Are You Saving Yourself?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I have known and know many believers who believe a person can lose their salvation. You are the first I have encountered who believes a person must be saved twice. Once by grace and faith and then again by works of righteousness.

HP: I will let Doubting Thomas answer for himself, but I do not see him promoting two salvations in the least. You seem to believe that salvation is a done deal at initial faith, when in fact Scripture states otherwise. First, our salvation is by faith NOT absolute knowledge as you wrongfully imply. Anything by faith allows for the possibility to be something other than what you believe it is. Deception is a real possibility. Secondly salvation encompasses three aspects not simply one as you again imply. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. That is not three salvations but rather three parts of one whole. It is not over till it’s over, and it is not consummated for all eternity until the final judgment. We walk by faith until then, and we indeed can make shipwreck of the faith or cast away our faith just as Scripture indicates is possible. “Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”

It is not that our works in any way saves us. Just the same, without works of righteousness, works according to God’s law, no man will be saved. We are NOT saved by our works, but neither will we be saved apart from our works. Works are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’ We are saved for the sake of God’s mercy, but we will not be saved apart from our continued obedience. Just as in the prison illustration I have given several times, no man is pardoned for the sake of their works. If any receives a pardon it is by the grace of the governor. Still, no one will receive a pardon apart from having a change of heart towards their crime. Their pardon only has respect to ones crimes that are passed. Although forgiveness is eternal in nature, in no way frees one from punishment for future transgressions, as some wrongfully imply is the case with salvation.

Your claim that when one differs with your view of salvation that it necessitates 'two salvations' is simply a bogus attack without the least merit whatsoever.

 

[steaver]

HP; It is not that our works in any way saves us. Just the same, without works of righteousness, works according to God’s law, no man will be saved. We are NOT saved by our works, but neither will we be saved apart from our works. Works are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’ We are saved for the sake of God’s mercy, but we will not be saved apart from our continued obedience. Just as in the prison illustration I have given several times, no man is pardoned for the sake of their works. If any receives a pardon it is by the grace of the governor. Still, no one will receive a pardon apart from having a change of heart towards their crime. Their pardon only has respect to ones crimes that are passed. Although forgiveness is eternal in nature, in no way frees one from punishment for future transgressions, as some wrongfully imply is the case with salvation.

You owe my five bucks. Tell you what, I forgive you the debt, you owe me nothing. Just the same, I will be expecting that five bucks in the near future.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Gather round all ye Jews and Gentiles!

God has sent His Son Jesus to die a horrific death on a Roman cross as payment for your sins and unrighteous works that ye have committed up until now. If you will believe on this Jesus, this same Jesus will regenerate you and save you this very day. Just place your faith in Him and He will save you this day!

Then you can go back to saving yourself tomorrow by your righteous works. Just take a moment to get saved today and then you can go back about your business of working your way to eternal life.

God Bless! raying:

 

[Romten9]

HP: According to Christ Himself Amy missed it there if that is what she believes. Christ started His ministry by making repentance from sin a condition of salvation. "Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" Scripture plainly states that “Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

The apostle James cleared up this issue as well. He called faith without works as dead faith, and dead faith is paramount to no faith. Do you think that faith alone can save you? It will not according to the Scriptures if it is not coupled with the formation of intents in agreement with that faith. "Show me thy faith without thy works, but I will show you my faith by my works, for faith without works is dead being alone."

Ah, but it isn't the works that saves him. The works are evidence that one has been saved. IF you produce no works...you are probably still a self-centered sinner--and you have never been saved.

The posted verse says to be careful what you teach. Watch it. Stick true to the gospel as given by the Lord, and try not to stray. Then you are not leading people into such things as legalism...and bondage. Do not put anything on the shelf...look at what you teach, examine it and make sure it is right. Another way Paul is telling Timothy to test the spirits; and not to get wrapped up in silly myths and such--like the serpent seed doctrine and former lifetimes. It goes along with the rest of chapter 4.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

HP: I will let Doubting Thomas answer for himself, but I do not see him promoting two salvations in the least. You [steaver] seem to believe that salvation is a done deal at initial faith, when in fact Scripture states otherwise. First, our salvation is by faith NOT absolute knowledge as you wrongfully imply. Anything by faith allows for the possibility to be something other than what you believe it is. Deception is a real possibility. Secondly salvation encompasses three aspects not simply one as you again imply. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. That is not three salvations but rather three parts of one whole. It is not over till it’s over, and it is not consummated for all eternity until the final judgment. We walk by faith until then, and we indeed can make shipwreck of the faith or cast away our faith just as Scripture indicates is possible. “Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”

