Are You Saving Yourself?

[Matt Black]

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.

Er...not quite. A couple of inaccuracies in your post:

1. The faithful were being instructed by the Apostles and their successors (appointees if you prefer) before parts of the NT were even written (eg: if you go for the generally accepted 'late date' for Revelation of c.95AD, then Peter and Paul had long since passed from the scene, perishing in the Neroan persecution of 64-66AD, leaving their portions of the flock to be instructed and shepherded by their successors such as Timothy, Titus, Linus and Anecletus, for an entire generation before John started dictating Rev 1). So Scripture was by no means the only authority in the Church in the first century, and that template had remained the model ever since.

2. Who do you think was responsible for determining the 27 books we have in our NT? Who decided for example that the Gospel of John was included and the Gospel of Peter was not? I'll give you a clue - it wasn't the Apostles because thet had been dead around 300 years by then. It was the guys they appointed and left behind to watch over Jesus' Church, and the guys they appointed etc

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 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

HP: Where in these verses does it state that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ???

DHK: 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.

HP: We agree that the only way any in our dispensation are going to make it in is through Jesus Christ. How many times must I point out that you consistently beg the real issue at hand, and that is your unwarranted assumption that all have an opportunity to hear the gospel message. Where is your proof that all have had the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel???

DHK: To reject Christ is to choose hell.

HP: To reject Christ is to reject the only cure for sin and the only way to heaven, but again not all have heard the gospel message.

DHK: 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: Sin condemns men to hell unless they have repented and had a change of heart towards their sins, and in faith turned to Christ as their substitutionary atonement.

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

HP: Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.”

 

[steaver]

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

Do you assume HP believes as you do?

You state....".....based on the statements of Christ and Paul, that our final salvation, at the Judgement, will be in accordance to our good works..."

Here is a quote from HP...."No man is saved on the account of his own righteousness. The grounds of salvation is the mercy of God period."

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

BTW DT, I do read everything you post. If I don't respond to it all it is because it is either too lengthy or most of it is agreeable.

Will you acknowledge that faith without works is dead and thus profitless for our ultimate salvation (James 2:14-26)? And that one needs to diligently add to their faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, kindness and love so that he won't be unfruitful but will rather thereby make his calling and election sure and have an entrance supplied for him into Christ's heavenly kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11)?

Yes

Will you admit that Paul teaches that one must continue in God's goodness or else he'll be cut off (Romans 11:22)? And that the believer will be presented blameless if he steadfastly continues in the faith and is not moved away (Colossians 1:23)?

Yes

Do you see that one must continue to abide in Christ and His love? That one must abide in order to bear fruit, and that fruitless non-abiding branches will ultimately be cut off from Christ? (John 15:1-6). And that those who keep His commandments are the ones abiding in Christ and His love (John 15:10; 1 John 3:24)? Do you also see that it's possible for one's love to grow cold (Matthew 24:12)? And do you agree admit that what Paul teaches that what 'avails' is "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)?

Yes

Will you agree that it's possible to believe for a while then fall away (Luke 8:13); that it's possible for one of the brethren to depart from the living God (Hebrews 3:12); that it's possible to make shipwreck of one's faith (1 Tim 1:19); and that it's possible to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1)?

Yes

Do you now recognize, in light of the Scriptural passages listed above, that what passes for the "gospel" in modern "Evangelicalism" is often truncated, not taking into account the full truth of the New Testament regarding salvation, justification, faith, works, etc?

Yes

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)?

No.

As HP puts it.....No man is saved on the account of his own righteousness. The grounds of salvation is the mercy of God period."

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[nunatak]

Er...not quite. A couple of inaccuracies in your post:

1. The faithful were being instructed by the Apostles and their successors (appointees if you prefer) before parts of the NT were even written (eg: if you go for the generally accepted 'late date' for Revelation of c.95AD, then Peter and Paul had long since passed from the scene, perishing in the Neroan persecution of 64-66AD, leaving their portions of the flock to be instructed and shepherded by their successors such as Timothy, Titus, Linus and Anecletus, for an entire generation before John started dictating Rev 1). So Scripture was by no means the only authority in the Church in the first century, and that template had remained the model ever since.

2. Who do you think was responsible for determining the 27 books we have in our NT? Who decided for example that the Gospel of John was included and the Gospel of Peter was not? I'll give you a clue - it wasn't the Apostles because thet had been dead around 300 years by then. It was the guys they appointed and left behind to watch over Jesus' Church, and the guys they appointed etc

Agreed. Unfortunately, there are no apostolic fathers alive today. Which leaves us the scriptures for doctrinal authority.

