Matthew 7:The true disciple
21. `It is not anyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the person who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22. When the day comes many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?'
23. Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, all evil doers!
24. `Therefore, everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on rock.
25. Rain came down, floods rose, gales blew and hurled themselves against that house, and it did not fall: it was founded on rock.
26. But everyone who listens to these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a stupid man who built his house on sand.
27. Rain came down, floods rose, gales blew and struck that house, and it fell; and what a fall it had!"
:confused:So who is Jesus talking about here?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

Is He talking about those who talk the talk without walking the walk? Or to the people who think good deeds alone will get you into Heaven... Good deeds are good but in order to get into Heaven you must know Him.

franneh,
Good questions.
But I believe what the bible says about that.
Jesus tells his followers that we will no them by their works, that is by the fruit they bear.
Matthew 7: 15. `Beware of false prophets who come to you disguised as sheep but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16. You will be able to tell them by their fruits. Can people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17. In the same way, a sound tree produces good fruit but a rotten tree bad fruit.
18. A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19. Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown on the fire.
20. I repeat, you will be able to tell them by their fruits.
Good followers of Jesus bear good fruit. That is they do good works to prove their faith for a faith without works is dead, dead, dead.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

arcura,

What does vs 22

22. When the day comes many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?'

Mean?

I mean, how do you tell the difference between "works" and "fruit?" Or does God only know that?





g&p

Those who call Jesus Lord but do not obey him and his word will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Those who belong to Christ Jesus abide in him and they obey him.
:D

inthebox,
They go together.There is no difference between works and fruit other than works produce the fruit.
Example.
Jesus is the grape vine.
We are the branches of the grape vine which work to produce the fruit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Good followers of Jesus bear good fruit. That is they do good works to prove their faith for a faith without works is dead, dead, dead.


Fred,

I think that you are partly there. The works come as a result of their salvation, but I would question if those who are saved "...do good works to prove their faith". I would suggest that the good works of those who are saved come as a natural consequence of the Holy Spirit indwelling the person, and therefore is not an attempt to prove their faith, but rather is evidence of their faith.

Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love. The same is true with faith and faithfulness.

Well, I don't see this as being all that controversial. Notice what the Lord says to them when they say haven't we done this and that in your name? The Lord is clear.. he says to depart from him for he NEVER knew them. There are so many people who say they are Christian. They celebrate Christmas, go to church do good deeds. But they have got NO relationship the Lord Jesus. They don't know him and he NEVER knew them. It is easy to say you are a Christian, there is a big difference in head knowledge and heart knowledge.

Something else to think about. If the miracle works listed don't merit Heaven, then what makes us think that ANY lesser works will merit Heaven?

The Apostle Paul said that even if he gave his body to be burned it profited him nothing if he did not have charity. (agape)

Besides what others have said
Especially classyT's church goers doing good deeds
I think a large part of it is they are doing 'good works' but not WHAT God might be wanting of them. Like they might be doing lunches for church socials and singing in the choir while God would rather they were working at the soup kitchen.
I think that is a part of the story in Cain and Abel.
God blessed the ones work while he cursed the others.
The one was a blood offering, while the other was a work of the earth. One was in faith, one was not.
God's Story: From Creation to Eternity, page 7 - ChristianAnswers.Net (http://www.christiananswers.net/godstory/family1.html)
We are either spiritual and giving offerings pleasing to God or we are professing and relying on our earthly fruits in our own efforts.
So we have to go by what God wants from us personally. IF he tells us to give our body to be burned, if he tells us to yield fruit, if he tells us to prophesy,. that is what we should be doing.

Galveston1,

Well, sure, but no one's suggesting that works *without faith* merit heaven. No one disagrees that works alone aren't going to do the trick. The point is that faith without works is insufficient--or, if we take a clue from a recent posting, that faith without works may not really be faith. Neither faith alone, nor works alone, but faith and works together.

(I feel I've said this before... recently.)

Galveston1,
The point is that faith without works is insufficient--

Scripture says otherwise:

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Yes, and as I pointed out at #32 on the thread "How will you be judged on judgment day", you've misunderstood Eph.2. To save you having to look up what I wrote, I'll quote you a relevant bit from my post:

Let me try to explain why I find your reiterations of Eph.2 unhelpful. Whether you take the "it" which opens the clause at v. 8 ("it is the gift of God") to refer to "grace" or to "faith", the claim is that it is the gift of God; it is not produced by means of good works. Fine. But this is entirely different from the claim--which you mean to advance--that works don't matter at all. At best, the passage is allowing for a distinction between faith and works. It certainly doesn't say that you are saved by faith *alone*. (In fact, what it says is that without grace you can't be saved, on which I take it we agree. The "it" refers to grace, which is the topic of the paragraph in which the pericope occurs--we require grace; we cannot save ourselves by our own unaided efforts.) The grace we receive is not achieved by works. I have already granted that faith is required for salvation, so the claim that we are "saved through faith" isn't a problem for me. It would be a problem for me if the passage read that we are saved through faith and that works play no part. But it doesn't say that, of course. In fact, there's a semicolon between the relevant clauses. You seem to read the passage awkwardly, as stating that we are saved through faith and "not of works". But that makes complete mush of the surface grammar. The claim is rather that grace is a gift "of God" and not "of works" (this comes out still more clearly in the Greek, inflected pronouns and all). But nobody is denying that. Who would?

You didn't have a good answer to my objections then. Do you have one now?

Akoue,
I agree with you.
Faith alone can not and does not save.
Faith alone is dead.
The dead can not save the dead.
We are judged by our works both good and bad if any.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes, and as I pointed out at #32 on the thread "How will you be judged on judgment day", you've misunderstood Eph.2. To save you having to look up what I wrote, I'll quote you a relevant bit from my post:

And I explained to you why you erred in your interpretation. Do you want to just copy and paste the whole discussion again?


Let me try to explain why I find your reiterations of Eph.2 unhelpful. Whether you take the "it" which opens the clause at v. 8 ("it is the gift of God") to refer to "grace" or to "faith", the claim is that it is the gift of God;

Let's see what it says:

Eph 2:7-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

The context is clear. Read the whole of the wider context. It is clear.



It is not produced by means of good works. Fine. But this is entirely different from the claim--which you mean to advance--that works don't matter at all.

Please take the time to actually read what I posted. No one, including myself said that works do not matter. It is just that, as scripture says, they play absolutely no part in our salvation.



As for 1 Jn.8-9, nothing whatever is said about faith vs. works (neither word appears).

If ALL righteousness comes through Christ, NONE comes through us.


Notice that I haven't tried to refute anything,

More to the point, in most cases you have not actually addressed the points that have been raised.


On Romans 3. Yes, exactly, faith, faith, faith. There is no salvation without faith.
This is what I mean - you missed what it said - or maybe ignored.

Rom 3:21-26
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NKJV

Where do we find works in here? As I pointed out to Fred:

Rom 3:28-29
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
NKJV

All you are doing is just denying over and over but as of yet, you have failed to show any scriptural justification for your argument. Just denying the obvious may get you the cheerleaders like fred, but it does not win you any real points.


So it is only through Christ's sacrifice that we are saved. Apart from that sacrifice there could be no salvation.

That alone ends the discussion because that tells us that His sacrifice is sufficient. Nothing more can be or needs to be added.


If we fail to respond, well, then we aren't saved. So in that sense, the sacrifice isn't sufficient for one's salvation:

That argument holds no water. It is a word game. If someone gives you a gift at Christmas, when you receive it, is that work?


You didn't have a good answer to my objections then. Do you have one now?

Whether you accept what scripture says, or you prefer your own private interpretation is your concern.

John 8:2 And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.

3 And the scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst,

4 they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.

5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"

6 And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground.

7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

8 And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.

10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"

11 And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more."


What do I make of this?
Well , at first the woman was caught in adultery in the very act so those who caught her must have also caught a man, but somehow they did not bring him in front of Jesus!Hypocrisy!
Then they use the law for at least two reasons.1st , to kill the woman 2nd , to tempt Jesus.
We all know how this ends but lets take a second look.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought her to Jesus, the scribes and the Pharisees wanted her life .The scribes and the Pharisees are people who do know God , but knowing is not obeying!
Jesus saves her from them.She is saved not from God , but by God.And who is she saved from?She is saved from the world.The world wanted her life , not God.It was not God that brought her in that place.It was not God that wanted her life, it was the world, so God saved her from the world.
And who is the world?
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.

The devil is the adversary,the world.
So , who is this woman saved from?She is saved from the devil!

Matthew 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.

22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Mark 10:52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Luke 17:19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

Notice that in the Greek NT the word for whole is esose which means you are saved!

So this woman was saved from the world, from the devil,through her faith , and it was faith that she had because we see her not fighting back but giving herself up in front of Jesus,waiting for His decission and that is faith!
And once she was saved what did Jesus tell her? And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more."
What does she have to do to make God's mercy on her not waisted?She has to sin no more.That's her works !Without that God's mercy won't be the same.She would still be saved from the world , because God saved her life but then she had to stand before God to explain why she did not listen to Him?

Yes, faith saves us, not from God's wrath but from the world's hatred.After that , we have to sin no more , and if we do make a mistake and sin , we have to repent while there is time for us to repent. Repent is also our works !
Fred
To answear your question , The Lord is speaking about people who do know Him but not obey Him, in other words , the scribes and the Pharisees!

Hi Fred..
I have to tell you a concern I have

I often wonder about this..
People who are pedophiles and murderer's and all manner of evil that when they get to prison.. they get with (so they say) God and they are reborn.. and please know for those true believers I am thrilled but its like there are more born again's in jail than anywhere.

I just don't buy it and as a Christian I don't want to judge but c'mon... it just doesn't ring true and I know I should pray for these people and love them but I can't when I still feel like they are lying.

I feel like they are using Jesus as a get out of jail free card .if you will. And its not real Its like a double crime.Not only are they saying they are born again but they are degrading the Lord at the same time.

I know I'm being judgmental.. my bad again... I guess I have a long way to go before I can be that forgiving. I try every day not to judge and to forgive.Its like my mantra :p

I am old :confused: I'm 54 and Ive been workin' on it for many a year but there are some things I just can't forgive.Not in my personal life but bad bad people.I see them as a mistake .Gods mistake.

Thanks for listening.. I know I really veered off the subject!

All Gods love.. Michele

The "evil ones" could be those who are very religious in public acts but have no personal relationship with God.

They are fine until they run into adversity in their own personal lives. If a person doesn't know the love of God for themselves, they will be devastated when their own strength and popularity fails.

revdrgade summed it up exactly right!

Ah, the Tj two-step. Okay, partner, let's dance.

"No one, including myself said that works do not matter."

See my post #36 (on the thread "How will you be judged on judgment day?"): "I took it to be blazingly obvious that when I have employed the locution "works don't matter" I meant this to be shorthand for "works aren't relevant for the purposes of salvation". I took this to be obvious both because I have used the two locutions in apposition and because the topic is... whether works are necessary for salvation. Your claim--sometimes in caps--has been that they are not." (I include the quotes for ease of reference.)

"More to the point, in most cases you have not actually addressed the points that have been raised."

Well, I addressed each of the points you cared to make (as is evident to anyone who cares to glance at the last couple of pages of the other thread--I assumed this is why you withdrew). And here I am, doing it again. I've already addressed each of the Scriptural passages you adduced--and De Maria provided lots of Scriptural evidence that works do matter (you weren't able to show that she had misunderstood those passages, whereas I did show that you misunderstand the passages you favor).

On Romans 3: Recall that, as I pointed out at #32 and again at #33, the faith/works distinction isn't the same as the faith/law distinction. Rm.3 is concerned with the latter: We don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. We aren't bound by the strictures of the Pentateuch. The claim that we aren't bound by the Law is not the claim that works aren't a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for salvation.

"That alone ends the discussion because that tells us that His sacrifice is sufficient. Nothing more can be or needs to be added."

See my post #36: "All righteousness comes through Christ. Right. But where does justification come from? What justifies me? Christ. Well, then what about faith? If your latest gloss on 1 Jn. is that all that matters is Christ's sacrifice, then does faith not matter either? (In the sense of "matter" adumbrated above, just to be clear.) If I am saved just by virtue of the fact that Christ died, then I must not need faith in order to be saved. But surely you can't mean to say that. Though you flirt with it when you write that "His sacrifice is sufficient. Nothing more can be or needs to be added." Nothing? Nothing at all? Not even faith? have you jettisoned your original position?"

There, I've responded, yet again, point by point. As I've indicated before, by disagreeing with you *I am responding* (disagreement is a mode of response). Now I'd really rather not keep reproducing lines from another thread, but there's nothing new for me to say since you haven't met the still outstanding burden of demonstrating that I have misunderstood the passages under consideration. I have dutifully, and patiently, explained why I take your readings to be faulty. If you can't respond by carefully and rigorously unpacking those passages in such a way as to make evident my error, then you lose the argument. That's how rational discourse goes.

Oh, and just to reiterate, a-friggin'-gain: The "wider context" of Eph.2 shows that the "it" that is unmerited, that is a gift, is grace. Grace and faith aren't the same thing. These are just basic distinctions. Why not just return to the other thread and respond to my objections there, rather than taking up here a line that you failed to vindicate just a couple of weeks ago?

Ah, the Tj two-step. Okay, partner, let's dance.

I am trying to discuss God's word. You are the one who wants to dance.


"No one, including myself said that works do not matter."

See my post #36 (on the thread "How will you be judged on judgment day?"): "I took it to be blazingly obvious that when I have employed the locution "works don't matter" I meant this to be shorthand for "works aren't relevant for the purposes of salvation".

I have and had all along stated clearly that works were important as a response to our salvation. Therefore if you in fact meant salvation, then I can only assume that your words were deliberately deceptive and a deliberate mis-representation of what I said.


"More to the point, in most cases you have not actually addressed the points that have been raised."

Well, I addressed each of the points you cared to make (as is evident to anyone who cares to glance at the last couple of pages of the other thread--I assumed this is why you withdrew). And here I am, doing it again. I've already addressed each of the Scriptural passages you adduced--and De Maria provided lots of Scriptural evidence that works do matter (you weren't able to show that she had misunderstood those passages, whereas I did show that you misunderstand the passages you favor).

As shown above, your responses do not address the points raised.



On Romans 3: Recall that, as I pointed out at #32 and again at #33, the faith/works distinction isn't the same as the faith/law distinction.

I could spend all day giving links to old messages if you like as well. That is why I asked if you just want to copy and paste the whole debate once again. I also responded to your claims.

Now as for your claim, scripture is consistent throughout that we are saved by faith, and not by works. Whether we are speaking of "good works" towards others or works under the law - anything that you are trying to do to gain merit to get you into heaven is doomed to fail, because once you claim that you can "work" yourself into heaven in part or in whole, you have place yourself under the law.

What you have yet to show us is where scripture says that works are essential for salvation.


"That alone ends the discussion because that tells us that His sacrifice is sufficient. Nothing more can be or needs to be added."

See my post #36: "All righteousness comes through Christ. Right. But where does justification come from? What justifies me? Christ. Well, then what about faith? If your latest gloss on 1 Jn. is that all that matters is Christ's sacrifice, then does faith not matter either? (In the sense of "matter" adumbrated above, just to be clear.) If I am saved just by virtue of the fact that Christ died, then I must not need faith in order to be saved.

Someone always brings up this weak argument. Once again, faith in scripture is the same as faithfulness. Christ died on the cross for our sins. If you really believe in Him, you will respond and receive that in faith / faithfulness. I addressed this once before - receiving a gift is not a work.

And you have undermined your whole position because if we are righteous through the perfect righteousness imputed to us by Christ - Christ's righteousness, then nothing more is required unless you are telling me that Christ's righteousness is not complete and perfect, and that sinful man is able to fill that gap.


Oh, and just to reiterate, a-friggin'-gain: The "wider context" of Eph.2 shows that the "it" that is unmerited, that is a gift, is grace. Grace and faith aren't the same thing. These are just basic distinctions

No one argued that they were. This is a strawman argument. Unmerited favour of God fits in well with the context of the passage showing that it is NOT by our merit, not our works, but God's unmerited favour by imputing Christ's righteousness to us. This was addressed a number of times previously.



Why not just return to the other thread and respond to my objections there, rather than taking up here a line that you failed to vindicate just a couple of weeks ago?

Why not waste less time on strawman arguments (I exposed two above) and more time on trying to defending your position. Putting up a strawman argument and then saying that others are not refuting it is not an honest way of debating. If you really believe that you are right, then address the points that are being raised by your opponent.

