Salvation by Works.....or Not?

[NotCountedWise]

How did you produce good fruit--that is, fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt. 3:8)--while you were still a bad tree?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

I began bearing good fruit after I became Christ's... after I placed my trust in Him and allowed Him to do His work in me.

 

[NotCountedWise]

We can talk about the evidently necessary "act of the human will" in active terms: Choice, decision, opening the door, giving one's life to Christ, etc. We can also talk about in passive terms: Trust, accept, receive, allow, etc.

But we're still talking about the same thing: An act of the human will.

And a bad tree still cannot produce good fruit.

If you produce a good fruit, such as faith or repentance or trust, then you must be a good tree.

And if you're a good tree, you can't produce bad fruit. (I.e., sin.)

Did you sin prior to your conversion (or whatever you may wish to call it)? Then you were a bad tree, incapable of producing a good fruit such as repentance.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:11)

 

[NotCountedWise]

This is a fallacy:
Both of us have the ability to read and write.
Therefore, everyone has the ability to read and write.
(Not everyone is a good tree.)

How can a bad tree ask the Father for anything (let alone salvation) when it is busy producing only bad fruit?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Asking the Father for Salvation is because of God revealing through His Word the sinful state man is in. It is not because man is born again that He asks for Salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

SFIC: Man can choose God prior to regeneration. I know this to be fact. For I was one who chose God before regeneration.

I was dead in trespasses and sins before He so marvellously and gloriiously saved me from a devil's hell.

HP: Preach on my Brother :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

NCW: How can a bad tree ask the Father for anything (let alone salvation) when it is busy producing only bad fruit?

HP: With man things are impossible but with God all things are possible. I cannot tell you how it happened, but this one thing I know. I was blind but now I see. :wavey:

 

[NotCountedWise]

"It is not because man is born again that he asks for salvation."

I agree, that makes it sound really absurd. But how can a bad tree produce good fruit? You're still stuck with that. Notice that Jesus never says a bad tree can produce neutral fruit; i.e., fruit that is neither good nor bad. Bad fruit only.

Asking the Father for Salvation is because of God revealing through His Word the sinful state man is in.

I think it's interesting that you maintain God's role as passive (he simply "reveals" the truth), whereas our role is active. Is this the same proactive God who sent his Son to be crucified on a tree for a world of bad trees? Why ever can't God still work miracles? Why can't he still intervene through the power of his Word? The Word is not a dead revelation, it is living and active. Through it, the Spirit quickens and awakens us to our sin (regeneration), thereby provoking a response in us (repentance).

HP: With man things are impossible but with God all things are possible. I cannot tell you how it happened, but this one thing I know. I was blind but now I see.

I suspect your colleague will disagree that God had a hand in his choice. That's the whole point, isn't it? We must escape the "puppet-strings" of Calvinism.

But it's quite easy to do that and still affirm that conversion is God's miracle, not an act of the human will.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

"It is not because man is born again that he asks for salvation."

I agree, that makes it sound really absurd. But how can a bad tree produce good fruit? You're still stuck with that. Notice that Jesus never says a bad tree can produce neutral fruit; i.e., fruit that is neither good nor bad. Bad fruit only.

I think it's interesting that you maintain God's role as passive (he simply "reveals" the truth), whereas our role is active. Is this the same proactive God who sent his Son to be crucified on a tree for a world of bad trees? Why ever can't God still work miracles? Why can't he still intervene through the power of his Word? The Word is not a dead revelation, it is living and active. Through it, the Spirit quickens and awakens us to our sin (regeneration), thereby provoking a response in us (repentance).

I suspect your colleague will disagree that God had a hand in his choice. That's the whole point, isn't it? We must escape the "puppet-strings" of Calvinism.

But it's quite easy to do that and still affirm that conversion is God's miracle, not an act of the human will.