 

[Matt Black]

Slight correction: for you, it is in reality the Scriptures plus the assumption (hope?) that what you have in the pages of your Bible is the Scriptures...

I do not have that problem since I believe that the Church got it right in the 4th and early 5th centuries when it compiled the list of the 27 books which we call the NT, simply because I believe that Christ founded the Church to get it right.

 

[DHK]

2. Who do you think was responsible for determining the 27 books we have in our NT? Who decided for example that the Gospel of John was included and the Gospel of Peter was not? I'll give you a clue - it wasn't the Apostles because thet had been dead around 300 years by then. It was the guys they appointed and left behind to watch over Jesus' Church, and the guys they appointed etc

I marvel at your disbelief in the Apostles, their disciples, the early church. What is your opionion of them? Even though the Apostles wrote the books of the NT, you think they were totally inept and even "stupid" enough not to be able to teach to the early church which ones were inspired and which ones were not? Quite an amazing opinion of the Apostles you have.

The Scriptures were inscripturated as they were being written, and were completed by the end of the first century. The Apostles knew by Divine appointment which were Scripture and which were not. The ones that were skeptical about them in years to come are the ones that are always skeptical and cause controversies. They are normally called "skeptics," and for good reasons. They were probably called gnostics, among others that caused confusion in that day. The true believers knew which books were inspired and certainly did not need the RCC to tell them which ones they were. What a lark!!

 

[Matt Black]

Really? So tell me which Apostle wrote the Table of Contents for the NT and where I can find it within the NT. Show me where Peter writes, for example, "You know this Gospel I'm supposed to have written, well it's all rubbish and you really shouldn't stick it in the New Testament thing." Perhaps he said this in Acts or one of his Letters.

I'm looking forward to hearing chapter and verse for this one....

 

[DHK]

HP: Where in these verses does it state that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ???

As if you didn't know already! I have already explained this to you, but you reject it.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
--The only sin that will condemn a person to hell is the sin of the rejection of Jesus Christ.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
--The only sin that will condemn a person to hell is the sin of the rejection of Jesus Christ.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--Christ is the only way. To reject him as the only way is the is the only sin that will condemn a person to hell.

On the basis of these verses alone one can easily see that the only sin that condemns a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Do you believe what the Bible says?

HP: We agree that the only way any in our dispensation are going to make it in is through Jesus Christ. How many times must I point out that you consistently beg the real issue at hand, and that is your unwarranted assumption that all have an opportunity to hear the gospel message. Where is your proof that all have had the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel???

I am not the one making any assumptions here. I take God at His word; you disbelieve God. You fail to take Him at His Word, but rather say that your philosophy is wiser than God's Word and therefore disbelieve God's Word. You bring in a red herring, and therefore disbelieve God's Word. Tell me: Is your wisdom wiser than God's. That is your conclusion.

HP: To reject Christ is to reject the only cure for sin and the only way to heaven, but again not all have heard the gospel message.

Why are you not willing to take God at his word, and leave God's problems up to God's. If you are really concerned about the loss, then obey the Lord and be a part of fulfilling the Great Commission by going out to the neediest lands on the face of this earth and give the gospel to them. Instead of spouting off vain philosophy do something about it.
God has spoken. Do you believe God or not?

HP: Sin condemns men to hell unless they have repented and had a change of heart towards their sins, and in faith turned to Christ as their substitutionary atonement.

The only sin that condemns a man is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour. The totality of his sin cannot condemn him. Jesus paid the penalty for his sins. When he rejects that penalty he has rejected Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I am not the one making any assumptions here. I take God at His word; you disbelieve God. You fail to take Him at His Word, but rather say that your philosophy is wiser than God's Word and therefore disbelieve God's Word. You bring in a red herring, and therefore disbelieve God's Word. Tell me: Is your wisdom wiser than God's. That is your conclusion.

HP: Your slander and personal attacks are duly noted.

 

[DHK]

HP: Your slander and personal attacks are duly noted.