Leaving to one side the other exchange in which I'm embroiled on this thread, I'd like to take up artlady's very nice post.

Like you, many of us find distressing the idea that one can claim to be saved in spite of performing heinous actions. God's mercy is infinite, to be sure, but so is his justice. If someone who has lived badly comes to God... well, that's all to the good, of course. But it makes me terribly uncomfortable for people to claim on their own behalf that they are saved, that they are going to heaven, what have you. This just sounds profoundly arrogant to my ears: Who am I, who are any of us, to say that we are saved? Where's the "fear and trembling" in that? Where's the humility? Judgment is God's prerogative, and I'm not to arrogate that to myself. Tell me that you have faith, tell me that you are striving to be better, tell me that you long for heaven, and I'm all ears. Tell me that it's a done deal and all I can do is shake my head.

This doesn't speak to Fred's question, I know, except in a roundabout way. But I found artlady's remarks thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I wanted to acknowledge that.

Some people just have so much faith it feels like gold in the bank.
Sure some people are arrogant that they are going to heaven but some proclaim it because their faith is soooo overwhelming they have enough faith to claim they are going to heaven.

Like you, many of us find distressing the idea that one can claim to be saved in spite of performing heinous actions. God's mercy is infinite, to be sure, but so is his justice. If someone who has lived badly comes to God... well, that's all to the good, of course.

Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?


But it makes me terribly uncomfortable for people to claim on their own behalf that they are saved, that they are going to heaven, what have you. This just sounds profoundly arrogant to my ears: Who am I, who are any of us, to say that we are saved?

Hmmm... Are you saying that the speaker here was profoundly arrogant?

Titus 3:4-7
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-9
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
NKJV

Some people just have so much faith it feels like gold in the bank.
Sure some people are arrogant that they are going to heaven but some proclaim it because their faith is soooo overwhelming they have enough faith to claim they are going to heaven.

Scripture speaks of that:

Heb 10:19-23

19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
NKJV

Arrogance would be to focus on us that having done something to merit our salvation (i.e. good works), whereas faith points to Christ and His work on the cross that accomplished and was solely sufficient our salvation. All glory goes to Him. Nothing for us to boast about or be arrogant. This is one reason that Ephesians says not to say that our salvation has anything to do with works, because then we are boasting that we did it - in part or in whole. We are the reason that Christ's had to come. That is the part that works played in our eternal destiny. Our works condemned us. It is the work on the cross (no of our works lest any man should boast) that saves us.

To provide an answer directly to the original question, I believe that we see these evil ones each day. We see those who use Jesus' name but then teach a different god, or teach a different gospel.

We see those even in leadership of churches who teach that men can become God or becomes gods, contrary to what scripture says.

We see those who teach false signs signs and wonders while failing to teach the gospel of our sinfulness and Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Are all these people unsaved? That is for God to judge, but I do fear that many of these who falsely claim to be apostles and are not will be hearing those words from Jesus that He never knew them unless they turn things around and submit themselves to Him and His word.

"Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?"

It sure is. Lucky for them, Catholics and Orthodox think the same thing. No salvation without grace. No faith without grace. No works without grace. Grace is a freely given, unmerited, gift of God.

1. No salvation without faith and works.
2. No faith without grace.
3. No works without grace.
4. Therefore: No salvation without grace. QED

As I've said many times before, this looks like a deductively valid argument. The only problem for Catholic-Orthodox teaching would come from a Scriptual passage that says: "Faith is required for salvation and works are not." There are a ton of passages that assert that faith is required for salvation. This I've granted many times. It isn't controversial. Likewise, it's uncontroversial to say that grace is required for salvation--we can't win our salvation by our own unaided efforts. But works matter because I can fail to respond to that gift. To use your example: Someone can hand me a gift and I can throw it to the ground. I can reject that gift. The giving of the gift isn't sufficient; it has to be accepted, appropriated, made truly one's own. And this is what the Catholic-Orthodox view holds: It is by GOd's grace that I do good works. But the performing of those works is my response to God, my taking up and into myself the gift that he has generously offered. (The same is true of faith: I can reject the gift, I can repudiate it. Its merely being offered isn't sufficient for my salvation: I have to respond to that reality.)

What could possibly be so repugnant about such a view? Isn't there something lovely about it?

"Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?"

It sure is. Lucky for them, Catholics and Orthodox think the same thing. No salvation without grace. No faith without grace. No works without grace. Grace is a freely given, unmerited, gift of God.

If it without merit then it is without anything that we can add to it - therefore no works (as Eph 2:4 and other passages - indeed the whole context of the gospel tells us).



1. No salvation without faith and works.

How you manage to say "grace" and then add "works" contrary to what scripture says is beyond me. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient PERIOD.

Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?

Sure it is. The confusion stems from some misunderstanding which Reformed theology has regarding what St. Paul said on the subject. Forgetting that Scripture says:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

When we put them in their context and take into account the difficulty which Scripture highlights concerning St. Paul's writings, then we see that they are both saying the same thing.

Romans 3: 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Now, if we are justified "freely", why is there a need for faith? After all, faith itself is a work.

John 6: 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

St. Paul used the same formula often. Lets break it down and compare it to other statements he makes on the subject:
Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Note that faith gives us access to grace. In other words, by faith, we merit grace.

So, in order to obtain the grace of God we must do the work of God, we must have faith.

So, now we can compare this Rom 3:24 precisely with other verses:

Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship,
Romans 3: 24Being justified freely by his grace
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved

Romans 1:5 cont'd for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
Romans 3:24 cont'd through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:8 cont'd through faith;

So, the question now is, do we merit salvation by faith without works?

No need to go to St. James. He explicitly says, "No!"

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Does St. Paul say that we merit salvation, eternal life, by faith alone?
Since St. Paul says that Jesus only saves those that are obedient, I would say that St. Paul also condemns the idea of faith without works:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Again, BASIC distinction: Grace is required for faith and for works. I can't earn the gift of grace, but I can do the hard work of living my faith.

Again, BASIC distinction: Grace is required for faith and for works.

People can do good works without either grace or faith - that si clear from scripture and from real life. But the works do not save and are not required for salvation. Works are an evidence of salvation, but not sufficient evidence by themselves.


I can't earn the gift of grace, but I can do the hard work of living my faith.

Note that the works follow the faith.

Man, oh, man. Again, BASIC distinction (I've made it so often my fingers are going numb): NO ONE THINKS THAT WORKS WITHOUT FAITH MERIT SALVATION. Notice, PLEASE, the CONJUNCTION (not disjunction) of the premise: No salvation without faith AND works. Nobody thinks works alone are sufficient. (Look up the distinction between a necessary condition and a sufficient condition. Works are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for salvation.)

Works are only the evidence and result that follow the faith
Faith without works is dead

I think we are all saying the same thing and turning it into a semantics argument or something.

Sure it is. The confusion stems from some misunderstanding which Reformed theology has regarding what St. Paul said on the subject.

If you wish to debate Reformed theology, you may wish to seek a discussion with someone to holds to Reformed theology. I do not.


Romans 3: 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Now, if we are justified "freely", why is there a need for faith? After all, faith itself is a work.


Really? Faith is a work that we do?


John 6: 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

You seem to be mixing belief and faith. There is a relationship, but they are not the same. Nonetheless, this does not say that faith or belief is a work of man but of God. Once again, our works are left out of the equation for salvation.


So, the question now is, do we merit salvation by faith without works?

No need to go to St. James. He explicitly says, "No!"

James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

I note that those who quote this in support of the erroneous works gospel fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love. The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works.

works are only the evidence and result that follow the faith
Faith without works is dead

Correct.


I think we are all saying the same thing and turning it into a semantics argument or something.

No, Catholicism teaches that works in addition to faith are required for salvation. Scripture says that our faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation, and our faithfulness is then demonstrated by works.

works are only the evidence and result that follow the faith
Faith without works is dead

Correct.


I think we are all saying the same thing and turning it into a semantics argument or something.

No, Catholicism teaches that works in addition to faith are required for salvation. Scripture says that our faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation, and our faithfulness is then demonstrated by works.

There are a number of fatal errors in their argument including the belief that our works as an unsaved person would be acceptable to and merit favour with God. They are not.

Rom 8:7-9
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV

Yeah I see.
As far as Akoue's reply I think we are (most of us) are agreeing with that though.

Yeah I see.
As far as Akoue's reply I think we are (most of us) are agreeing with that though.

I sure don't agree with it, for instance:

Akoue said:
"Works are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for salvation"

That is in contradiction to the gospel.

"I note that those who quote this fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love. The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works."



If it's the same word in Greek, then where are you getting the distinction in English? Sounds like you're foisting onto Scripture a distinction that it doesn't make (otherwise, it would use *two* words instead of one, yes?).

I sure don't agree with it, for instance:

Akoue said:
"Works are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for salvation"

That is in contradiction to the gospel.

What could this even mean? A contradiction is asserting p and not-p.

If it's the same word in Greek, then where are you getting the distinction in English? Sounds like you're foisting onto Scripture a distinction that it doesn't make (otherwise, it would use *two* words instead of one, yes?).

What distinction are you referring to?

What I get out of what Akoue is saying is
Faith without works is a dead faith.
You can't have faith and not have the evidence of your faith resulting in works.

What could this even mean? A contradiction is asserting p and not-p.

Scripture says that if I believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour, I am saved.

You are saying that if you believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour you are not saved. You must also have works. You are saying that the scripture gospel does not save us.

"if I believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour, I am saved."

Now who's conflating faith and belief?

What I get out of what Akoue is saying is
faith without works is a dead faith.
You can't have faith and not have the evidence of your faith resulting in works.

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

BTW: Works aren't for show, we don't do them so that others will think we have faith (as you have intimated). If works aren't undertaken with the right intention they are not right sort of works. So, yes, works must be undertaken faithfully; they must be acts performed in a spirit of humility.

artlady's.
Hi Michele.
I'm much older than you at 75, 76 coming in February but that is not what counts in forgiveness.
Not forgiving people keeps a person loaded with junk that must be carried.
Dump the junk. Forgive them 7 times 70 times if necessary more.
I forgive a constant bigot and liar that I deal with almost daily so he is little more than an irritant.
I forgive everyone who has sinned against me via thought, word or deed whether I know about it or not.
That way I let the Lord handle it and I dump it.
"Let Go. Let God!!!"
After doing that for awhile it becomes easy.
Now I realize that forgiving people does not change them.
They are the only ones who can change themselves.
So I pray that the Holy Spirit works with them to help them change.
Sometimes that works quite well.
In others if the sinner is dead set in his/her ways it's like trying to break down a mountain with a feather.
BUT then also keep in mind that the weather, over time, can and has broken down mountains. It just takes a lot of weather and time.
I thank the Lord for His inspirational help.
You should think about asking for that help.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I note that those who quote this in support of the erroneous works gospel fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love. The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works.

Let's look at James 2 for a minute. You tell us to look at the context. The context, reading from James 2.14: We get the question, "What good is it, my brothers, is someone says he has faith [pistin] but does not have works [erga]? CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM [me dunatai he pistis sosai auton]?" Then, in vv.16-17 we are given an example: If someone has nothing to wear and has no food, "and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace'" without providing for their needs, "what good is it"? Now verse 17: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead [houtos hai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten]"--it is not a living faith.

Now v.20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless [Theleis de gnonai, ho anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge estin]?"

Now v.21: "Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS [ex ergon] when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. <22> You see that faith [he pistis] was active along with his works [tois ergois autou], and faith [he pistis] was completed by the works [ek ton ergon]."

It looks to me like what's required is both faith and works together, as I've been saying, so that neither alone (i.e., in the absence of the other) is sufficient.

Where on earth are you getting this bizzaro faith/faithfulness business? The word is "pistis"--faith. If the NT were making a distinction between "faith" and "faithfulness" wouldn't you expect it to have been made in the Gk? But what you find in the Gk. is just "pistis". So you are trying to read a distinction drawn in English--faith/faithfulness--into the NT, which has only the word "pistis".

Akoue,
Right again!!
But don't expect your excellent argument to be accepted.
Very often it won't be by those who a stuck in the faith only heresy.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So YOU say. I take my doctrine from scripture.

Let's look at James 2 for a minute. You tell us to look at the context. The context, reading from James 2.14: We get the question, "What good is it, my brothers, is someone says he has faith [pistin] but does not have works [erga]? CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM [me dunatai he pistis sosai auton]?" Then, in vv.16-17 we are given an example: If someone has nothing to wear and has no food, "and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace'" without providing for their needs, "what good is it"? Now verse 17: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead [houtos hai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten]"--it is not a living faith.

Exactly what I am saying. If you do not have faithfuless / faith which has evidence of works, then why should we believe that that person's faith is real, or that it is in the one true God. If you do NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and claim to have faith, this may exhibit itself in the lack of works.


Now v.20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless [Theleis de gnonai, ho anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge estin]?"

Now v.21: "Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS [ex ergon] when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. <22> You see that faith [he pistis] was active along with his works [tois ergois autou], and faith [he pistis] was completed by the works [ek ton ergon]."

I trust that you know that the word that you have put in capitals which is translated as "justified" is daikoo which is Greek means to "render" or to "show". Thus this is saying that the works were a display, show or evidence of his faith. The context of the surrounding verses helped to show that this is in fact the context. Even verse 22 says that faith was teleioo which means consummated or made perfect. For that to happen, the faith had to be there is the first place.


Where on earth are you getting this bizzaro faith/faithfulness business? The word is "pistis"--faith.

You need to speak to a Greek expert or a better lexicon. Do me a favour, will you? Grab a KJV Bible and a NKJV or NIV and compare the KJV translation with one of the others. Post your findings here.


If the NT were making a distinction between "faith" and "faithfulness" wouldn't you expect it to have been made in the Gk? But what you find in the Gk. Is just "pistis". So you are trying to read a distinction drawn in English--faith/faithfulness--into the NT, which has only the word "pistis".

That is my point. I did not make a distinction - it appears that you are. I was pointing out to you that the Greek has no such distinction. Speak to someone who understands linguistics. Translation between languages sometimes results in one word translated into 2 or more depending upon context, or several words translated into one. The English translators, depending upon when and who did it it translate pistis into different words in English, predominantly faith and faithfulness. Thus when you read "faith" in an English Bible, you must always be aware that the word in Greek carries with it the sense of "faithfulness.

Do your research.

Akoue,

I note that you keep avoiding questions asked of you. The latest is:

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

Please answer. I am sure that you have no reason not to be clear about what you believe.

Akoue,

I note that you keep avoiding questions asked of you. The latest is:

If so, then why does he not stop the arguing and simple agree with that. Every time I point that out he tells us that work is essential for us to be saved.

Akoue please clarify. Do you believe that we must we first have works to be saved?

Or

Do you believe that the works follow salvation?

Please answer. I am sure that you have no reason not to be clear about what you believe.


Well, Tj, did you read my #46 above? I know you did, because you quoted part of it at #50. Here it is again:

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

BTW: Works aren't for show, we don't do them so that others will think we have faith (as you have intimated). If works aren't undertaken with the right intention they are not right sort of works. So, yes, works must be undertaken faithfully; they must be acts performed in a spirit of humility.

Leaving to one side the other exchange in which I'm embroiled on this thread, I'd like to take up artlady's very nice post.

Like you, many of us find distressing the idea that one can claim to be saved in spite of performing heinous actions. God's mercy is infinite, to be sure, but so is his justice. If someone who has lived badly comes to God... well, that's all to the good, of course. But it makes me terribly uncomfortable for people to claim on their own behalf that they are saved, that they are going to heaven, what have you. This just sounds profoundly arrogant to my ears: Who am I, who are any of us, to say that we are saved? Where's the "fear and trembling" in that? Where's the humility? Judgment is God's prerogative, and I'm not to arrogate that to myself. Tell me that you have faith, tell me that you are striving to be better, tell me that you long for heaven, and I'm all ears. Tell me that it's a done deal and all I can do is shake my head.

This doesn't speak to Fred's question, I know, except in a roundabout way. But I found artlady's remarks thoughtful and thought-provoking, and I wanted to acknowledge that


Some people just have so much faith it feels like gold in the bank.
Sure some people are arrogant that they are going to heaven but some proclaim it because their faith is soooo overwhelming they have enough faith to claim they are going to heaven.

Yes, isn't it good that salvation is not based upon our merit, our works (good or bad), but upon God's grace?

Hmmm....Are you saying that the speaker here was profoundly arrogant?

Titus 3:4-7
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

2 Tim 1:8-9
8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,
NKJV .

All:

As I see it, this does speak to Fred's question; although from a somewhat obtuse angle, and at times somewhat negatively.

