Colossians 1:23

Well, if you add anything at all to salvation, beyond "believe", then you have a contradiction.

What must I do to be saved?

Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

In Acts 16:31, "belive" is an aorist verb. It's an event.

If you believe, you are saved.

"Saved" is indicative. It's something that will happen, that's conditional upon "believe".

If you add anything else, you have a contradiction.

As you have said, there can be no contradictions.

So, a good starting point is to find out why there is a seeming contradiction.

 

Add this verse into the mix.

Heb 3:6
6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
(KJV)

 

This verse is clearly about spiritual salvation (since it uses reconciled, only used elsewhere in salvation contexts). The millennial reign has nothing really to do with reconciliation per se.

The "if" statement identifies the evidence of reconciliation. It says "you have been reconciled" (past tense) if you are continuing. If you don't continue, you don't lose your reconciliation. You show that you never had it.

 

That is works based salvation not matter how you dress it up. Your works NEVER enter the picture before, during or after the eternal salvation event. No works means exactly that no works.

 

No it's not works based salvation at all. It is clearly after salvation. It identifies the evidence of life, just as surely as breathing and eating are the evidence of physical life. The whole context is about salvation. There is no hint of hte millennium in here.

As the Bible makes plain in places such as here, Eph 2, Heb 3, James 2, Matt 7, etc, works have no role in saving us, but they are evidence of salvation.

Where is reconciliation ever used of anything other than spiritual salvation?

 

Like I said Larry it doesn't matter how you dress it up, but if man's works EVER enter the picture then it is not grace. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but that's just not the case.

Works are not a guarantee of a saved life. It they were why would Ephesians 2:10 tell us we SHOULD walk in them. That's not a guarantee that's a maybe. The verb is subjunctive which means it may happen or it may not. If works are a guarantee as you suppose then why wasn't Paul guided to use an imperitive verb which would make it a guarantee?

The bottom line is we SHOULD do works, not WILL do works.

You can see this in Romans as well where we are said we SHOULD NOT be a slave to sin any longer, not that we WILL NOT be a slave to sin. If we are a slave to sin then we are not going to produce works.

Works after salvation do not point back to past salvation, but rather point forward to a future salvation.

As was said either on here or some other works based thread it is impossible to show salvation by works, because there are tons of people that have good works. How many people do you know that give to charity, feed the poor, love their neighbors, volunteer at the homeless shelter, attend church regularly, give to the church regularly, etc. etc. fill in you the blank with whatever good work you want it doesn't matter, but yet they are the farthest thing from being saved.

I know of a pastor in particular that pastored a church for several years and then all of a sudden one day came to the realization that he had never been saved. Boy his works sure fooled a lot of people.

I know of another friend that was exactly what I described above, but out of the blue one Sunday he believed in Christ as His Savior. He had the works of s saved person, but was lost.

The point is salvation is a matter of the heart and no one, but God can know the heart.

Works prove nothing. The only thing that comes even close is asking a person what eternally saves them. If they say the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ as the payment for their sin (debt) then they are saved. But you can't really know that, because they can say the words and still not believe it.

There is no proof.

 

You will notice that I didn't say that works proved anything. I said they were evidence of salvation. If you don't have them, then you are not saved. If you have them, you might be, or might not be.

It is clear that you are unfamiliar with the historic doctrine of justification by faith alone. Your words reveal a misunderstanding of Scripture passages and a misunderstanding of what I have said.

I have not added works to grace. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We can add nothing to that.

John said that if a person claims to konw him (be saved) and does not keep his commandments (do works) then that man is a liar. John very clearly taught what I taught. Paul taught the same thing in Col 1:22-23 (that we are discussing here), Ephesians 2, 2 Cor 13, etc.

 

Your quote could have just as easily said "You prove that you never had it.

Again you are trying to dress up the situation.

If you don't continue...that's works. If you doing ANYTHING is tied to salvation it's not grace, but works.

What is happening is you are trying to have the best of both worlds and combining them into one world and therefore destroying both worlds.

You are trying to combine a past salvation with a future salvation and make them say the same thing.