Where have I slandered you?
The teaching of John 14:6 coupled with the teaching of John 3 is very clear. I question whether you believe it or not. That is not slander. If Jesus claims to be the only way to heaven, then either what He said is true and he is the only way to heaven and there is no other way, (even for the heathen), or he is the biggest liar, deceiver, fake, imposter, that ever walked the face of this earth. Which one is he? You choose. If the former, then the only way to Heaven is through Christ, and the only sin that keeps one out of heaven is the rejection of Christ, and that is also the only sin which sends one to hell. Fair enough?

 

[DeafPosttrib]

DHK,

I understand that you are moderator.

But, you have to be careful when you make post. You should not say "You reject it", or, "You disbelieve God" toward to HP. That is kind of offend his belief.

HP never saying that he reject it or not believe in God. You just jump the conclusion over, as not what HP actual mean it. He truly believe in God, and also, he truly believe God's Word.

You have to be positive and just discuss or debate with someone who actual believe in God and Bible, with love.

I am sure that HP is a truly believer, because I have read his posts many times. Almost everything that I agree with him.

You know that many Christians, and even, also many Baptists across America have their different intepreting God's Word. There are over 300 different organizations of 'Baptist' in America. Because of divisions on doctrines. There is no perfect chruch on earth. But, we have perfect person is Jesus Christ. Also, we have a perfect book - Bible. Bible have the answer everything. But, our understanding are limited. God's knowledge is more beyond over all of us.

When once all Christians get into heaven, all will have the SAME ONE MIND, there will be no division in heaven. Amen.

Please respect HP's beliefs and interpreting. You can not agree with him, that's is fine. But, do not criticize over him. Just discuss on God's Word with questions and points. Not just attack over personal. Ok. Let's love each other :1_grouphug: as brothers and sisters in Christ.


In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If Jesus claims to be the only way to heaven, then either what He said is true and he is the only way to heaven and there is no other way,

HP: I certainly agree with this fact as it is stated. That is not what this debate is about. The debate centers on whether or not all have heard and had the opportunity to respond to the gospel, and if the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. I say that Scripture and reason both point to the fact that they have not all heard nor have all heard and rejected Christ that will be found among the damned at the judgement. All have not had the Scriptures or a preacher to show them the way. Certainly God has enlightened their conscience and given to them some knowledge of His existence via nature, but that in no way equates or necessities the position that the gospel has been heard by all men or that all men will have the opportunity to hear and respond for that matter.

When you state emphatically that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ you are taking a position that all have had to hear in order to reject salvations message. That is simply an unfounded position not built upon the Word of God or reason.

The position I hold does not in any way run counter to the truth that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and that all men that are lost have not believed in Christ as their Savior. Before men hear, it can be rightfully said of them they have not believed upon Christ, but that in no way necessitates that in such a state they have rejected Christ. They have rejected the light God has granted to them via conscience as evinced by their sinful acts, and for that alone will they be judged. There is not a shred of evidence that all will be judged on the sole account of rejecting a Savior as you have stated is the case, for many have not even heard of the name Jesus.

Again, it can rightfully be said that they have not believed upon Christ as Scripture states, regardless of whether or not they have not heard or they have heard and rejected the message. Nothing necessitates the notion that because they have not believed they have rejected Christ as you set forth.

 

[DHK]

HP: I certainly agree with this fact as it is stated. That is not what this debate is about. The debate centers on whether or not all have heard and had the opportunity to respond to the gospel, and if the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ.

No, that is but a red herring that you have chosen to bring in. Most of this thread has centered around the fact that the one and only sin that sends a person to Hell is Jesus Christ, no exceptions made. What you have done is to bring in other people who you think are other exceptions, thereby trying to bypass the words of Jesus. If Jesus said that He is the Only Way, that means the only way for all, including those that you say have never heard.

Even here, however, that is not the OP. The OP is:

The following is an interesting verse. What is your take on it? 1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Was the Apostle preaching salvation by works? Was he alluding to the fact that man's will and subsequent choices and actions are indeed involved in his salvation?

Both Amy and TCGreek took your opening post here as to mean that you were proposing a works-based salvation. Both disagreed with you.
Then the discussion veered off into repentance of sins, how sins condemn you to hell, and finally the fact that the only sin that condemns a person to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour, which is where we are. And that fact, which has been demonstrated to you many times, is the truth of the Bible. Christ is the only way to heaven for everyone. If anyone in this world rejects Christ he will go to hell. There are no exceptions.