“Where's the humanity?” Where is it said that the will of men can conjure God's salvation? We are asked by Christ himself to love God first among all things. This was a proclamation to the entire nation of God, “Hear, O' Israel”. This isn't a declaration to a few, but to all, universally. That love is to be consuming of the whole heart and whole soul (Cf. Mark 12:29).

How can taking ownership, like the ownership of a precious metal, manifest this love? Isn't such love really a self-love, as it were, putting God in a box; bringing Him out only to fawn over us. At judgment, we'll be unable present our little bag of love nuggets. There's little salvation within one's slef.

So we find that to love God is to know God; to know God is to love. To know God is to know that which is good. And putting these things together, to be good is to be saintly (Cf. 1 John 4:7; Romans 8:28). The arrogance is to boast of possessing god, to demand his merciful graces as one demands payment for services rendered. In my opinion, this consuming form of love is hard; it demands an abandonment of the will. Opposed to this is a self-serving justification is a debased reciprocal love. The reason is that to surrender to God's love is to surrender control of our will to Him. Consequently, our love is given reluctantly, with strings, with expectations. Therefore it is frequently given ONLY because we fear the loss of heaven. This way we can “box-up” God extending our love in return for salvation by merely proclaiming His sovereignty. Instead it is with fear and trembling that we want to be obedient to God's love, to surrender our will.

I can't give a direct answer to Fed's question. However, it would be safe to say that those found in heaven will be those who selflessly love God with fear and trembling. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Fear (From a Moral Standpoint) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06021a.htm)

JoeT

Exactly what I am saying. If you do not have faithfuless / faith which has evidence of works, then why should we believe that that person's faith is real, or that it is in the one true God. If you do NOT have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and claim to have faith, this may exhibit itself in the lack of works.



I trust that you know that the word that you have put in capitals which is translated as "justified" is daikoo which is Greek means to "render" or to "show". Thus this is saying that the works were a display, show or evidence of his faith. The context of the surrounding verses helped to show that this is in fact the context. Even verse 22 says that faith was teleioo which means consummated or made perfect. For that to happen, the faith had to be there is the first place.



You need to speak to a Greek expert or a better lexicon. Do me a favour, will you? Grab a KJV Bible and a NKJV or NIV and compare the KJV translation with one of the others. Post your findings here.



That is my point. I did not make a distinction - it appears that you are. I was pointing out to you that the Greek has no such distinction. Speak to someone who understands linguistics. Translation between languages sometimes results in one word translated into 2 or more depending upon context, or several words translated into one. The English translators, depending upon when and who did it it translate pistis into different words in English, predominantly faith and faithfulness. Thus when you read "faith" in an English Bible, you must always be aware that the word in Greek carries with it the sense of "faithfulness.

Do your research.


"Dikaioo" means (1) to make right, (2) to judge, condemn, or punish, (3) to make just, bold, or justify (Greek-English Lexicon, edd. Liddell & Scott, Oxford University Press, p.173). Now the word that occurs in James 2.21 is "edikaiothe", from "dikaioo", which is also the root of the word "dikaion" (translated typically as "righteous" or "justified") throughout the rest of the NT. I don't see how your remark about v.22 disagrees with what I've said.

I actually am a Gk expert: I've been teaching university courses on this stuff for years. I've even published on it (and not on-line but in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses and stuff--you know, where other experts review what I write). And I don't typically read translations of the NT. I prefer to read it in the original. Sorry.

Your "faith"/"faithfulness" stuff makes no sense. How on earth does making this distinction in English vitiate anything that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians believe? They believe, as James 2 says, that faith (pistis) and works (erga) are both required for salvation.

Well, Joe, I'd have given you the last word, but your post appeared while I was writing my last one. So I'd like to second the spirit of your post and leave it there.

Nicely put.

Well, Tj, did you read my #46 above? I know you did, because you quoted part of it at #50. Here it is again:

Again: Works are a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, CONDITION for salvation. No salvation without works and faith.

So, no, works do not "follow" salvation, anymore than faith "follows" salvation.

Good - I just wanted you to clearly differentiate between your position and the Biblical view because Nohelp4u appeared to think that you were in agreement with us who stand on the Biblical position.

Well, Joe, I'd have given you the last word, but your post appeared while I was writing my last one. So I'd like to second the spirit of your post and leave it there.

Nicely put.
Thanks, but actually it wasn’t intended as the last word. I had let this sit for some hours and simply didn’t know the conversation was moving forward without me. The jokes on me.

I’m curious, what’s the significance, if any, of the screen name “Akoue”?

JoeT

"Dikaioo" means (1) to make right, (2) to judge, condemn, or punish, (3) to make just, bold, or justify (Greek-English Lexicon, edd. Liddell & Scott, Oxford University Press, p.173).

I wonder if you gave the complete definition. If so it leaves out what others seem to include. However even if you have found one lexicon to agree with you, that is not a proper way to translate. You cannot take a single verse out of context to try to argue it against the rest of the context of scripture, both local and elsewhere. So, finding a single lexicon does not allow you to escape the problem.


I don't see how your remark about v.22 disagrees with what I've said.

Then you agree with me? Why then do you keep arguing?



I actually am a Gk expert: I've been teaching university courses on this stuff for years.

I am quite surprised to hear you say that. What you have presented in our discussions certainly does not appear to reflect that expertise. You have been in disagreement with other sources by known Greek experts. Since I don't know you, nor can validate your claims, I will have to go along with the known and recognized Greek experts.


Your "faith"/"faithfulness" stuff makes no sense.

See if you do not understand these basics of linguistics, it makes me hard pressed to believe your claim to be a language expert.


How on earth does making this distinction in English vitiate anything that Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians believe?

Again, as I said before these strawman arguments also do not help your credibility. You keep claiming that I am making a distinction which I not only am NOT making but which has been explained to you a number of times.

Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. When you do so, it comes across that you have no answer so you try to change what I am saying so that you can claim that you are you right and I am wrong. I have seen you use that approach 3 times ion this thread. Again that argues against your claims to be an expert.


They believe, as James 2 says, that faith (pistis) and works (erga) are both required for salvation.

They can believe what they want, but the Bible says that scripture is of no private interpretation.

Howdy, Joe. (I just like the way that sounds!)

"Akoue" is the imperative form of the Gk. Word for to hear or to listen. There's no real significance other than that, though. When I registered and needed to come up with a username I had the Shepherd of Hermas sitting open next to me. I glanced over the and first sentence of Mand.6.2.1 caught my eye: "Akoue nun peri tes pisteos" or "Hear now concerning faith". So, what the hell, I went with the first word.

Akoue,
I rest my case!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Howdy, Joe. (I just like the way that sounds!)

"Akoue" is the imperative form of the Gk. word for to hear or to listen. There's no real significance other than that, though. When I registered and needed to come up with a username I had the Shepherd of Hermas sitting open next to me. I glanced over the and first sentence of Mand.6.2.1 caught my eye: "Akoue nun peri tes pisteos" or "Hear now concerning faith". So, what the hell, I went with the first word.

I’m one who believes that everything fits into God’s plan. Nothing happens by chance. The name fits. Thanks for taking the time to be here.

Semper Fi




Akoue,
I rest my case!!!!
Peace and kindness,
Fred



Does this mean you're done with us? You've got the answers you needed?

JoeT

Tj,

No effort to deceive here. That's why I provided the citation. It's possible you've confused "dikaioo", which I've explained above, with "deloo" (if you'd like to look it up, the "e" is an eta not an epsilon). "Deloo" does, in fact, mean to show or reveal or make manifest. Hope this helps.

I'm not sure which "known Greek experts" have taken exception with the very modest corrections I've offered on these boards. I did on one occasion point out that another person's transliterations were in error. In any case, I'm not interested in having anyone accept what I say because I am, or they take me to be, an expert (again, I offered the citation above).

As for the rest: I've made a case regarding James 2. I've used, and supplied for others, the Greek of James 2. I've shown that you misunderstood the Greek word "dikaioo"--not to mention the rest of the text I cited. I don't think it's extraordinarily tendentious of me to say that, barring further evidence to the contrary, I've shown that the Catholic-Orthodox reading of James 2 is right and yours is mistaken. Given that, it looks like, on this issue at least, they are the "Biblical" Christians and you are not.

Oh, and asking a question like the one I posed at the end of #55 and which you quote above isn't setting up a strawman. (You used the locution "strawman arguments", but there's no such thing: One can use an argument against a strawman though.) And how could their interpretation of James to be "private", as you say? What could be more public than 2,000 years of tone of scholars and theologians and bishops saying exactly the same thing: There is no salvation without faith and works.

I certainly don't wish to misrepresent what you are saying. To do that would be to attack a strawman. I want to show, using the Scriptural evidence that you yourself provide, that you haven't come close to demonstrating the falsity of the Catholic-Orthodox view. It only serves my purposes to knock down the *strongest* version of your view. Except for our failure to communicate efficiently regarding the faith/faithfulness distinction, I think the content of my posts has put your view in a pretty bad way. Now you feel that I've misunderstood your point about faith/faithfulness. Maybe I have and maybe that's my fault. You are welcome to explain it to me again. If you'd rather not, then we can let it drop. I'm happy either way.

JoeT777 ,
No,
I said that in reference to my earlier post which said that an argument was very well both faith and good works which prove that faith are exceptionally well made, but that most others who believe in the faith only heresy will reject or ignore that biblical fack.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

No effort to deceive here. That's why I provided the citation. It's possible you've confused "dikaioo", which I've explained above, with "deloo" (if you'd like to look it up, the "e" is an eta not an epsilon). "Deloo" does, in fact, mean to show or reveal or make manifest. Hope this helps.

No confusion, I can read nicely.


I'm not sure which "known Greek experts" have taken exception with the very modest corrections I've offered on these boards. I did on one occasion point out that another person's transliterations were in error. In any case, I'm not interested in having anyone accept what I say because I am, or they take me to be, an expert (again, I offered the citation above).

That is why I have to go with known experts who can be validated.


As for the rest: I've made a case regarding James 2.

Which has been refuted.


I've used, and supplied for others, the Greek of James 2. I've shown that you misunderstood the Greek word "dikaioo"--not to mention the rest of the text I cited.

Not true. Once again, your claims were refuted.


I don't think it's extraordinarily tendentious of me to say that, barring further evidence to the contrary, I've shown that the Catholic-Orthodox reading of James 2 is right and yours is mistaken.

I'm glad that you are so impressed with your presentation that you have convinced yourself that you are right. I need something more solid to convince me.


Given that, it looks like, on this issue at least, they are the "Biblical" Christians and you are not.

Ah, so now you are into judging the salvation of others. Interesting - are you planning to take God's role in other areas also?


Oh, and asking a question like the one I posed at the end of #55 and which you quote above isn't setting up a strawman. (You used the locution "strawman arguments", but there's no such thing: One can use an argument against a strawman though.)

It does not appear that you have a background in logic either. But in any case, it was a strawman because you set up a situation where you were arguing against something that I not only did not say, and which I specifically told you was not true. Then you continued to make the same claim.


And how could their interpretation of James to be "private", as you say? What could be more public than 2,000 years of tone of scholars and theologians and bishops saying exactly the same thing: There is no salvation without faith and works.

First, even if there were scholars and theologians making errors like that for 2,000 years, the context of that passage is not saying that it is okay to make errors publicly - it is contrasting the interpretation of the Holy Spirit to that of men.


I want to show, using the Scriptural evidence that you yourself provide, that you haven't come close to demonstrating the falsity of the Catholic-Orthodox view. It only serves my purposes to knock down the *strongest* version of your view.

Then you need to deal honestly with what I have said and not make it up on the fly.


Except for our failure to communicate efficiently regarding the faith/faithfulness distinction, I think the content of my posts has put your view in a pretty bad way.

Again, you have your cheering section from your denomination who agreed with you before you started, and you seem pretty impressed with yourself, but from my perspective, your arguments seem quite run of the mill and weak. You seem to have tried your best to argument using the strawman arguments and avoiding other or deflecting other points without dealing with them, or just claiming victory, by telling us how good you've done.


Now you feel that I've misunderstood your point about faith/faithfulness. Maybe I have and maybe that's my fault. You are welcome to explain it to me again. If you'd rather not, then we can let it drop. I'm happy either way.

I am quite willing to continue, but each time that the issue has arisen I have explained it. I have said it in a number of different ways, so how you have managed to "mis-understand" it is beyond me. You can go back to what I said in my last response or look back to post #6 or any of the others. I have been very clear, and no one before has ever had the trouble that you claim to have in understanding such a basic point.

Akoue,
I expect the argument about faith and works are need to continue till everyone realizes that the faith only idea is very wrong and a biblical heresy.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If you wish to debate Reformed theology, you may wish to seek a discussion with someone to holds to Reformed theology. I do not.

You do in this instance. Because it is from the Reformed tradition that you have taken your beliefs.


Really? Faith is a work that we do?

That is correct.


You seem to be mixing belief and faith. There is a relationship, but they are not the same. Nonetheless, this does not say that faith or belief is a work of man but of God.

Read the verse carefully and don't read into it your predispositions. Lets see it again.


The disciples asked Jesus:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

They understand that God ordains works from the beginning that we walk in them.

Jesus didn't say, "You can't do God's works." He said this:
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Therefore, faith in Christ is the work of God which we must do.

And it is clear, without faith we can't please God. Therefore, faith is necessary for entrance to heaven. In other words, without faith, we don't merit heaven. If salvation were totally free, we there would be no requirements. But there are a few.

1. You must have faith.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

2. You must obey His Word:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

3. You must show your faith in your works:
James 2:18
Yea, 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.


Once again, our works are left out of the equation for salvation.

Faith AND WORKS are BOTH required for salvation.


I note that those who quote this in support of the erroneous works gospel fail to deal with either the Greek or the context. Keep in mind that in the original Greek of the NT, the word use for faith is the same as faithfulness, so if one has faith, then the natural consequence is that one will act on that faith. For example, if you have a child and you love that child, you will provide for that child and do what you can to make the child healthy and happy - but it is not to prove to others that you love the child, but it is a natural consequence of the love that you have for the child. It is the evidence of that love.

Thank you. Works are evidence of your faith in God. If you have no works you have no faith and you are not saved.


The same is true with faith and faithfulness. Thus if you were a person who was reading this in Koine Greek, it would read to you like:

"Faithfulness without works is dead"

I see no difference. It means exactly the same thing.


This means that having been saved, having faith, having received grace, the expectation is that your faithfulness is evidenced by works.

No, it means that having faithfulness will not merit salvation if it is not accompanied by good works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Tj,

You're more than welcome to attack me. It's really no skin off my nose. It does puzzle me that it bothers you so much when other people say nice things to or about each other. But it's really none of my business.

Now which of my claims have you *refuted*? You've disagreed with a bunch of them. But refutation requires reasoned argument, and your posts are becoming increasingly choppy. You certainly didn't *refute* anything I said about James 2. You got the Greek wrong. It's not the end of the world, you just don't read Greek very well. Few people do read ancient Greek well. No reason to let your temper flare. You think I'm a lousy philologist; you think I'm a lousy logician (all those years studying under all those prominent logicians wasted, apparently. I feel so ashamed. But, then again, you do have trouble with the terminology, don't you? And you seem to need a lot of help with Greek. So... Naw, I'll just feel really badly about myself. All better now?)

De Maria,
Once again you make excellent points to show biblically that faith AND works are necessary for salvation and that the faith only theology is a heresy and has been since the reformation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I suspect this thread will end the way many others do when Tj is losing the argument. It will end up getting closed. But, until then, I agree that this is important stuff worth hashing out.

You do in this instance. Because it is from the Reformed tradition that you have taken your beliefs.

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.


That is correct.

Scripture disagrees.


Read the verse carefully and don't read into it your predispositions. Lets see it again.

I have.

John 6:27-31
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." 30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
NKJV

We are to believe in God, and the fact that we believe is a work of God.



The disciples asked Jesus:
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

They understand that God ordains works from the beginning that we walk in them.

Works? This passage speaks solely of one work and that is the work of God that we believe.


Jesus didn't say, "You can't do God's works." He said this:
29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Therefore, faith in Christ is the work of God which we must do.

Really. If faith is required for us to believe, then where does faith come from?

John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

God draws those who have faith first. You cannot come to Jesus unless God draws you, therefore in the drawing you are given faith to believe. Now before you accuse me of being Calvinist, you should check out my website. I am simply quoting scripture here, but I am not supporting nor a believer in TULIP. So don't make assumptions regarding my beliefs.I believe what the Bible teaches.



1. You must have faith.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

And He provides that.


2. You must obey His Word:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hmmm... But I know for a fact that you have not done so so, using your out of context interpretation, you must not be saved. You know how I know that you have not obeyed Him? Because Romans 3:23 tells me that.


3. You must show your faith in your works:
James 2:18
Yea, 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.

No, you must have faith in God. You show your faithfulness through your works.


Faith AND WORKS are BOTH required for salvation.

Nope.


Thank you. Works are evidence of your faith in God.

Now you got it! And if works are the evidence, then the faith came first.


If you have no works you have no faith and you are not saved.

Actually, now you have gone beyond what scripture says. For example, a person who accepted Christ 5 seconds ago has no works as evidence, and yet is, nonetheless saved. Also, works are only one evidence, though an important evidence. There are others (though oddly you don't claim that you must have the others evidences).


I see no difference. It means exactly the same thing.

That is my point - a Greek would say the same thing. Yet in English, the meaning of these words vary so we lose the proper understanding what scripture says in Greek, and thus end up with erroneous understandings such as the belief that works is necessary for salvation when that is in fact not found in the text.


No, it means that having faithfulness will not merit salvation if it is not accompanied by good works.

Okay, since you insist on holding to your interpretation regardless of whatever is said or shown from scripture, let's test your position with an example.

A person who is paralyzed and is an invalid and unable to do works of any type accepts Jesus as Saviour. Is that person going to hell?

Akoue,
Again I agree with you.
The truth MUST be told until all understand that "faith only" and "Scripture only" are heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.


A person who is paralyzed and is an invalid and unable to do works of any type accepts Jesus as Saviour. Is that person going to hell?

Wow! Offensive. People who are paralyzed can do all sorts of things. Here's one thing they can do: They can PRAY. (FYI, prayer is a work, and ergon.)

You're more than welcome to attack me. It's really no skin off my nose.

I have not attacked you.


It does puzzle me that it bothers you so much when other people say nice things to or about each other.

What have you been reading?? I haven't the faintest idea what you are even thinking about here.


Now which of my claims have you *refuted*? You've disagreed with a bunch of them. But refutation requires reasoned argument, and your posts are becoming increasingly choppy.

Whether you are a Greek expert is up in the air, but you are definitely a politician! I would expect you to say nothing less. But it is following a pattern.

- Strawman arguments
- ignoring questions asked of you
- Using your opinions as the standard of right and wrong
- Declaring the glories of yourself assessed victory
- Not providing a response to the rebuttals
- Sometimes addressing points.

Personally, I think that the last item is the most important but why you increasingly use the first 4 is something known only to yourself. If you are unable or unwilling to carry on the discussion, that is fine. It does not bother me one way or the other.


You certainly didn't *refute* anything I said about James 2. You got the Greek wrong.

So far that is just your claim. And it appears that you have no rebuttal to anything other than to simply claim you are right and those who disagree are wrong.

'nuff said.

Wow! Offensive. People who are paralyzed can do all sorts of things. Here's one thing they can do: They can PRAY. (FYI, prayer is a work, and ergon.)

Prayer is a work, eh? So tell me, how much prayer is necessary in addition to receiving Christ in order to be saved.

And, it appears that you are saying that the prayers of the unsaved are as effective as the prayers of the saved because if prayer (work) is essential for salvation, then it must be done before the person is saved.

But then we have that scripture that says:

Rom 8:8-9
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV

So how do you conclude that works before we are saved are pleasing to God?

Akoue,
Again I agree with you.
The truth MUST be told until all understand that "faith only" and "Scripture only" are heresies.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Wow. It amazes me the people that you just declared heretics. Including the Apostle Paul, and at least doctor of your denomination.

Then either you don't know understand my views or Reformed theology or both.


John 6:27-31
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." 30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
NKJV

We are to believe in God, and the fact that we believe is a work of God.




You've gone and misunderstood the Gospel again. The question they asked was how "can we accomplish the works of God" (ta arga tou theou). What can we do in order to perform the works that God would have us perform?

Now the answer: Believe in the one he sent and you are doing "the work of God" (ton ergon tou theou). This is a work, an ergon. But of whom?

Your reading has "the works of God" (ta erga tou theou) referring in v.28 to something *we* do and referring v.29 to something *God* does. In other words, you've got the meaning of the same phrase being switched from one verse to the next. This simply isn't plausible.

You've gone and misunderstood the Gospel again. The question they asked was how "can we accomplish the works of God" (ta arga tou theou). What can we do in order to perform the works that God would have us perform?

Now the answer: Believe in the one he sent and you are doing "the work of God" (ton ergon tou theou). This is a work, an ergon. But of whom?

Your reading has "the works of God" (ta erga tou theou) referring in v.28 to something *we* do and referring v.29 to something *God* does. In other words, you've got the meaning of the same phrase being switched from one verse to the next. This simply isn't plausible.

Really? I am still waiting for someone to show me where "works" is in the gospel (did Paul miss it when he gave the gospel in Corinthians?).

I missed nothing. The fact that we believe IS a work of God.

John 6:44-45
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
NKJV

Wait, so do you mean to sugges that nowhere in the Gospel do we find talk of ta erga? Isn't right there, in Jn.6?

Oh, and on Jn.6;44-5: yeah, grace is required. Having I been saying that all along?

Akoue,
Have you noticed that when some are obviously losing an discussion they accuse the opponent of attacking them.
Also notice that I was just falsely accused of calling the apostle Pauj a heretic.
That is an out and out false statement but another tactic used by those who have no other avenue when losing a discussion.
It is hilarious the tactics they use in trying to gain the ground they lost.
It just digs a deeper hole for them to fall into.
Peace and kindness,
Ftred

Prayer is a work, eh? So tell me, how much prayer is necessary in addition to receiving Christ in order to be saved.

And, it appears that you are saying that the prayers of the unsaved are as effective as the prayers of the saved because if prayer (work) is essential for salvation, then it must be done before the person is saved.

But then we have that scripture that says:

Rom 8:8-9
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV

So how do you conclude that works before we are saved are pleasing to God?


Let's have some more fun!

Rm.8. Well, yeah, the hoi sarkikoi of whom Paul speaks at length aren't pleasing to God since they are ruled by their desires. How does this show that faith without works is sufficient for salvation?

Fred,

"Hilarious" is the word I was thinking too. Since Paul nowhere says that "faith alone" saves, nor that we should adhere to "Scripture alone", it's really hard for me to see how you have in any way distanced yourself from him. I think we're getting a pretty good idea which view is really "Biblical" here.

Let's have some more fun!

Rm.8. Well, yeah, the hoi sarkikoi of whom Paul speaks at length aren't pleasing to God since they are ruled by their desires. How does this show that faith without works is sufficient for salvation?

Well reading your question, it is not clear that you actually read the context in which this was posted, but let me explain it to you once again.

If a "work" is essential for salvation, then it must occur BEFORE a person is saved. Therefore all works by the unsaved must be pleasing to God in order for then to be accepted by God in addition to the blood sacrificed on the cross to merit salvation.

Also notice that I was just falsely accused of calling the apostle Pauj a heretic.

But you did, Fred, as you have many times over the years.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Bed time for me.

Akoue,
And also bed time for me.
Note that I was just again falsely accused calling Paul a heretic.
I have never done any such thing but I have been accused by faith only believers of doing so.
Never have they be able to show me where any one in the bible says "faith only saves".
They can not because it is not there even though Luther once tried to insert those words in the bible and leave out the book of James.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
And also bed time for me.
Note that I was just again falsely accused calling Paul a heretic.
I have never done any such thing but I have been accused by faith only believers of doing so.
Never have they be able to show me where any one in the bible says "faith only saves".
They can not because it is not there even though Luther once tried to insert those words in the bible and leave out the book of James.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That's because "faith alone" isn't in Scripture. "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

Semper Fi

Akoue,
And also bed time for me.
Note that I was just again falsely accused calling Paul a heretic.

You said that those who teach salvation faith in Jesus Christ alone without works are heretics. Are you denying that you said that?

That's because "faith alone" isn't in Scripture.


I'd suggest that you buy a new Bible. The one that you are using appears to be missing pages.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

You said that those who teach salvation faith in Jesus Christ alone without works are heretics. Are you denying that you said that?

Umm, no. He's clearly saying--he's said it again and again--that he takes it to be a heresy but that Paul never taught it. And you haven't given anybody any reason to suppose otherwise. Each time you've cited a passage it has been shown, by several people now, that you've misunderstood it. You got Eph.2 wrong. You got Rom.3 and Rom.8 wrong. You got Jn.6 wrong. You got James 2 wrong. And you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. You quote a lot of Scripture, but you don't seem prepared to justify you interpretations of it (which is where we left off on the other thread, "How will you be judged..."). The Scriptures aren't saying what you want them to.

(What can I say, my bedtime's been pushed back a bit!)

Umm, no. He's clearly saying--he's said it again and again--that he takes it to be a heresy but that Paul never taught it.

He can claim Paul never taught it, but I look at what scripture says. Denial does not change reality.


And you haven't given anybody any reason to suppose otherwise. Each time you've cited a passage it has been shown, by several people now, that you've misunderstood it.

Once again, I do not accept you as judge and jury over God's word, and you have yet to give me reason to accept your private interpretation of what it says.



You got Eph.2 wrong. You got Rom.3 and Rom.8 wrong. You got Jn.6 wrong. You got James 2 wrong. And you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. You quote a lot of Scripture, but you don't seem prepared to justify you interpretations of it (which is where we left off on the other thread, "How will you be judged...").

I justified everything that I claimed. You, on the other hand seem content now to simply say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is not a compelling argument.


The Scriptures aren't saying what you want them to.

If you think that it is necessary to force scripture to agree with what you want it to say, that may be part of the issue. I don't "want" scripture to say anything. I let scripture speak for itself and submit my views to what God tell us through His word.

"He can claim Paul never taught it, but I look at what scripture says. Denial does not change reality."

Okay, where does Paul teach it? We've already gone through Eph.2, Rom.3, and Rom.8. He doesn't say it in any of those, as we've seen. By all means, find me a place where Paul says that faith in the absence of works suffices for salvation.


"Once again, I do not accept you as judge and jury over God's word."

I should hope not! Mine isn't the final word. But neither is yours. We've each argued our case. Now, you keep bringing up Eph.2 as though it *obviously* says what you says it does. And I keep showing you that it says something different. You reply to this by quoting it again and saying what amounts to, "See, it says what I said it says". Please accept the invitation I've extended many times to provide a rigorous reading of Eph.2 that disqualifies my reading of it.


"I justified everything that I claimed. You, on the other hand seem content now to simply say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is not a compelling argument."

No. I'm saying that people who are wrong are wrong. Now we've been through this: Provide an argument or interpretation of the passages we've been discussing that shows that I'm mistaken.


"If you think that it is necessary to force scripture to agree with what you want it to say, that may be part of the issue. I don't "want" scripture to say anything. I let scripture speak for itself and submit my views to what God tell us through His word."

But it isn't speaking to you in that way, otherwise you wouldn't--for instance--misunderstand Eph.2, and Rom.3, and Rom.8, and Jn.6, and James 2. Again, you need to do more than quote a pericope and then point at it: You need to explain why your understanding of it is correct and alternatives are mistaken.

I had to stay up just to see what the reaction would be from (Tom Smith) Tj3's again false accusation that I called Paul a heretic. Which everyone here who can read knows I did NOT.
Tom just continues to make his false accusations with NO proof at all. He can’t because there is none
I see that He attempts to prove that the bible says "faith alone saves" but the passage he quoted does not say that and never did and never will in an authentic bible.
The passage merely clarifies that works alone can not save or in other words says that a person can not EARN salvation by doing works.
To be clear I repeat that it does not say “faith alone".
Fred

Gods name is Mercy.

"He can claim Paul never taught it, but I look at what scripture says. Denial does not change reality."

Okay, where does Paul teach it? We've already gone through Eph.2, Rom.3, and Rom.8. He doesn't say it in any of those, as we've seen. By all means, find me a place where Paul says that faith in the absence of works suffices for salvation.

I already answered that just a few posts back.


"Once again, I do not accept you as judge and jury over God's word."

I should hope not! Mine isn't the final word. But neither is yours. We've each argued our case. Now, you keep bringing up Eph.2 as though it *obviously* says what you says it does. And I keep showing you that it says something different. You reply to this by quoting it again and saying what amounts to, "See, it says what I said it says". Please accept the invitation I've extended many times to provide a rigorous reading of Eph.2 that disqualifies my reading of it.


Again, already done. Maybe you are not reading the posts in full.

"I justified everything that I claimed. You, on the other hand seem content now to simply say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is not a compelling argument."

No. I'm saying that people who are wrong are wrong.

Actually, for the past few posts that is exactly what you have been using as your primary argument.


Now we've been through this: Provide an argument or interpretation of the passages we've been discussing that shows that I'm mistaken.

Once again - already done.


"If you think that it is necessary to force scripture to agree with what you want it to say, that may be part of the issue. I don't "want" scripture to say anything. I let scripture speak for itself and submit my views to what God tell us through His word."

But it isn't speaking to you in that way, otherwise you wouldn't--for instance--misunderstand Eph.2, and Rom.3, and Rom.8, and Jn.6, and James 2. Again, you need to do more than quote a pericope and then point at it: You need to explain why your understanding of it is correct and alternatives are mistaken.

Once again, your only argument is you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong - even when scripture is explicit.

I had to stay up just to see what the reaction would be from (Tom Smith) Tj3's again false accusation that I called Paul a heretic. Which everyone here who can read knows I did NOT.

Did you or did you not say that anyone who believes that faith alone in Jesus without works is heretic?

Fred,

Don't respond to his last post. He's just trying to get the thread closed. You have nothing to prove on this score, as Joe and I have also shown.

Paul is NOT a heretic. Period.
Believing a heretic theology on a particular subject does not make a person a heretic in my mind.
But a person who believes and teaches many heretic theologies is one. I so believe
No where in the bible does Paul say "faith alone saves" or "faith without works saves".
NO WHERE!!
NONE of the quotes Tj3 has provide say that: NONE!!
Tj3 wants to believe in faith alone.
That his right to believe that even if it is wrong, which it is.
And it has been PROVEN to him here by several people.
He just wants to continue to make false accusation against people who disagree with him.
So be it.
That's the way he is and has always been for the many years I have been on different board with him.
Even so I continue to pray for him and wish him peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
Oops.
To late.
I just responded to it while you were posting yours.
It is good advice.
I wish I had got it sooner.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And where did you do that? I may be overlooking it. Perhaps you could provide the #. I do see that you quoted Eph.2 again. Is that all you had in mind?

My argument, throughout, has been that you haven't proved your claim that salvation does not require both faith and works. This whole line started when you challenged my response to, Galveston1 (post #11). Since then I have gone through the Scripture that you have provided, concluding in each case that you had misunderstood it. In order to reply in any adequate way, you would need to show that my account of what those passages are saying is faulty. But you don't do this; you reply by quoting the passages all over again. I know where they are; I've read them. My point is that you don't understand what they are saying. Now go back to any post of mine you'd like and show that I have misunderstood Scripture. Failing that, you could go through all of the passages that De Maria has provided on this and the other thread, demonstrating painstakingly that she (and I) have misread them. If you do neither of these, if you instead speak in vague terms about having done this and shown that... Well, then you lose.

I'd suggest that you buy a new Bible. The one that you are using appears to be missing pages.

Eph 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
NKJV

Tom:

You are forcing your interpretation into the verses. To be correct I would suggest the following understanding of Eph 2:8-10:


For by grace you are saved through faith:

Our salvation is caused by God’s grace which works though faith. God works in this manner so as to keep our free-will intact. We choose to cooperate with God’s will by performing his work; our will partners with God’s will. And, unless we are called through faith how then would we believe? Without hearing there can be no work in faith whatsoever (Cf. Rom 10:14).

Our faith in God isn’t the ‘struck by lightning’ type of knowledge. Catholics hold ‘faith’ in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event intellectual reasoning is an element of faith. And it through right reasoning that we cooperate with God’s will.


and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.

We cannot conjure up this faith in God. If we could summon such faith in and of ourselves, God’s will would become subjective to the will of man. We know this is not the case. The faith we have is a grace or gift of God whereby his will reins supreme. St. Chrysostom is emphatic that faith alone is error. “Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, says he, has required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all.”


Not of works, that no man may glory.

If the work is done without the gift of faith, then we need only follow Divine Law. The gift of God manifests justifying works and therefore man cannot boast of his own salvatic works. “And then, lest when you hear that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, you should become idle, observe how he continues”

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Christ has prepared for us virtuous works, good works. “This is the hope of our calling; for for good works he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing.” (St. Chrysostom, Homily 4)


In my opinion there must be a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV]

It would seem to me that any deviation that would deny faith and works would also deny the two natures of Christ, man and God. Christ may have died for our sins, (an act of God’s mercy), but he lived along with his mother and disciples not only to hear or speak the word of God, but to “do it” – unquestionably a “work” as defined by the Protestant faith. (cf Luke 8:21) Christ not only lived the old covenant, he was marked with a work-faith synergy that “worked” internally and externally. The word of God was grafted into his being as a Jew. Was not the Christ’s crucifixion a “work” in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins? The forgiveness of sins was a unique concept hitherto unknown to the Jewish faith. Was it not Christ who lived the Jewish High Holydays of the Sukkuot (Tabernacles)? Was it not a “work” when Jesus transfigured before Peter, John and James. Was the procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” a “work”? Being both the priest offering the sacrifice while simultaneously being the sacrifice. Christ’s actions (work) transformed both heaven and earth; the old covenant did not have forgiveness of sin (Cf Lev. 17:11, Rom 3:25 and Heb. 8:7). During Rosh Hashanah the practice of Tahilikh (the casting off sins) was observed. The prophecy tells of God rising up a horn of salvation “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant” (a work). Couldn’t we even say that Christ’s birth in late December a “work” found in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to proclaim, “The Father and I are one.” (the light of the world). Jesus lived his faith and the traditions of his faith like no other man; obedient to the point of sweating blood, to the point of death.

When read with the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church we can see that Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally; the synergy of faith and work. He didn’t simply listen to God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. The same advice James gives us, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” James 1:21-24. An “ingrafted word” being a synergy of faith and work.

JoeT

To make your life a little bit easier:

#13: I show that you misread Eph.2.8-9.
#20: I point out your misunderstanding regarding the faith/law vs. faith/works distinction. I also provide you references to the other thread ("How will you be saved...") where I deal with this.
#27: I give you a deductively valid argument, in premise and conclusion form, for the Catholic-Orthodox view.
#48: I go through James 2, showing that you have misunderstood it (I even give you the Greek).
#55: I respond to your erroneous claim re: James 2, explaining the Greek terminology to you.

Most of the rest of my posts have been taken up with trying to help you out with some basic distinctions (e.g. necessary vs. sufficient condition) and terminology (e.g. what a strawman is). Now although you've posted responses telling me that you disagree with me, you haven't posted rigorous arguments or close textual readings which demonstrate, in a step-by-step way, where I've fallen into error. Instead, you've become increasingly irascible and churlish, and your posts have become increasingly inarticulate. You need to slow down, patiently put your thoughts together, and craft them into something that can persuade someone who isn't already you.

Joe,

Now that was really nicely done. Thanks a lot for that. I'm definitely going to spend some time reading and re-reading it.

It would seem to me that any deviation that would deny faith and works would also deny the two natures of Christ, man and God.

True Joe, and Anyone not baptized would not hold the wisdom given by the Holy Spirit. Christ was baptized with the Holy Spirit and walked in Him as Lord. The Spirit guides us in newness of life, in righteousness. (Dead in Christ, and able to raise from death to life)

I Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
I Corinthians 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?



When read with the apostolic teachings of the Catholic Church we can see that Christ lived and worked his faith both internally and externally; the synergy of faith and work. He didn't simply listen to God, he was a “doer” of God's words. The same advice James gives us, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” James 1:21-24. An “ingrafted word” being a synergy of faith and work.

JoeT

The Word of Spiritual Truth confirms it:

James 2:20-26 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The beginning of wisdom is fear in God.. Doing the Will of God on earth as in heaven as a child of God. (Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.)

John 6:27-31
28 Then they said to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." 30 Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do?
NKJV

We are to believe in God, and the fact that we believe is a work of God.

Believing is something we do. The disciples knew that. And they asked, "what shall we DO...?

And Jesus answered, this is what you do, "You believe in Him"

What does this believing in Him do for us?

"we may work the works of God."

That is faith and works. Without belief, you may not work the works of God.

This is echoed in Scripture elsewhere:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If you believe, you will be baptized and do the works of God.
But if you do not believe, why would you be baptized? And why would you want to work the works of God?

This is echoed in the epistles:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Romans 2:7
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

If you have faith, you will diligently seek Him in well doing.

James 2 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?

So, faith which is not accompanied by works, is not faith and does not merit salvation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Fred,

Don't respond to his last post. He's just trying to get the thread closed. You have nothing to prove on this score, as Joe and I have also shown.

Akoue,

If anyone is trying to get the thread close it is you by not dealing with the issues at hand.

Paul is NOT a heretic. Period.

Agreed.


Believing a heretic theology on a particular subject does not make a person a heretic in my mind.

Ah, so Paul is not a heretic, he just taught a heretical doctrine according to you.

I just do not understand why the faith/works topic is so complicated that it turns into a heated discussion! It seems so simple as 1+1=2

Tom:
You are forcing your interpretation into the verses. To be correct I would suggest the following understanding of Eph 2:8-10:


For by grace you are saved through faith:

Our salvation is caused by God’s grace which works though faith.

Okay - let's stop here fopr a moment to make sure that we are talking about the same things. Grace is unmerited favour. God gives us something that we did not earn or in any way deserve. It is an unfair exchange, essentially - we gave nothing and He gives all. That is important for us to understand as we read this passgae.


God works in this manner so as to keep our free-will intact. We choose to cooperate with God’s will by performing his work; our will partners with God’s will. And, unless we are called through faith how then would we believe? Without hearing there can be no work in faith whatsoever (Cf. Rom 10:14).

How is the calling done? Scripture says that we are drawn by the Holy Spirit. Again, not our doing, not our work but His. Our part in it is solely to receive the gift of the sacrifice on the cross that He freely offers.

Where Calvinists and Arminians get mixed up on this (and I don't know if you are struggling with this also or not) is that they see this as a occurring serially on a timeline. Thus, depending upon what you see happening first, one will say that it is entirely through our free will that it happens, the other says that we have no freewill and we are either or the elect or we are not. The truth is that God is not in our timeline so, while we know that we both have freewill (and that is a necessary part of us accepting the free gift) and we know that the Holy Spirit draws whom He wills, these two are mixed in a way that we, being captive to a universe restricted by time and space cannot fully comprehend.

But the one factor which has not and does not enter the equation is our work.


Our faith in God isn’t the ‘struck by lightning’ type of knowledge. Catholics hold ‘faith’ in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith).

Again, my doctrine comes from scripture, not your denominational beliefs. Where you use this as an argument in support of your position, I retain the right to simply ignore it. You know that already from the past.


and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.

We cannot conjure up this faith in God. If we could summon such faith in and of ourselves, God’s will would become subjective to the will of man.

I already said that God draws us, and though one of your friends in your denomination disagreed, I already pointed out that it is God who gives us faith. That again does not come from us.


Not of works, that no man may glory.

If the work is done without the gift of faith, then we need only follow Divine Law.

Okay let's stop there. If we already have faith in God, then works follow faith. Notice that prior to this, man added nothing. Then comes faith in Christ, and the works follow. And as shown below, a man who is unsaved cannot please God with his works, therefore the works have no effect until after he is saved.

Rom 3:21-22
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
NKJV

All that came before salvation therefore is not associated with works, but is solely the work of God.


For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Christ has prepared for us virtuous works, good works.

Right, and scripture is clear that the works of the unsaved do not please God, but we have been prepared for Good works in Jesus.


It would seem to me that any deviation that would deny faith and works would also deny the two natures of Christ, man and God.

Strawman argument again. You notably left out the word salvation here. What we are discussing is whether Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient or if man's works are necessary to make up for the deficiency of what Christ failed to bring to the table in completion and perfection.

I say, in concert with scripture, that the works of man cannot merit our salvation, but are an evidence of the change in a man after He is saved.

To make your life a little bit easier:

#13: I show that you misread Eph.2.8-9.
#20: I point out your misunderstanding regarding the faith/law vs. faith/works distinction. I also provide you references to the other thread ("How will you be saved...") where I deal with this.
#27: I give you a deductively valid argument, in premise and conclusion form, for the Catholic-Orthodox view.
#48: I go through James 2, showing that you have misunderstood it (I even give you the Greek).
#55: I respond to your erroneous claim re: James 2, explaining the Greek terminology to you.


Sigh - and I have refuted each of your arguments. I could list these here too, but isn't posting lists of what messages you posted in rather than actual responses getting a bit childish.

Just having posted your arguments does not make them right, especially when your subsequent response can be summarized as "I'm right and you're wrong". If you are able to respond to what I have posted, then do so.

Believing is something we do. The disciples knew that. And they asked, "what shall we DO...?

And Jesus answered, this is what you do, "You believe in Him"
What does this believing in Him do for us?
"we may work the works of God."

I believe in recycling also, but I already responded to this argument. Just repeating it does not make it true.


This is echoed in Scripture elsewhere:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

If you believe, you will be baptized and do the works of God.
But if you do not believe, why would you be baptized? And why would you want to work the works of God?

Baptism follows salvation also. Without gettuing into the whole argument again, we have an example in Acts 10 where there were those who received the Holy Spirit and were saved before being baptized:

Acts 10:47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

De Marie quote:

If you believe, you will be baptized and do the works of God.
But if you do not believe, why would you be baptized? And why would you want to work the works of God?

A. Many people get baptized because it is the tradition of the church and many follow the tradition of the church. They think that all they have to do is say they believe there is a creator and
Follow the traditions.

B. Many people are baptized as babies by parents I described above. Why do they bother baptizing their babies? Tradition.

C. Are professing Christians (A+B) saved by these works?

De Marie quote:

If you believe, you will be baptized and do the works of God.
But if you do not believe, why would you be baptized? And why would you want to work the works of God?

A. Many people get baptized because it is the tradition of the church and many follow the tradition of the church. They think that all they have to do is say they believe there is a creator and
follow the traditions.

B. Many people are baptized as babies by parents I described above. Why do they bother baptizing their babies? Tradition.

C. Are professing Christians (A+B) saved by these works?

Tj has made the claim that faith must "come first", and you seem to endorse that here. I have no problem with this claim (my faith should motivate me to do good works) so long as we agree that the fact that faith comes first *temporally* doesn't entail that works aren't also necessary. Think of it like this: Both respiration and nutrition are necessary conditions for living. I have to both breath and eat if I'm to survive. But breathing has temporal priority inasmuch as, from the moment of birth, I breathe before I eat. The fact that respiration "comes first" doesn't imply that nutrition isn't also a necessary condition for me to survive. This is a somewhat rough analogy to the point I've been making, I know, but I thought it might help put a slightly different face on it.

You're right to point out that there are people who are baptized and who, later in life, lack faith. I don't think that anybody here is saying that just being initiated into a tradition is itself sufficient for salvation. I certainly don't mean to endorse that view.

D

That is basically what I am saying and I haven't read all the replies here to see what Tj3 is saying you are saying that he doesn't agree with so I don't think I am following too well.
I agree
Like turning the ignition key in the car you then have to take it out of park or where are you going to get.
Or if you tell your husband you love him you don't then tell him get his own dinner, wash his own clothes, etc... You love him so you want to make his dinner and take care of his things for him where you are able to.

Baptism follows salvation also. Without gettuing into the whole argument again, we have an example in Acts 10 where there were those who received the Holy Spirit and were saved before being baptized:

Acts 10:47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

Titus 3.5: "he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy spirit"
Jn.3.5: "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit"
Acts 10.47-49: Notice that it doesn't say here that Cornelius and the others were *saved* without baptism. It says that they should be baptized right away even though they were gentiles. This certainly suggests that Peter took baptism to be essential (otherwise, why did he think it important to baptize them at all?).

There's nothing to suggest that baptism "follows" salvation.

"How is the calling done? Scripture says that we are drawn by the Holy Spirit. Again, not our doing, not our work but His."

Right. No grace, no nothing--no faith, no works, no salvation. As I've been saying all along, we need God's grace in order for anything to be possible.

"Then comes faith in Christ, and the works follow."

And without those works we cannot be saved.

"Rom 3:21-22
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
NKJV"

Okay. As I keep saying, our works aren't governed or dictated by the Law of the Pentateuch. (Paul uses the word "law" to talk about Moses's Law.) But this is very different from the claim you mean to advance, to wit, that works aren't necessary for salvation. It's just that the works aren't governed by the Mosaic Law.

"Strawman argument again. You notably left out the word salvation here."

It's not a strawman. Joe is not ascribing to *you* something you haven't said. He's rather offering an additiional set of considerations, over and above points that had already been made, which he thinks suggest that one of the views under consideration is correct and the other mistaken. This is a perfectly reasonable and fair thing to do. (It would have been unfair had he attributed it to you and then attacked it. But he didn't do that: He is himself endorsing it.)

I believe in recycling also, but I already responded to this argument. Just repeating it does not make it true.



Baptism follows salvation also. Without gettuing into the whole argument again, we have an example in Acts 10 where there were those who received the Holy Spirit and were saved before being baptized:

Acts 10:47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

No is the answer...Why because Peter when on to say no and commanded them to be baptized.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

John the Baptist taught that he baptized with water, but Christ baptized with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

Even when John the Baptist question Christ being baptized, Christ told John why. That it would be toward the fullfillment of both what was, and did come in Christ "US"
Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Titus 3.5: "he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy spirit"
Jn.3.5: "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit"
Acts 10.47-49: Notice that it doesn't say here that Cornelius and the others were *saved* without baptism. It says that they should be baptized right away even though they were gentiles. This certainly suggests that Peter took baptism to be essential (otherwise, why did he think it important to baptize them at all?).

There's nothing to suggest that baptism "follows" salvation.

So you believe that people have the Holy Spirit who are not saved? Where do you find that in scripture?

So you believe that people have the Holy Spirit who are not saved? Where do you find that in scripture?

Are you saying that you have to be baptized to be saved and have the Holy Spirit?

I am lost on who believes what here.

What about the thief on the cross with Jesus?

"How is the calling done? Scripture says that we are drawn by the Holy Spirit. Again, not our doing, not our work but His."

Right. No grace, no nothing--no faith, no works, no salvation. As I've been saying all along, we need God's grace in order for anything to be possible.

And grace is unmerited favour (nothing we have done - no works!).


"Then comes faith in Christ, and the works follow."

And without those works we cannot be saved.

You keep saying this but we are still waiting to see anything in scripture which says that. Your word is not enough for me.


"Rom 3:21-22
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
NKJV"

Okay. As I keep saying, our works aren't governed or dictated by the Law of the Pentateuch. (Paul uses the word "law" to talk about Moses's Law.) But this is very different from the claim you mean to advance, to wit, that works aren't necessary for salvation. It's just that the works aren't governed by the Mosaic Law.

The "law" is not just the Mosaic law, but refers to anyone who places themselves under a works gospel. The law of Moses was a constant theme in the NT because the context of where it took place was the land of Israel. But the principle extends beyond just the Mosaic law, for example:

Rom 2:14-16
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV


"Strawman argument again. You notably left out the word salvation here."

It's not a strawman. Joe is not ascribing to *you* something you haven't said.

He is. No one denied that both faith and works are important. It si whether works are required for salvation. But I note that you go after semantics rather than deal with the issue.

So you believe that people have the Holy Spirit who are not saved? Where do you find that in scripture?

I'll take a page out of your playbook and just say that I believe what the Bible says: It says in Acts 10 that although they had received a gift they still were immediately baptized. So it sure looks like baptism is pretty darn important. This certainly accords with the other two pericopes I adduced, and together all three seem to agree that baptism is required.

Are you saying that you have to be baptized to be saved and have the Holy Spirit?

I am lost on who believes what here.

I am definitely not saying that you must be baptized to have the Holy Spirit. But rather, as scripture says, ONLY those who are saved will have the Holy Spirit. The reference in Acts 10:47 shows that there are those who have the Holy Spirit already are subsequently baptized. The problem that those who believe in a works gospel requiring baptism before salvation have is that they need to argue that the Holy Spirit indwells non-believers, contrary to what scripture says.

Scripture is explicit that we receive the indwellling of the Holy Spirit when and only when we are saved. Water baptism is an act of obedience that follows.

There may be those who are water baptized from tradition, but they are not saved (though some who hold to the works gospel might say that they are).


What about the thief on the cross with Jesus?

That is a good example.

I'll take a page out of your playbook and just say that I believe what the Bible says: It says in Acts 10 that although they had received a gift they still were immediately baptized. So it sure looks like baptism is pretty darn important.