It is not that our works in any way saves us. Just the same, without works of righteousness, works according to God’s law, no man will be saved. We are NOT saved by our works, but neither will we be saved apart from our works. Works are always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ NOT ‘that for the sake of.’ We are saved for the sake of God’s mercy, but we will not be saved apart from our continued obedience. Just as in the prison illustration I have given several times, no man is pardoned for the sake of their works. If any receives a pardon it is by the grace of the governor. Still, no one will receive a pardon apart from having a change of heart towards their crime. Their pardon only has respect to ones crimes that are passed. Although forgiveness is eternal in nature, in no way frees one from punishment for future transgressions, as some wrongfully imply is the case with salvation.

Your claim that when one differs with your view of salvation that it necessitates 'two salvations' is simply a bogus attack without the least merit whatsoever.

HP, excellent post! (I've basically added bolding and underlines to particularly emphasize the points I would have made in response to Steaver)

Steaver, I'm pretty much done responding to you for now. I've been fairly patient in responding with some lengthy posts defending my position with numerous Scriptures you haven't bothered responding to. Now it appears I've really wasted my time seeing that you persist in attacking straw men of your own making--despite all of what I've written to the contrary--preferring to lampoon what can only be described as grossly distorted caricatures of the position I've been defending. (I suppose erecting straw men is easier that actually engaging in meaningful debate. This is why I took a break from the BB to begin with. I perhaps hoped it might have been different discussing it with some different folks--silly me :BangHead: )

But I did want to respond to one of those little jabs before signing off...

You owe my five bucks. Tell you what, I forgive you the debt, you owe me nothing. Just the same, I will be expecting that five bucks in the near future.

Check out the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18:21-35. Look very carefully at verses 34 and 35 in particular. That is all.

ADDENDUM: BTW, a good book to read on Pauline theology regarding works, the law, etc is N.T. Wright's THE CLIMAX OF THE COVENANT

 

[Agnus_Dei]

You’ve done a great job DT…Bravo Zulu

From an Orthodox perspective, Salvation is a divine gift through which men (and women) are delivered from sin and death, united to Christ, and brought into His eternal Kingdom.

How does this happen…Acts 2:38 details the process: 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

This past Saturday, we celebrated Holy Saturday and a number of Catechumens were brought into the Church, per Acts 2:38. They, 1) Repented, 2) were baptized (if needed) and 3) received the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ. People cannot save themselves by their own good works. Salvation is faith working through love. It is an ongoing, life-long process. Salvation is past tense in that, through the death and Resurrection of Christ, we have been saved. It is present tense, for we are being saved by our active participation through faith in our union with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Salvation is also future, for we must yet be saved at His glorious Second Coming.

If OSAS was true, then words such as “apostasy” or “falling away” would not be used in the NT, since the epistles and letters that make-up the NT were written to Christian believers.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

From an Orthodox perspective, Salvation is a divine gift through which men (and women) are delivered from sin and death, united to Christ, and brought into His eternal Kingdom.

How does this happen…Acts 2:38 details the process: 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
-

Pure Hinduism; has nothing to do with Christianity. Water does nothing to a person but gets him wet. The Hindus believe that the waters of the River Ganges will wash away their sin. This is your belief also Agnus. Perhaps not the exact water of the River Ganges, but some similar water. A similar superstition that H2O is going to wash away your sin. How long do you persist in the superstitions of the heathen?

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

Try as you may, the waters of baptism will never wash away your sin. Only the blood of Christ can do that. And that happens when one puts their trust in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ and trusts him as Saviour, by faith alone.

 

[nunatak]

Agnes, your sig states this:

The Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the apostles and prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide his Church, he left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit.

I take it you don't believe Sola Scriptura? Your sig and your post sounds very RCC in nature, and yet your profile says you are Methodist. Also, your adherence to Acts 2:38 is very UPCI. Do you know what you believe and why you believe it? I would say, No, because it seems you believe scripture is derived from the Church's authority.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Pure Hinduism; has nothing to do with Christianity. Water does nothing to a person but gets him wet. The Hindus believe that the waters of the River Ganges will wash away their sin.

Hmmm, you don't say...don't know much about Hinduism, but it looks like the Hindues took a piece of the ancient Christian Church and applied it to their "religion".

Unless, DHK, you can prove that Hinduism outdates Christianity.