I say that Scripture and reason both point to the fact that they have not all heard nor have all heard and rejected Christ that will be found among the damned at the judgement. All have not had the Scriptures or a preacher to show them the way. Certainly God has enlightened their conscience and given to them some knowledge of His existence via nature, but that in no way equates or necessities the position that the gospel has been heard by all men or that all men will have the opportunity to hear and respond for that matter.

You have a problem then.
1. If this is on your conscience then you need to do something about it by obeying the Great Commission and going to the neediest place on earth and giving out the gospel to those that have never heard so that their blood will not be upon your hands.
2. You can believe the Scripture:
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
--God doesn't lie. Because we don't understand his methods, his ways, does not give us a right to question his promise. Are you willing to take his words at face value?
3. God left the salvation of every human of the world in the first century in the hands of eleven men. He had no back up plan. If those men had failed you and I would not be saved today. Did those eleven men succeed in their mission? Did the gospel go out into all the world by the hands of the Apostles or did they fail?
4. With all the technology that Christianity has available today, I firmly believe that if Christians so desired to focus their attention on getting the gospel out to every person in the world, they could do it without any problem. We have the resources. The problem is that we have apathetic, carnal, Christians that are more concerned with their affluent and material way of life than they are with reaching the world for Christ. They really don't care about whether or not people go to hell. That is the stark reality about Christianity. In the end: Their blood (the blood of the lost) will be upon our (Christians) hands.

Ezekiel 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

When you state emphatically that the only damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ you are taking a position that all have had to hear in order to reject salvations message. That is simply an unfounded position not built upon the Word of God or reason.

This is the NT position. It is the position of Jesus. He is the one who said: "I am the way." He claimed to be the only way to heaven, excluding all other ways, no matter who you were or of what status or religion, or geographical region you lived in. There are no excuses. He is the only way. You, HP, cannot make excuses for the heathen for rejecting Christ.
"They all are without excuse."

The position I hold does not in any way run counter to the truth that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and that all men that are lost have not believed in Christ as their Savior. Before men hear, it can be rightfully said of them they have not believed upon Christ, but that in no way necessitates that in such a state they have rejected Christ. They have rejected the light God has granted to them via conscience as evinced by their sinful acts, and for that alone will they be judged. There is not a shred of evidence that all will be judged on the sole account of rejecting a Savior as you have stated is the case, for many have not even heard of the name Jesus.

Jesus said that he is the only way to heaven. He never made any exceptions to that. Can you find me the exception to John 14:6. It only exists in your philosophy which you are making up as you go along. It is not in the Bible. The only way to heaven is through Christ, no exceptions. To keep on saying: "But what about... and what about... and what about...," is only to doubt the Word of God.

Again, it can rightfully be said that they have not believed upon Christ as Scripture states, regardless of whether or not they have not heard or they have heard and rejected the message. Nothing necessitates the notion that because they have not believed they have rejected Christ as you set forth.

If, for argument's sake, a Muslim (whom you say has not heard) dies. He will go to hell for the rejection of Christ and for no other reason. You may not understand that, and perhaps refuse to understand that. Of course the entire religion of Islam (much of the Koran plagiarized from the Bible), is a rejection of Christianity. They have no excuse. The name of Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than the name of Mohammed. They have no excuse. Only in your mind does a man have an excuse not to trust Christ as Saviour. God doesn't see it that way.

 

[steaver]

The problem is that we have apathetic, carnal, Christians that are more concerned with their affluent and material way of life than they are with reaching the world for Christ. They really don't care about whether or not people go to hell. That is the stark reality about Christianity. In the end: Their blood (the blood of the lost) will be upon our (Christians) hands.

Amen! God forgive me. I need to do more. raying:

Of course the entire religion of Islam (much of the Koran plagiarized from the Bible), is a rejection of Christianity. They have no excuse. The name of Jesus is mentioned more times in the Koran than the name of Mohammed. They have no excuse. Only in your mind does a man have an excuse not to trust Christ as Saviour. God doesn't see it that way.

They are taught from a very young age about Jesus and who Christians say he is, what Christians believe. And are taught that Christians manipulated the scriptures, that Jesus is not the Son of God but only a prophet. So ironically they hear Jesus is the Savior, yet are taught at the same time it is a lie.

God bless! :thumbs:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Okay, so after a week off I've looked at your replies and have decided to respond. For starters, after I finished my last post with a reference ot the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, you wrote this...