The overall context of I John is not eternal salvation. He is speaking to believers already, not people that need to be saved.

Knowing Him has nothing to do with eternal salvation, you have just inserted your () to make this verse fit your idea. Eternal salvation is based on believing what Christ has done on your behalf.

Your use of this verse establishes exactly what I was talking about. If a person does not do works then he is not saved. That's what you are making the verse say. And that means that his salvation is based on whether or not he does works. That's works based salvation no matter how you dress it up.

Again how do you square your idea of works as a guarantee with Paul who says they are not a guarantee?

 

Surely you are not saying that if a person commits one sin after salvation, they never were saved. Exactly how many of His commandments is one allowed to break before they never were saved in the first place.

For example, a person comes to church and repents of their sin. They are told that since they have trusted in Christ, they have eternal salvation and that they can never lose it. Later this person falls into a certain sin and stops going to church. According to your interpretation this proves this person was never saved in the first place. Then if this same turns back to the Lord how can they have any assurance they are, or have ever been saved.

On the one hand it is unconditional salvation based in Jesus' finished work on the cross. On the other hand it is conditioned upon their continuing in the faith.

 

I think Paul is talking about desire for the ministry:
if you maintain your belief that you will one day stand faultless before God thanks to Christ
then you will desire to spread the Gospel even to the point of persecution.

 

Usually we just call it exegesis and correlation, but if you prefer "dressing up" that works for me. The text says what it says.

No not realloy, but I am not tying any works to salvation.

No I'm not. Please think about what I said.

The Bible doesn't make this firm dichotomy. Salvation is salvation.

But again notice what he says. What do you think a claim to know God is? That, in John, is unmistakeably a claim to be saved. And if you claim to be saved and do not keep his commandments, you are lying. I didn't make that up. John said it. It is the same thing he says in 1:7 and numerous other places. 1 John is all about the evidences of salvation, how we can know that we have eternal life (5:13). "These things" that were written is the book of 1 John.

Yes it does.

No it's not. Why do you do this to the text of Scripture? Salvation is not based on works. Period. End of discussion.

Why do you make up what I said? I didn't say works were a guarantee. I said works were evidence, which is what Jesus said, what John said, what Paul said. Who else needs to say it before you adjust your theology to fit it?

 

Nope, of course not. The Bible teaches otherwise.

I don't know. It's not really about a number. It's about the change that comes in a person's life and gives them new desires.

According to my interpretation they were never saved?? I never said that. The fact that he turns back to the Lord would be evidence in favor of him having been saved. Ultimately, no one here can make that determination. We can only judge fruits.

Your first hand is correct. Salvation is never conditioned on continuing in the faith. What Paul says is that salvation is evidenced by continuing in the faith.

This is the historic doctrine of justification by faith alone.

 

That is certainly a novel interpretation. Could you use the text to support your view so we can see how you arrived at it?

 

Pastor Larry you are contradicting yourself so much it's not even funny.

Larry call it a guarantee call it an absolute call it whatever you want the point is still the same. You say if a person is saved their will be evidences. That means works are a guarantee or an absolute. That's what you are saying, I'm not making that up.

So how do you work this out with Paul saying that works are not a guarantee?

I beg to differ. There is a past salvation (spirit) and a future salvation (soul) - James 1:21, I Peter 1:9, Hebrews 10:39.

Eternal is the Greek word aionios, which means age-lasting. It is an adjective for the work aion which means age. This is speaking of knowing that we have age-lasting life, which is life in the coming age which is not eternity which has no beginning or end, but rather the 1,000-year reign of Christ which as an age has a beginning and end.

 

We are we instructed to be fruit inspectors of the general population of Christians?

Larry you contradict yourself in your own statement. If salvation is not conditioned on any kind of continuance then why do you make the second statement which contradicts your first.

Becuase what you are saying is that if there isn't evidnce of continual faith then the person wasn't saved in the beginning, which means there salvation is based on them continuing in the faith.

I can't believe you can't recognize your own contradiction.

