing good works, the other faith is dead and does not produce good works.


No one's question whetber or not one has to believe in Christ. The question is where does saovation teach that believing on Christ alone is the criteria for salvation? In other words, what must one believe? What do you mean by trust in Christ alone for salvation?

If you are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation then you don't believe in Christ to receive salvation. Not only believe that Jesus exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection happened, but also trust solely in Christ's finished work of redemption as the only means of your salvation. Is that clear enough? Are you ready to BELIEVE?

zeke77
Aug 7th 2011, 04:31 PM
Jesus said, unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish (Luke 13:3). Repentance is a change of mind and believing is the new direction of this change of mind. Once we believe, we already repented in the process of choosing to believe.

And herein lies your continued confusion my friend. Read God’s word a bit closer. Repentance is not belief and belief is not repentance. Peter told those who had ALREADY believed that there was more that they must do if they were to be saved – they must also repent and be baptized in water. All three acts of obedience are required before one’s sins are to be remitted by the blood of Christ.

For you to say that faith, repentance or baptism is a work of merit is a mistake. We must work the works of God and baptism in water it a work of God that man must do to have his sins remitted. Look at the word of Peter one more time…



Then Peter said to them [that had already believed but had not yet repented], "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)


Clearly your notion above, “once we believe, we already repented” is not correct. There are those today who believe but refuse to repent and as Jesus noted – those who fail to repent will perish. Belief does not automatically lead to repentance. Jesus was clear - those who believe and are baptized in water are the ones who will be saved. Did Jesus command us to do a “work of merit” in order to be saved or did Jesus command us to do a “work of God” and submit to baptism in water in order that our sins could be remitted. You need to re-think.



He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 NKJV)



Repentance and believing are inseparable in salvation. When Jesus said that the work of God is believing, He did not exclude repentance because we must first change our mind before we can believe.

Again – those 3000 souls on Pentecost first believed and THEN they were required to repent and be baptized. Faith in the Lord preceded and led to repentance – then one became a proper candidate to be immersed in water “for the remission of sins”.


If water baptism along with other good works stand between us and heaven, then there would be merit on our part for accomplishing these works.

You appear to be accusing the Lord of requiring a “work of merit” in order for us to be saved. Are you? Remember, it was the Lord who required baptism before one “will be saved”. Baptism is from God. You continue to confuse “works of merit” with “works of God” and man must “work the works of God”. Belief, repentance and baptism are works that God requires man to do. Do you disagree with that truth?


Exactly my question to you. Do you know the difference between work being accomplished to accept the free gift of salvation and work being accomplished to merit salvation?

I certainly do know the difference but it is obvious you do not. God requires baptism and God does not require works of merit for one to be saved. Your position remains illogical according to what is written.


I'm not confused about different types of work noted in the Bible.

But you are confused Dan – go back and read your confusing/contradictory statements. They speak for themselves. God does not require us to do works of merit. He does require us to do the “works of God”. He requires us to be immersed in water calling on the name of the Lord. Simple concept that appears to evade your reasoning. Why? Do you have a dogma to support that must ignore sound teaching?


The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration."

It is not used metaphorically. Loutron is a bathing, the act of bathing (Thayer). We bath in water my friend – the kind that gets you wet. Even Robertson agrees that “the washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 refers to baptism in water. If you are trying to appeal to scholastic authority you have failed in your mission. The washing of regeneration without a doubt refers to “the act of bathing” in water, i.e., immersion in the water of baptism - the baptismal font. You misunderstand much my friend - what else do you have?



Titus 3:5. Through the washing of regeneration. For loutron, see note on Eph_5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism… ~ Archibald Robertson

Titus 3:5. the washing — rather, “the laver,” that is, the baptismal font. ~ A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

Titus 3:5. By the washing of regeneration. The phrase laver of regeneration distinctly refers to baptism, in connection with which and through which as a medium regeneration is conceived as taking place. Comp. Rom_6:3-5. It is true that nothing is said of faith; but baptism implies faith on the part of its recipient. ~ VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES

loutron
Thayer Definition:
1) bathing, bath, the act of bathing

zeke77
Aug 7th 2011, 04:52 PM
Notice how you ignored the second half of Mark 16:16 - but he who does not believe will be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes.

I have not ignored anything my friend. I have addressed the second clause before. The second clause in no way negates the promise made by Jesus that the one who *believes and is baptized* is the one who will be saved. Grammatically, it is not required to say the one who does not submit to baptism will be condemned. Logic tells us that the one who refuses to believe will not submit to baptism and even if he did baptism without faith is of no value.

Jesus is clearly saying the one who both believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved and the one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned. When you take the gospel to the lost do you tell them they need to believe, repent and be baptized?



And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV)

Butch5
Aug 7th 2011, 05:07 PM
Fully trust in Jesus for salvation. The works that man two produced proved that his faith was genuine, but they were not the means of his salvation. The lack of works proved that the faith of man 1 was not genuine.

Dan,

I didn't say either man had any works. According to what you said man one wasn't saved, man two was. What's the difference?

Butch5
Aug 7th 2011, 05:15 PM
The difference is trusting in Christ alone for salvation and not trusting in Christ alone for salvation? One faith is alive and results in producing good works, the other faith is dead and does not produce good works.

You're not answering the question. What is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not?



If you are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation then you don't believe in Christ to receive salvation. Not only believe that Jesus exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection happened, but also trust solely in Christ's finished work of redemption as the only means of your salvation. Is that clear enough? Are you ready to BELIEVE?

It's not clear at all. I didn't ask you what you think is the criteria, I asked where Scripture teaches that the criteria for salvation is "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation"?

What does the "finished work of Redemption" encompass and where does Scripture give this as the criteria for salvation?

Butch5
Aug 7th 2011, 05:27 PM
Eternal inheritance of the land for Abraham and his descendants was in addition to receiving eternal life. Abraham already believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6) many years before he obeyed God (Genesis 22). It is simple.

The land inheritance was in addtion to eternal life??? Maybe you could point out Scripture that suggests such.




So we can't know for sure if we are saved?

Sure we can. If was believe and obey we can know we are saved. If we do as you suggest just believe, then no, we cannot be certain.



Judas Iscariot traveled around with Jesus, heard Jesus preach countless times. No doubt he had discussions with Jesus about the Scriptures. Judas didn't understand. There are many people who heard Paul's preaching. That does not mean they were all saved. You know for sure that Clement was saved? You know his heart? Are his writings infallible? Are all of his writings his writings? You know all of this with 100% certainty? Not everything that I read in Clements writings are in agreement with Scripture so Scripture trumps Clement. The Roman Catholic church agrees with you about Clement. They quote the church fathers all the time to defend their doctrine, yet you agree that their are errors taught in the Roman Catholic church. Are you really serious?

Let's ask the same about Dan.

The issue is which is more reliable, Clement, Paul's companion or Mailmandan. My money is on Clement. Since what he wrote accords with what Paul said and what you say does not, I'll go wtih Clement.

Butch5
Aug 7th 2011, 05:29 PM
I already answered your question.

If you did I must have missed it. If you could point me to the post number or passage of Scripture that would be great.

mailmandan
Aug 8th 2011, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by zeke77


And herein lies your continued confusion my friend. Read God’s word a bit closer. Repentance is not belief and belief is not repentance.

Repentance is a change of mind and belief is the new direction of this change of mind. Repentance and belief are inseparable in salvation. Two sides to the same coin. No confusion at all. Herein lies your continued confusion my friend. Repentance actually precedes saving belief. The Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. Repentance basically means a "change of mind" and the context must determine what is involved in this "change of mind." You place repentance after faith. You would have to admit then that you have a faith that is no different from the faith of devils, and others who believed the facts about Christ "intellectually." The only difference is you add your works. You cannot seem to grasp a deeper faith which actually trusts in Christ alone for salvation. This explains why you have so much faith in water baptism and other works to save you.

Your theory gives rise to the reversal of the scriptural order of repentance and faith in salvation. To the contrary we find the following verses: Matthew 21:32 - "You, when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that you might believe him." Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." Acts 20:21 - "Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Timothy 2:25 - "If God will perhaps give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." A person cannot believe (trust) in Christ alone for salvation without repenting (changing his mind) in the process. In the context of Luke 13:3, Jesus challenged the people's notion that they were morally superior to those who suffered in such catastrophes. He called all to repent or perish. For some people though, prior to coming to the end result of repentance in salvation (saving faith), they must change their minds about other specific things in order to get there. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one's mind about his previous concept of God (as in Acts 17:30) and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (see 1 Thessalonians 1:9). On the other hand, belief in Christ, as an expression of this change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must ultimately take, namely, trusting God's Son, Jesus Christ, alone for salvation.


Peter told those who had ALREADY believed that there was more that they must do if they were to be saved –

In Acts 2:37, their belief at that point was only "mental assent" that Jesus was the Messiah and that they were guilty of crucifying Him (Acts 2:36). That is not saving belief yet. They still lacked "trust and reliance in Christ alone for salvation." This is why they still needed to repent and believe (trust) in Christ alone for salvation. In Acts 2:38, repentance is the means of receiving forgiveness, and baptism is only the sign (in reference to) true repentance and forgiveness. Indeed, a short time later the apostle Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 11:17,18).


they must also repent and be baptized in water.

The formula is not believe the gospel and then afterward, we must also repent and be baptized to become saved. We are saved the moment that we BELIEVE (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16). In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical.


All three acts of obedience are required before one’s sins are to be remitted by the blood of Christ.

False. Repentance/faith is required before one's sins are to be remitted by the blood of Christ, but not baptism. If your argument is true, then it should be consistently taught throughout scripture. Right? Yet, in Acts 3:19, Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 11:17,18). In Acts 10:43 we see that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. What happened to baptism which was mentioned to the Jews in Acts 2:38? In Acts 10:44-47, we see that the Holy Spirit fell on these Gentile believers and they spoke with tongues and magnified God and were saved BEFORE they were water baptized in (vs. 48). In Acts 11:17, we see that God gave them the same gift (Holy Spirit) as he gave us, who BELIEVED in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" Notice that they BELIEVED in the Lord Jesus Christ and received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they are baptized (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17). Compare with BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). In Acts 15:7, Peter said that Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and BELIEVE. No mention of baptism. In Acts 15:8-9, we see that God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by FAITH. Not faith and baptism.


For you to say that faith, repentance or baptism is a work of merit is a mistake.

Any works which follow saving faith would be works of merit if they were necessary for salvation. Believing is clearly not a work that merits our salvation. Through believing, we are completely trusting in "Another's work," (Christ's finished work of redemption). Repenting is not a work that merits our salvation either. We must first repent "change our mind" before we can believe (trust in Christ's finished work of redemption) to save us. Through repentance/faith, Christ is still the object of our complete trust in receiving salvation. Baptism is a work which follows saving faith and if it's necessary for salvation, that would add merit on our part to our salvation because then we would be saved based on Christ's finished work of redemption plus our baptism. Jesus needs no supplements.


We must work the works of God and baptism in water it a work of God that man must do to have his sins remitted. Look at the word of Peter one more time…

Look at the words of Jesus one more time. This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him... (John 6:29). Now compare with (John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31; Romans 1:16). No mention of baptism.


Then Peter said to them [that had already believed but had not yet repented], "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV).

Again, in Acts 2:37, their belief at this point prior to their repentance unto salvation was only mental assent that Jesus was the Messiah and that they were guilty of crucifying Him. In Acts 2:38, repentance is the means of receiving forgiveness, and baptism is only the sign (in reference to) true repentance and forgiveness. Indeed, a short time later the apostle Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 10:43; 11:17,18). *Perfect Harmony* Your interpretation of Acts 2:38 is clearly inconsistent with salvation through FAITH (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17; 15:8-9) and is inconclusive.


Clearly your notion above, “once we believe, we already repented” is not correct.

Actually "once we believe, we already repented" is correct. Your theory gives rise to the reversal of the scriptural order of repentance and faith in salvation. To the contrary we find the following verses: Matthew 21:32 - "You, when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that you might believe him." Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." Acts 20:21 -"Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Timothy 2:25 - "If God will perhaps give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." You also confuse "mental assent" belief with saving belief.


There are those today who believe but refuse to repent and as Jesus noted – those who fail to repent will perish.

Believe what prior to repentance? Jesus is not telling believers (those who are already saved) you must now repent to become saved). Does the Bible say, believe the gospel and then repent or repent and believe the gospel?
Many people misunderstand the term “repentance” to mean “turn away from all sin.” This is not the Biblical definition of repentance. In the Bible, the word “repent” means to "change your mind." I have heard certain preachers say, "If you want to be saved, repent of your sins, turn from your sins." If turning from your sins means to stop sinning, then people can only be saved if they stop sinning. And it is unlikely that anyone has ever been saved, since we don't know anyone who has ever stopped sinning. We are not sinless and perfect.


Belief does not automatically lead to repentance.

"Mental assent" belief does not, but genuine repentance results in saving faith. So you would say that you have repented? Exactly what did you accomplish when you repented?


Jesus was clear - those who believe and are baptized in water are the ones who will be saved.

Jesus did not say that whoever is not baptized will not be saved, but Jesus was clear that whoever does not believe will not be saved (Mark 16:16). If he that believes in Christ will be saved (John 3:16,18,36), then he that believes and is baptized will be saved as well. Jesus was clear that unless we repent, we will perish (Luke 13:3). He was also clear that whoever does not believe will be condemned (John 3:18) but NOWHERE in the Bible do we find that whoever is not baptized will not be saved. hhmmm...


Did Jesus command us to do a “work of merit” in order to be saved or did Jesus command us to do a “work of God” and submit to baptism in water in order that our sins could be remitted. You need to re-think.

Did Jesus say, this is the work of God, that you get baptized or that you BELIEVE in Him? (John 6:29). Our sins are remitted when we BELIEVE before we get baptized (Acts 10:43-48). You need to re-think.


He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

Again, in interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). What happened to baptism?

He that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). What happened to baptism?

In Acts 10:44-47, we see that the Holy Spirit fell on these Gentile believers and they spoke with tongues and magnified God and were saved BEFORE they were water baptized in (vs. 48). hhmmm...


Again – those 3000 souls on Pentecost first believed and THEN they were required to repent and be baptized.

They first believed "mental assent" that Jesus was the Messiah and that they were guilty of crucifying Him. Not saving faith yet. The structure of Acts 2:38 illustrates that the command to be baptized is parenthetical and is not syntactically connected to remission of sins. When Peter commanded the people to repent, he was speaking to the crowd. Then the command to be baptized was directed to each individual. In the "remission of your sins" phrase, Peter again directed his words to the crowd collectively.


Faith in the Lord preceded and led to repentance – then one became a proper candidate to be immersed in water “for the remission of sins”.

Mental assent faith in the Lord is not saving faith. Repentance preceded and led to saving faith and the remission of sins, then one becomes a proper candidate to be water baptized (Acts 10:43-48).


You appear to be accusing the Lord of requiring a “work of merit” in order for us to be saved. Are you?

Actually, you are. You don't know the difference between accepting the free gift through faith and adding works to the free gift, which is no gift at all.


Remember, it was the Lord who required baptism before one “will be saved”.

Is that what the Lord said in John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26? Now since the second half of Mark 16:16 says, but he who does not believe will be condemned and NOT whoever is not baptized will be condemned, Jesus did not require baptism for salvation. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Which is in harmony with what Jesus said in John 3:18. When will you BELIEVE?


Baptism is from God.

Baptism is an ordinance that is ordained by God, but accomplished by man. So is the Lord's Supper and it does not save us either.


You continue to confuse “works of merit” with “works of God” and man must “work the works of God”.

This is exactly what you do my friend. This is the work of God, that we BELIEVE in Him, (John 6:29). No mention of baptism. You are confused just like these men in John 6:28 who were corrected by Jesus.


Belief, repentance and baptism are works that God requires man to do.

Repentance and belief are required for salvation, but not baptism. God commands us to be baptized after we are saved through faith (Acts 10:43-48).


Do you disagree with that truth?

I disagree with your water gospel. The gospel is the good news of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone that BELIEVES (1 Corinthians 15:3,4; Romans 1:16).


I certainly do know the difference but it is obvious you do not.

You certainly do not and that is because the gospel is hid from you (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).


God requires baptism and God does not require works of merit for one to be saved.

That is false when you add water and works to the equation. Works which follow saving faith would be works of merit if they were necessary for salvation.


Your position remains illogical according to what is written.

Whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have (Acts 10:47). Believed, saved, then baptized afterward. It's your position that remains illogical according to what is written my friend.


But you are confused Dan – go back and read your confusing/contradictory statements. They speak for themselves.

Go back and read this entire thread and see your confusing/contradictory statements. They speak for themselves. It's you who is confused because you don't BELIEVE. The natural man just cannot understand (1 Corinthians 2:14).


God does not require us to do works of merit.

No He does not, but you do. You add works to the gospel of grace. Salvation is by grace through faith, not through water and works (Ephesians 2:8,9).


He does require us to do the “works of God”.

Certain Jews wanted to know what they must do to work the works of God (John 6:28) and they were corrected by Jesus. The work of God is that we BELIEVE in Him (John 6:29). When will you BELIEVE?


He requires us to be immersed in water calling on the name of the Lord. Simple concept that appears to evade your reasoning. Why? Do you have a dogma to support that must ignore sound teaching?

So you equate calling on the name of the Lord with baptism? It's interesting that you quoted Jamison, Fausset, and Brown to defend your misinterpretation of Titus 3:5 below, yet this same commentary makes note of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT). That simple concept does evade your reasoning. It's your dogma that keeps you from understanding the truth and ignoring sound teaching.


It is not used metaphorically. Loutron is a bathing, the act of bathing (Thayer). We bath in water my friend – the kind that gets you wet.

H20 is not the only water mentioned in Scripture my friend. Living water is not water baptism (John 4:10,14; 7:38,39). Again the word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." Amen!


Even Robertson agrees that “the washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 refers to baptism in water.

AT Robertson or Archibald Robertson? Here is what AT Robertson said: For loutron, see Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6 , the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. And renewing of the Holy Spirit (kai anakainwsew pneumato agiou). "And renewal by the Holy Spirit" (subjective genitive). Here, as often, Paul has put the objective symbol before the reality. The Holy Spirit does the renewing, man submits to the baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men. Amen!


If you are trying to appeal to scholastic authority you have failed in your mission. The washing of regeneration without a doubt refers to “the act of bathing” in water, i.e., immersion in the water of baptism - the baptismal font.

Actually it's you who has failed your mission my friend. The washing of regeneration is pictured in the act of bathing, immersion in the water of baptism, the baptismal font, but, "a bath, a laver" is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration."


You misunderstand much my friend - what else do you have?

LOL! It's actually you who misunderstands much my friend. You confuse mental assent belief with saving belief. You place repentance after saving faith to receive salvation. You confuse the reality of the washing of regeneration (spiritual cleansing of the soul accomplished by the Holy Spirit) with the picture of the reality (water baptism).


Titus 3:5. Through the washing of regeneration.[/B] For loutron, see note on Eph_5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism… ~ Archibald Robertson

Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3-6 , the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. Don't forget that.


Titus 3:5. the washing — rather, “the laver,” that is, the baptismal font. ~ A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown.

Don't forget, a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." We can quote "he said," "they said" all day long, but that still does not prove anything. Scholars do not all agree on this.


Titus 3:5. By the washing of regeneration.[/B] The phrase laver of regeneration distinctly refers to baptism, in connection with which and through which as a medium regeneration is conceived as taking place. Comp. Rom_6:3-5. It is true that nothing is said of faith; but baptism implies faith on the part of its recipient. ~ VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES

That is absolutely false. Regeneration is certainly not conceived in the waters of baptism and baptism does not imply faith. There is a clear distinction between faith/belief and baptism (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17). We don't get baptized as unbelievers in order to become believers. What a mess! AT Robertson comments on Romans 6:4, The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and to our death to sin (verse Colossians 1 ), forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave (F. B. Meyer). There is the further picture of our own resurrection from the grave. It is a tragedy that Paul's majestic picture here has been so blurred by controversy that some refuse to see it. It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. Amen!


loutron
Thayer Definition:[/B]
1) bathing, bath, the act of bathing

I know what loutron is and in regards to the washing of regeneration, The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." Are you still determined to trust in H20 to save you or are you ready to place your faith in Jesus Christ for salvation?

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 12:15 AM
I have not ignored anything my friend. I have addressed the second clause before. The second clause in no way negates the promise made by Jesus that the one who *believes and is baptized* is the one who will be saved.

What about the promise made by Jesus that the one who *believes* is the one who will be saved? (John 3:16,18, 6:40,47; 11:25,26). Who did Jesus say would be condemned? Those who *do not believe* (Mark 16:16b). The second clause negates the idea that Jesus said whoever is not baptized will not be saved. Jesus never said that.

[QUOTE]Grammatically, it is not required to say the one who does not submit to baptism will be condemned. Logic tells us that the one who refuses to believe will not submit to baptism and even if he did baptism without faith is of no value.

It is required to say that one who does not submit to baptism will be condemned to prove your point. Human (natural man) logic might tell you that the one who refuses to believe will not submit to baptism. This demonstrates once again that you don't understand what it means to truly believe unto salvation. Someone with no kind of faith in God whatsoever is not going to get baptized, but there are many people who get baptized, trusting in it to save them, but don't truly BELIEVE "trust in Christ alone for salvation" (Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16). Now sure they may believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ (so do the demons) but they don't BELIEVE (trust in Him as the only means of their salvation). I know many unbelievers who have been water baptized in various false religions that believe "mental assent" in Jesus, but do not BELIEVE trust in Jesus Christ as the only means of their salvation. Their trust and reliance is also in water and works for salvation and not in CHRIST ALONE.


Jesus is clearly saying the one who both believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved and the one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned.

Jesus didn't say that the one who believes but is not baptized will be condemned. Period. Your argument is inconslusive. It logically follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed or for some other reason cannot get baptized, you are still saved because you BELIEVED (Acts 10:43; Romans 1:16) which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b)...but he that BELIEVES NOT shall be damned. Certainly, water baptism is an important act of obedience. Any one professing to believe in Jesus for salvation and yet refusing to be baptized is of questionable sincerity. Faith and the act of water baptism are closely linked in the NT. Indeed, it is unthinkable that anyone would believe in Jesus for salvation and refuse to be baptized. Notice, however, those who Jesus said would be condemned: "whoever does not believe." No mention was made of not being baptized. The emphasis is on unbelief, not baptism.


When you take the gospel to the lost do you tell them they need to believe, repent and be baptized?

I tell them that they need to repent and believe the gospel. Then once they believe and are saved (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18) then I tell them they are ready to be water baptized. I couldn't wait to get water baptized after I was saved through faith and every believer that I know felt the same way.


And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV)

We have here a command of Christ that we should make disciples of all nations, and baptize converts. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them. If we are to assume that baptism is essential to salvation, then by consistent interpretation of the context, we should say that absolute obedience to all of Christ's commands is also necessary for salvation. Either we are saved by trusting or else we are saved by trying. Either Christ did it all or else we did some of it. You can't have it both ways my friend.

zeke77
Aug 9th 2011, 04:44 AM
Jesus didn't say that the one who believes but is not baptized will be condemned.

He doesn’t have to – the one who disbelieves is condemned regardless of his baptismal status. The promise of Jesus remains true – it is the one who believes and is baptized who will have his sins forgiven.


It is required to say that one who does not submit to baptism will be condemned to prove your point.

No, it's not required. Jesus says the one who believes and is baptized is the one to be saved. The one who disbelieves is condemned already and he is not a candidate for baptism – faith must precede baptism.


I tell them that they need to repent and believe the gospel.

But Jesus tells them they must believe, repent and be baptized just as Peter tells them the must believe, repent and be baptized “for the remission of sin”. For the record which version do you use that says, “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized when he finds the time”?


He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 NKJV)


Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 2:38 NKJV)


We have here a command of Christ that we should make disciples of all nations, and baptize converts. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation.


You appear miss the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”. Both belief and baptism come before one shall be saved. Hard to miss unless you want to miss it. Do you?

zeke77
Aug 9th 2011, 05:02 AM
for loutron, see Ephesians 5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism,


Then we are agreed that "the washing of regeneration" in Titus 3:5 is a reference to the water of baptism thus making baptism part of the new birth of 'water and the Spirit"?


I know what loutron is and in regards to the washing of regeneration, The word "washing" in the Strong's Greek Concordance with Vine's Number 3067 - (Loutron) "a bath, a laver" is used is used *metaphorically of the Word of God, as the instrument of spiritual cleansing,* Ephesians 5:26; and Titus 3:5, of the "washing of regeneration." Are you still determined to trust in H20 to save you or are you ready to place your faith in Jesus Christ for salvation?

LOL - but you just agreed with me and Robertson that *loutron* is the laver or the bath and it is a reference to baptism in water. Why are you recanting - are you confused?


H20 is not the only water mentioned in Scripture my friend.

But it is the only element used in the ordinance of baptism - the act of obedience that puts the believer "into Christ" (Romans 6:3-7). Are you hydrophobic by chance?


Again, in interpreting this passage correctly believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

You are correct above - the believers who have been baptized they shall be saved. Belief and baptism come before one shall be saved per Jesus Christ - a truth that renders your notion dead in the water. Whey would a believer not be baptized as commanded by Jesus Christ?


Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

We can argue Greek words if you wish but the truth remains in the passage - as Wuest notes, one's sins are "washed away" by the blood of Christ when one is baptized in water and Clarke adds as one is baptized "invoking the name of the Lord". Would Paul's sins have been washed away if he refused to be baptized? I think not.



Wash away thy sins, etc. - Let this washing of thy body represent to thee the washing away of thy sins: and know that this washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

Diggindeeper
Aug 9th 2011, 06:25 AM
It is SO easy to pick out the Church of Christ people in this thread........just sayin'!

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 10:11 AM
He doesn’t have to – the one who disbelieves is condemned regardless of his baptismal status. The promise of Jesus remains true – it is the one who believes and is baptized who will have his sins forgiven.

Yes He does have to. The one who believes is saved regardless of his baptismal status. The promise of Jesus remains true - it is the one who believes in Him who will have his sins forgiven and receive eternal life (John 3:15,16,18). What happened to baptism here? Peter agrees, whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43) before baptism (Acts 10:48).

[QUOTE]No, it's not required. Jesus says the one who believes and is baptized is the one to be saved.

Yes, it's required because Jesus clarifies the first clause with “but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The determining factor between heaven and hell is not baptism but believing in Him. Faith is absolutely necessary to life, while baptism is an ordinance which follows faith and testifies to it (Acts 10:43-48).


The one who disbelieves is condemned already and he is not a candidate for baptism – faith must precede baptism.

Absolutely, but there are many people who don't truly BELIEVE (trust in Jesus Christ as the only means of their salvation) and then get baptized anyway, trusting in it as an additional requirement for salvation while convinced that their "mental assent" belief which lacks trust and reliance in Christ alone for salvation is sufficient enough to make them candidates for baptism and they come up out of the water as wet sinners.


But Jesus tells them they must believe, repent and be baptized just as Peter tells them the must believe, repent and be baptized “for the remission of sin”.

Jesus says that we must repent (Luke 13;3) and Jesus tells us that we must believe (John 3:18) but Jesus never said that we must be baptized. Show me one verse in the Bible that says whoever is not baptized will not be saved.


For the record which version do you use that says, “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized when he finds the time”?

The thief on the cross didn't find the time and he was saved. For the record which version do you use that says, "whosoever believes in Him and is baptized shall not perish but receive eternal life"? or "he that is not baptized shall be condemned"? or "whosoever believes in Him and is baptized shall receive remission of sins"?


He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

It does not say he who is not baptized will be condemned. He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). What happened to baptism?


Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:43-47). They believed, received the Holy Spirit, were saved, and then were afterward water baptized (Acts 10:48).


You appear miss the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized shall be saved”.

I did not miss those words of Jesus, but Jesus clarifies the first clause with, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." The words, he who is not baptized will be condemned is missing. Baptism is also missing in these words of Jesus. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). Now in describing the believer, you can add baptism or any other good work; so long as you are speaking of one who truly believes (trusts) in Christ alone for salvation, you can most certainly say of him, "he shall be saved." Surely, if he that believes is not condemned, then he that believes and is baptized shall be eternally saved as well.


Both belief and baptism come before one shall be saved.

No, Mark 16:16 is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. Belief comes before one is saved (John 3:16,18; Acts 10:43-47) and one is baptized afterward (Acts 10:48). Did Jesus forget to mention baptism in John 3:16 and John 3:18? Did Peter forget to mention it in Acts 10:43?


Hard to miss unless you want to miss it. Do you?

Faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we are saved through faith. That's not hard to miss unless you want to miss it. Do you?

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 10:13 AM
It is SO easy to pick out the Church of Christ people in this thread........just sayin'!

I was thinking the same thing.

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 10:54 AM
Then we are agreed that "the washing of regeneration" in Titus 3:5 is a reference to the water of baptism thus making baptism part of the new birth of 'water and the Spirit"?

No, but Catholics and Campbellites will agree with you. Don't forget these words in Titus 3:5, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." The emphasis is on divine action and initiative, not our works. The "washing" described here is the "spiritual cleansing" (accomplished by the Holy Spirit), which is outwardly symbolized in baptism. You confuse the picture with the reality.

[QUOTE]LOL - but you just agreed with me and Robertson that *loutron* is the laver or the bath and it is a reference to baptism in water. Why are you recanting - are you confused?

Don't forget the rest of Robertson's words. "the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it." A symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. I am not recanting and I am certainly not confused. You are taking the words of Robertson out of context. Are you resorting to dishonesty now? So do you attend the so called church of Christ? That would explain a lot of your confusion.


But it is the only element used in the ordinance of baptism - the act of obedience that puts the believer "into Christ" (Romans 6:3-7). Are you hydrophobic by chance?

Next you are going to say that we contact the blood of Christ in the water. Campbellism 101. So you believe that "baptized into Christ" in Romans 6:3 means that we are literally water baptized into the body of Christ? Of course you do if you are indoctrinated into the teachings of the so called church of Christ. We get into the body of Christ through Spirit baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13), not water baptism. How does this happen? *Ephesians 1:13 - In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation --having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise... In what sense are we "water" baptized "into Christ?" In the same sense that the Israelites were baptized "into Moses" (metaphorically) indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader (1 Corinthians 10:2) just as through water baptism we indicate our oneness, or solidarity with Christ as our Savior. Now does 1 Corinthians 10:2 teach that the Israelites were literally water baptized into the body of Moses? Absolutely not. After we are saved through faith and Spirit baptized into the body of Christ, we are then (afterward) water baptized into Christ just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2). Not literally water baptized into the body here, but "baptized into" in a "metaphorical sense" in regards to "identification."


You are correct above - the believers who have been baptized they shall be saved.

What about believers who have not been baptized? They shall still be saved (John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). Baptism follows faith and salvation.


Belief and baptism come before one shall be saved per Jesus Christ - a truth that renders your notion dead in the water.

Jesus didn't say that whoever is not baptized will not be saved and Jesus said that whoever BELIEVES "with no mention of baptism" will be saved so your argument is dead in the water.


Whey would a believer not be baptized as commanded by Jesus Christ?

Yeah, why wouldn't they? I have been. All of my Christian friends have been. But not everyone may have the opportunity to get baptized after they believe, but they are still saved because they believed.


We can argue Greek words if you wish but the truth remains in the passage - as Wuest notes, one's sins are "washed away" by the blood of Christ when one is baptized in water and Clarke adds as one is baptized "invoking the name of the Lord". Would Paul's sins have been washed away if he refused to be baptized? I think not.

Paul would not have refused to be baptized and neither did I. In Acts 22:16, how did baptism "wash away" Paul's sins? Well, it couldn't do this literally, for Christ literally "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the death of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins were actually washed away. Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson explains: As in Romans 6:4-6 where baptism is the picture of death, burial and resurrection, so here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place when Paul surrendered to Jesus on the way. Baptism here pictures the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ. Our sins are already literally washed away by the blood of Christ after we BELIEVE (Romans 3:24-25; Acts 10:43). Therefore to take Paul's statement in Acts 22:16 as anything more than a metaphor is to confuse the symbolic rite with what the rite represents. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to his water baptism.


Wash away thy sins, etc. - Let this washing of thy body represent to thee the washing away of thy sins: and know that this washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

It is interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him and was not saved. Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).

It's the blood of Christ that has the power to remove sins, not water. Now if you can only come to understand that our sins are forgiven when we BELIEVE (Acts 10:43; Romans 3:24-26) BEFORE we are water baptized. The Bible teaches that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and justified by faith (Romans 5:1). People who are saved and justified are not lost and still in need of having their sins literally washed away. Also, faith precedes water baptism. If we are saved and justified at the point of faith, then we don't need to comply with any further conditions to have our sins forgiven and literally washed away. *In Acts 10:43 we see that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. What happened to baptism? *In Romans 3:24-26, we see that: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare His righteousness for the REMISSION OF SINS that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which BELIEVES IN JESUS. What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 10:58 AM
Dan, I didn't say either man had any works. According to what you said man one wasn't saved, man two was. What's the difference?

One had a living faith which resulted in producing works and one had a dead faith that resulted in not producing works. Take a living fruit tree that has fruit on it and a dead fruit tree that has no fruit on it. What is the difference between the two trees? Fruit and the lack of fruit is not the only difference. What else is the difference? What is the root of the problem?

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 11:12 AM
You're not answering the question. What is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not?

I did answer the question. The difference is trusting in Christ alone for salvation and not trusting in Christ alone for salvation? If you are trusting in works in addition to trusting in Christ for salvation then you are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation. One faith is alive and results in producing good works, the other faith is dead and does not produce good works.

[QUOTE]It's not clear at all. I didn't ask you what you think is the criteria, I asked where Scripture teaches that the criteria for salvation is "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation"?

Here is why it's not clear at all to you. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. If we are placing our faith in Jesus for salvation, then we are fully trusting in Him to save us. What do you think these passages mean by salvation through faith in Jesus? (Romans 3:22-28; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8). What is your faith in for salvation? Jesus or Jesus plus something else? The answer is obvious.


What does the "finished work of Redemption" encompass and where does Scripture give this as the criteria for salvation?

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 we read, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Do you believe that Christ needed to accomplish more in order to save us or do you believe that it is finished? The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. To believe the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the only means of your salvation. *Not just believe that it happened* To trust in your works for salvation is to add to the gospel of grace (Galatians 1:6-9). We are saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 11:52 AM
The land inheritance was in addtion to eternal life??? Maybe you could point out Scripture that suggests such.

And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are--northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and thy seed/your descendants forever. And I will make thy seed/your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then thyseed/your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be. (Genesis 15:5)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed/your descendants have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)

The author is not simply discussing eternal life here. This is something in addition. Now in Galatians 3:16, Now to Abraham were the promises made/spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. This does not negate I will give this land (receiving the land) to you and thy seed/your descendants "as the dust of the earth" in Genesis.

[QUOTE]Sure we can. If was believe and obey we can know we are saved. If we do as you suggest just believe, then no, we cannot be certain.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life (1 John 5:13) You stand corrected. Which verse in the Bible says that if we believe and obey we can know we are saved. How much obedience? Do you know for sure that you are saved? Based on what? What obedience did you accomplish to help save yourself?


Let's ask the same about Dan.

The issue is which is more reliable, Clement, Paul's companion or Mailmandan. My money is on Clement. Since what he wrote accords with what Paul said and what you say does not, I'll go wtih Clement.

Paul is more reliable because he is an inspired writer. Clement and Dan are not inspired. What I say is only reliable if it lines up with what God said. You can bet your money on Clement and assume that everthing that was said about him and what he said is right all you want based on faulty human logic. The Roman Catholic is behind you 100%. I'll go with the Scriptures. I will not bet my money on fallible man. Who was in possession of all of these writings throughout the years? What church had all the power and control for many years? Do you trust the Roman Catholic church? They are not reliable.

mailmandan
Aug 9th 2011, 11:56 AM
If you did I must have missed it. If you could point me to the post number or passage of Scripture that would be great.

It doesn't matter how many times that I answer your question. You will continue to miss it even after you read it because of unbelief.

zeke77
Aug 9th 2011, 11:28 PM
Don't forget these words in Titus 3:5, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." The emphasis is on divine action and initiative, not our works.

Straw-man again Dan - what's with that? The command from God to be baptized in water is a work of God - a work which is the fruit of faith - something man must do to receive salvation. Baptism in water is not a work of merit - you remain confused. And for the record - no one is saying regeneration is not God's action. You appear to be arguing against yourself.

The truth remains true – baptism in water is the “washing of regeneration” that is part of salvation in Christ and it always will be. As Jesus clearly stated, one must be born of water and the Spirit if he is to be saved.


The "washing" described here is the "spiritual cleansing" (accomplished by the Holy Spirit), which is outwardly symbolized in baptism.

Well, we finally agree and that which baptism symbolizes – regeneration - should never be expected without our obedience to the Lord's command to be baptized. Do you preach baptism in water as the point of regeneration as Jesus and Paul did? If not, why not?


Don't forget the rest of Robertson's words. "the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it."

God has always secured our salvation through the blood of Christ, Dan – just as He has always required baptism in water “for the remission of sins” as taught in the NT. Is that truth something that runs counter to your theology?


So you believe that "baptized into Christ" in Romans 6:3 means that we are literally water baptized into the body of Christ?

It doesn’t really mater what you or I ‘believe’ my friend – what matters is what the word of God teaches and it is clear the one who believes, repents and is baptized “into Christ” is the one who has become “united with Him”. Were you baptized into Christ as you were immersed in the water of baptism, calling on His name?



Romans 6:3
Know ye not, etc. - Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible



What about believers who have not been baptized? They shall still be saved (John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). Baptism follows faith and salvation.

The promise of the Lord is this - the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Is that a hard saying for you? You say, ‘he who believes and is saved shall be baptized’ but the Bible doesn't say that. Why must you change God’s word? Are you authorized to do that? Does John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 somehow negate the Lord’s words in Mark 16:16 – is that what your dogma forces you to say? Why can’t you deal with Mark 16:16?

The conservative Baptist scholarship presented in the Pulpit Commentary has no problem understanding that passage. That commentary states God’s truth – the truth that belief and baptism before salvation opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Had do you handle God’s word Dan – what is Jesus saying about belief and baptism in Mark 16:16? Is faith alone sufficient for salivation or did God clearly say that baptism is to take place before one’s sins are remitted. You appear to need a baptism 101 crash course – yes?



“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary



Yeah, why wouldn't they? I have been. All of my Christian friends have been. But not everyone may have the opportunity to get baptized after they believe, but they are still saved because they believed.

The New Testament does not know of an unbaptized believer and every example of conversion on this side of the Cross includes baptism. God certainly allowed folks to go down into the water before they died – did He not? You found the time but there are those reading this post who have not been baptized.


It is interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all.

Moot point – it did happen – right?


Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him.

If Paul received salvation at the point of believing (as you insist) then why was he later to to arise, be baptized and THEN his sins would be washed away by the blood of Christ. You do ere my friend. What you present is counter to what is revealed. Do you have a dogma that must change God’s word?


It's the blood of Christ that has the power to remove sins, not water.

One more straw-man Dan. I have said all along that the blood of Christ finally and completely saves our souls. Baptism simply points us to the resurrection of Christ as we are buried in water – into His death. Again, baptism in water symbolizes regeneration and regeneration should never be expected without our obedience to baptism in water as commanded by the Lord.

mailmandan
Aug 10th 2011, 12:06 PM
Straw-man again Dan - what's with that? The command from God to be baptized in water is a work of God - a work which is the fruit of faith - something man must do to receive salvation. Baptism in water is not a work of merit - you remain confused. And for the record - no one is saying regeneration is not God's action. You appear to be arguing against yourself.

What straw man? I made a very good point. Titus 3:5 clearly states, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." Is baptism a work of righteousness? Of course, Jesus said when he was baptized He came to fulfill all righteousness. (Matthew 3:13-15). Titus 3:7 says, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. We are saved by grace through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9) and faith is not baptism. So you admit that baptism is the fruit of faith. Something must be established and alive first before it can produce fruit. Faith is the root and works are the fruit of our salvation. Fruit is the by product of salvation, not something that man must do to receive salvation. We are saved through faith so if we must accomplish something after faith to become saved, then it is a work of merit because it adds to the cross of Christ. You remain confused about all of this. So you admit that regeneration is God's action. The washing of regeneration is done by the Holy Spirit not by or in water. When we believe the gospel, we are sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13). Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:43-47). All before water baptism. No argument here. I agree with Paul and Peter.

[QUOTE]The truth remains true – baptism in water is the “washing of regeneration” that is part of salvation in Christ and it always will be.

First you say that no one is saying regeneration is not God's action, but here you are saying that "baptism in water" is "the washing of regeneration." Make up your mind. Your argument equates to, Christ only saves us for the most part and water baptism helps save us in part. Your faith is not in Christ alone for salvation, but is also in water and works. That is not saving faith my friend. The "washing of regeneration" is spiritual cleansing that is accomplished by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation. When did this happen? Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25,26) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Not through baptism.


As Jesus clearly stated, one must be born of water and the Spirit if he is to be saved.

Jesus did not say born of water (baptism). Again, in John 7:38-39, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. This is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23). To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted. Born “of water” would therefore mean to Nicodemus that entrance into the kingdom of God could only be through spiritual purification from the pollution and defilement of sin. Of all the OT texts dealing with this subject, Ezekiel 36:25-26 is surely the most fundamental. “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” H20 cannot accomplish this. The two elements of John 3:5 (“born of water and Spirit”) correspond to the two elements of the OT counterpart. Water in both texts speaks of purification. Spirit in both texts speaks of renovation or renewal. These are not to be separated, however, but are to be taken as correlative aspects of the one experience of regeneration: it is a cleansing from sin and an impartation of spiritual life. Not accomplish by or in H20.


Well, we finally agree and that which baptism symbolizes – regeneration - should never be expected without our obedience to the Lord's command to be baptized.

Water baptism symbolizes regeneration, but is not accomplished by or in the water. Water baptism is a picture and public testimony of the regeneration which had already taken place when we believed (Acts 10:43-47; Ephesians 1:13).


Do you preach baptism in water as the point of regeneration as Jesus and Paul did? If not, why not?

No, I preach baptism in water as the picture of regeneration as Jesus, Peter and Paul did. Why would I want to add water baptism to the gospel of grace? We are saved by grace through faith, not works.


God has always secured our salvation through the blood of Christ, Dan – just as He has always required baptism in water “for the remission of sins” as taught in the NT. Is that truth something that runs counter to your theology?

It's the blood of Christ that has the power to remove sins, not water. Now if you can only come to understand that our sins are forgiven when we BELIEVE (Acts 10:43; Romans 3:24-26) BEFORE we are water baptized. The Bible teaches that we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and justified by faith (Romans 5:1). People who are saved and justified are not lost and still in need of having their sins literally washed away. Also, faith precedes water baptism. If we are saved and justified at the point of faith, then we don't need to comply with any further conditions to have our sins forgiven and literally washed away. *In Acts 10:43 we see that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM shall receive REMISSION OF SINS. [/B ]What happened to baptism? *In Romans 3:24-26, we see that: Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare His righteousness FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which BELIEVES IN JESUS. What happened to baptism? This truth in the NT runs counter to your theology.


It doesn’t really mater what you or I ‘believe’ my friend – what matters is what the word of God teaches and it is clear the one who believes, repents and is baptized “into Christ” is the one who has become “united with Him”.

Where does the Bible say that after we believe, we must then repent to become saved? Repentance precedes faith my friend as I already showed you from Scripture. Matthew 21:32 - "You, when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that you might believe him." Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." Acts 20:21 - "Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Timothy 2:25 - "If God will perhaps give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." A person cannot believe (trust) in Christ without repenting (changing his mind) in the process. Why are you ignoring this? We are Spirit baptized into the body of Christ, not water baptized. For by one SPIRIT we are one baptized into one BODY (1 Corinthians 12:13). H20 cannot accomplish this. As I already explained to you, after we are saved through faith and Spirit baptized into the body of Christ, we are then afterward water baptized into Christ just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2). Not literally water baptized into the body here, but "baptized into" in a "metaphorical sense" in regards to "identification." You continue to confuse the picture with the reality.

Baptized into water is not the same as being baptized into the body of Christ. Christ is not the water. Water baptism as a picture of death, burial and resurrection symbolizes our likeness to Christ in his death and resurrection. One is the picture or likeness of the other. Water baptism is not the reality but only a picture of the reality. We are mystically placed into Christ when we believe, and this is when we are placed into the body of Christ. Thus, water baptism symbolizes this mystical placement into Christ that takes place when one believes. People believe before they are baptized into water, but they are baptized into the body of Christ in believing, before water baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13). When one says "I pledge allegiance to the flag...," for instance, are they affirming allegiance to the piece of cloth or to what it represents? When Jesus said - "this is my body," when referring to Communion bread, did he mean that the bread was literally that body? If water baptism is truly a condition for salvation, then where does the Bible teach that we are saved by grace through water baptism or that we are justified by water baptism or that whoever is not baptized will not be saved?


Were you baptized into Christ as you were immersed in the water of baptism, calling on His name?

I was Spirit baptized into Christ when I believed (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13) before I was water baptized (Acts 10:43-47). The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, properly translated means "having called" on the name of the Lord. Paul’s calling on Christ's name for salvation preceded his water baptism. It is absurd to think that Paul had not yet called upon the name of the Lord and that water baptism is all the same as calling on the name of the Lord. This "washing away of sin" in water baptism in Acts 22:16 was only "formal" or symbolic. Therefore to take Paul's statement in Acts 22:16 as anything more than a metaphor is to confuse the symbolic rite with what the rite represents. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). It's interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), he did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him.


Romans 6:3 Know ye not, etc.
- Every man who believes the Christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it, and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. To be baptized into Christ, is to receive the doctrine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

If baptism if proof of the genuineness of faith (as Adam Clarke said) and we are saved through faith (as the Bible says) and faith is not baptism (as you admitted), then water baptism is not the means to our salvation. You confuse Spirit baptism (the reality) with water baptism (the picture of the reality).


The promise of the Lord is this - the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Is that a hard saying for you?

No because I don't ignore the rest of the verse, the one who does not believe "no mention of baptism" will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. The promise of the Lord is this - whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). He also said, he that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). Is that a hard saying for you. You need to READ IT ALL and quit building your doctrine on isolated parts of Scripture taken out of context.


You say, ‘he who believes and is saved shall be baptized’ but the Bible doesn't say that.

Whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Then AFTERWARD they were baptized. The first half of Mark 16:16 does not trump that or John 3:15,16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 etc...


Why must you change God’s word? Are you authorized to do that?

I didn't change God's word. You are ignoring many Scriptures in favor of a handful of verses taken out of context. Why do you go about distorting and perverting passages of Scripture in an effort to patch together your so called gospel plan? Are you authorized to do that?


Does John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 somehow negate the Lord’s words in Mark 16:16 – is that what your dogma forces you to say? Why can’t you deal with Mark 16:16?

That statement is the epitome of irony. Does Mark 16:16 somehow negate God's word in John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 - is that what your dogma forces you to say? Why can't you deal with Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31?


The conservative Baptist scholarship presented in the Pulpit Commentary has no problem understanding that passage. That commentary states God’s truth – the truth that belief and baptism before salvation opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Had do you handle God’s word Dan – what is Jesus saying about belief and baptism in Mark 16:16? Is faith alone sufficient for salivation or did God clearly say that baptism is to take place before one’s sins are remitted. You appear to need a baptism 101 crash course – yes?

LOL! Who said that I was a Baptist and Baptists that I know would disagree with that statement. Jesus simply said that he who believes and is baptized will be saved in Mark 16:16(a) but He did not say that whoever is not baptized will be condemned in Mark 16:16(b). He did say that those who do not believe will be condemned. Jesus said several times that whoever BELIEVES (no mention of baptism) will be saved (John 3:16,18; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). I've been water baptized so that's not even an issue for me. You need a believers 101 crash course. I see no evidence that you truly BELIEVE in Christ for salvation. That is the issue. Your faith is in water and works for salvation and not Christ alone, so it does not matter whether you have been baptized or not. You don't BELIEVE (John 3:18). Describe to me exactly what Jesus means by whosoever believes receives eternal life in (John 3:16,18; 6:40,47; 11;25,26). Describe exactly does Peter mean by whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins in Acts 10:43. Describe what Paul means by saved through faith in Ephesians 2:8.


“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

but he who does not believe shall be condemned (the rest of Mark 16:16).


"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

These words, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned" are very important. The second clause opposes the notion that those who are not baptized will be condemned. The first half of Mark 16:16 is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. The fruit of faith is not faith itself and we are saved through faith. Faith alone still stands. Whosoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" (believes in Him alone) shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Saved through faith, not works. Word of God.


The New Testament does not know of an unbaptized believer and every example of conversion on this side of the Cross includes baptism.

Every example mentioned in the Bible. These people all had the opportunity to be baptized so why would they refuse? That does not prove that it's necessary for salvation. Not everyone who has ever lived will get the chance to be baptized after they are saved through faith. So before the cross, nobody had to be baptized to be saved? Before the cross we read, "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). You teach that Acts 2:38 teaches that baptism is for "in order to obtain" the remission of sins, so why would it be different in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3? Is this an attempt to get around the thief on the cross coming to faith in Christ and being saved just before he died but was unable to be baptized?


God certainly allowed folks to go down into the water before they died – did He not?

Those folks mentioned in the Bible but their are billions of other people in the world. Not everybody will have that opportunity, just like the thief on the cross, but they will still be saved because they believed (Acts 10:43).


You found the time but there are those reading this post who have not been baptized.

I found the time, but if I would have died prior to being water baptized, I still would have been saved because I believe (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). You place more importance on baptism than you do on believing in Christ for salvation. What exactly do you believe about what it means to believe in Him? (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). It's the lack of belief which causes condemnation, not the lack of baptism (Mark 16:16(b). This is what those reading this post need to understand first. Once they believe and are saved, then they can go get baptized.


Moot point – it did happen – right?

It's not a moot point. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ."


If Paul received salvation at the point of believing (as you insist) then why was he later to to arise, be baptized and THEN his sins would be washed away by the blood of Christ.

In Acts 22:16, how did baptism "wash away" Paul's sins? Well, it couldn't do this literally, for Christ literally "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). The language in Acts 22:16 is similar to the statement of Christ when He took the bread and said, "This is my body" (Matthew 26:26). The bread was only the emblem of His body. Baptism is the emblem of the washing away of sins by the death of Christ. Every time a believer is immersed he washes away his sins in the same sense Paul did: not literally, but ceremonially, pointing to the death of Christ by which sins were actually washed away.


You do ere my friend. What you present is counter to what is revealed. Do you have a dogma that must change God’s word?

Actually it's you who does error my friend. Since we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8) and faith is not baptism and faith precedes baptism and we receive the remission of sins when we believe in Him (Acts 10:43) and are baptized afterward (Acts 10:48). What you present is counter to what is revealed. You have a dogma that must change God's word.


One more straw-man Dan. I have said all along that the blood of Christ finally and completely saves our souls.

But you said this happens in the water.


Baptism simply points us to the resurrection of Christ as we are buried in water – into His death. Again, baptism in water symbolizes regeneration

If you stopped right there you would be correct, but you added more.


and regeneration should never be expected without our obedience to baptism in water as commanded by the Lord.

This is where you blew it. You are thoroughly indoctrinated into church of Christ theology and appear to be unreachable. When will you BELIEVE?

zeke77
Aug 10th 2011, 11:06 PM
What straw man? I made a very good point. Titus 3:5 clearly states, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." Is baptism a work of righteousness?

The straw-man you repeatedly use and your point was moot as you continue misunderstanding the ordinance of baptism. It remains what it has always been a work of God that man must obey from the heart. It would be an absurdity to force God to require a work of merit that must take place before one shall be saved but that is what you are doing. The truth remains true – both belief and baptism take place before one “shall be saved” and this from the mouth of Jesus.

Clearly both acts of obedience are to happen before one shall be saved. You cannot refute this truth as we can easily see and this truth opposes your error that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith.



“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary



First you say that no one is saying regeneration is not God's action, but here you are saying that "baptism in water" is "the washing of regeneration."

But you have already agreed with me and Robertson that *loutron* is the laver or the bath and it is a direct reference to baptism in water. Why are you recanting - are you confused?


Jesus did not say born of water (baptism).

Of course He did say born of water and the Spirit. What do you find hard to digest my friend – water is water, Spirit is Spirit. Holy Writ is clear – it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit where the two elements of water and Spirit are forever joined as the believer is baptized in water – baptized into union with Jesus Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit. To miss this truth is miss much and you misunderstand much. Once again I would recommend Baptism 101 for you – you may learn something if your dogma doesn’t trip you up again. If water is not water what is it? Please don't tell me it is water from the amniotic sac at physical birth.



[B]of water and of the Spirit - A twofold explanation of the "new birth," so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel (Eze 36:25-27), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into "the kingdom of God," the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost (Tit 3:5). ~ Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary




Water baptism symbolizes regeneration, but is not accomplished by or in the water.

The water of baptism is part of the new birth of water and Spirit – the two cannot be separated as you try to do. Again – spiritual purification is by the operation of the Holy Spirit where the element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together. Do you deny the truth that baptism in water is the *door of entrance* into "the kingdom of God" through the work of the Holy Spirit?


It's the blood of Christ that has the power to remove sins, not water.

LOL – do you specialize in straw-men to support a weak argument? No one says water removes sin – it doesn’t. As I have noted – it is the blood of Christ that finally and completely saves. Baptism in water points to the resurrection of Christ as we are buried in water – baptized into His death. At the point of baptism the believer is united with Christ. This is why baptism is essential to the gospel of grace. Would you agree?


Where does the Bible say that after we believe, we must then repent to become saved?

Right where it has always been – before your eyes. Peter told those who believed but were still in their sins that they must do more – they must repent and be baptized and then their sins would be forgiven. Hard to miss isn’t it? And yet you continue to miss that truth. Why?


And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 2:38 ESV)

Butch5
Aug 11th 2011, 12:15 AM
One had a living faith which resulted in producing works and one had a dead faith that resulted in not producing works. Take a living fruit tree that has fruit on it and a dead fruit tree that has no fruit on it. What is the difference between the two trees? Fruit and the lack of fruit is not the only difference. What else is the difference? What is the root of the problem?

Both men spoke words Dan, how do we know which one was saving and which one wasn't? You said works play no role in salvation, so how do we know which man made the saving confession?

Butch5
Aug 11th 2011, 12:16 AM
It doesn't matter how many times that I answer your question. You will continue to miss it even after you read it because of unbelief.

Is the reason you didin't point me to the answer that you didn't give an answer. Again Dan, where did you answer the question?

Butch5
Aug 11th 2011, 12:49 AM
And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are--northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and thy seed/your descendants forever. And I will make thy seed/your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then thyseed/your descendants also could be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be. (Genesis 15:5)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed/your descendants have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)

The author is not simply discussing eternal life here. This is something in addition. Now in Galatians 3:16, Now to Abraham were the promises made/spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. This does not negate I will give this land (receiving the land) to you and thy seed/your descendants "as the dust of the earth" in Genesis.
So, where does anything say this is in addition to eternal life? The land was promised to Abraham as an everlasting possession. The “ONLY” way a person can receive an everlasting inheritance is if they live forever.
I don’t see why you continue to emphasize “descendants”. The apostle Paul has already told you that is the wrong translation.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life (1 John 5:13) You stand corrected. Which verse in the Bible says that if we believe and obey we can know we are saved. How much obedience? Do you know for sure that you are saved? Based on what? What obedience did you accomplish to help save yourself?
I guess we have to use Dan’s definition of “Believe” rather than the Biblical definition, correct?

Paul is more reliable because he is an inspired writer. Clement and Dan are not inspired. What I say is only reliable if it lines up with what God said. You can bet your money on Clement and assume that everything that was said about him and what he said is right all you want based on faulty human logic. The Roman Catholic is behind you 100%. I'll go with the Scriptures. I will not bet my money on fallible
man. Who was in possession of all of these writings throughout the years? What church had all the power and control for many years? Do you trust the Roman Catholic church? They are not reliable.
Well, since you talking about faulty human logic, you said you’ll go with the Scriptures. You’re not; you’re going with Dan’s interpretation of someone else’s translation of the Scriptures.
Yes, Paul was inspired, Clement was not. However, We have Dan and Clement, neither is inspired. Dan lives in the 21st century, almost 2000 years after the events. Clement lived in the 1st century at the same time Paul did. Dan isn’t fluent in Koine Greek, Clement was. Dan didn’t know Paul personally, Clement did. Dan, never interacted with Paul, Clement did. Dan doesn’t have a working knowledge of first century Corinth Clement did. Dan’s words are in conflict with Paul’s words, Clements were in agreement with Paul’s words.
Surely you can’t think you have a better understanding of what Paul said than Clement did.
More on faulty logic issue, you asked who was in possession of those writings, and then asked do I trust the Catholic Church. Well, Dan, who was in possession of the Scriptures for all of those years? Do you trust the Catholic Church?
Do you really think they went about rewriting all of the early church writings? I mean it’s not just Clement, the rest of the Ante-Nicene writers are in agreement with Clement. Are you suggesting they rewrote all of the writers? If so, how do you know they didn’t rewrite the Scriptures? The oldest NT manuscripts we have only date back to around 400 A.D.
You see, Dan, in attempting to undermine Clements’s creditability you are actually undermining you own argument.

Butch5
Aug 11th 2011, 01:03 AM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2725656]You're not answering the question. What is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not?

[quote]I did answer the question. The difference is trusting in Christ alone for salvation and not trusting in Christ alone for salvation? If you are trusting in works in addition to trusting in Christ for salvation then you are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation. One faith is alive and results in producing good works, the other faith is dead and does not produce good works.
We’re not talking about works Dan. The question is, what is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not?



Here is why it's not clear at all to you. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. If we are placing our faith in Jesus for salvation, then we are fully trusting in Him to save us. What do you think these passages mean by salvation through faith in Jesus? (Romans 3:22-28; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8). What is your faith in for salvation? Jesus or Jesus plus something else? The answer is obvious.
Dan, it seems you don’t want to answer the question. I didn't ask you what you think is the criteria, I asked where Scripture teaches that the criteria for salvation is "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation"?
This is the second time you’ve given me your opinion. I’m not asking for that. I’m asking where Scripture teaches what you’ve said.


In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 we read, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Do you believe that Christ needed to accomplish more in order to save us or do you believe that it is finished? The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. To believe the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the only means of your salvation. *Not just believe that it happened* To trust in your works for salvation is to add to the gospel of grace (Galatians 1:6-9). We are saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9).
Dan, where does this say that the finished work of redemption is what is necessary to believe in order to be saved?

mailmandan
Aug 11th 2011, 11:42 AM
[QUOTE=zeke77;2727053]The straw-man you repeatedly use and your point was moot as you continue misunderstanding the ordinance of baptism. It remains what it has always been a work of God that man must obey from the heart. It would be an absurdity to force God to require a work of merit that must take place before one shall be saved but that is what you are doing. The truth remains true – both belief and baptism take place before one “shall be saved” and this from the mouth of Jesus.

So you continue to ignore my point and my question. Titus 3:5 clearly states, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." Is baptism a work of righteousness? Where does the Bible say that baptism is the work of God that man must obey to be saved? Jesus said, this is the work of God that you believe in Him in whom He sent. (John 6:29). It's you who adds works of merit to salvation through faith, not me. The truth remains true - belief "apart from baptism" takes place before one is saved (John 3:16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) and this is from the mouth of Jesus. Once again, in Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with “but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Jesus here is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. Your argument remains inconclusive and faith alone still stands.


Clearly both acts of obedience are to happen before one shall be saved.

Whosoever believes in Him (and is baptized?) shall not perish but have eternal life? (John 3:16) No, simply believes in Him plus nothing else. He who believes in Him (and is baptized?) is not condemned; (John 3:18) No, simply believes in Him plus nothing else, "but he who does not believe is condemned already," but he that does not believe shall be condemned (Mark 16:16(b)


You cannot refute this truth as we can easily see and this truth opposes your error that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith.

I already have refuted this false doctrine which does not oppose the the truth that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Works are the fruit of faith, not the means of our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10). Does Mark 16:16 somehow negate faith alone in John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31 - is that what your dogma forces you to say? Why can't you deal with Mark 16:16(b) and John 3:16,18,36; Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31?


He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

but he who does not believe shall be condemned (the rest of Mark 16:16). Jesus said several times that whoever BELIEVES (no mention of baptism) will be saved (John 3:16,18; 5:24; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). When are you going to deal with these passages. It's the lack of belief which causes condemnation, not the lack of baptism, so belief is necessary for salvation, not baptism. Continue to meditate on this until the truth sinks in.


"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

These words, "but he who does not believe shall be condemned" are very important. The second clause opposes the notion that those who are not baptized will be condemned. The first half of Mark 16:16 is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. The fruit of faith is not faith itself and we are saved through faith. Faith alone still stands. Whosoever believes in Him "apart from additions or modifications" (believes in Him alone) shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Saved through faith, not works. The Word of God trumps Pulpit Commentary.


But you have already agreed with me and Robertson that *loutron* is the laver or the bath and it is a direct reference to baptism in water. Why are you recanting - are you confused?

You continue to repeat the same arguments and ignore my responses. Again, don't forget the rest of Robertson's words in regards to the laver or bath in reference to baptism in water. "The immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it." A symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality. I am not recanting and I am certainly not confused. You continue to take the words of Robertson out of context. You are not being honest.


Of course He did say born of water and the Spirit. What do you find hard to digest my friend – water is water, Spirit is Spirit.

He also said, He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; (John 7:38,39). What do you find hard to digest my friend - living water which results in spiritual cleansing is not physical H20, Spirit is Spirit. Natural water is the only thing that the natural man can understand.


Holy Writ is clear – it is by the operation of the Holy Spirit where the two elements of water and Spirit are forever joined as the believer is baptized in water

It's by the operation of the Holy Spirit where the two elements of living water and Spirit are forever joined (reality) before the believer is baptized in water (picture of the reality).



baptized into union with Jesus Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality.


To miss this truth is miss much and you misunderstand much.

You miss the truth because you don't BELIEVE (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).


Once again I would recommend Baptism 101 for you – you may learn something if your dogma doesn’t trip you up again.

I understand what water baptism is. I don't need a course on watering down the gospel. My faith is in the Savior God, not the water god.


If water is not water what is it? Please don't tell me it is water from the amniotic sac at physical birth.

This demonstrates that you are not even paying attention to what I've been explaining to you. How many times have I quoted John 7:38 and said LIVING WATER which results in SPIRITUAL CLEANSING. Born of water is a reference to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23).


of water and of the Spirit - A twofold explanation of the "new birth," so startling to Nicodemus. To a Jewish ecclesiastic, so familiar with the [B]symbolical application of water, in every variety of way and form of expression, this language was fitted to show that the thing intended was no other than a thorough spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together in a glorious evangelical prediction of Ezekiel (Eze 36:25-27), which Nicodemus might have been reminded of had such spiritualities not been almost lost in the reigning formalism. Already had the symbol of water been embodied in an initiatory ordinance, in the baptism of the Jewish expectants of Messiah by the Baptist, not to speak of the baptism of Gentile proselytes before that; and in the Christian Church it was soon to become the great visible door of entrance into "the kingdom of God," the reality being the sole work of the Holy Ghost (Tit 3:5). ~ Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Symbolical application of water, spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Ghost, sole work of the Holy Ghost does not equate to your water gospel. The two elements of John 3:5 (“born of water and Spirit”) correspond to the two elements of the OT counterpart. Water in both texts speaks of purification. Spirit in both texts speaks of renovation or renewal. These are not to be separated, however, but are to be taken as correlative aspects of the one experience of regeneration: it is a cleansing from sin and an impartation of spiritual life. Not accomplish by or in H20.


The water of baptism is part of the new birth of water and Spirit – the two cannot be separated as you try to do.

No, the water of baptism is symbolical of spiritual purification by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The new birth of living water and Spirit cannot be separated. Water baptism is separate and symbolic of this new birth.


Again – spiritual purification is by the operation of the Holy Spirit where the element of water and operation of the Spirit are brought together.

The operation of the Holy Spirit where the element of living water and operation of the Spirit are brought together. Spiritual cleansing, not water baptism.


Do you deny the truth that baptism in water is the *door of entrance* into "the kingdom of God" through the work of the Holy Spirit?

Absolutely. Faith is the *door of entrance* into "the kingdom of God" through the work of the Holy Spirit. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of LIVING WATER. But this He spoke concerning the SPIRIT. (John 7:39,39) In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation -having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13)


LOL – do you specialize in straw-men to support a weak argument? No one says water removes sin – it doesn’t.

Whether you believe that our sins are removed by the water or in the water, it doesn't make much difference. You are still trusting in the water to receive salvation. That is not trusting in Christ alone for salvation.


As I have noted – it is the blood of Christ that finally and completely saves.

It is the blood of Christ that washes away our sins.


Baptism in water points to the resurrection of Christ as we are buried in water – baptized into His death.

Amen! Baptism depicts Christ's death, burial and resurrection and our identification with Him in these experiences.


At the point of baptism the believer is united with Christ.

No, you are confusing the symbol (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism).


This is why baptism is essential to the gospel of grace. Would you agree?

Absolutely not. Water baptism is not even a part of the gospel of grace. The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3,4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES (Romans 1:16). Not believes and is baptized. We are saved by grace through faith, not faith and baptism. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel... (1 Corinthians 1:17).


Right where it has always been – before your eyes.

Whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). There it is. Right before your eyes. You will have to deal with Acts 10:43-48 sooner or later.


Peter told those who believed but were still in their sins that they must do more –

They believed "mental assent" that Jesus was the Messiah and that they were guilty of crucifying Him. That is not saving belief yet. They still lacked "trust and reliance in Christ alone for salvation." I already explained this and you continue to ignore it. Did Jesus say that we must do more than believe in John 3:16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26? Did Peter say that we must do more in Acts 10:43; 13:39? Did Paul say that we must do more in Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16? You will have to eventually deal with this truth.


they must repent and be baptized and then their sins would be forgiven. Hard to miss isn’t it?

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. That's not hard to miss, yet you continue to miss it. Whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" They believed, received the Holy Spirit and were saved BEFORE they were water baptized. REALLY HARD TO MISS! In Acts 15:8-9, Peter sums it right up, "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by FAITH. Not faith and baptism. Not hard to miss at all.


And yet you continue to miss that truth. Why?

My question to you exactly. When will you BELIEVE?


And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38 ESV)

In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. In Acts 2:38, repentance is the means of receiving forgiveness, and baptism is only the symbol. Indeed, a short time later the apostle Peter promised forgiveness on the basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 – Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out). Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance) "rather than baptism" brings the actual forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8-9). *Perfect Harmony*

...whosoever believes in Him shall receive forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:43)

"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47)

If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17)

So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)

Case closed.

mailmandan
Aug 11th 2011, 12:00 PM
Both men spoke words Dan, how do we know which one was saving and which one wasn't? You said works play no role in salvation, so how do we know which man made the saving confession?

Works play no role as the instrumental means by which we receive salvation, saved through faith, not works, but works are associated with saving faith. They are the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our faith. James said I will show you my faith by my works. Show, not establish. James' concern is to SHOW the reality of the faith "professed" by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith CLAIMED (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. James is discussing the evidence of our faith, not the means of our salvation. If our faith is really genuine, then it will show. Simple.

mailmandan
Aug 11th 2011, 12:04 PM
Is the reason you didin't point me to the answer that you didn't give an answer. Again Dan, where did you answer the question?

I gave an answer. The difference is trusting in Christ alone for salvation and not trusting in Christ alone for salvation. One faith is alive and results in producing good works, the other faith is dead and does not produce good works. If you are not trusting in Christ alone for salvation then you don't believe in Christ to receive salvation. Not only believe that Jesus exists, is the Son of God and that His death, burial and resurrection happened, but also trust solely in Christ's finished work of redemption as the only means of your salvation.

mailmandan
Aug 11th 2011, 01:10 PM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2727082]So, where does anything say this is in addition to eternal life? The land was promised to Abraham as an everlasting possession. The “ONLY” way a person can receive an everlasting inheritance is if they live forever.

Where does anything say that this land "is" eternal life "itself?" The land was promised to Abraham "and his descendants" as an everlasting possession. Abraham is going to live forever. Abraham believed the Lord and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6). The Lord said, unto your desendants, have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: He didn't say eternal life. You continue to base your arguments on faulty human logic. So based on your argument, Abraham and Jesus/thy see will receive eternal life based on Abraham's obedience/works? Yeah right!


I don’t see why you continue to emphasize “descendants”. The apostle Paul has already told you that is the wrong translation.

Did Paul say this is the wrong translation or did you misinterpret Paul? Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be. So Paul said this is mistranslation? So in Genesis 15:5, God was lying to Abraham when he brought him forthabroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be? God really just meant to say that Jesus is as the number of the stars in heaven? Yeah right! There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there isn either male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. hhmmm... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28,29) The covenant of promise was not given to Abraham alone, but "to Abraham and his seed"; and this means Christ (and that which is inseparable from Him, the literal Israel, and the spiritual, His body, the Church). Promises-plural, because the same promise was often repeated (Genesis 12:3 Genesis 12:7, Genesis 15:5 Genesis 15:18 ,17:7, 22:18), and because it involved many things; earthly blessings to the literal children of Abraham in Canaan, and spiritual and heavenly blessings to his spiritual children; but both promised to Christ, "the Seed" and representative Head of the literal and spiritual Israel alike.


I guess we have to use Dan’s definition of “Believe” rather than the Biblical definition, correct?

What is my definition? Not mere "mental assent" belief "infused with works" as yours is. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere "mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include trust and reliance (Acts 16:31). You disagree with that? I believe that George Washington existed and I believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in Him to save my soul. I believe that Christ exists, is the Son of God and the I believe in the historical facts about Christ (so far even the demons believe this) yet I am ALSO trusting in Him alone to save my soul. This is saving belief. See the difference? Are you seeing the light yet? (2 Corinthians 4:4).


Well, since you talking about faulty human logic, you said you’ll go with the Scriptures. You’re not; you’re going with Dan’s interpretation of someone else’s translation of the Scriptures.

How so? Are you trying to say that only one translation of the Bible is reliable and the rest are unreliable? Are you a KJV only?


Yes, Paul was inspired, Clement was not. However, We have Dan and Clement, neither is inspired. Dan lives in the 21st century, almost 2000 years after the events. Clement lived in the 1st century at the same time Paul did. Dan isn’t fluent in Koine Greek, Clement was. Dan didn’t know Paul personally, Clement did. Dan, never interacted with Paul, Clement did. Dan doesn’t have a working knowledge of first century Corinth Clement did.
More faulty human logic. I don't accept the premise that since the so-called early church fathers lived within decades of the Apostles, everything they say must be true. We know from the writings of the apostles that even their own contemporaries didn't get everything right. In my opinion, the early church fathers are NOT a record of "the faith which was once and for all delivered unto the saints." For that we turn to the NT scriptures, NOT the early church father writings. Since you don't BELIEVE (Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4), you are left to rely on man's teachings to figure out the Scriptures and not the teachings of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).


Dan’s words are in conflict with Paul’s words,

Saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). I agree with Paul, you don't.


Clements were in agreement with Paul’s words.

Not if he taught salvation by works.


Surely you can’t think you have a better understanding of what Paul said than Clement did.

I understand Paul because I have his inspired writings in the Bible. I don't know Clement's heart and he is not an inspired writer so I'm not concerned with what he taught.


More on faulty logic issue, you asked who was in possession of those writings, and then asked do I trust the Catholic Church. Well, Dan, who was in possession of the Scriptures for all of those years? Do you trust the Catholic Church?

I trust God to preserve His word, but I don't trust the Catholic church to preserve writings of fallible men. We have thousands of manuscripts to prove that the Bible is true. God made no promise about uninspired writings to be true.


Do you really think they went about rewriting all of the early church writings?

It would not surprise me, but regardless, their writings are not inspired.


I mean it’s not just Clement, the rest of the Ante-Nicene writers are in agreement with Clement. Are you suggesting they rewrote all of the writers? If so, how do you know they didn’t rewrite the Scriptures? The oldest NT manuscripts we have only date back to around 400 A.D.

So all of these men agreed 100% on everything and that settles it for you. If they are wrong about salvation, then what? Are you willing to take that chance? The Bible is clear. Which do you trust? Fallible men or the infallible word of God?


You see, Dan, in attempting to undermine Clements’s creditability you are actually undermining you own argument.

Not actually, but I do undermine fallible writings that don't agree with God's word. Period. I find it very interesting that Clement said, "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians). But then according to your interpretation of his other writings, he contradicts himself by adding works which we have done in holiness or heart as additional requirements to become saved. Clement said, We are justified by our works, and not our words." (Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg.13) Yet Jesus said, For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." So did Clement contradict the Bible or is Clement's point that the evidence of salvation is seen in righteous behavior? - (works) rather than in a mere profession (words - James 2:14-18- which still does not equate to works salvation). A person may claim to have faith, but the real evidence of faith is found not in mere profession but in the resulting works of a transformed life, one that can be witnessed by both God and man.

We are justified by our words (Matthew 12:37) because our words reveal the state of our hearts. Words will appear to be evidences for, or against a man's being in a state of grace and righteousness. We are justifed by or "shown to be righteous" by our works (James 2:21) and our words (Matthew 12:37) but we are not accounted as righteous based on our works (Romans 4:2,3). In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "is accounted as righteous" based on our works (saved by works) but is "shown to be righteous." Again, James is discussing the proof of faith (James 2:21), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2,3).

The Bible says saved through faith, NOT WORKS (Ephesians 2:8,9), not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5), not according to our works (2 Timothy 1:9). I'll stick with the Scriptures. God does not contradict Himself. "Works which we have done in holiness or heart" are no different than "works of righteousness."

mailmandan
Aug 11th 2011, 01:23 PM
[QUOTE=Butch5;2727088][QUOTE=mailmandan;2726350][QUOTE=Butch5;2725656]You're not answering the question. What is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not? We’re not talking about works Dan. The question is, what is difference between saying I believe in Jesus and I am fully trusting in Jesus for salvation? Why is one saving and one not?
AGAIN. The difference is I believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Jesus, but I am not trusting in Him alone to save me. The other is I not only believe in the existence and historical facts about Jesus, but I am also trusting fully in Jesus Christ alone to save me. One is not saving because Jesus is the only means of our salvation and if He is not the object of our faith in receiving salvation, then we don't receive salvation. The other is saving because when we believe in Him as the only means of our salvation, we receive His imputed righteousness.


Dan, it seems you don’t want to answer the question. I didn't ask you what you think is the criteria, I asked where Scripture teaches that the criteria for salvation is "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation"?

I answered the question. If you need the words "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation" spelled out for you in Scripture to figure out that faith in Jesus, believing in Jesus for salvation equates to that, then I can't help you. I guess you believe that faith in Jesus means faith in works?


This is the second time you’ve given me your opinion. I’m not asking for that. I’m asking where Scripture teaches what you’ve said.

I already showed you what the Scriptures say. Now you reinterpret these Scriptures to mean something else. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 we read, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. What are you believing in? The gospel or works?


Dan, where does this say that the finished work of redemption is what is necessary to believe in order to be saved?

If you can't figure out that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ equates to Christ's finished work of redemption then you really need help. Did Jesus say, it is finished? Were our sins fully paid for at the cross? What else did Jesus need to do? Did Jesus say, "it is almost finished but you have to do the rest?"

zeke77
Aug 11th 2011, 11:21 PM
Titus 3:5 clearly states, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us." Is baptism a work of righteousness? Where does the Bible say that baptism is the work of God that man must obey to be saved?


Titus 3:5 clearly states that God saved us, through the washing of regeneration (baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit - BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT. What is "the washing of regeneration" in you theology? Baptism is a work of God that man must work. God does not require ‘works of merit’ that come before one shall be saved – we cannot earn salvation. Jesus was clear in Mark 16:16 – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Using your ‘logic’ Jesus is requiring a work of merit before one shall be saved. Why would He do that? You cannot overcome your dilemma and the truth remains – baptism preceded by faith is “for the foreignness of sins”. Your notion of saved by *faith alone* remains defeated by the words of Jesus.



He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
(Mark 16:16 NKJV)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary


Baptism is the NT ordinance that signifies our dying and rising with Christ by faith. Through baptism believers are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom_6:3-5). Baptism signifies our participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ just as it signifies the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ (Act_22:16). Baptism is a sign of spiritual cleansing that should never be separated from that which it signifies.


This demonstrates that you are not even paying attention to what I've been explaining to you. How many times have I quoted John 7:38 and said LIVING WATER which results in SPIRITUAL CLEANSING.

What you are saying is confused and your point is a moot point. John 7:38 is not a reference to baptism. Jesus Christ is the “living water”. John 3:5 on the other hand refers to the new birth of “water and Spirit” – a clear reference to baptism in water and the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit. You have never been able to explain what your version of ‘water’ in that passage really is. Why? Again – you need a crash course in Baptism 101.



John 3:5
Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Butch5
Aug 12th 2011, 03:21 AM
Where does anything say that this land "is" eternal life "itself?" The land was promised to Abraham "and his descendants" as an everlasting possession. Abraham is going to live forever. Abraham believed the Lord and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6). The Lord said, unto your desendants, have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: He didn't say eternal life. You continue to base your arguments on faulty human logic. So based on your argument, Abraham and Jesus/thy see will receive eternal life based on Abraham's obedience/works? Yeah right!
This doesn’t answer the question Dan. You said the land promise was in addition to eternal life. May be you could supply Scripture to support such a claim.


Did Paul say this is the wrong translation or did you misinterpret Paul? Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be. So Paul said this is mistranslation? So in Genesis 15:5, God was lying to Abraham when he brought him forthabroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed/your descendants be? God really just meant to say that Jesus is as the number of the stars in heaven? Yeah right! There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there isn either male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. hhmmm... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28,29) The covenant of promise was not given to Abraham alone, but "to Abraham and his seed"; and this means Christ (and that which is inseparable from Him, the literal Israel, and the spiritual, His body, the Church). Promises-plural, because the same promise was often repeated (Genesis 12:3 Genesis 12:7, Genesis 15:5 Genesis 15:18 ,17:7, 22:18), and because it involved many things; earthly blessings to the literal children of Abraham in Canaan, and spiritual and heavenly blessings to his spiritual children; but both promised to Christ, "the Seed" and representative Head of the literal and spiritual Israel alike.
This statement explains alot Dan, it seems to me that you simply don’t understand the promise. What you’ve said here is not even the issue. God made the promises to Abraham and his seed. Paul said the seed was Christ. The promise of the land was made to Abraham and Christ. Unless you believe in universalism, common sense says that the eternal land promise “CANNOT” be to all of Abraham’s descendants. Do you believe that “ALL” of Ishmael’s offspring will be saved? What about “ALL” of Esau’s offspring will they all be saved? What about “ALL” of the Jews. Will all of the Jews be saved?
I don’t think you thought this through?

What is my definition? Not mere "mental assent" belief "infused with works" as yours is. The word translated believe is from the greek word pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere "mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include trust and reliance (Acts 16:31). You disagree with that? I believe that George Washington existed and I believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in Him to save my soul. I believe that Christ exists, is the Son of God and the I believe in the historical facts about Christ (so far even the demons believe this) yet I am ALSO trusting in Him alone to save my soul. This is saving belief. See the difference? Are you seeing the light yet? (2 Corinthians 4:4).

You’re not giving a difference Dan, This just seems to be playing with words. You talk about “Mental Assent” versus “Trusting in Christ” yet , James uses the same Greek word “Pisteou” in 2:19 that John uses in John 3:16. It’s the same word Dan, so what is the difference? What is the difference between just knowing facts about Christ and placing your trust in Christ?
If your definition is belief infused with works then why do you argue that works are not necessary?



How so? Are you trying to say that only one translation of the Bible is reliable and the rest are unreliable? Are you a KJV only?
No, what I’m saying is that you don’t have access to Paul’s inspired originals. What you have access to is copies that have been translated. The earliest copies we have available dater to around 400 A.D. that is 350 years after Paul wrote. How many copies were made during those 350 years to reach the oldest copies available today? In addition to that you are not reading the Greek texts, you are reading and forming doctrine based on the English texts, so, you are not only relying on copies of Pau’s writings, you are also relying on translators.
On the other hand, you say Clements’s writings weren’t inspired. Your right, his writings weren’t inspired. But, you know what Dan, he did have access to Paul’s ORIGINAL INSPIRED WRITINGS. He may even have penned some of them. So, that brings us back to the beginning. Clement not only traveled with Paul but, he also had the opportunity to read Paul’s “ORIGINAL INSPIRED WRITINGS, which you do not. Clement is forming doctrine based on the actual teachings of Paul and on Pau’s ORIGNAL INSPIRED WRITINGS. You on the other hand are forming doctrine based on English translations made by people you don’t even know, whose writings and understanding are also not inspired. These men are making these translations from copies of copies of copies of copies of Paul’s original inspired writings. And you want me to believe that you have the better understanding of Paul?
Peter, and apostle of Jesus Christ, inspired and filled with the Holy Spirit, who personally knew and walked with Jesus, and who had his understanding of the Scriptures opened by Jesus Himself said,

2 Peter 3:15-16(KJV)
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 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.
This apostle who had his understanding of the Scriptures opened by Jesus said that some things Paul wrote are hard to understand. The apostle Peter lived in the same culture as Paul, spoke the same language, lived at the same time, in the same geopolitical situation, yet he said some things Paul wrote are hard to understand. He said the unlearned twist them to their own destruction. Clement also lived in the same situation with both Peter and Paul, so he understood the times in which Paul lived.
Now, do you really want me to believe that you have a better understanding of what Paul wrote than Clement did? As I pointed out, you are not fluent in koine Greek, you do not live in first century Judea or Palestine, you don’t have the eastern mindset, and, you’re not intimately acquainted with the geopolitical situation.
You are reading Paul’s letters to the churches. You’ve only got half of the conversation. You don’t know what was written in the letters Paul received from these churches. Clement was there with Paul, he would have known what those letter from the churches said, He would have known exactly what the questions were that Paul was answering, the issues that Paul was addressing within each of the churches. You don’t know these things Dan, Clement did.
Do you really believe you understand Paul better than Clement did?
You used George Washington as an example, let me ask you Dan, you’ve learned about George Washington, maybe read a book about him, do you really believe that you know George Washington better than his wife did?


More faulty human logic. I don't accept the premise that since the so-called early church fathers lived within decades of the Apostles, everything they say must be true. We know from the writings of the apostles that even their own contemporaries didn't get everything right. In my opinion, the early church fathers are NOT a record of "the faith which was once and for all delivered unto the saints." For that we turn to the NT scriptures, NOT the early church father writings. Since you don't BELIEVE (Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 4:3,4), you are left to rely on man's teachings to figure out the Scriptures and not the teachings of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-14).
The only faulty logic Dan, is assuming that you better understand the issue than an eyewitness who saw the events first hand, rather than reading one side of a conversation 2000 years later.
Dan, please stop with the straw man arguments. No one said everything they ECF’s wrote is correct. However, again, your logic is flawed. You say you turn to the Scriptures and not the ECF’s, yet, as I pointed out above, you are only turning to “COPIES” of the Scriptures. Clement had the originals as did many of the early fathers.
Your line of reasoning is flawed. You denounce the ECF’s as not trustworthy, yet, these same ECF’s are the basis of verification of the Scriptures that you say you turn to. Who wrote the book of Matthew? What about Mark? What about John? How do you know that the letter to the Corinthians was actually written by Paul? How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired Scripture, what about the gospel of Judas or that of Mary? How do you know? Matthew’s gospel does not give the author, neither does that of Mark or John. Are these the Scriptures that you turn to? If so, how do you know they are inspired? How do you know they weren’t written by some guy down the street?
The reason that you know that the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle is because the ECF’s tell us that Matthew wrote it. What about the gospel of Mark? Again, the ECF’s tell us that it was written by Mark. What about the gospel of Thomas? The ECF’s tell us that it was not written by the apostle.
So, you see Dan, if the ECF’s are as untrustworthy as you seem to indicate then there is no way one could trust them with such an important task as telling which of the writings are authentic and which are not. So, Dan, since you don’t seem to trust the ECF’s let me ask you, what is the basis for your believing that the Scriptures you have were actually written by the apostles? How do you know they weren’t written by the Gnostics who did change and rewrite the apostles writings?

Saved through faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8,9). I agree with Paul, you don't.
Dan, the board doesn’t allow foul language, hopefully I won’t get kicked off the board for using it, but here goes. “CONTEXT”.
No, you don’t agree with Paul, what you mean by Ephesians 2:8 is not what Paul meant.

Not if he taught salvation by works.
So, you understand Paul better than Clement?


I understand Paul because I have his inspired writings in the Bible. I don't know Clement's heart and he is not an inspired writer so I'm not concerned with what he taught.
No you don’t, but, Clement “DID”. Again, you only have copies, copies that date to around 400 A.D. Clement had the ORIGINALS INSPIRED WRITINGS and the INSPIRED ORAL TRADITIONS straight from Paul’s mouth.


I trust God to preserve His word, but I don't trust the Catholic church to preserve writings of fallible men. We have thousands of manuscripts to prove that the Bible is true. God made no promise about uninspired writings to be true.
It’s not about preservation; we have both Scripture and ECF writings that were preserved. However, God preserved his word but that doesn’t mean it was preserved as infallible. We have over 5000 NT manuscripts, no two are identical. Which of, if any of those 5000 manuscripts is inspire, Dan?
God has preserved His word so that the message is not lost, however, He has not inspired copiests and translators to make sure that every single word is exactly the same.


So all of these men agreed 100% on everything and that settles it for you. If they are wrong about salvation, then what? Are you willing to take that chance? The Bible is clear. Which do you trust? Fallible men or the infallible word of God?
You’re making the Straw man again. No one said they agreed 100% on everything. And no one said their word alone settled anything for me. However, when their understanding and my understanding do no agree it is cause to investigate. I do not just assume I am correct and they are wrong. It is simply a matter of looking at their argument and the passages of Scripture they use to make that argument, if I find flaw in their argument I reject it. If not then I must inspect my position. For instance, the idea of infant baptism, it seems to have come into the church around 250 A.D. This idea cannot be found in the Scriptures and is not found in earlier fathers. So, it is rejected. When we see a teaching that is not universal among the ECF’s we need to investigate and see where it came from. However, when we see that they are in agree on a position and that that position agrees with Scripture we can conclude that this is what the church taught.
On this particular issue, the necessity of works, they are in agreement with the Scriptures. We see Jesus Himself making the point for the necessity of obedience.


Not actually, but I do undermine fallible writings that don't agree with God's word. Period. I find it very interesting that Clement said, "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" (Epistle to Corinthians). But then according to your interpretation of his other writings, he contradicts himself by adding works which we have done in holiness or heart as additional requirements to become saved. Clement said, We are justified by our works, and not our words." (Ante Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, pg.13) Yet Jesus said, For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." So did Clement contradict the Bible or is Clement's point that the evidence of salvation is seen in righteous behavior? - (works) rather than in a mere profession (words - James 2:14-18- which still does not equate to works salvation). A person may claim to have faith, but the real evidence of faith is found not in mere profession but in the resulting works of a transformed life, one that can be witnessed by both God and man.

We are justified by our words (Matthew 12:37) because our words reveal the state of our hearts. Words will appear to be evidences for, or against a man's being in a state of grace and righteousness. We are justifed by or "shown to be righteous" by our works (James 2:21) and our words (Matthew 12:37) but we are not accounted as righteous based on our works (Romans 4:2,3). In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "is accounted as righteous" based on our works (saved by works) but is "shown to be righteous." Again, James is discussing the proof of faith (James 2:21), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2,3).

The Bible says saved through faith, NOT WORKS (Ephesians 2:8,9), not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:5), not according to our works (2 Timothy 1:9). I'll stick with the Scriptures. God does not contradict Himself. "Works which we have done in holiness or heart" are no different than "works of righteousness."
Again, you’re sticking with your interpretation, not God’s word. If you want to stick with God’s word then you need to reconcile “all” of the passages of Scripture on the subject, not run to Ephesians 2:8 every time. If you want to stick to God’s word you must look at every passage of Scripture “IN CONTEXT” and accept it no matter what you want to believe. I’ve already given you Paul’s words in Romans 2, he says God will judge every man according to his deeds, those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If you are sticking with God’s word you need to reconcile that passage with Ephesians 2:8, not reword or redefine it to fit Martin Luther’s doctrine. Paul said that every man would be judged, and that judgment is based on works. In addition the reward for the judgment is either eternal life or damnation. OK, now, you’ve accused Clement of contradicting himself, here we have Paul making the same kind of statements. Are you going to accuse Paul of contradicting himself also?
You have the words of Jesus, He said, the hour is coming when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of man, He said those who did good would be raised to the resurrection of life, those who did evil to the resurrection of damnation. Again, we have a judgment, and the reward is either eternal life or damnation.
Look at all of the passage that speak of judgment, you’ll find that the basis for the judgment is a man’s deeds. Scripture doesn’t say a man will be judged on what he believes, but, rather on what he did.
If you are sticking with God’s word you need to reconcile “ALL” of these passages.

Butch5
Aug 12th 2011, 03:49 AM
AGAIN. The difference is I believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Jesus, but I am not trusting in Him alone to save me. The other is I not only believe in the existence and historical facts about Jesus, but I am also trusting fully in Jesus Christ alone to save me. One is not saving because Jesus is the only means of our salvation and if He is not the object of our faith in receiving salvation, then we don't receive salvation. The other is saving because when we believe in Him as the only means of our salvation, we receive His imputed righteousness.
That’s an explanation, but it doesn’t answer the question. A man preaches the word and another man says I fully trust in Jesus for salvation. How does this man know that he is “Fully trusting in Jesus for salvation” and not just giving “Mental Assent” to facts? How does he know that he is actually saved?

I answered the question. If you need the words "fully trusting in Jesus for salvation" spelled out for you in Scripture to figure out that faith in Jesus, believing in Jesus for salvation equates to that, then I can't help you. I guess you believe that faith in Jesus means faith in works?
When you’re forming doctrine that excludes people from salvation, yes, I need it spelled out. You said, the criteria for salvation is “fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation”. That’s what you said, let me ask you, if you must fully trust in Christ aALONE for salvation, where does that leave God the Father? Isn’t it necessary to have faith in the Father? I mean, since it is the Father alone who has immortality, eternal life?


I already showed you what the Scriptures say. Now you reinterpret these Scriptures to mean something else. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 we read, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. What are you believing in? The gospel or works?

The gospel is more than Jesus died for your sins. The gospel is the gospel of the kingdom of God. Jesus said unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.


If you can't figure out that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ equates to Christ's finished work of redemption then you really need help. Did Jesus say, it is finished? Were our sins fully paid for at the cross? What else did Jesus need to do? Did Jesus say, "it is almost finished but you have to do the rest?"

Dan, Jesus said it is finished before the resurrection. If it was finished, how is the resurrection part of the redemptive work of Christ.
Maybe we need to use that dirty word again, context.

Luke 4:43(KJV)
43And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

John 17:6-26(KJV)
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

mailmandan
Aug 12th 2011, 12:37 PM
Titus 3:5 clearly states that God saved us, through the washing of regeneration (baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit - BORN OF WATER AND SPIRIT.

Previously you said that you are not teaching “baptismal regeneration” but then you say that baptism in water "is" the “washing of regeneration” that is "part" of salvation. That is an oxymoron. You can't have it both ways my friend. If we are saved through the "washing of regeneration" and water baptism "is" the "washing of regeneration" as you said, then you are teaching baptismal regeneration. A couple of things that you quoted from two different commentary's don't line up with your regeneration by or in H20 theories.

Let this washing of thy body represent to thee the washing away of thy sins: and know that this washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. If this washing of thy body (water baptism) only represents to thee the washing away of thy sin, then the actual washing away of sin takes place prior to being water baptized, namely by calling upon the name of the Lord in faith. When you call upon Christ to save you it is that you trust in Him to come to your aid and save you. Inherent in your calling upon Christ is the essential faith that he can and will save you.

Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes note of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. So Adam Clarke says, "washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord." Jamison, Fausset, and Brown say, having called on, referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism. Please don't ignore this.


What is "the washing of regeneration" in you theology?

How many times have I already explained this and you still have to ask me this question again? This refers to spiritual washing or purification of the soul, accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Ephesians 5:26; John 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23). H20 cannot accomplish this. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.


Baptism is a work of God that man must work.

Is that what Jesus said in John 6:29?


God does not require ‘works of merit’ that come before one shall be saved – we cannot earn salvation.

Yet this is what you are teaching. Either we are saved by trusting or we are saved by trying. Either Jesus did it all or else we did some of it. You can't have it both ways.


Jesus was clear in Mark 16:16 – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved.

Jesus was clear that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but Jesus never said that the one who is not baptized will not be saved. Jesus said that the one who does not believe will not be saved. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Which is in perfect harmony with what Jesus said in (John 3:16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). Jesus was clear that the one who believes "no mention of baptism" will receive eternal life. Are you going to continue to ignore this truth?


Using your ‘logic’ Jesus is requiring a work of merit before one shall be saved.

Jesus never said that whoever is not baptized will not be saved so Jesus is not requiring a work of merit before one can be saved, but according to your logic, He is. Since we are saved through faith, then any works which follow saving faith would be works of merit if they were necessary for salvation.


Why would He do that?

He didn't require baptism for salvation so He didn't do it. "but he that does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16(b). He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already (John 3:18). What happened to baptism?


You cannot overcome your dilemma and the truth remains – baptism preceded by faith is “for the foreignness of sins”.

You cannot overcome your dilemma and the truth remains - whosoever believes in Him shall receive the remission of sins (Acts 10:43) before one is water baptized (Acts 10:44-48). In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical.


Your notion of saved by *faith alone* remains defeated by the words of Jesus.

Jesus never said that whoever is not baptized will not be saved so your notion of salvation through faith plus baptism remains defeated by the words of Jesus. "but he who does not believe shall be condemned" "whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" "he that believes in Him is not condemned, but he that does not believe is condemned already." When will you believe?


He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

Again, in Mark 16:16, if we look at this verse closely, we see that it is composed of two basic statements. 1—He who believes and is baptized will be saved. 2—He who does not believe will be condemned. Clearly, the determining factor regarding whether one is saved or condemned is whether or not he believes. In interpreting this passage correctly, it is important to realize that while it tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. In order for this verse to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, a third statement would have had to be included, that statement being: “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” But, of course, neither of these statements is found in the verse.


"These words are very important. The first clause opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

Actually, Jesus clarifies the first clause with “but he who does not believe will be condemned.” While the first clause tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized. Jesus already stated several times that whoever BELIEVES will be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) so faith alone still stands. Faith in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation because Christ is the object of our faith in receiving salvation and He alone is sufficient to save us. When you say that faith in Christ alone is insufficient to save us, what you are really saying is that Christ alone is insufficient to save you and you must add your works as a supplement to help Him save you.


Baptism is the NT ordinance that signifies our dying and rising with Christ by faith.

So you admit that baptism signifies our dying and rising with Christ by faith. Then why do you continue to confuse the sign with the reality it signifies?


Through baptism believers are united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. (Rom_6:3-5).

Baptism signifies this but is not the cause. Remember, a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.


Baptism signifies our participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ just as it signifies the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ (Act_22:16). Baptism is a sign of spiritual cleansing that should never be separated from that which it signifies.

You had it right until you came to, "that should never be separated from that which it signifies." Since baptism signifies our participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the washing away of sins and is a sign of spiritual cleansing, then it merely signifies and is a sign of something that already took place prior to water baptism.


What you are saying is confused and your point is a moot point.

What I am saying is clear and you are confused because you don't believe.


John 7:38 is not a reference to baptism. Jesus Christ is the “living water”.

John 7:38 is a reference to "living water" and this He spoke concerning the Spirit. Spiritual cleansing accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the agent of spiritual cleansing, not H20.


John 3:5 on the other hand refers to the new birth of “water and Spirit” – a clear reference to baptism in water and the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:5 does not say "baptism." "Born of water" not baptized of water, which speaks of spiritual purification. Spirit speaks of renewal, born aagain from above, not in water baptism. Born of water and Spirit are not to be separated, however, but are to be taken as correlative aspects of the one experience of regeneration: it is a cleansing from sin and an impartation of spiritual life. Which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not H20.


You have never been able to explain what your version of ‘water’ in that passage really is. Why? Again – you need a crash course in Baptism 101.

I've explained it many times now and it continues to go right over your head. Please read and meditate on 2 Corinthians 4;3 and 1 Corinthians 2:14 to find out why you don't understand. You need a crash course in what it means to BELIEVE and be saved (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31). I don't need your crash course in Campbellism 101.



[B]John 3:5
Be born of water - By “water,” here, is evidently signified “baptism.” Thus the word is used in Eph_5:26; Tit_3:5. Baptism was practiced by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practiced by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said Mar_16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible


It's interesting that this commentary points out that baptism is the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. This reminds me of what Paul said about circumcision in Romans 4:11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Prior this, Paul stated in verses 9-10, Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. So is circumcision necessary for salvation? Of course not. Now apply this sign and seal argument to baptism. NEITHER OF THEM ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Your argument continues to crumble.

mailmandan
Aug 12th 2011, 03:29 PM
This doesn’t answer the question Dan. You said the land promise was in addition to eternal life. May be you could supply Scripture to support such a claim.

I did answer the question even though it wasn't the answer that you were looking for. Do you need the words "in addition to" spelled out for you in Scripture in order to figure out that "this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" does not equate to eternal life?


This statement explains alot Dan, it seems to me that you simply don’t understand the promise.

So what don't I understand about this promise? What part of, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise didn't I understand? (Galatians 3:16,28,29) How does this negate Genesis 15:8? In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed/your descendants have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates and Genesis 13:16, And I will make thy seed/your descendants as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed/your descendants also be numbered.


What you’ve said here is not even the issue.

So thy seed/your descendants in Genesis 13:15-16, 15:5, 15:13, 15:18, 17:18 etc... has nothing to do with the issue? You said "thy seed" applies to Jesus alone in not only Galatians 3:16 but in Genesis as well.


“CANNOT” be to all of Abraham’s descendants. Do you believe that “ALL” of Ishmael’s offspring will be saved? What about “ALL” of Esau’s offspring will they all be saved? What about “ALL” of the Jews. Will all of the Jews be saved?

Did I say that ALL of Ishmael's offspring will be saved? No. Did I say that ALL of Esau's offspring will be saved? No. Did I say that ALL of the Jews will be saved? No. You are setting up a straw man. I do not teach "universalism." I hear a lot of Campbellites mention that term. hhmmm... Paul said in Romans 11:26, And so all Israel will be saved. Was Paul a universalist? In Romans 9:6, Paul said, For they are not all Israel who are of Israel. Interesting! He also said, And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28,29) You missed the spiritual implication.


God made the promises to Abraham and his seed. Paul said the seed was Christ. The promise of the land was made to Abraham and Christ.

So the land represents eternal life (according to you) so only Abraham and Christ receive the promise of the land "eternal life?" Not hardly. So in Genesis 17:18, And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed (Jesus?) after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their (plural) God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed (Jesus?) after thee in their generations. Jesus will keep God's covenant? "thy seed" (Jesus) shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, (plural) and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them (plural) four hundred years? If you would just accept the truth then you would not have to do all of these ridiculous gymnastics in order to explain away the truth.


Unless you believe in universalism, common sense says that the eternal land promise “CANNOT” be to all of Abraham’s descendants.

Did I say ALL of his descendants? Did Genesis 13:15 say ALL of your desendants or your descendants forever?


Do you believe that “ALL” of Ishmael’s offspring will be saved? What about “ALL” of Esau’s offspring will they all be saved? What about “ALL” of the Jews. Will all of the Jews be saved?
I don’t think you thought this through?

I certainly thought it through. Paul said so all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26) but he also said, for they are not all Israel who are of Israel (Romans 9:6). I am not teaching what you are implying, "universalism."


You’re not giving a difference Dan, This just seems to be playing with words.

You have not proved that "land" is the same as "eternal life." If what you are saying is true, then only Abraham and Jesus are promised eternal life (Genesis 13:15). You obviously have not thought this through.


You talk about “Mental Assent” versus “Trusting in Christ” yet , James uses the same Greek word “Pisteou” in 2:19 that John uses in John 3:16. It’s the same word Dan, so what is the difference? What is the difference between just knowing facts about Christ and placing your trust in Christ?

The same word can have more than one meaning depending on the context, as we already learned (and you admitted) from the word "justified." Justified by faith (Romans 5:1) And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God (Luke 7:29). The same word does not always mean the exact same thing. As I already explained to you before, in James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also "believe" that there is "one God" but where in this passage does it say that demons believe or trust in the Savior God sent for redemption? The word "believe" can describe "mere mental assent" (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance" (Acts 16:31). If I know the facts about Christ but I am trusting in my works to save me, then I am not placing my trust in Christ to save me? It's not trust Christ plus something else but trust Christ alone to save you.


If your definition is belief infused with works then why do you argue that works are not necessary?

I never said that my definition of belief is belief infused with works. That is your (and the Roman Catholic church's) erroneous definition of belief. Neither of you can make a distinction between faith and works which are the fruit of faith. There is a distinction. Faith is necessary for salvation, not works, yet works demonstrate that our faith is genuine. Works are the fruit, not the root of our salvation. It's really simple. Too simple.


No, what I’m saying is that you don’t have access to Paul’s inspired originals. What you have access to is copies that have been translated. The earliest copies we have available dater to around 400 A.D. that is 350 years after Paul wrote. How many copies were made during those 350 years to reach the oldest copies available today? In addition to that you are not reading the Greek texts, you are reading and forming doctrine based on the English texts, so, you are not only relying on copies of Pau’s writings, you are also relying on translators.

So English translations are unreliable and nobody can find the truth from Scripture reading English translations? So all English translations are a pervertion of the Greek texts? So I can't know what Paul's writings consist of reading English translations of the Bible? The Greek texts teach something different than the English translations? So people who don't have access to Greek texts and only have access to translations in their language can't find out the truth in God's Word?


On the other hand, you say Clements’s writings weren’t inspired. Your right, his writings weren’t inspired.

Amen! No but's.


But, you know what Dan, he did have access to Paul’s ORIGINAL INSPIRED WRITINGS. He may even have penned some of them. So, that brings us back to the beginning. Clement not only traveled with Paul but, he also had the opportunity to read Paul’s “ORIGINAL INSPIRED WRITINGS, which you do not. Clement is forming doctrine based on the actual teachings of Paul and on Paul’s ORIGNAL INSPIRED WRITINGS.

And you are 100% certain that Clement was saved, you are 100% certain that Clement had and taught Paul's original writings in 100% agreement with Paul and that all of Clements writings are his? So everyone who does not have Paul's original writings cannot know the truth found in the Bible? So you are bound to believe EVERTHING that Clement wrote was 100% correct based on this human logic? So did Clement teach salvation by works?


You on the other hand are forming doctrine based on English translations made by people you don’t even know, whose writings and understanding are also not inspired. These men are making these translations from copies of copies of copies of copies of Paul’s original inspired writings. And you want me to believe that you have the better understanding of Paul?

So everyone who has English translations of the Bible and not Paul's original inspired writings are out of luck in finding the truth found in God's Word? So God did not preserve His word in various languages? All translations of the Bible are corrupt except for the original writings? Satan is crafty my friend and you fell for this sales pitch hook, line and sinker. I've heard it too many times in the Roman Catholic church, which you admit, teach error.


Peter, and apostle of Jesus Christ, inspired and filled with the Holy Spirit, who personally knew and walked with Jesus, and who had his understanding of the Scriptures opened by Jesus Himself said,

Peter is absolutely inspired.


2 Peter 3:15-16(KJV)
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; 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.

Wow! You really need to meditate on what Peter said here.


This apostle who had his understanding of the Scriptures opened by Jesus said that some things Paul wrote are hard to understand. The apostle Peter lived in the same culture as Paul, spoke the same language, lived at the same time, in the same geopolitical situation, yet he said some things Paul wrote are hard to understand. He said the unlearned twist them to their own destruction.

Yes, this is true, but the Holy Spirit is our teacher, not man's wisdom (1 Corinthians 2:11-14). Salvation by works is twisting Paul's teachings to your own destruction.


Clement also lived in the same situation with both Peter and Paul, so he understood the times in which Paul lived.

So does that mean he must be 100% right about everything that Paul taught? What about Hymenaeus and Alexander? (1 Timothy 1:20) Did they not live in the same situation? Did they not understand the times in which Paul lived? We see again in 2 Timothy 2:17, And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort. Again, you are basing your argument on faulty human logic. You've already proven to me that you don't understand what it means to BELIEVE and be saved (Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 1:16) so this explains why the gospel is hid from you (2 Corinthians 4:3,4) and also why you resort to such flawed logic.