God's Hand in our choice:

The Presentation of the Word
The Convincing of sin by the Word
The Drawing of the Holy Spirit
The Offer of the Gift of Eternal Life

Our hand in our Choice:

Hearing the Word
Responding to the Convincing of Sin by the Word
Placing Trust in Christ and His finished Work on the Cross at which time the hearer receives the Gift of Salvation

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

NCW: how can a bad tree produce good fruit?

HP: Be obedient to God’s stated conditions of repentance and faith in Christ. God had enabled the sinner with the abilities requisite to see those things accomplished. God says when a sinner turns to Him in repentance, and places his trust in the atoning work of Christ, He will be made a new creation in Christ.

NCW: you maintain God's role as passive (he simply "reveals" the truth), whereas our role is active.

HP: No one has ever stated that God is passive in salvation. First, God must be the revealer of the plan of salvation. God influences our hearts by the drawing of the Holy Spirit, without which no man could come to Him. The point is that both God and man are active in salvation according to Scripture. God draws and man must freely respond, opening the door of their heart to Christ, in order to be saved. They must be willing to die to their selves and have a change of heart and attitude towards their former rebellion and selfishness in order to be made alive unto Christ.

NCW: I suspect your colleague will disagree that God had a hand in his choice. That's the whole point, isn't it? We must escape the "puppet-strings" of Calvinism.

HP: I can only speak for myself as I have no ‘colleagues’ on the list that I know of, only friends and brothers and sisters in the Lord.


We are NOT saved by the human will. The human will is Not the grounds of salvation. We are saved by the merc6y and grace of God. Just the same, no man will be saved apart from fulfilling the conditions God stated that man must do in order to be saved. Repentance and faith in Christ are the duties and responsibility of man to perform. True, the Holy Spirit must reveal the truth to our heart, but man is called upon to formulate voluntary intents, without which no man shall be saved. The conditions man fulfills are NOT meritorious in nature and always are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ Mans will being involved in the salvation process by no means establishes the notion that you suggest, that we are saved by mans will. Again. we are NOT saved by mans will, but neither will any man be saved apart from man exercising his will.

 

[NotCountedWise]

SFIC,

Don't you mean:

"God presents us with the choice. (He may even give us great reasons to take it.)"
"Using our own free will (i.e., without God's influence) we make the choice."

It can hardly be denied that Decision Theology is a reaction against Calvinism, yes? You can try and make it sound like God has a big role in your conversion, but if you actually let go of the wheel, you're back in the territory of Calvin. (Yes?) But if you read my super long post (#238), I try to explain why that isn't so.

But let's break some new ground:

"To place one's trust in Christ." Is this a good fruit? Or a bad fruit?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

NCW: "Using our own free will (i.e., without God's influence) we make the choice."

HP: Why would you seem to be suggesting that if ones free will is involved God is not or cannot bee seen as involved in influencing it?

 

[NotCountedWise]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Thank you for your response.
I wonder if you have considered posts #238 and #239.

HP: Be obedient to God’s stated conditions of repentance and faith in Christ.

According to Jesus, "Neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

God had enabled the sinner with the abilities requisite to see those things accomplished.

Such as infants? Whether or not you affirm an "age of accountability" teaching (or something similar), there are of course many Decision Theologians who do. That works out to be an exception to the exception, yes? Man is incapable of doing good works, *except* for those "non-meritorious" works of repentance and faith that are necessary for salvation. (How could he be saved, otherwise?) And those works are necessary for salvation *except* in the case of infants, who lack the mental capacity to perform those works. And perhaps a third exception may be made for those who never had the choice presented to them in the first place. Hmm.

It's much easier to simply affirm that it is God who fulfills *all* the conditions of our salvation. That way, everyone who is saved is saved in the same way. No exceptions necessary. What's the downside? Well, if you recognize that this teaching exists outside the Double Predestination camp, there is none.