Again bottom line is man's works NEVER enter into the picture of salvation. After a person believes in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God as payment for their sins eternal salvation becomes a thing of the past never to be looked upon again.

Works never look back they look forward. Works look forward because they will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ which is a future event. But eternity will not be based on the judgment seat of Christ, but rather the 1,000-year kingdom of Christ.

If you tie the JSOC into eternity you are going to run into all kinds of further contradictions.

 

No, that’s not what it means. Do not say it again. If you are going to converse with me on this topic, then address what I say. Works are not a guarantee.

I don’t have anything to work out. I agree with Paul.

The Bible doesn’t distinguish between soul and spirit really. Man is made of two parts, material and immaterial. The verses you list talk about final salvation, the end result of spiritual salvation. It is not a different salvation.

So Jesus only had age lasting life (1 John 1:2)? God’s glory is only age lasting (1 Peter 5:10)? The Holy Spirit is only age lasting (Heb 9:14)? Our redemption is only for the age (Heb 9:12)? Destruction of unbelievers is only age lasting (2 Thess 1:9)? God is only age lasting (Rom 16:26)?

Clearly, your exegesis is flawed. There is no doubt that the word can sometimes mean a long period of time, but the context of 1 John makes clear that eternal life with God is in view, not the millennial kingdom.

Here’s the statement: Salvation is never conditioned on continuing in the faith. What Paul says is that salvation is evidenced by continuing in the faith.

Notice the two statements do not say the same thing. One talks about conditions; the other talks about evidences. Please, again, do not make up what I say. Do not change it. I have clearly stated two different things.

You are correct in what I said, but you drew a false conclusion. Salvation is eternal and permanent. You cannot lose it. It is not conditioned on anything.

It’s because there isn’t one.

Depends on what you mean by that. Scripture is clear that saved people will have fruits of salvation.

This is certainly true. It is what I have said from the beginning.

It would help us tremendously if you would interact first with Scripture and second with what I have said about Scripture and my position. You are making stuff up about what I said and twisting it to be something I did not say.

Remember, I have said that salvation is not conditioned on works. I explicitly deny any conditional salvation based on works. Do not ever again accuse me of believing that. If you cannot reconcile what I am saying that is fine. There are plenty of places you can read about and study my position. But do not accuse me of something I do not believe.

 

So let me ask you this question. If a person believes in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, as payment for their sin debt ie the person is saved. But this person never produces a single good work. Is that person saved?

 

The Bible does in fact make a clear distinction between the three-parts of man, not two-parts. We were created in the image of God. Now if that is true, which it is, and God is three then why would we be two?

How do you square your understanding with Genesis 2:7 and I Th 5:23 - Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Doesn't seem to be just two parts there.

You are correct in SOMETIMES. When it is directly connected with Deity.

No it doesn't, because the verb tense that John uses both in his gospel and in I John is present tense, which means if someone isn't continuing to believe then they don't get what is said. Therefore eternity is not in view, because man's continuance is not tied with eternal salvation, but his one-time belief in the substitution of Jesus Christ and His works on his behalf.

Again if you hold your view you have a great number of contradictions in the Bible, which is an impossibility.

Again you contradict yourself. This is becoming comical. You say works are not guaranteed. then a few lines down the post you make this statement which says that works are a guarantee. Which is it Larry? Guarantee or not?

Larry I'm not making this stuff up. I am addressing exactly what you have said. Just like the quote mentioned just above. You say works are not a guarantee and then you say saved people WILL have fruits of their salvation. That means you believe works are in fact a guarantee.

I'm not making this stuff up.

 

If a person never did a good work, did they really believe? What does it mean to believe? Perhaps we need to start with something more basic. Beleif is not just mental assent. The devil believes in the substitutionary death of Christ but he isn't saved.

The Bible says that if any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things have passed away, new things have come. I believe that. The old saying is that if there's been no change, then there's been no change. If a person is "in Christ" (which is salvation), then they will be changed. New htings will come and old things will pass away. That is a categorical statement of the life change that comes to a person when they believe.

At this point, your theology has to take a back seat to revelation. What God has said is more important than what you think.