Now, do you really want me to believe that you have a better understanding of what Paul wrote than Clement did?

Whether I lived with Paul or in the 21st century it makes no difference. The Scriptures are inspired by God and the Holy Spirit is our teacher. God reveals the truth to us in His word, not flesh and blood.


As I pointed out, you are not fluent in koine Greek, you do not live in first century Judea or Palestine, you don’t have the eastern mindset, and, you’re not intimately acquainted with the geopolitical situation.

What does that have to do with the Holy Spirit teaching us the truth found in Scripture? You are basing your arguments on fleshly thinking.


You are reading Paul’s letters to the churches. You’ve only got half of the conversation. You don’t know what was written in the letters Paul received from these churches. Clement was there with Paul, he would have known what those letter from the churches said, He would have known exactly what the questions were that Paul was answering, the issues that Paul was addressing within each of the churches. You don’t know these things Dan, Clement did.

More fleshly thinking. And you know all of this for a fact? Clement was saved? All of the historical writings about Clement are 100% correct? Everything that Clement wrote was 100% correct? What does the Bible say?


Do you really believe you understand Paul better than Clement did?

I may not know what he looked like, what his favorite food was etc... but I understand the words of Paul because his words are inspired and I have the Holy Spirit to teach me what the Bible says, not faulty human logic.


You used George Washington as an example, let me ask you Dan, you’ve learned about George Washington, maybe read a book about him, do you really believe that you know George Washington better than his wife did?

Not about his personal life, but the historical writings about George Washington are not inspired. Are you willing to gamble your soul on this logic?


The only faulty logic Dan, is assuming that you better understand the issue than an eyewitness who saw the events first hand, rather than reading one side of a conversation 2000 years later.

I understand the Scriptures because of the Holy Spirit, not because I was an eyewitness who was there 2000 years ago. What happened with Alexander Hymenaeus and Philetus? They were there?


Dan, please stop with the straw man arguments. No one said everything they ECF’s wrote is correct.

The EFC's are not infallible. Amen! But your logic says that they have a high probability of being correct, so you base your theology on what they say anyway.


However, again, your logic is flawed. You say you turn to the Scriptures and not the ECF’s, yet, as I pointed out above, you are only turning to “COPIES” of the Scriptures. Clement had the originals as did many of the early fathers.

If what the ECF's say don't line up with what the Word of God says, then the ECF's are wrong. That is certainly not flawed logic.


Your line of reasoning is flawed. You denounce the ECF’s as not trustworthy, yet, these same ECF’s are the basis of verification of the Scriptures that you say you turn to. Who wrote the book of Matthew? What about Mark? What about John? How do you know that the letter to the Corinthians was actually written by Paul? How do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired Scripture, what about the gospel of Judas or that of Mary? How do you know? Matthew’s gospel does not give the author, neither does that of Mark or John. Are these the Scriptures that you turn to? If so, how do you know they are inspired? How do you know they weren’t written by some guy down the street?

I'm satisfied with the evidence that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. God would not have allowed for His writings to vanish. There are thousands of manuscripts to prove the reliability of the Bible. There is Archaeological evidence that the Bible is true and then you have fulfilled prophecy to prove that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin. I don't have to wonder if some guy down the street wrote the Bible.


The reason that you know that the gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle is because the ECF’s tell us that Matthew wrote it. What about the gospel of Mark? Again, the ECF’s tell us that it was written by Mark. What about the gospel of Thomas? The ECF’s tell us that it was not written by the apostle.

Is that the only reason?


So, you see Dan, if the ECF’s are as untrustworthy as you seem to indicate then there is no way one could trust them with such an important task as telling which of the writings are authentic and which are not. So, Dan, since you don’t seem to trust the ECF’s let me ask you, what is the basis for your believing that the Scriptures you have were actually written by the apostles? How do you know they weren’t written by the Gnostics who did change and rewrite the apostles writings?

They are not infallible. That does not necessarily mean they are 100% untrustworthy about everything but it also doesn't mean they had to be 100% right about everything either. Just like church leaders today.


Dan, the board doesn’t allow foul language, hopefully I won’t get kicked off the board for using it, but here goes. “CONTEXT”.

Context does not change that Paul said we are saved through FAITH. Faith is not a list of good works. Paul did not say that we are saved through faith (and works), not of works (of the Mosaic Law). What works can you accomplish that fall outside of the two great commandments? (Matthew 22:37-39) which on those two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets (vs. 40). I'm getting tired of this works of the law vs. good works argument which is not Scriptural, but is a desparate attempt to get around the truth. In James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of
you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To neglect such a brother or sister is to break the second great commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses (Leviticus 19:18). Paul simply says "works" in Ephesians 2:9 and James simply says "works" in James chapter 2.


No, you don’t agree with Paul, what you mean by Ephesians 2:8 is not what Paul meant.

Paul meant saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS, not saved through faith "and works." You have to "shoe horn" works into faith in order to distort Paul's message and accommodate your works based false gospel. Since you confuse the fruit of faith (works) with the essence of faith (belief, trust, reliance in Christ alone for salvation) you are forced with the faith "infused" with works interpretation which equates to salvation by works.


So, you understand Paul better than Clement?

I understand what Paul's writings teach based on the teachings of the Holy Spirit. I don't need to know what Paul's favorite food is to understand that Paul clearly taught that we are saved through FAITH, NOT WORKS.


No you don’t, but, Clement “DID”. Again, you only have copies, copies that date to around 400 A.D. Clement had the ORIGINALS INSPIRED WRITINGS and the INSPIRED ORAL TRADITIONS straight from Paul’s mouth.
And that means that ALL of Clement's writings must be 100 correct? Salvation is by works? You can gamble your soul on that logic without me. My faith remains firm in Christ alone for salvation. Praise God!


It’s not about preservation; we have both Scripture and ECF writings that were preserved. However, God preserved his word but that doesn’t mean it was preserved as infallible. We have over 5000 NT manuscripts, no two are identical. Which of, if any of those 5000 manuscripts is inspire, Dan?

Which of the things that are not identical found in these manuscripts change the message about salvation?


God has preserved His word so that the message is not lost, however, He has not inspired copiests and translators to make sure that every single word is exactly the same.

So which words change the message about salvation in the reliable translations of the Bible in English?


You’re making the Straw man again. No one said they agreed 100% on everything. And no one said their word alone settled anything for me. However, when their understanding and my understanding do no agree it is cause to investigate. I do not just assume I am correct and they are wrong. It is simply a matter of looking at their argument and the passages of Scripture they use to make that argument, if I find flaw in their argument I reject it. If not then I must inspect my position. For instance, the idea of infant baptism, it seems to have come into the church around 250 A.D. This idea cannot be found in the Scriptures and is not found in earlier fathers. So, it is rejected. When we see a teaching that is not universal among the ECF’s we need to investigate and see where it came from. However, when we see that they are in agree on a position and that that position agrees with Scripture we can conclude that this is what the church taught. On this particular issue, the necessity of works, they are in agreement with the Scriptures. We see Jesus Himself making the point for the necessity of obedience.

The nessity of works equates to salvation by works. Show me where the Bible says we are "saved by works?" Works are the proof of our faith, but not the means of our salvation. Where did Jesus Himself make the point for the necessity of obedience "in addition to faith" before we receive salvation? Jesus did not say, whosoever believes in Him (and is obedient enough) shall not perish but have eternal life. Jesus see's obedience which follows faith as the evidence of faith, not the means of our salvation. If works contribute to our salvation, then Christ is an insufficient Savior. How far did these so called many wonderful works get these (not a few, but many) people on the day of judgment with Jesus? (Matthew 7:22-23). Notice how they said, Lord, Lord, didn't WE. What were they TRUSTING in? Their works and not CHRIST ALONE. You may read Matthew 7:21 and say, ah ha, only those who do His will enter the Kindgom of Heaven as if He is teaching works salvation, yet in John 6:40, we see "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." His will for us to become saved is that we believe in Him for salvation. His will for us afterward is to do good works, which only believers do (though not perfectly) so only believers do His will to become saved and do His will after salvation. Unbelievers do not. (1 John 3:10) It's passages like Matthew 7:21 that the natural man so easily confuses with salvation by works.


Again, you’re sticking with your interpretation, not God’s word. If you want to stick with God’s word then you need to reconcile “all” of the passages of Scripture on the subject, not run to Ephesians 2:8 every time.
I have reconciled "all" of the passages of Scripture on the subject. It's you who runs to James 2 every time.


If you want to stick to God’s word you must look at every passage of Scripture “IN CONTEXT” and accept it no matter what you want to believe.

Even the context does not teach salvation by works.


I’ve already given you Paul’s words in Romans 2, he says God will judge every man according to his deeds, those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. If you are sticking with God’s word you need to reconcile that passage with Ephesians 2:8, not reword or redefine it to fit Martin Luther’s doctrine.

I have not quoted Martin Luther. This is another sales pitch that you have fallen for. It's you who has reworded and redefined Ephesians 2:8 to teach saved through faith "and works" not of "works of the law." None of those extra words are found in Ephesians 2:8.


Paul said that every man would be judged, and that judgment is based on works.

As I already explained, in Romans 2:6-7, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. The context of Romans 2 relates to the judgment of God (see vs. 3). And when judgment is the subject, the stress is always on works as a manifestation of one's faith (or lack thereof), not simply on the faith from which these works follow. So it is understandable that in this context Paul would stress the works that are a manifestation of the faith by which one receives eternal life (2:6-7). These verses give a description of a believer (Christian), not a requisite for salvation. Verses 8-9 gives a description of unbelievers. You didn't reconcile this passage with 1 Corinthians 3:14-15. If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Notice that in Romans 2:7, all who are saved fall into this catefory - eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; and in verse 8, all who are lost fall into this category - but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath. hhmmm...


In addition the reward for the judgment is either eternal life or damnation.

Is eternal life/salvation a reward based on works or a gift based on faith? (Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8).


OK, now, you’ve accused Clement of contradicting himself, here we have Paul making the same kind of statements.

Clement said, we are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith" If Clement said otherwise in his other writings, then he contradicted himself or you misinterpreted Clement.


Are you going to accuse Paul of contradicting himself also?

Paul did not contradict himself because he was not teaching salvation by works in Romans 2. That is your misinterpretation.


You have the words of Jesus, He said, the hour is coming when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of man, He said those who did good would be raised to the resurrection of life, those who did evil to the resurrection of damnation.

Notice that there are only two categories. Those who "did good" are "saved" (descriptive of those saved) and those who did evil are not saved (descriptive of those who are lost).


Again, we have a judgment, and the reward is either eternal life or damnation.

Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already. Since you believe in your works and not Christ alone for salvation, where does that leave you?


Look at all of the passage that speak of judgment, you’ll find that the basis for the judgment is a man’s deeds. Scripture doesn’t say a man will be judged on what he believes, but, rather on what he did.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already (John 3:18). Once again, In Romans 2, when Paul speaks here (and elsewhere) of works in connection with salvation, the works are always the result of, not the condition of, salvation. What believers have done will determine rewards and loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ and for the lost, it will determine their punishment in the lake of fire.


If you are sticking with God’s word you need to reconcile “ALL” of these passages.

I have reconciled "ALL" of these passages. Now it's your turn. When will you BELIEVE?

mailmandan
Aug 12th 2011, 03:48 PM
That’s an explanation, but it doesn’t answer the question. A man preaches the word and another man says I fully trust in Jesus for salvation. How does this man know that he is “Fully trusting in Jesus for salvation” and not just giving “Mental Assent” to facts? How does he know that he is actually saved?

Good works will be the evidence that he is saved, but either he is trusting in Jesus alone for salvation or else he is not. God know's for sure who is saved. He knows who believes. We don't always know who believes.


When you’re forming doctrine that excludes people from salvation, yes, I need it spelled out. You said, the criteria for salvation is “fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation”. That’s what you said, let me ask you, if you must fully trust in Christ aALONE for salvation, where does that leave God the Father? Isn’t it necessary to have faith in the Father? I mean, since it is the Father alone who has immortality, eternal life?

The Father alone who has immortality, eternal life? What about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? Trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation does not mean you don't trust God the Father. It is Christ's finished work of redemption that we are trusting in to save us. Take that away and what else saves us? Nothing. You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is.


The gospel is more than Jesus died for your sins. The gospel is the gospel of the kingdom of God. Jesus said unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

So what is the difference between the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) and the gospel of Christ? (Romans 1:16). Is this the same gospel or two different gospels? Mark 1:15 says, repent and believe the gospel. Romans 1:16 says that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. So what additional works are you adding to the gospel of grace? In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul referred to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the gospel (vs. 1). He did not add or take away from it.


Dan, Jesus said it is finished before the resurrection. If it was finished, how is the resurrection part of the redemptive work of Christ.
Maybe we need to use that dirty word again, context.

No, you knew what I meant. "It is finished" means that he finished paying for our sins on the cross. I was not excluding the resurrection from his finished work of redemption. Just because he did not rise from the dead until three days later does not mean that he was not finished paying for our sins on the cross. You don't need to nitpick. Jesus said it is finished before the Resurrection. Are you going to accuse Him of the same thing? Does the context change what Jesus said?


Luke 4:43(KJV)
43And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

And did this message preached teach salvation by works?


John 17:6-26(KJV)
6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

So what is your point? Where does salvation by works fit into the gospel?

zeke77
Aug 12th 2011, 10:04 PM
It's interesting that this commentary points out that baptism is the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. This reminds me of what Paul said about circumcision in Romans 4:11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. Prior this, Paul stated in verses 9-10, Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.

Moot point once again –baptism is not circumcision and circumcision is not baptism. You are grasping a straws my friend yet you argument continues to sink. Paul is clear - physical circumcision is of no value under the gospel of Christ but baptism in water is that act of obedience that puts the believer “into Christ”. There is no salvation outside of Christ.


For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Galatians 3:27 NKJV)
It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God and it is by that same faith that the believer obeys his Lord in baptism. Again, the words of Jesus cannot be denied in Mark 16:16 – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be save and the one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned.

In light of the words of Jesus your argument is dead on arrival. You really need to re-think and educate yourself on the purpose of God’s ordinance of baptism in water. You miss the mark - you are not authorized to change God’s word to fit your dogma. The words of Jesus continue to trip you up. What to do?

mailmandan
Aug 13th 2011, 01:19 AM
[QUOTE=zeke77;2728131]Moot point once again –baptism is not circumcision and circumcision is not baptism. You are grasping a straws my friend yet you argument continues to sink. Paul is clear - physical circumcision is of no value under the gospel of Christ but baptism in water is that act of obedience that puts the believer “into Christ”. There is no salvation outside of Christ.

Moot point? Look at it again. The commentary that you cited points out that baptism is the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. Paul said the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Same language, yet somehow baptism is different? In Colossians 2:12, the context shows that baptism is presented as the New Testament counterpart of circumcision in the Old Testament. They are presented in a careful parallel to each other. The one who is "in Christ" is circumcised with a circumcision made "without hands." The parallel usage of circumcision and baptism demands that we understand the "baptism" to be made "without hands" also. Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality.


For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27 NKJV)

Was Paul talking about water baptism or Spirit baptism? We literally get into the body of Christ through Spirit baptism not water baptism. How does this happen? *By ONE SPIRIT we are all baptized into ONE BODY (1 Corinthians 12:13). *In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation --having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise... (Ephesians 1:13) H20 cannot accomplish that. In what sense are we "water" baptized "into Christ?" In the same sense that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (metaphorically) indicating their oneness, or solidarity, with him as their leader (1 Corinthians 10:2) just as through water baptism we indicate our oneness, or solidarity with Christ as our Savior. Now does 1 Corinthians 10:2 teach that the Israelites were literally water baptized into the body of Moses? Absolutely not. Notice how I compare Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusions instead of jumping to conclusions in order to accommodate a preconceived idea or theology as you do.

Notice in Galatians 3:27, that those who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Now for the word "enduo" (put on). This word also appears in Romans 13:14 where we read, "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill it's lusts." This exhortation is not to a sinner, telling him to "put on" Christ in order to become saved, but is telling those who are already saved to put on Christ. Evidently then, baptism is not the only way to "put on" Christ. To "put on" Christ is to conform to Him, imitate Him. So it is in baptism; we "put on" Christ, conforming to Him in the ordinance that declares Him to be our Savior. So if we must "put on" Christ to be saved through water baptism, apparently we are not saved yet. We must also "put on" Christ by making no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts (Romans 13:14). Right? Let's be consistent. Who is grasping for straws? You are my friend. Notice how I harmonize Scripture with Scripture before reaching my conclusion. You just force everything to conform to your theology.

Paul also said, "And put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." (Ephesians 6:11) The allusion is to putting off old clothes and putting on new ones, to enclosing oneself in armor, etc. When a soldier puts on armor he is imitating his superiors and trainers, is revealing himself to be a soldier. One does not put on a uniform in order to become a soldier. Simply putting on a soldier's uniform does not make one a soldier. Once he is made a soldier he is then able to wear the uniform that distinguishes or marks him as a soldier. If one puts on the clothes of a Christian, in water baptism, without first becoming a Christian, then he becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what he is not.


It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God and it is by that same faith that the believer obeys his Lord in baptism. Again, the words of Jesus cannot be denied in Mark 16:16 – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be save and the one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned.

Abraham was already saved through faith before he obeyed God by getting circumcised. (Romans 4:9-11) The believer is already saved through faith before he obeys God by getting baptized. (Acts 10:43-48) Again, the words of Jesus cannot be denied in Mark 16:16 - the one who does not believe will be condemned. Nothing is said about the one who is not baptized being condemned. Jesus clearly stated in John 3:18, He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already. (John 3:18) What happened to baptism? Did Jesus forget to mention it in John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26? *Hermeneutics*


In light of the words of Jesus your argument is dead on arrival.

In light of the words of Jesus, He that believes shall be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) and he that believes and is baptized shall be saved as well (Mark 16:16(a), but Jesus mentioned nothing about the one who believes but is not baptized not being saved (Mark 16:16(b), so your argument is dead on arrival. Show me one verse in the Bible that says, whoever is not baptized will not be saved.


You really need to re-think and educate yourself on the purpose of God’s ordinance of baptism in water.

I don't need to re-think or educate myself on your Campbellism theories. I understand the truth. I don't confuse the symbol (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). You have more faith in water baptism to save you than you do in Jesus. You would walk around mountains of grace in order to find water.


You miss the mark - you are not authorized to change God’s word to fit your dogma.

Jesus said whoever believes in Him receives eternal life (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). I agree with Jesus. Do you reject the words of Jesus here? I'm not the one who is forcing Jesus to say that whoever is not baptized will not be saved in Mark 16:16. You are changing God's word to fit your dogma. When will you BELIEVE?


The words of Jesus continue to trip you up. What to do?

How do they trip me up? Jesus never said whoever is not baptized will not be saved. The words of Jesus continue to trip you up in John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26. Why didn't Jesus say "and is baptized" in these passages if it's absolutely necessary for salvation? Because it's not necessary for salvation. That is why in Mark 16:16, Jesus clarifies the first clause with, "but he who does not believe will be condemned." You never did answer my previous question. The Bible says that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16) It also says that whosoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) Describe to me exactly what it means to believe in Him to become saved. Is this where you try to "shoe horn" water and works "into" believing in Him in order to accommodate your theology? That won't work because there is a distinction believing AND getting baptized afterwards (Mark 16:16). There is also a distinction between being saved through faith, not works, (Ephesians 2:8,9) and being created in Christ Jesus for good works afterwards (Ephesians 2:10). Not saved by works but for good works.

You continue to cite Acts 2:38 as a proof text that we must be water baptized before we can receive the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins, but you have not dealt with these passages below which prove you wrong.

...whosoever believes in Him shall receive forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:43)

"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47)

If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17)

So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)

I have dealt with all of your arguments, but you have not dealt with these passages of Scripture. If you can explain them away, then you can explain away anything and you are just not ready to accept the truth.

zeke77
Aug 13th 2011, 05:13 PM
The one who is "in Christ" is circumcised with a circumcision made "without hands." The parallel usage of circumcision and baptism demands that we understand the "baptism" to be made "without hands" also.

LOL - there is certainly noting in the passage that requires “baptism without hands” at the exclusion of baptism in water. You are grasping at straws once again my friend as you continue to misapply and misunderstand God’s word. Colossians 2: 12 teaches that Christian baptism in water - a baptism administered by the hands of men is a burial with Christ as one is immersed in water (the kind that gets you wet). This act of baptism in water puts us “in Christ” via the working of the Holy Spirit and there is no salvation outside of Christ.

Paul refers to our re-enactment of what took place on the cross as we are buried in water and raised up out of the water to walk in newness of life – a new creation “in Christ". Were you not buried in water - into Christ's death - born of water and the Spirit? The circumcision made "without hands" is the work of the Holy Spirit that takes place at the point of the *new birth* - as we are born again of water (baptism) and the Spirit.


The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom. 6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave ~ F. B. Meyer.


I don't confuse the symbol (water baptism) with the reality (Spirit baptism). You have more faith in water baptism to save you than you do in Jesus.

But you are confused my friend. It is was the Lord Himself who plainly promised the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Jesus was not mistaken – was He? As noted earlier - the symbol (water baptism) should never be separated from the reality (regeneration) and yet your dogma forces that separation – why?



How do they trip me up? Jesus never said whoever is not baptized will not be saved.

The promise of Jesus remains true – it is the one who believes and is baptized who is the one who will be saved. This is the truth that continues to trip you up – a truth that you cannot overcome. The one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned. The non-believer is not a candidate for baptism. You continue to struggle with this truth - why?



Jesus said whoever believes in Him receives eternal life (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26). I agree with Jesus. Do you reject the words of Jesus here?

I have answered before but will be happy to do so again – every word presented in John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26 is true and not one word found therein conflicts with or negates the truth taught in Mark 16:16 regarding baptism preceding salvation. It is your dogma that forces a conflict but God’s word does not contradict itself and you are not authorized to leave out baptism in water to fit your non-biblical doctrine. You continue to misapply God’s word. Hear the truth one more time…you struggle my friend. You need to rethink.



“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary


According to Peter - baptism when connected with faith in Christ and repentance "now saves us"? Was Peter in error or is there a sense in which baptism in water "saves us"? Is baptism the answer of a good conscience toward God that points us to the resurrection of Christ Jesus? Isn't baptism in water essential in your theology?


...eight souls were saved through water...baptism now saves us...as the answer of a good conscience toward God...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ... ~ Peter (1Peter 3)

BroRog
Aug 13th 2011, 06:42 PM
Moot point once again –baptism is not circumcision and circumcision is not baptism. You are grasping a straws my friend yet you argument continues to sink. Paul is clear - physical circumcision is of no value under the gospel of Christ but baptism in water is that act of obedience that puts the believer “into Christ”. There is no salvation outside of Christ.


For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
(Galatians 3:27 NKJV)
It was by faith that Abraham obeyed God and it is by that same faith that the believer obeys his Lord in baptism. Again, the words of Jesus cannot be denied in Mark 16:16 – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be save and the one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned.

In light of the words of Jesus your argument is dead on arrival. You really need to re-think and educate yourself on the purpose of God’s ordinance of baptism in water. You miss the mark - you are not authorized to change God’s word to fit your dogma. The words of Jesus continue to trip you up. What to do?Do you realize that your argument for baptism is probably the same argument the Judaizers used for circumcision? Like you, they would argue that God commanded circumcision and that it is circumcision that places a person in the body of Christ. They would argue that, while circumcision is not required for salvation, it is an ordinance of God though. And if you are a believer, seeking to be obedient to God, you would get circumcised and circumcise your children.

By the way, Paul doesn't argue that circumcision is of no value under the gospel of Christ. He argues that, indeed, circumcision is of value to a Jew who keeps the law. And we know that some Jews such as Paul, Zacharias, and Elizabeth were blameless before the law.

Also, if we look at the way the word "baptism" is used in the NT, we realize that it wasn't "baptism" that Jesus commanded. It was discipleship instead.

mailmandan
Aug 13th 2011, 07:58 PM
[QUOTE=zeke77;2728326]LOL - there is certainly noting in the passage that requires “baptism without hands” at the exclusion of baptism in water. You are grasping at straws once again my friend as you continue to misapply and misunderstand God’s word. Colossians 2: 12 teaches that Christian baptism in water - a baptism administered by the hands of men is a burial with Christ as one is immersed in water (the kind that gets you wet). This act of baptism in water puts us “in Christ” via the working of the Holy Spirit and there is no salvation outside of Christ.

Again, in Colossians 2:12, the context shows that baptism is presented as the New Testament counterpart of circumcision in the Old Testament. They are presented in a careful parallel to each other. The one who is "in Christ" is circumcised with a circumcision made "without hands." (Colossians 2:11) - In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: As we also see in Romans 2:29 - But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. The parallel usage of circumcision and baptism demands that we understand the "baptism" to be made "without hands" also. Spirit baptism is the reality and water baptism is the picture of the reality. H20 cannot put you into the body of Christ. Water baptism pictures a person being buried with Christ (submersion under water) and being raised to new life with Christ (emergence from water). This symbolizes the person's union with, and incorporation into Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit which previously took place. Water baptism is an outward, physical symbol of the inward, spiritual conversion of Christians.


Paul refers to our re-enactment of what took place on the cross as we are buried in water and raised up out of the water to walk in newness of life – a new creation “in Christ". Were you not buried in water - into Christ's death - born of water and the Spirit? The circumcision made "without hands" is the work of the Holy Spirit that takes place at the point of the *new birth* - as we are born again of water (baptism) and the Spirit.

Baptized into water is not the same as being baptized into the body of Christ. Christ is not the water. Water baptism as a picture of death burial and resurrection symbolizes our likeness to Christ in his death and resurrection. One is the picture or likeness of the other. Water baptism is not the reality but only a picture of the reality. We are mystically placed into Christ when we believe the gospel (Ephesians 1:13), and this is when we are placed into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). Thus, water baptism symbolizes this mystical placement into Christ that takes place when one believes. People believe before they are baptized into water, but they are baptized into the body of Christ in believing, before water baptism. We are born again from above, not in H20. You continue to confuse living water which cleanses the soul through the work of the Holy Spirit with water baptism. Jesus did not say born of water (baptism) in John 3:5. Now you are adding to God's word in order to make your theology fit.


The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ’s death and burial and to our death to sin (Rom. 6:1), forwards to Christ’s resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave ~ F. B. Meyer.

Picture, not the reality.


But you are confused my friend. It is was the Lord Himself who plainly promised the one who believes and is baptized is the one who will be saved. Jesus was not mistaken – was He? As noted earlier - the symbol (water baptism) should never be separated from the reality (regeneration) and yet your dogma forces that separation – why?

You are blinded by unbelief my friend. Jesus did not say that the one who believes but is not baptized will not be saved. Jesus was not mistaken but you are. The one who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16) and the one who believes shall be saved as well (John 3:15,16,18,6:40,47; 11:25;26). The one who does not believe will be condemned. Nowhere does the Bible teach that whoever is not baptized will not be saved. Period. Why do you refuse to BELIEVE? Would it be too devastating for you to admit that you and your church are wrong?


The promise of Jesus remains true – it is the one who believes and is baptized who is the one who will be saved. This is the truth that continues to trip you up – a truth that you cannot overcome. The one who refuses to believe, whether baptized or not baptized will be condemned. The non-believer is not a candidate for baptism. You continue to struggle with this truth - why?

You continue with this same broken record argument that is futile. In light of the words of Jesus, He that believes shall be saved (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26) and he that believes and is baptized shall be saved as well (Mark 16:16(a), but Jesus mentioned nothing about the one who believes but is not baptized not being saved (Mark 16:16(b). Jesus is simply talking about general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. Why do you continue to struggle with this truth? The non-believer is not a candidate for baptism, yet non-believers get baptized all the time in various false religions. Can you describe to me the difference between a believer and a non-believer?


I have answered before but will be happy to do so again – every word presented in John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26 is true and not one word found therein conflicts with or negates the truth taught in Mark 16:16 regarding baptism preceding salvation.

These verses in John don't even mention baptism and neither does Mark 16:16(b). You did not answer my question, you dodged it.


It is your dogma that forces a conflict but God’s word does not contradict itself and you are not authorized to leave out baptism in water to fit your non-biblical doctrine.

Jesus left out baptism in these passages (John 3:15,16,18: 6:40,47; 11:25,26) and in Mark 16:16(b), yet you ignore this truth to make your non-Biblical doctrine fit. We are saved by grace through faith, not through water and works.


You continue to misapply God’s word. Hear the truth one more time…you struggle my friend. You need to rethink.

That statement is the epitome of irony. Let me know when you are ready to believe the gospel. Then the blinders will be removed and you will be able so see the light (2 Corinthians 4:3,4).


“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...” (Mark 16:16)

but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16(b). He that believes on Him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already (John 3:18). What happened to baptism?


"These words are very important. The first clause [belief and baptism] opposes the notion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, without those works which are the fruit of faith" ~ Pulpit Commentary

False, because Jesus clarifies the first clause with “but he that believeth not shall be damned.” It's clearly the lack of belief which causes condemnation, not the lack of baptism. Faith alone still stands. Are you ready to believe the gospel?


According to Peter - baptism when connected with faith in Christ and repentance "now saves us"? Was Peter in error or is there a sense in which baptism in water "saves us"? Is baptism the answer of a good conscience toward God that points us to the resurrection of Christ Jesus? Isn't baptism in water essential in your theology?

The Greek word “antitupon,” as used in I Peter 3: 21, is “an adjective, used as a noun,” and denotes, in the NT, “a corresponding type,” being “said of baptism.” “The circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms “a corresponding type,” each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.” Noah was saved by the ark “through (via) water.” Water was not the means of their salvation, but the ark. The ark is what both delivered and preserved them, the two aspects of “salvation.” (Hebrews 11:7) Their “salvation” was typical of the salvation promised to the Christian. It pictured it. So also does Christian baptism picture salvation and reveal, symbolically, the gospel. The word “antitupon” identifies baptism as a figure. 1 Peter 3:21 does not say that baptism saves us in “any sense” other than as a figure. It is the figure of “the death, burial and resurrection of Christ by which we are literally saved.” Notice right after Peter says, there is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Why this extra statement here if Peter simply meant to say that water baptism is literally the means of our salvation? The symbol and the reality are so closely related that the symbol is sometimes used to refer to the reality and that seems to be what is confusing you here. A FLOOD OF CONFUSION.


...eight souls were saved through water...baptism now saves us...as the answer of a good conscience toward God...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ... ~ Peter (1Peter 3)

Eight souls were saved through water by the ark. The context of 1 Pet. 3:21 reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED! Noah and his family were not literally saved by the water, but from the water of judgment. Their salvation came by being inside the ark, the ark being a figure or a type of the believer's salvation from judgment by being in Christ. How long have you been indoctrinated into these false teachings of the so called church of Christ?

zeke77
Aug 13th 2011, 08:14 PM
Do you realize that your argument for baptism is probably the same argument the Judaizers used for circumcision? Like you, they would argue that God commanded circumcision and that it is circumcision that places a person in the body of Christ. They would argue that, while circumcision is not required for salvation, it is an ordinance of God though. And if you are a believer, seeking to be obedient to God, you would get circumcised and circumcise your children.

By the way, Paul doesn't argue that circumcision is of no value under the gospel of Christ. He argues that, indeed, circumcision is of value to a Jew who keeps the law.


A few points regarding your moots and/or erroneous points. (1) God did command circumcision to Jews under the Mosaic system that was rendered obsolete at the Cross. (2) The Judaizers did not argue that circumcision places a person in the body of Christ. (3) The Judaizers never argued that circumcision is an ordinance under the NT. (4) Physical circumcision is of no value under the New Testament. (5) Under the law of Christ both Jew and Gentile were not bound by the “old” covenant that included circumcision.

All believers are to be baptized 'into Christ' calling on the name of the Lord as commanded by the Lord.


Also, if we look at the way the word "baptism" is used in the NT, we realize that it wasn't "baptism" that Jesus commanded. It was discipleship instead.

What do you mean ‘we’ Kemo Sabe? When the seeker of truth looks at the “Great Commission” is is quite clear that Jesus commanded baptism in water to all who believer the gospel message. Those who will be His disciples will submit to baptism.

BroRog
Aug 13th 2011, 09:29 PM
A few points regarding your moots and/or erroneous points. (1) God did command circumcision to Jews under the Mosaic system that was rendered obsolete at the Cross.I think a review of the relavent passages will demonstrate two things. First, the Old Covenant was still in effect during the time of the NT. As the author of Hebrews says, it is passing away (not passed away past tense.) Second, while circumcision was a part of the Mosaic Covenant, it was also part of God's covenant with Abraham and predated the Covenant at Mt. Sinai by hundreds of years as Paul points out in Galatians. A first century believer could easily argue that while God was doing away with the Old Covenant, this does not necessarily do away with circumcision.


(2) The Judaizers did not argue that circumcision places a person in the body of Christ.Sure they did. What do you think the issue was? The major question in Paul's day was whether Gentiles would be required to be circumcised as a means to being justified. In his letter to the Galatians Paul concludes that whether a man is circumcised or not has no bearing on his status as a child of God. But if a man were to receive circumcision, seeking justification through it, Christ would be of no benefit to that man. Why would Paul devote so much time an effort to argue this point if the counter argument wasn't that a man must be circumcised in order to find favor with God?


(3) The Judaizers never argued that circumcision is an ordinance under the NT.Again, I think it is obvious they did. The term "New Testament" is another name for "New Covenant." A review of the New Covenant passage in Jeremiah reveals that God would make his New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. It makes perfect sense to conclude that anyone who wants to participate in the New Covenant should be joined to one of these two houses. In Romans 3 and 4, however, argues that Gentiles participate in the blessing of Abraham apart from being a part of the New Covenant. In Galatians he argues that Gentiles will inherit the blessing of Abraham, not based on a covenant, but on a promise God made with Abraham. Except for the letter to the Hebrews, Paul never argues that Gentile participation is due to the fact that the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant. Rather, he argues that Gentile participation in the blessing of Abraham is granted freely by grace to those who have the same faith as their father Abraham.


(4) Physical circumcision is of no value under the New Testament.I see no Biblical evidence to support this view. Rather, in Romans 2 Paul argues the opposite view that, indeed, circumcision has value to a Jew who obeys the law. The issue for Paul was NOT the act of circumcision itself, but why a person would want to get circumcised. As he says in Corinthians, circumcision means nothing and uncircuncision means nothing. Either way is fine as long as a man isn't thinking that God is rewarding ritual behavior with salvation.


(5) Under the law of Christ both Jew and Gentile were not bound by the “old” covenant that included circumcision. Again, circumcision is not strictly an Old Covenant requirement. The requirement of circumcision predates the Mt. Sinai Covenant by many years. Paul has no issue with circumcision per se; rather, he has an issue with those who teach that God wants us to perform rituals and that if we perform the rituals, for whatever reason, he will be pleased. Those who teach ritual baptism are saying the same thing. Christians should know better. God isn't into ritual; that's something we need. Ritual meets our emotional needs to do something religious. But Paul wouldn't spend half the NT arguing against ritual only to turn around and suggest that God wants us to do this one ritual. It makes no sense.


All believers are to be baptized 'into Christ' calling on the name of the Lord as commanded by the Lord.I agree. But being baptized "into" Christ doesn't necessarily involve water.


What do you mean ‘we’ Kemo Sabe? When the seeker of truth looks at the “Great Commission” is is quite clear that Jesus commanded baptism in water to all who believer the gospel message. Those who will be His disciples will submit to baptism.On the contrary, the commandment is to "make disciples". The verb is "make disciples" Baptism is the customary rite associated with making disciples in the first century. And baptism wasn't uniquely Christian. John the baptist also made disciples for himself, adopting the practice of water baptism. Why not spend a few moments and read Acts 19 carefully. I think you will find that by the time of the acts of the apostles, the term "baptism" was being used as a metonymy to indicate the act of becoming someone's disciple. I think you will find that to be baptized "into John" means more than "john put me in the water." In the common usage, to be baptized into John is to become a disciple of John.

Paul asks the disciples, "Into what were you baptized?" The logical answer according to your view is "water", but rather than saying "water" they say, "John's baptism". By this they meant, "we became students of John and accepted his teaching." Thus Paul's next statement makes perfect sense. If these disciples were students of John, then the would be familiar enough with John's teaching to know that John taught about a coming one, Jesus Christ.

Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

What did they think they were doing? Did they think they were obeying a religious ordinance? I don't think so. It is clear from the text, I think, that these disciples decided to become students of Jesus and to practice the teachings of Jesus.

Here is my point. If a man walks into your church and you tell them that he must be baptized as an ordinance of your church; you are robbing the act of baptism from any Biblical significance it might have had. The first century significance of baptism centered around a person's wish to enter into a lifetime of study and practice of the teacher who baptized him or her. Those whom John baptized, studied his teachings and put his teachings into practice. Those whom Jesus baptized, studied his teaching and put his teachings into practice. When baptism becomes an ordinance, it ceases to be a ritual that mediates the passage into studentship and becomes a thing in itself. If that man walks into the church and doesn't understand that the ritual is nothing without a firm commitment to learn from Jesus Christ and to put his teachings into a lifetime practice, the ordinance and act was a ruse.

When we read the so-called "Great Commission" with this in view, we understand why Jesus told his apostles to baptize in his name. The alternative would be, of course, that those whom Peter baptized would become the disciples of Peter, and those whom James baptized would become the disciples of James, and etc. The reason why Jesus told his apostles to baptize in his name is so that the new disciples would realize that Peter, and James and John and Paul and whoever else baptizes people are supposed to make disciples for Jesus, not for themselves.

It's easy for Christians to get the wrong impression from those who teach the ordinance of baptism, because once baptism is made into a ritual, the idea that we are to be baptized "in Jesus' name" becomes the incantation that makes the magic work. But in the first century, baptism wasn't a technique to get God to save you. It was simply a ceremony which introduced the initiate into discipleship.

zeke77
Aug 14th 2011, 03:30 AM
I think a review of the relavent passages will demonstrate two things. First, the Old Covenant was still in effect during the time of the NT.

The Mosaic system in it entirety was nailed to the cross and was never binding on those who obeyed the Gospel of Christ – that included circumcision.


Again, circumcision is not strictly an Old Covenant requirement.

Circumcision was never part of the gospel of grace – the NT is not about day-keeping, dietary laws or circumcision – the old has passed away.



A first century believer could easily argue that while God was doing away with the Old Covenant, this does not necessarily do away with circumcision.

Any believer in any century who would make such an argument would be wrong. The faith of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the shadows of Judaism. Were you circumcised in obedience to the gospel of Christ?


It's easy for Christians to get the wrong impression from those who teach the ordinance of baptism, because once baptism is made into a ritual, the idea that we are to be baptized "in Jesus' name" becomes the incantation that makes the magic work.

Rather an odd statement BR since it was Jesus who instituted and commanded baptism in water. You may want to brush up on baptism – your statements do not track with Holy Writ.

BroRog
Aug 14th 2011, 03:48 AM
The Mosaic system in it entirety was nailed to the cross and was never binding on those who obeyed the Gospel of Christ – that included circumcision.Here you should provide passages of scripture to support your view. As I pointed out earlier, according to the author of Hebrews, it was still in effect as of his writing.


Circumcision was never part of the gospel of grace – the NT is not about day-keeping, dietary laws or circumcision – the old has passed away.Likewise, it is not about Baptism either. :)


Any believer in any century who would make such an argument would be wrong. The faith of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the shadows of Judaism. Were you circumcised in obedience to the gospel of Christ?Perhaps it would be wrong. But do you know why it would be wrong or how to defend your beliefs?


Rather an odd statement BR since it was Jesus who instituted and commanded baptism in water. You may want to brush up on baptism – your statements do not track with Holy Writ.So you say. But of course, why not prove it. :) That's what this forum is for. To discuss the Bible and what it contains.

zeke77
Aug 14th 2011, 03:58 AM
As I pointed out earlier, according to the author of Hebrews, it was still in effect as of his writing.

What passage in Hebrews states circumcision or any of the shadows of Judaism were binding on those who lived under the NT economy?


Perhaps it would be wrong. But do you know why it would be wrong or how to defend your beliefs?

It is wrong and I do defend my beliefs. You simply do not provide scriptural support for you notions - there is nothing to refute. Give us some support from the bible that circumcision is binding on Christians. What do you have?


To discuss the Bible and what it contains.

And that is what I am doing. The Bible supports baptism in water as a command from the Lord (scriptural support provided). The Bible does not say that Christians (Jew or Gentile) must submit to baptism - read the Galatian letter.

BroRog
Aug 14th 2011, 05:52 AM
What passage in Hebrews states circumcision or any of the shadows of Judaism were binding on those who lived under the NT economy?Finally, you ask a question.

Hebrews 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

becoming = present active, not past tense.
ready to disappear = not gone yet.


It is wrong and I do defend my beliefs. You simply do not provide scriptural support for you notions - there is nothing to refute. Give us some support from the bible that circumcision is binding on Christians. What do you have?I have provided scriptural support. I just didn't give the verse and chapter references. I figured that you already were familiar with the New Testament.


And that is what I am doing. The Bible supports baptism in water as a command from the Lord (scriptural support provided).As I said, and I was hoping you would review it yourself, the Great Commission a command to baptize; it's a command to make disciples for Jesus as opposed to making them for themselves. And why does Jesus closely associate baptism with making disciples? And did you review Acts 19 to see that by the time of Paul, the term baptism was being used as a metonymy for the act of becoming a disciple, specifically a disciple of John?


The Bible does not say that Christians (Jew or Gentile) must submit to baptism - read the Galatian letter.I have, that's my point. The letter to the Galatians is Paul's warning against false teachers who were attempting to say that unless a person is circumcised he can not be saved. The issue is whether God needs us to perform certain rituals in order to please him. And what Paul said about circumcision certainly applies to baptism.

zeke77
Aug 14th 2011, 04:49 PM
As I said, and I was hoping you would review it yourself, the Great Commission a command to baptize; it's a command to make disciples for Jesus as opposed to making them for themselves.

The Great Commission includes the command from the Lord to “…go…teach…baptize...” and it will be that way until He comes again. You remain confused as to the purpose and nature of baptism.


And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
(Matthew 28:18-20 NKJV)

The letter to the Galatians is Paul's warning against false teachers who were attempting to say that unless a person is circumcised he can not be saved. The issue is whether God needs us to perform certain rituals in order to please him. And what Paul said about circumcision certainly applies to baptism.

Physical circumcision is not baptism in water and baptism in water is not physical circumcision. Circumcision is of no value under the NT economy and baptism is an ordinance of the Lord’s church until He comes again. You are way off the mark my friend. Educate yourself. Paul was quite clear – baptism in water is the public act of obedience that puts the believer “into Christ”. It is essential to the gospel of grace – always has been. Question for you – “do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”

BroRog
Aug 14th 2011, 07:10 PM
The Great Commission includes the command from the Lord to “…go…teach…baptize...” and it will be that way until He comes again. You remain confused as to the purpose and nature of baptism.Please review my post in the Baptism thread. But since you mentioned it, let's look at the sentence structure of Matthew 28:19


Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The words in bold are the verbs of the sentence, indicating what Jesus wants them to do. The command is to go and make disciples.

Now let's look at the rest of the sentence. Notice that Jesus gives two parallel statements giving his apostles additional information about the nature of making disciples.

baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

teaching them to observe all that I commanded you

Note the words bold and blue. These two activities are the culturally accepted, culturally understood activities of a person who has decided to act in the role of a teacher. Normally, a teacher would baptize his students "into" himself and teach them what he knows about life etc. But Jesus is asking his apostles to do what is NOT normal. Taking Peter for example, rather than Peter baptizing the disciples "into" Peter, making them HIS disciples, Peter is to baptize the disciples "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" making them disciples of Jesus Christ instead.

The same goes for the content of what is to be taught. Rather than Peter teaching the disciples what HE knows, he is to teach the disciples what Jesus has commanded. Rather than representing the teaching as coming from Peter, He is to represent the teaching as coming from Jesus Christ.

Baptism wasn't the command. Baptism was already part of the culturally acknowledged procedure for making a disciple. Jesus wasn't inventing something new concerning how a man makes a disciple. John was already making disciples for himself using baptism into water as part of his procedure. Rather, Jesus was commanding the apostles that when they baptized disciples (as John did) the disciples were to understand that these disciples would be disciples of Christ, not disciples of Peter for instance.


Physical circumcision is not baptism in water and baptism in water is not physical circumcision. Circumcision is of no value under the NT economy and baptism is an ordinance of the Lord’s church until He comes again.I can see that you haven't read Romans 2 yet, so I will drop this line of argument for the moment.


You are way off the mark my friend. Educate yourself. Paul was quite clear – baptism in water is the public act of obedience that puts the believer “into Christ”. It is essential to the gospel of grace – always has been. Question for you – “do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”Again, Paul is talking about being baptized into Christ, not into water. We may be baptized "into" Christ "with" water, but the water is not essential. What is essential is whether a person has be come a disciple of Christ.

I know that your interpretation of Romans 6:3 is incorrect because you don't have Paul answering his rhetorical question in verse 1. The question is, "Shall we continue to sin so that Grace might increase?" Your answer is: "no, don't you know that we have performed the rite of baptism and that because we have performed this rite, we are "into Christ." Anyone reading this would say, "so what?" How does that answer the question? Paul is dealing with an objector, someone who is challenging Paul's gospel on the grounds that Paul is promoting sin. The gospel of grace teaches us that God is granting his favor even to those who continue to struggle with sin. God is granting salvation even to those who haven't yet become successful at becoming a morally skilled practitioner of righteousness. The objector is suggesting that Paul has removed all incentive to avoid sin. God defined what obedience looks like and you, Paul, are telling people that they don't need to keep God's rules. Sure, the magnanimity of God is demonstrated in through his graciousness. So are you saying that we should sin more so that we might bring glory to God? How does that make sense Paul?

What does Paul argue back? "Well, what you don't understand is that God added another rule, i.e. baptism, which if a person obeys this rule, he is going to be forgiven for breaking all the other rules? God used to define righteousness in terms of all those Jewish rules, but he no longer defines righteousness that way. Now, he defines righteousness in terms of obeying two or three Christian rules. Which is "good news" because baptism is just about the only rule we have other than saying the Lord's prayer and taking communion."

Or maybe you think Paul is arguing, "Well, you see, when a person is baptized into Christ that person is transfered into Christ in some mysterious plane of existence such that God no longer sees "me", he sees "Christ". When I get baptized into the water, God puts on his "Jesus glasses" so that when he looks at me, he is actually seeing Jesus and God will grant me salvation, not on my own righteousness, but on the basis of Christ's righteousness, which God sees instead of my moral failure, which he ignores." To this his objector would say, "Well Paul, not only have you removed any incentive for a person to strive after righteousness, but now you have concocted a story in which God is totally oblivious to sin and has decided to live a life of self deception. So essentially you are saying that it's okay to continue in sin because God can't see your sin anyway? "

But no, Paul's isn't arguing that our water baptism puts us into Christ such that God can no longer see us as a sinner. Water baptism was simply the culturally understood way a person affirmed his or her willingness to become the disciple of the baptizer, or in this case a disciple of Christ. And so when Paul says, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus . . ." he means "don't you know that all of us who have become disciples of Jesus Christ . . ." And when he says, ". . . have been baptized into His death?" he means " . . . have decided to affirm the truth of why Jesus had to die?" Don't you know that those of us who have decided to become disciples of Christ affirm the reason why Jesus had to die? If we understand that because of our sin, an innocent man had to die, then why would we continue in sin as if we could care less?" This answers his rhetorical question, "shall we continue in sin that Grace might increase?" Answer: No, when we became disciples of Christ we affirmed the fact that our sin lead to the result that our teacher and Lord had to die on a cross. Why would I continue in sin, knowing that my sin has harmed my Lord and Savior? My incentive to avoid sin is my understanding of the impact sin has had on the life of my savior. That is what Paul means to say, I think.

zeke77
Aug 14th 2011, 07:38 PM
Again, Paul is talking about being baptized into Christ, not into water. We may be baptized "into" Christ "with" water, but the water is not essential.


Biblical fact: We *are* baptized into Christ via baptism in water. That being true, how can you say baptism in water is not essential? How else will one be "in Christ"? Your argument is self-contradictory.

Butch5
Aug 15th 2011, 11:20 PM
Good works will be the evidence that he is saved, but either he is trusting in Jesus alone for salvation or else he is not. God know's for sure who is saved. He knows who believes. We don't always know who believes.
Dan, you said works play no role so there is no reason to mention works at all. Let’s leave works out of the discussion. God know who will believe, but again that is not the issue. The issue is, How does this man know if he is saved? How does he know that he is fully trusting in Christ and not just giving mental assent? You said, a man is saved when he fully trusts and not by giving mental assent, the question is how does a man know which one he is doing?

The Father alone who has immortality, eternal life? What about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? Trusting in Jesus Christ alone for salvation does not mean you don't trust God the Father. It is Christ's finished work of redemption that we are trusting in to save us. Take that away and what else saves us? Nothing. You are making this out to be a lot more complicated than it really is.


What about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? What about them? Do you believe the Scriptures or not?

1 Timothy 6:13-16(NKJV)
13I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing,
15which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

This can only be speaking of the Father, it says no man has seen nor can see Him. Men have and can see Jesus. It also says that He alone has immortality.

Now we have another contradiction. Trusting in Christ “ALONE” does not mean you don’t trust in God the Father? How can one trust in Christ “ALONE” and trust in someone else at the same time?
Trusting in Christ’s finished work of redemption is what saves us???????? Where do you read that.
John said that it was believing that Jesus is the Christ that gives one eternal life, so did Jesus.

John 20:31(KJV)
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 8:24(KJV) 24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John says that it is believing that Jesus is the Christ that is what gives eternal life. He doesn’t say anything about believing in the redemptive work.


So what is the difference between the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) and the gospel of Christ? (Romans 1:16). Is this the same gospel or two different gospels? Mark 1:15 says, repent and believe the gospel. Romans 1:16 says that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES. So what additional works are you adding to the gospel of grace? In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul referred to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the gospel (vs. 1). He did not add or take away from it.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel that Jesus preached. There is only one gospel. As I said, Jesus died for your sins is only a part of the Gospel. John said it is believing that Jesus is the Christ that gives one eternal life. Therefore, one must add what John said to what Paul said.


No, you knew what I meant. "It is finished" means that he finished paying for our sins on the cross. I was not excluding the resurrection from his finished work of redemption. Just because he did not rise from the dead until three days later does not mean that he was not finished paying for our sins on the cross. You don't need to nitpick. Jesus said it is finished before the Resurrection. Are you going to accuse Him of the same thing? Does the context change what Jesus said?

Another contradiction Dan, if the resurrection is part of the “Redemptive work of Christ” then it was not finished on the cross, since it took place after the cross. It’s not nit picking, it’s common sence.
As I quoted, Jesus spoke of finishing the work in the garden when he was praying. He said He had given them the words that God had given to Him.


So what is your point? Where does salvation by works fit into the gospel?
We’re back to the straw man again. No one is saying that one is saved by works. Jesus also didn’t say in this prayer that they were saved.

Butch5
Aug 15th 2011, 11:37 PM
I have reconciled "ALL" of these passages. Now it's your turn. When will you BELIEVE?

Dan,

the logical fallacies in arguments are evidence of the weakness of your case. For instance, your statements about Clement, "Is everything he said 100% correct". This is a logical fallacy which does nothing but detract attention from the real issue. The issue is his credibility versus yours. He has apostolic credentials Dan, you don't. He was praised by the apostle Paul.

I think I've had enough of the fallacies and the contradictions. It seems I'm just wasting my time. You're statements contradict both the apostles and Jesus Himself.

It seems we have the same situation here Dan, that existed in the 1500's. Martin Luther was so determined to oppose the Catholic Church that he went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. He went so far as to call the book of James an epistle of Straw. He tried to remove it from the Bible. You have not gone quite that far Dan, however, it seems I am detecting disdain for the Catholic Church in your posts. This would explain why you would accept contradiction in order to hold doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Church. You see Luther was so opposed to the Catholic Church that he didn't pay attention to the Scriptures, it seems we have the situation here Dan. I find it hard to believe that you really don't see the fallacies and contradictions in your arguments. This makes me believe there is something else driving it, I suspect it is your dislike of the Catholic Church.

BroRog
Aug 16th 2011, 01:26 AM
Biblical fact: We *are* baptized into Christ via baptism in water. That being true, how can you say baptism in water is not essential? How else will one be "in Christ"? Your argument is self-contradictory.On the contrary, baptism in water is NOT what places us into Christ. Rather, becoming his disciple is what places us into Christ. As for being "in Christ" (a phrase which comes from Romans 8 for instance) is a matter of having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a spirit like Christ who said "Abba Father."

mailmandan
Aug 16th 2011, 11:33 AM
Butch5;2729105] Dan, you said works play no role so there is no reason to mention works at all. Let’s leave works out of the discussion. God know who will believe, but again that is not the issue. The issue is, How does this man know if he is saved? How does he know that he is fully trusting in Christ and not just giving mental assent? You said, a man is saved when he fully trusts and not by giving mental assent, the question is how does a man know which one he is doing?

Works play no role as the means of securing our salvation. Salvation is through faith, not works. That does not mean that works are not the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our faith. A man knows if he is fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation or if he is also trusting in works to save him. Mere mental assent belief falls short of trust and reliance in Christ as the only means of our salvation. If you were fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation, then you would know it and you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.


What about God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? What about them? Do you believe the Scriptures or not?

Now where are going with this and how does it change salvation through faith, not works?


1 Timothy 6:13-16(NKJV)
13I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing,
15which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

The word for only expresses uniqueness. Jesus uniquely has immortality. Jesus is equated fully with God Himself in this verse.


This can only be speaking of the Father, it says no man has seen nor can see Him. Men have and can see Jesus. It also says that He alone has immortality.

Jesus is equated with God the Father. Two distinct persons but One is essence or nature. So if only the Father is the King of kings and Lord of lords and not Jesus, then why do you think that when Jesus returns, on His robe and on His thigh is a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (Revelation 19:16)


Now we have another contradiction. Trusting in Christ “ALONE” does not mean you don’t trust in God the Father? How can one trust in Christ “ALONE” and trust in someone else at the same time?

Trusting in Christ alone for salvation does not mean that you distrust the Father. In John 6:40, we see "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." If you are believing in Him to receive salvation (not Him plus something else) then are you trusting in what the Father said to be true about believing in Jesus for salvation? I'm talking about the actual means of our salvation. God the Father did not die on the cross but God the Son (Jesus Christ) did. Christ's finished work of redemption alone is the means of our salvation, not Christ plus our works. In John 5:24, Jesus said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. If we are believing in Jesus for salvation then we are not distrusting God the Father. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. (1 John 5:10) It's not that hard to understand. There is no contradiction.


Trusting in Christ’s finished work of redemption is what saves us???????? Where do you read that.

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3,4) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16) What do you think it means to believe in Him to receive salvation? (Acts 10:43; 13:39; 16:31)


John said that it was believing that Jesus is the Christ that gives one eternal life, so did Jesus.

So are you saying that prior to the cross, all one had to believe was that Jesus is the Christ without also believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to receive salvation? Was the gospel that Paul preached still a mystery at this time? Where are you going with this?


John 20:31(KJV)
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Amen! Believe in Jesus, not Jesus plus something else (works)


John 8:24(KJV)
24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Still believe "apart from additions or modifications" alone.


John says that it is believing that Jesus is the Christ that is what gives eternal life. He doesn’t say anything about believing in the redemptive work.

So after the cross His redemptive work is not mentioned? So was believing in His redemptive work still a mystery until revealed by the apostle Paul?


The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel that Jesus preached. There is only one gospel. As I said, Jesus died for your sins is only a part of the Gospel. John said it is believing that Jesus is the Christ that gives one eternal life. Therefore, one must add what John said to what Paul said.

And you still don't have works salvation. It's still all about Jesus as you just admitted. Of course you have to believe that Jesus is the Christ. If He wasn't, then His redemptive work would be futile. Only God in the flesh can die for our sins, not a sinful man.


Another contradiction Dan, if the resurrection is part of the “Redemptive work of Christ” then it was not finished on the cross, since it took place after the cross. It’s not nit picking, it’s common sence.

There is no contradiction. It is finished equates to Christ is finished atoning for our sins on the cross. Our sin debt has been paid in full. In order for us to be resurrected, He has to be resurrected first. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7) yet even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23) which would not be possible if Christ did not rise from the dead. That is common sense.


As I quoted, Jesus spoke of finishing the work in the garden when he was praying. He said He had given them the words that God had given to Him.

My argument still stands.


We’re back to the straw man again. No one is saying that one is saved by works. Jesus also didn’t say in this prayer that they were saved.[/QUOTE]

What straw man? You continue to say that James uses the term justified by works in the legal sense, which equates to saved by works, then you say that you don't teach salvation by works. You say that works are the source of life in our faith and we can't be saved without them, yet you also say that we are not saved by works. You say that works are a part of our salvation, yet you also say that we are not saved by works. If that doesn't all equate to saved by works then what does?

mailmandan
Aug 16th 2011, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Butch


the logical fallacies in arguments are evidence of the weakness of your case. For instance, your statements about Clement, "Is everything he said 100% correct". This is a logical fallacy which does nothing but detract attention from the real issue. The issue is his credibility versus yours. He has apostolic credentials Dan, you don't. He was praised by the apostle Paul.

Are you trying to say that this was Clement "of Rome" in Philippians 4:3? There is no evidence that he was Clement of Rome as the name is common. I'm sure the Roman Catholic church teaches otherwise. I don't need credentials to understand the truth found in God's Word. I have the Holy Spirit to teach me.


I think I've had enough of the fallacies and the contradictions. It seems I'm just wasting my time. You're statements contradict both the apostles and Jesus Himself.

That statement is the epitome of irony and I say that we end our discussion.


It seems we have the same situation here Dan, that existed in the 1500's. Martin Luther was so determined to oppose the Catholic Church that he went 180 degrees in the opposite direction. He went so far as to call the book of James an epistle of Straw. He tried to remove it from the Bible. You have not gone quite that far Dan, however, it seems I am detecting disdain for the Catholic Church in your posts. This would explain why you would accept contradiction in order to hold doctrine that is opposed to the Catholic Church.

What contradiction? I teach salvation through faith, not works and you teach salvation through faith and works. Man is saved through faith and not by works, yet faith, if it is true, will be substantiated and confirmed by good works. That is the Biblical balance that neither you or the Catholic church teaches.


You see Luther was so opposed to the Catholic Church that he didn't pay attention to the Scriptures, it seems we have the situation here Dan.

First you admit that I don't teach everything that Luther taught and then now compare me with Luther. So which is it? I pay close attention to the Scriptures. I don't teach works salvation as you do.


I find it hard to believe that you really don't see the fallacies and contradictions in your arguments.

I find it hard to believe the same things about you.


This makes me believe there is something else driving it, I suspect it is your dislike of the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]

LOL! Your psychological games won't work on me. I already explained to you why you don't see the truth. You simply refuse to believe. Are you ready to believe?

glf
Aug 17th 2011, 10:58 AM
There is only one kind of faith... A Person can believe whatever he wishes based upon whatever source and then do nothing about it or give his body up for death. Followers of the false religions of the world have no actual relationship with allah or budah, who cannot speak or hear. Even those who believe in Christianity without faith in Jesus are just like those who believe in a false religion for there is no connection to the Lord.

Whereas faith is only based upon God's illuminated word and always produces works appropriate to repentance.
The first principals of the oracles of God are like a step by step for newbie growth, 1st we have Repentance from dead works, then 2nd, we have faith towards God, then 3rd, the doctrine of baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement.

The spiritual baptism, where, "we all have by one Spirit been baptized into one body," is what puts us into the body of Christ when one is born of the Spirit. Water Baptism is the outward of that spiritual baptism and proclaims to the world that we have died with Jesus and are being raised in the newness of life to follow the leading of the Spirit.

I suspect that; the water and the blood isn't water baptism, its the scriptures and the blood of Jesus.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
That he(Jesus) might cleanse it(church) with the washing of water by the word. For we have been born not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the living and abiding word of God. Can H2O agree with anything? But we all know that the Scriptures will always agree with the Spirit and what was acomplished by the Lord Jesus' blood.

Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. For with the heart a man believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
And this is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

To go one step further, I do not see a difference in the scriptures between faith in Jesus as our savior or the faith one use's in a prayer request. Faith is not static but can ebb and grow, for exp, "if our heart condems us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things. If our heart condems us not then we know that we have what we ask because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." (One might say that a clear conscience empowers full power faith.)
Gal 3; 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Finally, consider the parable of the mustard seed, the point of which is to show that Faith can grow to where even mountains can be cast into the sea.

Butch5
Aug 17th 2011, 06:18 PM
Works play no role as the means of securing our salvation. Salvation is through faith, not works. That does not mean that works are not the fruit, by product and demonstrative evidence of our faith. A man knows if he is fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation or if he is also trusting in works to save him. Mere mental assent belief falls short of trust and reliance in Christ as the only means of our salvation. If you were fully trusting in Christ alone for salvation, then you would know it and you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.

That's the question Dan, how does he know?

mailmandan
Aug 18th 2011, 10:56 AM
That's the question Dan, how does he know?

He knows because he is trusting in Christ as the only means of his salvation. He is not trusting in Christ and his works to save him. I know exactly what I am trusting in for salvation, Jesus Christ. I am not trusting in my good works to save me. What exactly are you trusting in to save you? If you were to die right now and were standing at the gates of Heaven and God asked you the question, "why should I let you into Heaven?" what would be your exact answer? This will demonstrate what you are trusting in to save you. The answer that many will give to Jesus in that day (Matthew 7:22) demonstrates exactly what they were trusting in to save them and Jesus told them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:23) The correct answer for these people would have been, Lord, Lord, didn't YOU, not didn't WE. What were they trusting in to save them?

Walter
Feb 6th 2014, 08:22 PM
Ok,so I am trying to understand the concept of faith and works.Here is my humble understanding: Faith with works is when,after accepting Christ you become a new person,and want to help others-example,someone needs a ride to work,a shoulder to cry on, someone to talk to,or even needing prayer.Helping others makes you feel wonderful inside.My opinion of faith without works is when someone says they are a cHristian,but only help for show,or out of duty,or maybe even don't help at all.Am I right in my thoughts?I am really wanting to grow,and this is one of those scriptures I have a hard time understanding.One part of the bible says we are saved by faith and not works,then another says faith without works is dead?Help.GOD bless:confused

One must try to understand just like you have said in your above statement, all after you have repented/Acts 2:36-40. but until then is your 1st. step to the wright kind of faith/Hebrews 11:1-40. but after you have this kind of faith, then you can enjoy the kind of works/James 2:1-26. also when the Lord sees your faith and works all in him/Hebrews 12:1-29. :)