InXC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I take it you don't believe Sola Scriptura?

Wonder what gave that away? Short answer…you’re correct

Your sig and your post sounds very RCC in nature, and yet your profile says you are Methodist.

A little older than the RCC…I was visiting a Methodist Church when I left the Baptist Protestant Church, now I’m a Catechumen in the Orthodox Church.

Also, your adherence to Acts 2:38 is very UPCI. Do you know what you believe and why you believe it? I would say, No, because it seems you believe scripture is derived from the Church's authority.

I can use DHK’s response…”how do you know what I believe…you a mind reader, a deity”. But I won’t.

Christ established a “CHURCH”, and His instructions to His Apostles were to build His Church, not write a Book and have the multitudes decipher such a Book on their own and start little Churches independent and separated from each other with their own beliefs. The Church started on Pentecost, other than the OT, no NT was in existence in which most of our Christian doctrine comes from. For nearly 400 years the early Church functioned just fine without a completed NT, with all table of contents decided upon.

It is the Church’s authority given by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit who wrote the pages of the NT and thus it is the Churches Authority to instruct the faithful in correct doctrine all accomplished through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Christ promised to be with His Church from the bringing until the end of the age and that the gates of hell will never prevail…at no time in History has Christ left His Church or has ceased to protect His Church.

InXC
-

 

[DHK]

Hmmm, you don't say...don't know much about Hinduism, but it looks like the Hindues took a piece of the ancient Christian Church and applied it to their "religion".

Unless, DHK, you can prove that Hinduism outdates Christianity.

InXC
-

Rick Rood, in his book, “Hinduism, A Christian Perspective” states:

The word "Hindu" is of Persian origin, and simply means "Indian." The word was probably first used in its modern sense by the Muslim invaders of India about A.D. 1200 to distinguish the religion of the Indians from their own. Though there are some core beliefs common to virtually all Hindus, there really is no "Hindu orthodoxy"‑‑no hard and fast dogma that all Hindus must believe. It's actually a family of gradually developing beliefs and practices.

Hinduism has its roots in the interrelationship of two basic religious systems: that of the ancient civilization residing in the Indus River Valley from the third millennium B.C., and the religious beliefs brought to India by the Aryan people (possibly from the Baltic region) who began infiltrating the Indus Valley sometime after 2000 B.C.

 

[Matt Black]

Wonder what gave that away? Short answer…you’re correct


A little older than the RCC…I was visiting a Methodist Church when I left the Baptist Protestant Church, now I’m a Catechumen in the Orthodox Church.


I can use DHK’s response…”how do you know what I believe…you a mind reader, a deity”. But I won’t.

Christ established a “CHURCH”, and His instructions to His Apostles were to build His Church, not write a Book and have the multitudes decipher such a Book on their own and start little Churches independent and separated from each other with their own beliefs. The Church started on Pentecost, other than the OT, no NT was in existence in which most of our Christian doctrine comes from. For nearly 400 years the early Church functioned just fine without a completed NT, with all table of contents decided upon.

It is the Church’s authority given by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit who wrote the pages of the NT and thus it is the Churches Authority to instruct the faithful in correct doctrine all accomplished through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Christ promised to be with His Church from the bringing until the end of the age and that the gates of hell will never prevail…at no time in History has Christ left His Church or has ceased to protect His Church.

InXC
-

Totally correct:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

Check out the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18:21-35. Look very carefully at verses 34 and 35 in particular. That is all.

Jumping to another passage does not change the fact that Paul has totally destroyed your view.

You said...."Now, can you concede, based on the statements of Christ and Paul, that our final salvation, at the Judgement, will be in accordance to our good works (John 5:28-29; Romans 2:5-10)?

I said....

"Works cannot save you past, works cannot save you present, works cannot save you future"!

Paul agrees and says....

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Can you "notice" something for me?

Paul states "we have believed in Jesus Christ". Notice this is "past tense" and Paul in the same breath states "that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law"

You have been proven wrong by Paul. I am sure you have a whole bunch of passages that you think prove you right. I just showed you that works of righteousness does not save even AFTER ye have believed. But you don't care do you?

Where is this straw man you speak of? Is it Paul?

Paul states "we have believed in Jesus Christ". Notice this is "past tense" and Paul in the same breath states "that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law"

Do you see "not by works of the law", how this is AFTER "we have believed in Jesus Christ".

God Bless! :thumbs:

ps, hint on the unforgiving servant (he was never regenerated)

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Rick Rood, in his book, “Hinduism, A Christian Perspective” states:

Oh, so Hinduism has its roots in a civilization residing in the Indus River Valley from the third millennium B.C.

You think this civilization used “water” to wash away sins in the third millennium BC?

The Forerunner John the Baptist was baptizing in the River Jordan before Christ came on the scene…when did John start baptizing with “water” and where did he learn such…hope it wasn’t from the ancient Hindus...

InXC
-

 

[DHK]

Oh, so Hinduism has its roots in a civilization residing in the Indus River Valley from the third millennium B.C.

You think this civilization used “water” to wash away sins in the third millennium BC?

This is a superstition that has been around for a long time--centuries.

The Forerunner John the Baptist was baptizing in the River Jordan before Christ came on the scene…when did John start baptizing with “water” and where did he learn such…hope it wasn’t from the ancient Hindus...

Is that your belief? I thought you had some knowledge of the Bible. In case you don't here is what it teaches:
John was a man "sent from God."
His baptism was a baptism "unto repentance." In other words he would not baptize a person unless he had first repented. Water in no wise could wash away sins.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

HP: And to think I understood you to say that the damning sin was the rejection of Jesus Christ. Possibly ‘iniquity’ should be translated, ‘the rejection of Jesus Christ?’ Surely it was not their sins that God states was marked before Him……… or could it have been?

 

[DHK]

HP: And to think I understood you to say that the damning sin was the rejection of Jesus Christ. Possibly ‘iniquity’ should be translated, ‘the rejection of Jesus Christ?’ Surely it was not their sins that God states was marked before Him……… or could it have been?

First that is an OT verse.
Second, our iniquity is always marked before us.
Third, the only thing that can take away that iniquity is the blood of Jesus Christ.
Fourth, If you reject that sacrifice that paid for the penalty of your iniquity--the blood of Christ, then that is the only reason that you will go to Hell. The only sin that damns a person to Hell is the rejecton of Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The only sin that damns a person to Hell is the rejecton of Christ.

HP: Sorry DHK. I must have missed your Scriptural reference for this assumption. The verse you gave us clearly establishes one’s sins are that which separate us from our God, and does not indicate in the least that the rejection of a Savior, of which they had yet to hear of, was the cause of their state of impending doom.

 

[nunatak]

Wonder what gave that away? Short answer…you’re correct

If you place the "Church's" authority over scripture, it seems impossible to me to find a common frame of reference.

I can use DHK’s response…”how do you know what I believe…you a mind reader, a deity”. But I won’t.

Yes, you did.:laugh:

Christ established a “CHURCH”, and His instructions to His Apostles were to build His Church, not write a Book and have the multitudes decipher such a Book on their own and start little Churches independent and separated from each other with their own beliefs. The Church started on Pentecost, other than the OT, no NT was in existence in which most of our Christian doctrine comes from. For nearly 400 years the early Church functioned just fine without a completed NT, with all table of contents decided upon.

It is the Church’s authority given by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit who wrote the pages of the NT and thus it is the Churches Authority to instruct the faithful in correct doctrine all accomplished through the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Christ promised to be with His Church from the bringing until the end of the age and that the gates of hell will never prevail…at no time in History has Christ left His Church or has ceased to protect His Church.

Yes, he chose the apostles to bear fruit, and he ordained their fruit should remain. He also ordained the apostles to write scripture. True the Church grew w/o a completed NT. But you yourself point out that ended after a set period of time. The "Church" as we know it today did not write scripture, but rather the apostles. And for the Church to instruct the faithful in correct doctrine, there must be a basis for that doctrine, thus the authority of the scripture over the words of men who, even when combined believers are added from all over the world, constitute the Church.

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry DHK. I must have missed your Scriptural reference for this assumption. The verse you gave us clearly establishes one’s sins are that which separate us from our God, and does not indicate in the least that the rejection of a Savior, of which they had yet to hear of, was the cause of their state of impending doom.

I have given you reference after reference, many times. Go back and read the thread.
Do you have a hard time understanding John 3:18; John 3:36; John 14:6

Jesus said that He is the only way to heaven; that no one, absolutely no one could go to the Father (or heaven) except by going through Him (Christ). He is the only way. To reject Christ is to reject heaven.
To reject Christ is to choose hell.
When a man rejects Christ he is choosing hell; it is the only sin that condemns a person to hell. What other sin will condemn a person to Hell?

HP? Do you believe that there is another way to heaven other than Jesus Christ?