Agreed. Baptism is pretty darned important as an act of obedience after salvation.


This certainly accords with the other two pericopes I adduced, and together all three seem to agree that baptism is required.

How did you get from "pretty darn important" to "essential" when scripture clearly shows examples where people are saved prior to baptism? (i.e. Acts 10 and the other example given by Nohelp4u, the thief on the cross)

I note that once again you are consistent in not answering my question.

I believe in recycling also, but I already responded to this argument. Just repeating it does not make it true.

Sometimes repeating it in different words makes it easier to understand.


Baptism follows salvation also.

Baptism follows conversion.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


According to Scripture, Baptism, a work, now saves us:

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


Without gettuing into the whole argument again, we have an example in Acts 10 where there were those who received the Holy Spirit and were saved before being baptized:

Acts 10:47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"NKJV

They received the Holy Spirit, that is true. But where does it say they were saved? If they were already saved, why did St. Peter insist they must be baptized?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I look at baptism more as a spiritual cleansing than actually saving.

"And grace is unmerited favour (nothing we have done - no works!)."

Yes, as I keep saying, grace is required for faith and grace is required for works. We do not earn grace, it is freely given. But the question isn't whether grace is required for salvation--everyone agrees that it is--but whether works and faith are both required. You say they are not. Unless you now mean to say that grace is sufficient for salvation? So faith isn't required anymore?


"You keep saying this but we are still waiting to see anything in scripture which says that. Your word is not enough for me."

Well, Tom, I've referred you about a jillion times to the passages that De Maria has provided both here and on the other thread. I've even provided the post #'s to make it easy for anyone who wishes to consult them. And you still haven't gone through them one at a time to show that we're all wrong to think that they show that works are necessary for salvation.

"The "law" is not just tghe Mosaic law, but refers to anyone who places themselves under a works gospel."

Where does it say that? Where do we find any mention in Scripture of a "works gospel"?

"The law of Moses was a constant theme in the NT because the context of where it took place was the land of Israel. But the principle extends beyond just the Mosaic law, for example:

Rom 2:14-16
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
NKJV"

Yeah, it's a constant theme because Paul is making the point that we don't have to obey the Mosaic Law in order to be saved; we don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. This was a hugely controversial issue in the early decaed of the Church and Paul is weighing in on it. There's nothing here that says, or even suggests that no works of any kind are required.

"He is. No one denied that both faith and works are important. It si whether works are required for salvation. But I note that you go after semantics rather than deal with the issue."

That's some strong tobacco you're smoking!

Sometimes repeating it in different words makes it easier to understand.

It still does not make it true if it was not true before. Now, as for the rest of your arguments, are you sure that you want to go down this path? We have been there before.

Each of your verses taken out of context can be addressed, but I do not need to since I and Nohelp4u have already shown 2 cases where people were saved without water baptism. Until or unless you can deal with those, any other arguments that you have are a moot point.

I look at baptism more as a spiritual cleansing than actually saving.

That's a pretty common misconception. It's actually both. (Though, of course, someone can be baptized and not be saved: They can, for instance, renounce their faith at a later time.)

Maybe we should be defining works.
Like what would a life of a Christian be without works?
What would they be doing/not doing?
What fruit are they bearing? Like if you say you are a Christian and you go to church and read your Bible what more would the minimum be to qualify as doing works. Even non believers can do works, professing Christians do works so maybe the question is what works makes the Christians set apart to 'make' them saved if that is a requirement that saves them.

Hold on, Tj. I've got other things going on here and I don't always see your posts the instant you write them. I'll be right back.

So you believe that people have the Holy Spirit who are not saved? Where do you find that in scripture?

Tom, I understand this to be "asleep" rather then "dead in Christ". It can be unintentional but it might be intentional. Either way it is best to be baptized and thus dead in Christ.

This becomes a judgement which is in the hands of Christ.
1 Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

The scripture goes on to say that even asleep in Christ thus meaning they do believe in Christ.
1 Th4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Note who is raised first, the dead in Christ.
1 Th 4:15 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Refer: 1 Cr 15:13-21

"And grace is unmerited favour (nothing we have done - no works!)."

Yes, as I keep saying, grace is required for faith and grace is required for works.

Your comments here were addressed. If and when you have something to address the points that I raise (rather than repetition, I am here.


"You keep saying this but we are still waiting to see anything in scripture which says that. Your word is not enough for me."

Well, Tom, I've referred you about a jillion times to the passages that De Maria has provided both here and on the other thread

And I (without the exaggeration on your part) have addressed and refuted those points. We have been through this loop before (you like repetition don't you :p )


"The "law" is not just the Mosaic law, but refers to anyone who places themselves under a works gospel."

Where does it say that? Where do we find any mention in Scripture of a "works gospel"?

Addressed in my last post.

Maybe we should be defining works.
Like what would a life of a Christian be without works?
What would they be doing/not doing?
What fruit are they bearing? Like if you say you are a Christian and you go to church and read your Bible what more would the minimum be to qualify as doing works. Even non believers can do works, professing Christians do works so maybe the question is what works makes the Christians set apart to 'make' them saved if that is a requirement that saves them.

Good point. But since there are some folk who hold to a works gospel, perhaps we should expand this to ask what works of an unsaved person are able to merit their salvation and are able to add to the insufficiency that they appear to feel exists in the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.

Tom, I understand this to be "asleep" rather then "dead in Christ". It can be unintentional but it might be intentional. Either way it is best to be baptized and thus dead in Christ.

This becomes a judgement which is in the hands of Christ.
1 Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

The scripture goes on to say that even asleep in Christ thus meaning they do believe in Christ.
1 Th4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Note who is raised first, the dead in Christ.
1 Th 4:15 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Refer: 1 Cr 15:13-21

sndbay,

I do not understand what you are getting at. The question was where in scripture do we find people who are unsaved but have the Holy Spirit. Can you explain how you relate these passages to that question?

There are many non Christian organizations that do good works.
Then a more person point would be take
Mother Teresa Christian did good works was a Catholic Christian
Princess Di did good works --was she a Christian?

What if Mother Teresa didn't do the good works she did? Would she be any less saved? Or saved none the less?

There are many non Christian organizations that do good works.
Then a more person point would be take
Mother Teresa Christian did good works was a Catholic Christian
Princess Di did good works --was she a Christian?

What if Mother Teresa didn't do the good works she did? Would she be any less saved? or saved none the less?

The question that I have asked those who hold to a works gospel is this. If a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc. and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?

Very few of the works gospel folk will even dare answer that, but two to date have and have conceded that they believe that the man would go to hell.

sndbay,

I do not understand what you are getting at. The question was where in scripture do we find people who are unsaved but have the Holy Spirit. Can you explain how you relate these passages to that question?

THose who believe do have the Holy Spirit. Yet if for an intentional reason they don't do God's Will and their pride leads them toward a delusion which the Spirit permits, they can end up with intentional sleep in Christ. It is a form of double minded. The Holy Spirit can attempt to help but free will gives anyone that choice in life.

I hope that is understood..

THose who believe do have the Holy Spirit. Yet if for an intentional reason they don't do God's Will and their pride leads them toward a delusion which the Spirit permits, they can end up with intentional sleep in Christ. It is a form of double minded. The Holy Spirit can attempt to help but free will gives anyone that choice in life.

I hope that is understood..

I do not entirely agree with you or that that those verses would support your contention, but I do agree that failure to live your faith after being saved does have consequences.

THose who believe do have the Holy Spirit. Yet if for an intentional reason they don't do God's Will and their pride leads them toward a delusion which the Spirit permits, they can end up with intentional sleep in Christ. It is a form of double minded. The Holy Spirit can attempt to help but free will gives anyone that choice in life.

I hope that is understood..

Would that be something like a backslidden Christian or a carnal Christian or a professing Christian or what?

would that be something like a backslidden Christian or a carnal Christian or a professing Christian or what?

Sorry I do have to run, I have company. Refer: 1 Cr 15:13-21

Maybe we should be defining works.
Like what would a life of a Christian be without works?
What would they be doing/not doing?
What fruit are they bearing? Like if you say you are a Christian and you go to church and read your Bible what more would the minimum be to qualify as doing works. Even non believers can do works, professing Christians do works so maybe the question is what works makes the Christians set apart to 'make' them saved if that is a requirement that saves them.

Scripture is pretty clear about those things we need to do. But it is summarized in the words:

1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Jesus and St. James were very specific what these things were. The penultimate example, is of course, the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, Jesus highlighted priests, on their way to worship and a Good Samaritan on his way to conduct business. The priests, who are considered the holiest of people, did not stop to help the injured man. But the Good Samaritan had pity on the man. Therefore, we believe, that even our worship is but dead works, if we don't love our brothers:

Matthew 5:24
Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Then in Matt 25, Jesus explains that doing good to our brothers is as doing good to Him:
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

St. James never minced words. He truly lived by his adage:

James 1:8
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

His epistle was anything but doubleminded. He was explicit in his typically blunt manner of speaking:

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before Godand the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

These are the works which God wants.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Scripture is pretty clear about those things we need to do. But it is summarized in the words:

1 John 3:10
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Scripture says:

Rom 3:22-24
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

Therefore we are ALL condemned, but let's see the next part of that verse:

Rom 3:23-26
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NKJV

This IS the gospel. The righteousness that we do not do and the sin that we do condemns us. Therefore there is no hope ion our works, but there is but one hope that is faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. It is HIS righteousness that saves us.

There are many non Christian organizations that do good works.
Then a more person point would be take
Mother Teresa Christian did good works was a Catholic Christian
Princess Di did good works --was she a Christian?

What if Mother Teresa didn't do the good works she did? Would she be any less saved? or saved none the less?

That's one of the problems with Protestant theology. They are consumed by the question of "are you saved?", "am I saved?". And in their impatience, they usurp the judgement of God and claim salvation for themselves, "I am saved! No one can take that from me!"

Well, Scripture is clear that this is against the will of God:

1 Corinthians 4:4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Scripture tells us to live in hope of eternal life:
Hebrews 6: 18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Whether Mother Teresa would have been saved had she not accomplished good works is between God and herself. I'm certain, if she had a good reason not to attempt good works, God would forgive her. But I am not the judge, God is.

Sincerely,

De Maria

....This IS the gospel. The righteousness that we do not do and the sin that we do condemns us. Therefore there is no hope ion our works, but there is but one hope that is faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. It is HIS righteousness that saves us.

There it is in black and white. Faith and works.

Righteousness that we do not do... condemns us. Therefore, if we do works of righteousness, we are saved.

the sin that we do condemns us. We are condemned by what we do just as we are saved by what we do.

Romans 2: 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Sincerely,

De Maria

Scripture says:

Rom 3:22-24
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NKJV

Therefore we are ALL condemned, but let's see the next part of that verse:

Rom 3:23-26
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NKJV

This IS the gospel. The righteousness that we do not do and the sin that we do condemns us. Therefore there is no hope ion our works, but there is but one hope that is faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. It is HIS righteousness that saves us.


Where in this reply did you show that De Maria is wrong to think that 1 Jn. Isn't telling us that works are required?

As for your quotation from Romans 3: Yes, faith is required for salvation. Faith AND works. Nothing in what you've quoted says that works ARE NOT required. Whereas De Maria has quoted passages that do seem to say this. Perhaps you could take each of these passages and explain how they are actually telling us that works aren't required for salvation.

As for the thief: It looks like he DID something, he performed a work, an ergon. How does this vitiate the claim that works, along with faith, are required for salvation?

Thats one of the problems with Protestant theology. They are consumed by the question of "are you saved?", "am I saved?". And in their impatience, they usurp the judgement of God and claim salvation for themselves, "I am saved! No one can take that from me!"

You mean like Paul who claimed to know that he was saved? If indeed it is true that protestant theology focuses on salvation, then they are in good company.

Gal 2:18-20
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
NKJV

1 Cor 2:1-3
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
NKJV

There it is in black and white. Faith and works.

Righteousness that we do not do...condemns us. Therefore, if we do works of righteousness, we are saved.

Wow - I would hope that even Akoue would acknowledge the serious logic fallacy in that statement.

I never cease to be amazed how those who focus on a works gospel move the focus from Jesus and the all sufficiency of His work on the cross and His righteousness, to try to focus on our works and our righteousness.

BTW, who is it that does good works?

Rom 3:10-12
As it is written:
"There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."
NKJV

And yet you say that unsaved men must do good to be saved.

Where in this reply did you show that De Maria is wrong to think that 1 Jn. Isn't telling us that works are required?Once again, read my post.


As for your quotation from Romans 3: Yes, faith is required for salvation. Faith AND works.

Keep repeating that works are required. I don't think that repeating it is a good substitute for actual doctrine from scripture, but perhaps some others will accept it. :p


As for the thief: It looks like he DID something, he performed a work, an ergon. How does this vitiate the claim that works, along with faith, are required for salvation?

You are changing the topic. That was in response to the claim that baptism specifically is essential for salvation. So now show us where the thief was baptized for his salvation.

"He did not call them Abraham's children, but a 'brood of vipers' [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore in John 8:39-44 he states: 'If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did... You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."

Martin Luther

"So who is Jesus and Martin Luther talking about here?
The offspring of Cain. Cain, born of the "Serpent" and Eve in the garden of Eden. It's all in Genesis.

Cain, born of the "Serpent" and Eve in the garden of Eden.

Sooo, Eve had sex with a snake? I know the bible says with God all things are possible but come on, REALLY!

And if you think it was a snake, I have another fairy tale for you. Actually, I have a bridge I want to sale you.
Seeing how you believe "snakes" can talk. Why did Adam and Eve cover their "private parts"?

Wow - I would hope that even Akoue would acknowledge the serious logic fallacy in that statement.
.

Okay, goofus, which logical fallacy did she commit? Was it a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy? Every fallacy has a name, so name it.

Question by TJ:


[What if] a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc., and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?
This question shows a fundamental misconception of baptism. Baptism is the regeneration by being re-born by water and the Holy Ghost, being born again in the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s Kingdom. Through matter (the water) and form (the invocation of the Holy Trinity) we receive a new spiritual life, rebirth declared to Nicodemus.

The Church holds that there are three kinds of baptism; 1. The baptism of water, 2. The baptism of desire, and 3. the baptism of blood. The first is a sacrament, the others being only an effect of baptism, the receipt of grace, and the remittance of sins. The latter two forms are only effective when baptism by water becomes a physical or moral impossibility.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III)

It behoves us, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit 2 Peter 2:22, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith James 2:26 . For the true faith is attested by works.

Now we are baptized into the Holy Trinity because those things which are baptized have need of the Holy Trinity for their maintenance and continuance, and the three subsistences cannot be otherwise than present, the one with the other. For the Holy Trinity is indivisible. An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV) CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm)

In the case of Tj3’s friend, we see that there might be a certain regret. If this is the motivating force then I’d suggest that the poor man would not go to heaven. I can imagine that hell is full of hopeless requests. If on the other hand, there is a genuine repentance and desire to be reborn. Then I’d suggest that the poor man would be saved. In either case, the newly received faith has a requitement in works. Thus, in baptism we see, as it were, the gift of works.

JoeT

Once again, read my post.



Keep repeating that works are required. I don't think that repeating it is a good substitute for actual doctrine from scripture, but perhaps some others will accept it. :p



You are changing the topic. That was in response to the claim that baptism specifically is essential for salvation. So now show us where the thief was baptized for his salvation.

I read you post. You didn't say a word about 1Jn. So EXPLAIN: How does the passage from 1Jn which De Maria quotes NOT say that works are required? Don't quote me another verse; show me how she got THAT one wrong.

Now, baptism. Baptism is a work. You still haven't explained how I was wrong to think that Titus and Jn. which I quoted above, say something other than what I claimed. It should be easy for you: Just tell me what they ARE saying, if they're not talking about baptism.

Back to the thief: Can God in his infinite mercy and power save someone who isn't baptized? Sure he can. It doesn't follow from this that we are not instructed to be baptized. He can save unbelievers, too, it he wants to. Does it follow from that fact that we shouldn't believe? Presumably not. Now, if I'm wrong about Titus and Jn. explain my error; explain to me what those verses are saying.

Akoue,
He lost that many times over a long period on other boards.
He refuses to accept that and I believe one of the main reasons is that it is a Catholic theological teaching as well as with some other denominations.
But as I have said before it is his right to believe as he wishes as long as he does not mislead other when he is obviously wrong.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You mean like Paul who claimed to know that he was saved? If indeed it is true that protestant theology focuses on salvation, then they are in good company.