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

First it's ironic that you talk about me "jumping to another passage" when in fact you did that very thing after I dealt with the passage from Titus 3 which you cited as alleged evidence against my position. Instead of answering me back, you proceeded to cite Galatians 2:16 which you are now using as evidence for your assertion that "Paul has totally destroyed [my] view". Okay, let's jump to this passage and see if that is indeed the case...

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"

When interpreting this passage, the first thing we need to "notice" is both the immediate context (ie the surrounding verses) and the larger context--Paul's entire corpus within the NT and within the historical context of his polemics against the Judaizers. The contexts in both cases demonstrate what Paul is talking about when he is referring to the "works of the law" and that is primarily the Jewish "boundary markers" of Torah keeping, specifically embodied in circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food and other ceremonial laws.

Look first at the preceding verses 2:11-15: Paul recounts Peter "playing the hypocrite" by separating himself from the Gentiles when the men from James arrived to Antioch, "fearing those who were of the circumcision" (v.12). Paul then laid into Peter and asked him: "If you being a Jew, live in a manner of the Gentiles and not of the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? (v 14), and continues "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Christ Jesus, even we [Jewish believers like Paul and Peter] have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified [reckoned righteous] by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law (Torah) (v.15-16)." It's clear then that the "works of the law" to which Paul refers are primarily those Jewish boundary markers such as circumcision, not eating with Gentiles, etc, and further evidence for this idea is found throughout the argument made in the rest of the epistle midway through chapter 5 (see especially 4:9-10 and 5:11-12). This usage of the "works of the law" is consistent with how Paul used it elsewhere (ie Romans, particularly 2:17-29; 3:1-2; 3:27-31; 4:1-12; etc) in his arguments dealing with Jews, Gentiles, works (especially circumcision) and faith in Christ. This also makes sense in light of the historical context of the Church dealing with how the Gentiles are to be accepted vis-a-vis the Torah (and the Judaizers) as recounted in Acts 15 for example.

That being the case, there is nothing in that verse which conflicts with what Paul says elsewhere regarding salvation, starting with this statement in the same epistle:

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:6)

In other words, it’s not presence of absence of the “works of the LAW” (ie circumcision) that counts, but faith working through love which ‘avails’. So far from a barren faith alone being sufficient, faith must be expressed in deeds or works of love. Paul nowhere teaches that a workless, loveless ‘faith’ is sufficient for salvation. Further down in his epistle, he states that eternal life is something that is yet to be reaped, if the believer sows to the Spirit rather than the flesh and does not lose heart (6:7-9). So in other words, we actually have to make an effort to sow to the Spirit—even after we are initially saved—if we want to reap eternal life.

And all of this from that same epistle that contains the passage that you set forth as some sort of proof text that our works (of loving obedience) have nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing salvation/justifcation and final judgment. Yet Paul elsewhere is also explicitly clear that at the final judgment God will render to each according to his deeds:
"eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish no every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Romans 2:6-10)"

This of course agrees with what Christ said about the final judgment:

"Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5:28-29)

Therefore, rather than Paul destroying my view, it’s Paul and Jesus Himself who destroy your misinterpretation and proof-texting of Galatians 2:16 in attempting to deny that the final moment of our salvation at the Judgment will be according to our works. (Romans 2:6-10, John 5:28-29)

To be continued...

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Continuing on...

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?

I do care quite a bit that you carefully consider the context (both immediate and larger) of this passage so you don't keep misinterpreting it and thus continue using it as a proof text against an argument I've never made--that I somehow advocate maintaining my salvation by the works of the Law.


I had also mentioned that you preferred to knock down straw men than to seriously deal with my position, to which you queried...

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

No, it's not "Paul"; it's the gross mischaracterizations of my position as expressed in such quips as these:

Wow!

Two salvations?

You make Christ's work void. Grace, mercy and regeneration worthless.

This totally crushes the notion that there are two salvations at work, a past by grace and a future by works. Totally crushes it!

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.

I've never posited two different salvations--just the biblical fact that biblical salvation has a begining in time (initial salvation), an ongoing aspect, and a final realization (final salvation). And your last quote above is particularly absurd and resembles nothing I've ever defended--ie it's a straw man par excellence.


So moving on...

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".

And do see now, that given the identity of the "works of law", that I don't disagree?

Do you also see how JAMES demolishes your misinterpretation of Paul?:

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can FAITH SAVE HIM?” (James 2:14)

This is a rhetorical answer to which the answer is obviously “no”.