HP: No one has ever stated that God is passive in salvation. [snip] The point is that both God and man are active in salvation according to Scripture. [snip]

You may not like it that Lutherans such as myself lump Decision Theologians in with Roman Catholics. Maybe it's a little unfair. I don't know. But I look at Roman Catholicism and I see "salvation = God + man cooperating." Which is what you're saying. I know that for some, the details are very important. Is the relationship 50-50? 70-30? 99-1? Who is pulling the weight? Are our works *meriting* salvation, or do our works merely *apprehend* salvation? Shrug. It's all the same to me.

Now, I suspect we both agree that Christ's atonement does nobody any good unless the benefits of that atonement are applied directly and personally to them. I consider this to be a critical point of agreement. However, we differ in the specifics of how these benefits are actually applied. You say that we must cooperate with God in some way to apprehend these benefits. (And others would say that God *gets out of our way* as we apprehend these benefits.) Whereas I say that God divinely applies them to us, through the Word and Sacraments. What exactly about the Lutheran position do you find distasteful?

HP: Why would you seem to be suggesting that if ones free will is involved God is not or cannot bee seen as involved in influencing it?

Because I am only concerned with that component of the "free will" which is actually free. I don't care about those parts that are under the influence of God; they're par for the course. My problem is with the portion that's still supposedly free. Thus I zone in upon it.

 

[Dan V.]

Man can choose God prior to regeneration. I know this to be fact. For I was one who chose God before regeneration.

I was dead in trespasses and sins before He so marvellously and gloriiously saved me from a devil's hell.

I heard the Word, I chose to believe the Word and trust Christ as my Savior and asked Him to be Lord of my life. It was then that He saved me, bringing newness of life into an otherwise dead soul.

The soul was not made alive befre Salvation, but afterward. Regeneration is life anew... life after trust in Christ.

The basis for your answer: "I know this to be fact. For I was one who chose God before regeneration" is merely self attesting.

If you were dead I know this to be fact. For I was one who chose God before regeneration.

If you were "dead in trespasses and sins" then God had to make you alive.

Last I checked, dead men are not very responsive.

Dan V.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

One is not alive until one is in Christ.

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

Eternal life comes from Jesus Christ for He is life. Outside of Christ, one is not alive.

One is not in Christ until Christ is in that one. One is not in Christ before Salvation.

 

[Dan V.]

One is not alive until one is in Christ.

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

Eternal life comes from Jesus Christ for He is life. Outside of Christ, one is not alive.

One is not in Christ until Christ is in that one. One is not in Christ before Salvation.

You said it yourself - "One is not in Christ until Christ is in that one". This accounts for the reason why you repented. He was in you first to make you alive - he changed the disposition of your heart. So you had new desires, being a new creature, and made new choices as a result. This is how the will works.

John 5: 21......"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will"

He made you alive! Give God the all the praise. You and I get none.

Dan V.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

You said it yourself - "One is not in Christ until Christ is in that one". This accounts for the reason why you repented. He was in you first to make you alive - he changed the disposition of your heart. So you had new desires, being a new creature, and made new choices as a result. This is how the will works.

John 5: 21......"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will"

He made you alive! Give God the all the praise. You and I get none.

Dan V.

Christ is not in that one until that one is saved.. That one is not in Christ until that one is saved.

Don't try to twist my words to fit your twisted view of God's grace to man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

NCW: Who is pulling the weight? Are our works *meriting* salvation, or do our works merely *apprehend* salvation? Shrug. It's all the same to me.

HP: And I thought you acted as if you had something that would enlighten us.

 

[NotCountedWise]

SFIC,

I hope it is clear that neither of us really escapes the "problem" of using Scripture to interpret Scripture; that is, we must use Scripture to interpret passages that don't obviously fit with other passages. Indeed, I suspect that when talking with like-minded persons, both of us present a somewhat "softer" version, as our underlying presuppositions aren't under attack.

But I'm wondering what Scriptures convince you that it is preferable to assume that it is necessary for man to "cooperate" with God in some way. Why choose *that* method of Scripture-Scripture interpretation, when you could just as easily take the other route?

Heavenly Pilgrim, what are you talking about?