Gal 2:18-20
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
NKJV

1 Cor 2:1-3
nd I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
NKJV

Neither of these says that works aren't required. As I keep telling you, we all agree that faith is required, so providing verses that re-iterate that fact don't serve your purpose. You need verses which assert that works don't matter at all for salvation. The closest you've come is Eph.2 (whose grammar and terminology you screwed up) and Rom.3 and Rom.8, which are talking specifically about the Mosaic Law and say nothing about works in general.

Joe,
That was an excellent post on baptism.
It explains the theology of it very well making it quite easy to understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Hi Joe, Hi Fred. Good to "see" you guys.

Yes, Fred, it has come to look like his reason for rejecting it is just that the denominations he doesn't like teach it. He appears to be lashing out at boogymen. And very angrily, too.

You mean like Paul who claimed to know that he was saved?

Do you honestly mean to liken YOURSELF to the APOSTLE PAUL? (Nope, no humility there.)

Akoue,
You got that right again.
Humility is and has been lacking a long time.
Fred

Hi Joe, Hi Fred. Good to "see" you guys.

Yes, Fred, it has come to look like his reason for rejecting it is just that the denominations he doesn't like teach it. He appears to be lashing out at boogymen. And very angrily, too.

Hi everybody!

It seems to prove the adage that nothing ever really changes!

Let's take TJ's scenario and turn it around and see what objections we get.

By the magic of the “if”, our friend is now a young man. He makes a commitment to God and accepts Christ. But, becomes a depraved, drugs ridden, dishonest, etc. and winds up in the gutter dead. Obviously he performed no works. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell how is it his faith alone didn’t save him.

JoeT

Joe,
Very good question.
The bible teaches us that by our works (good or bad) we are judged.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Joe,

Your question gets at one of the things that is so unsavory about the faith-only credo: So long as I close my eyes really tight and tell myself that I'm saved, I can do whatever I want and not have to worry about risking my salvation. This is just the thing for which Paul chastised the Corinthians. And it's just a repugnant view. (Watch, Tj will quote the pervious sentence and say: "So now you're saying that the Bible is repugnant" or some-such nonsense.)

Hi everybody!

It seems to prove the old adage that nothing ever really changes!

Let's take TJ's scenario and turn it around and see what objections we get.

By the magic of the “if”, our friend is now a young man. He makes a commitment to God and accepts Christ. But, becomes a depraved, drugs ridden, dishonest, etc., and winds up in the gutter dead. Obviously he performed no works. Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to hell how is it his faith alone didn't save him.

JoeT

I never said that a person cannot reject their salvation. Whether he would go to hell would be a matter for God to decide.

But you DID say that water baptism and works are essential for salvation, so...


Question by TJ:

This question shows a fundamental misconception of baptism. Baptism is the regeneration by being re-born by water and the Holy Ghost, being born again in the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God's Kingdom. Through matter (the water) and form (the invocation of the Holy Trinity) we ...

You were given two examples that scripture gives of people saved without water baptism. Before we get into further detail, deal with those two examples, because all that we need is one example to show your argument in is error.

Second, you were also asked this:

If a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc. and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?

Please answer that question also.

Do you honestly mean to liken YOURSELF to the APOSTLE PAUL? (Nope, no humility there.)

You mean a sinner saved through the cross of Christ? Yep.

You think that you are better than him?

Joe,
Very good question.
The bible teaches us that by our works (good or bad) we are judged.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

That is true... and where are we when this happens? Heaven ! Not at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT BUT... in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ! At the Judgement seat of Christ. SAVED! SAVED from hell. WE WILL be judged for our works.. but it isn't a question of our salvation!! It is a question of our life on earth and how we will be rewarded for all eternity!! Those that choose to squander there time will NOT be given the rewards that those who live for him get. IT is a BIG deal. AND it will be really big in heaven... really big.

Hi Joe, Hi Fred. Good to "see" you guys.

Yes, Fred, it has come to look like his reason for rejecting it is just that the denominations he doesn't like teach it. He appears to be lashing out at boogymen. And very angrily, too.

Look at who is angry and getting abuse! Clearly I am hitting sore points :p

BTW, I am not affiliated with any denomination. Neither do I endorse any.

I suppose going after the person is a substitute for a good answer for some folk!

You mean a sinner saved through the cross of Christ? Yep.

You think that you are better than him?

TJ3,

The apostle paul called himself a sinner of whom he was CHIEF. He wouldn't have it any other way. LOL good answer I would give you a greenie but I have to spread the love with others first and the site wouldn't let me... ;_

that is true...and where are we when this happens? heaven ! not at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT BUT...in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ! At the Judgement seat of Christ. SAVED! SAVED from hell. WE WILL be judged for our works..but it isn't a question of our salvation!!!! It is a question of our life on earth and how we will be rewarded for all eternity!!! Those that choose to squander there time will NOT be given the rewards that those who live for him get. IT is a BIG deal. AND it will be really big in heaven...really big.

Good answer.

I fear more for those who place their hopes in their "righteous" works for salvation than I do for those who receive Jesus as Saviour in their hearts and yet fail to perfectly live the life.

Good answer.

I fear more for those who place their hopes in their "righteous" works for salvation than I do for those who receive Jesus as Saviour in their hearts and yet fail to perfectly live the life.

Tj3,

Me too! Last time I checked all my righteousness is as a fithy rag! I don't reckon I can make it less filthy. ANYTHING I do and I mean ANYTHING that is for the Lord's Glory... will be cast at HIS feet. I didn't do it on my own. AMEN. People need to heed and understand the scripture.

Two examples, Tj? I count one: The thief, which I've addressed.

The other, putative, example you gave was from Acts 10. But as De Maria and I both pointed out to you, there is no mention of Cornelius and the others being *saved*. There is mention made of the fact that they were promptly baptized, though.

Also: What kind of fallacy did De Maria commit? Come on, tell me, I'm just a-dyin' to know.

Oh, and what about the 1Jn. Passage? And where does the NT say that we are saved by faith AND THAT WORKS DON'T MATTER? Are you going to come through on any of this? When ar you going to explain to me how I got Eph.2, James 2, Rom.3, Rom.8, Titus 3.5, and Jn.3.5 wrong? Come on, show me how to understand EACH of them.

Those that choose to squander there time will NOT be given the rewards that those who live for him get. IT is a BIG deal. AND it will be really big in heaven...really big.

Squander their time not doing what, works? There is a point to God’s plan as to why we are here and not in heaven right now. Would our maker put us here and then damn us to hell unless we say some formula “I accept Christ as my savior”? God didn’t make mankind evil, what kind of God would that be? God made us good, with a free-will, and because of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace we are left with a concupiscence which is “in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.”

JoeT

Two examples, Tj? I count one: The thief, which I've addressed.

The other, putative, example you gave was from Acts 10. But as De Maria and I both pointed out to you, there is no mention of Cornelius and the others being *saved*. There is mention made of the fact that they were promptly baptized, though.

Also: What kind of fallacy did De Maria commit? Come on, tell me, I'm just a-dyin' to know.

Oh, and what about the 1Jn. passage? And where does the NT say that we are saved by faith AND THAT WORKS DON'T MATTER? Are you gonna come through on any of this? When ar you going to explain to me how I got Eph.2, James 2, Rom.3, Rom.8, Titus 3.5, and Jn.3.5 wrong? Come on, show me how to understand EACH of them.

If works has nothing to do with redemption, then we can say that Judas is safe in heaven. There’s little doubt he confessed Christ as his Lord. Ya think? Nah!

JoeT

Hmmm? Golly gee wiz joe... I didn't realize that the Lord Jesus had died on the cross and rose again BEFORE Judas killed himself. ( so your theory makes NO SENSE) FIRST of all.. Judas didn't EVER believe... he was simply just one of the crowd that said... Oh yeah... I'm a "Christ follower."

Good answer.

I fear more for those who place their hopes in their "righteous" works for salvation than I do for those who receive Jesus as Saviour in their hearts and yet fail to perfectly live the life.

Who ever said that you have to "perfectly live the life"? No one has ever said that salvation is granted only to the sinless. (The Catholic-Orthodox view regards that as a heresy, in fact.)

Judas didn't EVER believe....

Where are you getting that?

But you DID say that water baptism and works are essential for salvation, so....

No. What is said in Scripture is that baptism is essential for redemption. Furthermore that the faith received must be accompanied with works. We’ve covered it several times now.

JoeT

Akoue,

That he was never a believer. He followed the crowd and he liked his position and what the LOrd could do for HIM. But when push came to shove he betrayed him.. he didn't believe he was GOD.

Squander their time not doing what, works? There is a point to God’s plan as to why we are here and not in heaven right now. Would our maker put us here and then damn us to hell unless we say some formula “I accept Christ as my savior”? God didn’t make mankind evil, what kind of God would that be? God made us good, with a free-will, and because of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace we are left with a concupiscence which is “in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.”

JoeT

NO.. squander their time living more for themselves than for CHRIST!!

Akoue,

That he was never a believer. He followed the crowd and he liked his position and what the LOrd could do for HIM. But when push came to shove he betrayed him..he didn't believe he was GOD.

Scripture doesn't say that. It does, however, tell us that he was possessed. I'm just confused about where this comes from: Where are we told that he liked his position and what Christ could do for him? You may be right, I just don't remember this.

hmmm? golly gee wiz joe...I didn't realize that the Lord Jesus had died on the cross and rose again BEFORE Judas killed himself. ( so your theory makes NO SENSE) FIRST of all..Judas didn't EVER believe....he was simply just one of the crowd that said...Oh yeah...i'm a "Christ follower."

Yes, it does. Think about what redemption by "faith alone" (without works) implies. All I need is to have faith right? And if I have faith for one fleeting moment in my life, I must be saved; evil can no longer touch me, and my evil deed mean nothing. Thus I can hang Christ on a tree, then myself and be assured of God’s promise of salvation, right?

Wrong!!

JoeT

Two examples, Tj? I count one: The thief, which I've

addressed.

I did not see where you addressed the thief - please repost.


The other, putative, example you gave was from Acts 10. But as De

Maria and I both pointed out to you, there is no mention of Cornelius and the

others being *saved*.

And once again there was no response to the question that I asked (you seem

to consistently avoid them). The question is:

Do you believe that it is possible for a person who is unsaved to have the

indwelling of the Holy Spirit?


Also: What kind of fallacy did De Maria commit? Come on, tell me, I'm just a-dyin' to know.

Sigh! Your credibility as an expert in logic goes down another notch. Try the fallacy casual oversimplification. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). His syllogism assumed that if we just do righteous works, we are saved. That is not possible until and unless ALL sin is erased. ANY sin and any type of sin will cause us to fall. You therefore cannot simple negate the syllogism to say that if you start doing righteousness words, you are saved.


Oh, and what about the 1Jn. Passage? And where does the NT say that we are

saved by faith AND THAT WORKS DON'T MATTER? Are you going to come through on

any of this? When ar you going to explain to me how I got Eph.2, James 2,

Rom.3, Rom.8, Titus 3.5, and Jn.3.5 wrong? Come on, show me how to

understand EACH of them.

Do you EVER read my posts? That was answered long ago, and yet you keep asking. If you would take the time and read my posts when they were put up, a lot of your questions would go away.

If works has nothing to do with redemption, then we can say that Judas is safe in heaven.

Really? How do you come to that conclusion?

Who ever said that you have to "perfectly live the life"? No one has ever said that salvation is granted only to the sinless.

That seemed to be what was implied if you care to look back at the original exchange.

hmmm?...Judas didn't EVER believe....he was simply just one of the crowd that said...Oh yeah...i'm a "Christ follower."


How can you support this with Scripture? I've looked. Judas was counted among the disciples. Why would he follow Christ for 3 years and some odd months? You normally accuse us Catholics of inventing small dogmatic stumbling blocks for salvation. Wouldn't this be a large bolder blocking our journey of faith?

JoeT

No. What is said in Scripture is that baptism is essential for redemption.

That is not found anywhere in scripture. For example, if that were the case, we would not see those examples that you have not dealt with where people are saved prior to water baptism.

I also note that you are avoiding my other question.

I'll bet that I know why!


Furthermore that the faith received must be accompanied with works. We’ve covered it several times now.


So by calling it "faith received", I take that you are conceding that works follow received faith. Is that correct?

Yes, it does. Think about what redemption by "faith alone" (without works) implies. All I need is to have faith right? And if I have faith for one fleeting moment in my life, I must be saved; evil can no longer touch me, and my evil deed mean nothing. Thus I can hang Christ on a tree, then myself and be assured of God's promise of salvation, right?

Wrong!!!

JoeT

Joe,

Christ hadn't died and rose again. So, NO he couldn't. Can I today? Right now I am a Christain woman who has accepted Jesus as my ONLY way to the Father. If I did the unthinkable tomorrow... i.e. killed myself... I'd stand in his presence the second I I left this earth. If I could work my way to heaven.. he didn't have to die. But PRAISE the LORD that I don't want to do that... I want to PLEASE my savior.

I did not see where you addressed the thief - please repost.

.

See ##145, 154.

See ##145, 154.

I just looked and unless you have a completely different 145 and 154, it is not there, nor were those posts discussing the thief.

How can you support this with Scripture? I've looked. Judas was counted among the disciples. Why would he follow Christ for 3 years and some odd months? You normally accuse us Catholics of inventing small dogmatic stumbling blocks for salvation. Wouldn’t this be a large bolder blocking our journey of faith?

JoeT

HOW? Because he betrayed HIM! He wasn't a true believer.. he thought Jesus was a great guy and all but when push came to shove he didn't believe he was GOD. ARe you going to tell me that a person who believes that Jesus IS GOD is going to turn around a betray him for a few cents? Uhhhh? I don't THINK so. LOL. Now if he thinks he is a pretty cool dude that can do some great things and could give him a GREAT position in his Kingdom... and he'd like to hurry that part along... why not? Peter denied him too!! But the difference was their motives AND their responses afterwards. If Judas had come and fell at the Lords feet.. then we could talk about his true beliefs. There just wasn't any.

That is not found anywhere in scripture. For example, if that were the case, we would not see those examples that you have not dealt with where people are saved prior to water baptism.



You lost me. I don't understand what you're saying.

Sigh! Your credibility as an expert in logic goes down another notch. Try the fallacy casual oversimplification. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). His syllogism assumed that if we just do righteous works, we are saved. That is not possible until and unless ALL sin is erased. ANY sin and any type of sin will cause us to fall. You therefore cannot simple negate the syllogism to say that if you start doing righteousness words, you are saved.

Sigh! You haven't shown that De Maria is guilty of this, since De Maria did not claim that "if we just do righteous works, we are saved". Now THIS--what you've done--is called "attacking a strawman". She explicitly affirmed, through several successive posts, that salvation requires BOTH faith and works. So, no, your analytical skills haven't served you well here.

Also, another free lesson: You don't "negate" a syllogism. Students learn this within the first week of a course on first-order logic (usually when they learn the propositional calculus, even before quantifiers.)

That seemed to be what was implied if you care to look back at the original exchange.

The view that only the perfect are saved was held by the Gnostics.

HOW? because he betrayed HIM! He wasn't a true believer..he thought Jesus was a great guy and all but when push came to shove he didn't believe he was GOD. ARe you gonna tell me that a person who believes that Jesus IS GOD is gonna turn around a betray him for a few cents? uhhhh? I don't THINK so. LOL. Now if he thinks he is a pretty cool dude that can do some great things and could give him a GREAT position in his Kingdom...and he'd like to hurry that part along...why not? Peter denied him too!!! But the difference was their motives AND their responses afterwards. If Judas had come and fell at the Lords feet..then we could talk about his true beliefs. There just wasn't any.


Sure he betrayed Christ. But, he was a disciple; to be a disciple you need to confess that you believe (have faith). Didn’t that faith save; if not, why not? Are we to believe that we are only accredited works when they are in the negative?

JoeT

Sigh! You haven't shown that De Maria is guilty of this, since De Maria did not claim that "if we just do righteous works, we are saved".

Well, let's see what he did say:

De Maria said:
"Righteousness that we do not do...condemns us. Therefore, if we do works of righteousness, we are saved."

I stand by what I said.

You lost me. I don't understand what you're saying.

Scripture gives us example of those who were in fact saved before they were baptized in water. That along is fatal to your argument because you claim that cannot happen.

Second, you were also asked this:

If a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc. and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?

Deal with those issues.

Joe,

If the man believed that Jesus was GOD he would have fell at his feet and confessed. He felt guilt... but he didn't KNOW that JESUS was the one you go to.. he didn't GET IT. PETER DID. JUDAS didn't have any FAITH... he followed the crowd. We get that today in the ChURCH... they follow and do the so called "right" stuff but they are NOT saved. The don't GET IT.

The view that only the perfect are saved was held by the Gnostics.

I am glad that we agree that is a heresy.

Sure he betrayed Christ. But, he was a disciple; to be a disciple you need to confess that you believe (have faith). Didn't that faith save; if not, why not? Are we to believe that we are only accredited works when they are in the negative?

JoeT

Jesus did not ask them to confess. He did not need to. He knew their hearts when He first called them. I trust that you believe that Jesus is God. Judas was chosen for reasons known to God, to serve the purposes of God.

Joe,

If the man believed that Jesus was GOD he would have fell at his feet and confessed. He felt guilt...but he didn't KNOW that JESUS was the one you go to..he didn't GET IT. PETER DID. JUDAS didn't have any FAITH...he followed the crowd. We get that today in the ChURCH...they follow and do the so called "right" stuff but they are NOT saved. The don't GET IT.

And where do you find Scriptural evidence for all this stuff about Judas? I can't remember ever reading anything in the Gospels about Judas's psychology. Except that he did feel remorse and so killed himself.

The De Maria business: Yeah, you're taking her point of emphasis and disregarding her other posts.

Here's what I wrote and #145: As for the thief: It looks like he DID something, he performed a work, an ergon. How does this vitiate the claim that works, along with faith, are required for salvation?

Here's what I wrote at #154: Back to the thief: Can God in his infinite mercy and power save someone who isn't baptized? Sure he can. It doesn't follow from this that we are not instructed to be baptized. He can save unbelievers, too, it he wants to. Does it follow from that fact that we shouldn't believe? Presumably not. Now, if I'm wrong about Titus and Jn. explain my error; explain to me what those verses are saying.

As for your question: I don't quite understand what you are asking. Could you please rephrase it, explaining what you mean by "indwelling"?

If a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc., and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?

Deal with those issues.

Oh, that's the question. The point that De Maria and I made earlier is that WE cannot know. All we can do is to entrust the poor soul to God's judgment and mercy. How would you answer Joe's version of the question?

Oh, are you ever goiing to set me straight on Titus and Jn 3.5? I've looked and you still haven't said anything about them.

This question shows a fundamental misconception of baptism. Baptism is the regeneration by being re-born by water and the Holy Ghost, being born again in the dignity of adoption as sons of God and heirs of God’s Kingdom. Through matter (the water) and form (the invocation of the Holy Trinity) we receive a new spiritual life, rebirth declared to Nicodemus.

The Church holds that there are three kinds of baptism; 1. The baptism of water, 2. The baptism of desire, and 3. the baptism of blood. The first is a sacrament, the others being only an effect of baptism, the receipt of grace, and the remittance of sins. The latter two forms are only effective when baptism by water becomes a physical or moral impossibility.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III)

It behoves us, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit 2 Peter 2:22, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith James 2:26 . For the true faith is attested by works.

Now we are baptized into the Holy Trinity because those things which are baptized have need of the Holy Trinity for their maintenance and continuance, and the three subsistences cannot be otherwise than present, the one with the other. For the Holy Trinity is indivisible. An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV) CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm)




Originally Posted by JoeT777
No. What is said [ in Scripture is that baptism is essential for redemption B][SEE ABOVE][/B]

That is not found anywhere in scripture. For example, if that were the case, we would not see those examples that you have not dealt with where people are saved prior to water baptism.


Evidence:

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ff)

JoeT

The De Maria business: Yeah, you're taking her point of emphasis and disregarding her other posts.

She said what she said. If she does not believe that and said something else elsewhere, then she should come forward with a clarification.


Here's what I wrote and #145: As for the thief: It looks like he DID something, he performed a work, an ergon. How does this vitiate the claim that works, along with faith, are required for salvation?

And I responded pointing out that we are discussing baptism with respect to the thief, therefore your comment does not address that specific issue.


Here's what I wrote at #154: Back to the thief: Can God in his infinite mercy and power save someone who isn't baptized?

Then baptism is not essential for salvation. You cannot take all the cases in scripture and claim these to be exceptions. The reality is that we find fewer people in scripture baptized than those who are. Are they all exceptions?


Now, if I'm wrong about Titus and Jn. explain my error; explain to me what those verses are saying.

What about Titus and John?


As for your question: I don't quite understand what you are asking. Could you please rephrase it, explaining what you mean by "indwelling"?

You know... what happens when a person is saved according to scripture.

Evidence:

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God… Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 ff)

JoeT

What does it mean to be born of the water and the spirit? Let’s look at it in the context of scripture:

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Oh, that's the question. The point that De Maria and I made earlier is that WE cannot know. All we can do is to entrust the poor soul to God's judgment and mercy.

If there is a chance of him being saved, then baptist is not essential for salvation.


How would you answer Joe's version of the question?


Already did when he first asked. Maybe you did not read that one either.


Oh, are you ever goiing to set me straight on Titus and Jn 3.5? I've looked and you still haven't said anything about them.

What about them?

Can anyone prove that Jesus did not ask his followers to confess their sins?
The argument that He knew their hearts does not hold water for He knows everyone's hearts now and then.
Fred

"all the cases in scripture"

I count one. Acts 10 doesn't work for you for reasons that have already been canvassed. I have REPEATEDLY asked you to address Titus 3.5 and Jn.35, both of which speak to the issue of baptism. I know you saw the post because you quoted from it earlier. You constantly accuse others of dodging questions, though I have been going back and forth through this thread in order to do my best to give you honest answers to your questions. Please repay the courtesy.

And you STILL have not explained to me my errors regarding Eph.2, James 2, Rom.3, Rom.8 (there are others, but I'll leave it here, for now). You incessanetly whine that others don't read your posts or respond to your challenges, but the last several pages show that I have repeatedly asked you to explain, in a detailed way, where I have erred in reading these passages. (My readings, and explanations of them, have already been posted.)

Scripture gives us example of those who were in fact saved before they were baptized in water. That along is fatal to your argument because you claim that cannot happen.

Second, you were also asked this:

If a person had lived a depraved life, drugs, sex, robbery, etc., and was laying in the gutter and received a Holy Spirit clarity of mind, realized that the gospel that he heard as a child was his only hope, cried out to Jesus to be saved and received him as lord and saviour - and then got hit by a car in the next second, would he go to hell?

Deal with those issues.

You missed what I said in the description of Baptism – a salient point. The following is reprinted for your benefit.
The Church holds that there are three kinds of baptism; 1. The baptism of water, 2. The baptism of desire, and 3. the baptism of blood. The first is a sacrament, the others being only an effect of baptism, the receipt of grace, and the remittance of sins. The latter two forms are only effective when baptism by water becomes a physical or moral impossibility.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#III)

Do you see that there are three forms of baptism?

No more what "if's" we could shake this tree till dawn and not bring out a Squirrel .

JoeT

Can anyone prove that Jesus did not ask his followers to confess their sins?

That was not what was being discussed. Here is Joe's message that raise the question:

" Originally Posted by JoeT777 View Post
Sure he betrayed Christ. But, he was a disciple; to be a disciple you need to confess that you believe (have faith)."

So he referred to a confession of faith.


The argument that He knew their hearts does not hold water for He knows everyone's hearts now and then.

I don't see why you think that invalidates the position - it seems to me that it confirms what I said.

Akoue,
Don't hold your breath.
I don't expect it to happen because it can not be done.
Fred

What does it mean to be born of the water and the spirit? Let’s look at it in the context of scripture:

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Explain, please, how this is not speaking about baptism.

What does it mean to be born of the water and the spirit? Let's look at it in the context of scripture:

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

No it doesn't! Being born again is to be baptized. Your explanation above is silly

JoeT

"all the cases in scripture"

I count one. Acts 10 doesn't work for you for reasons that have already been canvassed.

You keep ignoring my response.

Are you saying that you believe that the Holy Spirit can indwell the unsaved?


I have REPEATEDLY asked you to address Titus 3.5 and Jn.35, both of which speak to the issue of baptism.

I responded to John 3:5 just a few messages ago.

As for Titus here is it:

Titus 3:5-8
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
NKJV

You need to show me how you get water baptism from that passage.


And you STILL have not explained to me my errors regarding Eph.2, James 2, Rom.3, Rom.8 (there are others, but I'll leave it here, for now).

I don't even remember anymore what post that is from or what it is about. You seem to like repetition.


You incessanetly whine that others don't read your posts or respond to your challenges, but the last several pages show that I have repeatedly asked you to explain, in a detailed way, where I have erred in reading these passages. (My readings, and explanations of them, have already been posted.)

In almost every single case that you have raised this, when I checked, I had already addressed it. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, Ic can only assume that you skim the messages way too fast.

No it doesn't! Being born again is to be baptized

JoeT

That may be your belief, but it is not in scripture.

I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

You missed what I said in the description of Baptism – a salient point. The following is reprinted for your benefit.
The Church holds that there are three kinds of baptism; .....

What your denomination believes is of no consequence when discussing Biblical doctrine.

That may be your belief, but it is not in scripture.

I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.
Which get us to the central question, Tj3.

HOW MANY FAITHS in CHRIST ARE THERE?

JoeT

Which get us to the central question, Tj3.

HOW MANY FAITHS in CHRIST ARE THERE?[/I][/B]

JoeT

Answer my questions first -and I'd be happy to answer yours. You have been evading these questions for pages.

I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

The thief on the cross was not in a position to be baptized with water - obviously.
So he was baptized via intent and blood. His.
With God all things are possible and if Jesus said the thief was saved he was,
The argument that he was not baptized is moot. It has no basis under the circumstances.
Fred

The thief on the cross was not in a position to be baptized with water - obviously.
So he was baptized via intent and blood. His.

So water baptism is not essential for salvation.

What about Acts 10, Fred? In that case water was available, but they were saved before baptism.

If, as Tj has been arguing, it is just blazingly obvious that works don't matter and baptism is to be dispensed with and the rest of us are just really, really stupid to read Scripture as we do (he's made it clear he thinks I'm pretty dumb)... Why, I wonder, did the early Church require baptism and the necessity of works along with faith for salvation? And I'm talking the REALLY early Church--late first and second centuries. The only people in the period who denied this were Gnostics, and Tj agrees that Gnosticism is heresy. So, here's my thing: Was the revelation brought in the first half of the first century so ineffectual that even those who were working with the Apostles got it all so terribly wrong? It was so ineffectual that even Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Didache, etc. botched it? Was Christ a lousy teacher? Were the Apostles? Was the Spirit not guiding any of these people? Was the Spirit so shockingly absent from them, and from the poor people being instructed by them, that God permitted massive theological delusion in the space of less than a decade? That would make God a pretty lousy Father.

(Yeah, I'm bringing up another point, Tj, not changing the subject. I can't seem to get you to respond to the questions I've been asking since #11, so I thought I'd bring in another angle.)

If, as Tj has been arguing, it is just blazingly obvious that works don't matter and baptism is to be dispensed with

Back into mis-representation, I see. You think abuse is a work of righteousness?

Answer my questions first -and I'd be happy to answer yours. You have been evading these questions for pages.

I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

I'll answer this one since you want to dodge it. The answer is ONE. One and only one as Christ required.

20 And not for them only [the deciples] do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. 21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one. 23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 24 Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. 25 Just Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee. And these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have made known thy name to them and will make it known: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them. ( John 17)

JoeT

I'll answer this one since you want to dodge it.

I dodged nothing. Talking about dodging, I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

What your denomination believes is of no consequence when discussing Biblical doctrine.

Well, Tj, did the Holy Spirit descend on you in tongues of fire at Pentecost? Did you receive the laying on of hands from someone who received the laying on of hands from someone who received the laying on of hands, etc..,. from an Apostle? Did you, or anyone from whom you've received the laying on of hands, receive the power to create halakha from Christ?

You attack denominations. Do you worhip alone? Do you worship with people who disagee with you? Or are you a denomination of one?

I dodged nothing. Talking about dodging, I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

I did that, and you haven't explained how I got either wrong. You also haven't addressed my claim that it doesn't follow from the fact that the thief was saved without baptism in water it doesn't follow that we aren't to be baptized.

Tell me, why did all the early Church Fathers preach the necessity of baptism and works, as well as faith? Were they antichrists? Did the Apostles do such a bad job that they ordained a bunch of antichrists?

Well, Tj, did the Holy Spirit descend on you in tongues of fire at Pentecost? Did you receive the laying on of hands from someone who received the laying on of hands from someone who received the laying on of hands, etc..,. from an Apostle? Did you, or anyone from whom you've received the laying on of hands, receive the power to create halakha from Christ?

Does scripture say that any of the above are essential? Why are you trying to divert from the question.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit will indwell the unsaved?


You attack denominations.

Do you specialize in mis-representations or is that just a hobby? I do not attack denominations. I have no issue with denominations.

I did that,

Again, you do not read carefully. Look who I posted that message to. It wasn't you.


and you haven't explained how I got either wrong.

I responded. Maybe you did not read the responses.


Tell me, why did all the early Church Fathers preach the necessity of baptism and works, as well as faith?

I have not denied the importance of any of the above. But I am discussing how and why scripture says that they are important, but what one person or another believes.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit will indwell the unsaved?

I mentioned this just a little bit ago: Please explain what you mean by "indwell". Can't answer till I understand the question.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit will indwell the unsaved?

I mentioned this just a little bit ago: Please explain what you mean by "indwell". Can't answer till I understand the question.

And I answered. Maybe you did not read.

I responded. Maybe you did not read the responses.
.

Kindly repost, since I can't seem to find your response.

Again, you do not read carefully. Look who I posted that message to. It wasn't you.
.

So what? This is a public space, and I'm not just talking to you. And neither has Joe been talking only to you. If you want to keep a conversation private, take it to PM.

Kindly repost, since I can't seem to find your response.

Maybe if you spent less time mis-representing what I say and more time reading what is said...

Here is it once again:

"You know ... what happens when a person is saved according to scripture."

I am making the assumption that you understand what the Bible says happens when a person is saved.

So what? This is a public space, and I'm not just talking to you. And neither has Joe been talking only to you. If you want to keep a conversation private, take it to PM.

It is not about privacy - it is about you claiming that I was saying this to you.

I dodged nothing. Talking about dodging, I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

You haven't addressed anything either.

You haven't addressed anything either.

An empty claim, Joe.

I am still waiting for you to explain the thief on the cross or Acts 10.

Water is essential when it is available .
Obviously it was not on the cross.
That is why there are three ways a person my be baptized.
Fred

Water is essential when it is available .

Then it is not essential. But that does not explain Acts 10 in any case.

It is not about privacy - it is about you claiming that I was saying this to you.

I didn't claim that. I said that I already answered it.

I just said that it IS essential when available.
Don't try to twist my words to mean something else as is your habit to do.
Fred

I didn't claim that. I said that I already answered it.

So if you don't think that it about you, then just drop it. I will continue to seek Joe's answers.

Tj,

Where in Acts 10 does it say that Cornelius and the others were *saved*?

I just said that it IS essential when available.
Don't try to twist my words to mean something else as is your habit to do.
Fred

Fred,

First I'd like to see you justify that from scripture.

And second, in Acts 10 water was available and were baptized AFTER salvation. Your explanation, even if you could find any scriptural basis, would not address this.

Tj,

Where in Acts 10 does it say that Cornelius and the others were *saved*?

It says that they receive the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the unsaved receive the Holy Spirit?

Joe,

I've got it. It's a shell game. And the Catholics he preys on don't know it's a shell game, so they don't know what to look out for.

Tj,

You repost wasn't a repost. Please indicate the # so I can find your answer.

Tj,

You repost wasn't a repost. Please indicate the # so I can find your answer.

What are you talking about now. The last thing that you asked me to report was a direct copy and paste. Are you talking about something else?

It says that they receive the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the unsaved receive the Holy Spirit?

I'll say what I said before (taking a page from your book): I believe what the Bible tells me. It doesn't tell me that they were saved.

I'll say what I said before (taking a page from your book): I believe what the Bible tells me. It doesn't tell me that they were saved.

Do you believe that the unsaved can receive the Holy Spirit?

Why do you avoid this question?

Fred,

First I'd like to see you justify that from scripture.

And second, in Acts 10 water was available and were baptized AFTER salvation. Your explanation, even if you could find any scriptural basis, would not address this.

Acts 10 says that after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit they were promptly baptized. Where does it say that they were saved? Where do you find the word? Aren't you trying to insert into Acts 10 something it doesn't say?

Acts 10 says that after receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit they were promptly baptized. Where does it say that they were saved? Where do you find the word? Aren't you trying to insert into Acts 10 something it doesn't say?

What do you think that the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 refers to?