“Thus faith by itself, if it does not have works is dead” (James 2:17)

(And a dead faith ain’t gonna save anybody)

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” (James 2:22-23)

James clearly states that ABRAHAM was himself justified by works (just not the “works of the TORAH” ie circumcision) and not by faith only.

“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:14)

So seeing how Paul, James, and Jesus destroy with your misinterpretation and proof texting of Galatians 2:16, will you agree never to use that verse again in trying to deny that works of loving obedience have nothing to do with our ongoing justification and final moment of salvation at the Judgment?


And getting back to the parable of the unforgiving servant…

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

Where does it say THAT in the passage?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

BTW DT, I do read everything you post. If I don't respond to it all it is because it is either too lengthy or most of it is agreeable.

Will you acknowledge that faith without works is dead and thus profitless for our ultimate salvation (James 2:14-26)? And that one needs to diligently add to their faith virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, kindness and love so that he won't be unfruitful but will rather thereby make his calling and election sure and have an entrance supplied for him into Christ's heavenly kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11)?

Yes

Will you admit that Paul teaches that one must continue in God's goodness or else he'll be cut off (Romans 11:22)? And that the believer will be presented blameless if he steadfastly continues in the faith and is not moved away (Colossians 1:23)?

Yes

Do you see that one must continue to abide in Christ and His love? That one must abide in order to bear fruit, and that fruitless non-abiding branches will ultimately be cut off from Christ? (John 15:1-6). And that those who keep His commandments are the ones abiding in Christ and His love (John 15:10; 1 John 3:24)? Do you also see that it's possible for one's love to grow cold (Matthew 24:12)? And do you agree admit that what Paul teaches that what 'avails' is "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6)?

Yes

Will you agree that it's possible to believe for a while then fall away (Luke 8:13); that it's possible for one of the brethren to depart from the living God (Hebrews 3:12); that it's possible to make shipwreck of one's faith (1 Tim 1:19); and that it's possible to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor 6:1)?

Yes

Since you've incredibly conceded all of this, will you now acknowledge the logical implication of the facts which you conceded--that a believer in Christ can actually fall away and lose his salvation, and that, therefore, OSAS is incorrect? :applause:

I look forward to your reply (or at least the next scripture passage you decide to jump to).

 

[Matt Black]

Amen! God forgive me. I need to do more. raying:

One who always prays thus has no need to fear for his salvation IMO

 

[steaver]

DT....First it's ironic that you talk about me "jumping to another passage" when in fact you did that very thing after I dealt with the passage from Titus 3 which you cited as alleged evidence against my position. Instead of answering me back, you proceeded to cite Galatians 2:16 which you are now using as evidence for your assertion that "Paul has totally destroyed [my] view". Okay, let's jump to this passage and see if that is indeed the case...

I did answer you back on page 8...

Steaver...."I noticed that, it is why I posted the verse! Saved is past tense indeed. It is finished, done, already happened, settled in heaven, justified forever, eternal life.

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

DT....It's clear then that the "works of the law" to which Paul refers are primarily those Jewish boundary markers such as circumcision, not eating with Gentiles, etc, and further evidence for this idea is found throughout the argument made in the rest of the epistle midway through chapter 5 (see especially 4:9-10 and 5:11-12). This usage of the "works of the law" is consistent with how Paul used it elsewhere (ie Romans, particularly 2:17-29; 3:1-2; 3:27-31; 4:1-12; etc) in his arguments dealing with Jews, Gentiles, works (especially circumcision) and faith in Christ. This also makes sense in light of the historical context of the Church dealing with how the Gentiles are to be accepted vis-a-vis the Torah (and the Judaizers) as recounted in Acts 15 for example.

"The law" is all five books and everything in those books given by God for righteous living.

This includes...."love thy neighbour as thyself". And if you obey this one law you do very well indeed. In fact you fullfill all of the law...Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Is loving my neighbour a righteous act? Yes it is. Will loving my neighbour justify my soul unto eternal life? No it will not. 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"

DT...Therefore, rather than Paul destroying my view, it’s Paul and Jesus Himself who destroy your misinterpretation and proof-texting of Galatians 2:16 in attempting to deny that the final moment of our salvation at the Judgment will be according to our works. (Romans 2:6-10, John 5:28-29)

Wrong.

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.

Works of the law (ie. love thy neighbour as thyself) will not justify you. It will however show your faith in Christ (ie. James) Jam 2:18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

.......to be continued......

God Bless! :thumbs: