Salvation Not Possible Without Works

[Ernest T. Bass]

You have put the cart before the horse here. Faith is what drives our works.

If as you say works give life to faith, why were the Jews not saved by their works? Paul writes extensively about this, and you speak directly against what he teaches us through divine scripture. Another false belief on your part.

If we as you say use the works to drive our faith, all our works are done out of a selfish desire thereby they equate to sin not righteousness.
Now I never said Jesus said to "believe only." You twist my words as you do the understanding of the relation between works and faith. I said Jesus only said to believe. Big difference.

I like the fact you use the Ephesians passage...It says we are His workmanship...not our own workmanship...we were created for good works...not that we create our own good works...He prepared them...we did not achieve them by our actions...so that we would walk in them.

Faith is not a work, you are mistaken.

Good works are evident in the lives of those being saved, not that we seek good works for the reward of salvation. False motivation will produce a true reward of sin.

Faith is nothing, it is dead without works. ANd a dead faith cannot do anything, so it is not poassible one is first saved by a dead faith THEN do works.


The Jews were trying to keep God's law perfectly thereby meriting salvation. AN interesting passage on this I have been looking at recently is found the context of Gal 3:12...."And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

The law of Moses did not even require faith. When Paul says "the man that doeth them (keepthe law)" he means If one could perfectly keep that law then he earned salvation faithlessly. But none could do this for what Paul said in Gal 3:10,11, those Jews would sin at some point and bring the curse of that law upon themselves.

Coffman Commentary correctly puts it this way: (my emp)

The reason this is true is cited in Galatians 3:10. There was another important indication of the same truth, which Paul then quoted from Habakkuk 2:4, "The righteous shall live by faith"; thus the prophets had borne testimony to the fact that the purpose of God, even in the Old Testament, was looking for an "obedient faith" in his children, and not merely for the legalistic type of rule-keeping which was the essence of the Law. The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live." This was the essence of Judaism. See note 2, at the end of the chapter.

Now regarding the conceit that would make Habakkuk say, "The righteous shall live by FAITH ONLY? such a meaning was never in any Old Testament usage of faith. As we have already observed, trust/faith or faith only simply did not pertain to the word in the Old Testament. Paul was here merely pointing out that, from the beginning, God had been interested in receiving "faithful obedience" from his followers, and not a mere faithless rule-keeping. We might add that the meaning of trust/faith or faith only is also foreign to the meaning of the word in the New Testament, or even in the Greek language, as Professor Howard has so effectively demonstrated.

Tie this in to Rom 4:4,5.

In this context Paul uses Abraham as an example. In verse 4 Paul speaks of this worker who works to keep God's law perfectly in order to earn his salvation therefore his salvation is of debt and not of grace. Yet Abraham was not a faithless worker of merit trying to earn salvation by being perfectly sinless, for Abraham sinned and therefore was in need of grace. Yet Abraham had a faithful obedience that was not perfect, but God was not looking for perfection but looking for that "faithful obedience" to His will which is what Abraham had/did.

Again Ernest, you seem to be misreading.

1. You are correct that Paul and James do not contradict. Imagine that....God is not a liar. But where the error is coming in is not in what type of works they are talking about. Notice how you had to go into speculation about what Paul was "essentially saying", this is to fit your viewpoint to scripture...not taking your viewpoint from scripture? (Also notice how I just used the words to and from, we will come back to this at a later time) The key phrase in the Romans 4:2 is not before God. Our works never justify us before God. James is talking about our works justifying us before men. One can not make it to James 2:21 without noticing that James 2:14-22 is talking about how your "brothers and sisters" will notice your faith. verse 18 "A man may say". It seems rather clear. Paul is talking justification before God. James....man.

2.To get into your charge about Ephesians 2:10 will take considerable time if the plain language of Ephesians 2:8-9 immediately proceeding it does not speak clearly to you. I will address this in another post.

3. We agree that the work of Christ is sufficient. We know that God's desire is that every man would come to repentance. So God made a way for every man to come. A mans choice is only not to come...what a man should do by nature (Romans 1) is come. Or did God make a mistake? Did He make it so that some would not come? If He did...how can He say He wants all to come? I thought we already agreed that God wasn't a liar? Is God a liar?

4. In post #30 on this thread you used Romans 2 and said the word "one's". The word one is singular. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Is it group? Or can we reasonably take lessons from it also for "one's"? What particular individual is Paul talking about? Me? You? Geesh...only you seem to think that a group is not defined by the individual. Again, how can you have a group without an individual? So the sum may be understood from the parts. I never thought I would have to explain such basic principals. Just out of curiosity...if you were correct...and Paul is only talking about the two groups (Jew and Gentile) and didn't mean any individual instruction from it...why then in Romans 3:23 does he not say "both have sinned and..." instead of "all have sinned and..."?

SL

I disagree. Works is the difference between what James and Paul say.

(1)James speaks of an obedient faith and uses Abraham offering Isaac as an example of one with an obedient faith therefore Abraham was justified by obedient works.

Paul speaks of works of merit in Rom 4;4,5 and other places speaks of the works of the law of moses. Neither works of merit or works of the OT law can justify.

So we have:

James is saying faith without obedient works cannot save

Paul is saying (meritorious) works done faithlessly cannot save.


A clear contrast between works of merit and faithful obedient works can be seen in Rom 10:3:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

There are two different types of works contrasted in this verse:

1) establish their OWN righteousness (not God's righteousness)
2) submitting (obeying) the righteousness of God.


Paul has sorrow over the fact that fleshly Israel is lost and they were lost for they were "going about to establish their own righteousness" that is, they were FAITHLESSLY doing their own works of merit trying to earn salvation. Paul tells us then what they needed to do to be saved and that being: "submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God", that is, obey God's commandments, Psa 119:172...all thy commandment are righteousness.

So we have in this one verse TWO different types of works being contrasted and we see that one work that does not save and one that does save. And this difference in works is the same difference in the works James speaks of and Paul speaks of.

(2) Eph 2:8,9 speaks of how the Ephesians became saved, that is by grace through faith not by works of merit and verse 10 speaks of the good works the saved have been preordained to walk in.


(3) Christ work is sufficent to save all but allwill not be saved for all will not obey, Heb 5:9, all will not obey when it comes to repenting. Man is NOT toally depraved where he is not able to obey....Rom 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"
So even though the Gentiles did not have the law of Moses as the Jews did, yet the Gentiles did BY NATURE the things contained in that law which would be IMPOSSIBLE if Calvin's total depravity were true.

(4) does not matter what word I used, in Romans chapters 1-3 Paul is speaking of groups not a certain individual. You denied this, so did you ever asnwer my question as to who this particular individual is that Paul is speaking about?

EDIT: I went back to look at post #30 and in that context Paul is speaking to the GROUP Jew when he said "Who will render to every man according to his deeds" So on judgment day God will render to each person (every man) according to his deeds, yet in the overall context in Rom 2 Paul is speaking to the group Jews.

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we (group Jew) better than they (group Gentile)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they (both groups Jew and Gentile) are all under sin;" The "they" and "all" refer back tothe GROUPS Jew and Gentile, no individuals mentioned in this verse at all.

 

[Harry3142]

Ernest Bass-

Whether it's called 'the works of the flesh' (KJV), 'the deeds of the flesh' (NASB), or 'the acts of the sinful nature' (NIV), it is still our original nature. Your arguing against it will not make it any less real. It is who we all are, including yourself.

That is why our salvation needed to be accomplished solely through God's own actions rather than ours. Any action we participate in is automatically flawed, due to we ourselves being flawed. And in order to accomplish successfully what was needed for our salvation, the work had to be completely free of flaws.

As for questioning my faith, by doing so you have committed the very act which Jesus Christ himself taught his disciples that they were never to commit:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in yyour brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can yuo say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (The Gospel of St. Matthew 7:1-5,NIV)

Beware, lest the judgement you desire to mete out to others becomes the judgement that condemns yourself.

 

[justaname]

Faith is nothing, it is dead without works. ANd a dead faith cannot do anything, so it is not poassible one is first saved by a dead faith THEN do works.


The Jews were trying to keep God's law perfectly thereby meriting salvation. AN interesting passage on this I have been looking at recently is found the context of Gal 3:12...."And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

The law of Moses did not even require faith. When Paul says "the man that doeth them (keepthe law)" he means If one could perfectly keep that law then he earned salvation faithlessly. But none could do this for what Paul said in Gal 3:10,11, those Jews would sin at some point and bring the curse of that law upon themselves.

Coffman Commentary correctly puts it this way: (my emp)

The reason this is true is cited in Galatians 3:10. There was another important indication of the same truth, which Paul then quoted from Habakkuk 2:4, "The righteous shall live by faith"; thus the prophets had borne testimony to the fact that the purpose of God, even in the Old Testament, was looking for an "obedient faith" in his children, and not merely for the legalistic type of rule-keeping which was the essence of the Law. The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live." This was the essence of Judaism. See note 2, at the end of the chapter.

Now regarding the conceit that would make Habakkuk say, "The righteous shall live by FAITH ONLY? such a meaning was never in any Old Testament usage of faith. As we have already observed, trust/faith or faith only simply did not pertain to the word in the Old Testament. Paul was here merely pointing out that, from the beginning, God had been interested in receiving "faithful obedience" from his followers, and not a mere faithless rule-keeping. We might add that the meaning of trust/faith or faith only is also foreign to the meaning of the word in the New Testament, or even in the Greek language, as Professor Howard has so effectively demonstrated.

Tie this in to Rom 4:4,5.

In this context Paul uses Abraham as an example. In verse 4 Paul speaks of this worker who works to keep God's law perfectly in order to earn his salvation therefore his salvation is of debt and not of grace. Yet Abraham was not a faithless worker of merit trying to earn salvation by being perfectly sinless, for Abraham sinned and therefore was in need of grace. Yet Abraham had a faithful obedience that was not perfect, but God was not looking for perfection but looking for that "faithful obedience" to His will which is what Abraham had/did.

I disagree. Works is the difference between what James and Paul say.

(1)James speaks of an obedient faith and uses Abraham offering Isaac as an example of one with an obedient faith therefore Abraham was justified by obedient works.

Paul speaks of works of merit in Rom 4;4,5 and other places speaks of the works of the law of moses. Neither works of merit or works of the OT law can justify.

So we have:

James is saying faith without obedient works cannot save

Paul is saying (meritorious) works done faithlessly cannot save.


A clear contrast between works of merit and faithful obedient works can be seen in Rom 10:3:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

There are two different types of works contrasted in this verse:

1) establish their OWN righteousness (not God's righteousness)
2) submitting (obeying) the righteousness of God.


Paul has sorrow over the fact that fleshly Israel is lost and they were lost for they were "going about to establish their own righteousness" that is, they were FAITHLESSLY doing their own works of merit trying to earn salvation. Paul tells us then what they needed to do to be saved and that being: "submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God", that is, obey God's commandments, Psa 119:172...all thy commandment are righteousness.

So we have in this one verse TWO different types of works being contrasted and we see that one work that does not save and one that does save. And this difference in works is the same difference in the works James speaks of and Paul speaks of.

(2) Eph 2:8,9 speaks of how the Ephesians became saved, that is by grace through faith not by works of merit and verse 10 speaks of the good works the saved have been preordained to walk in.


(3) Christ work is sufficent to save all but allwill not be saved for all will not obey, Heb 5:9, all will not obey when it comes to repenting. Man is NOT toally depraved where he is not able to obey....Rom 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"
So even though the Gentiles did not have the law of Moses as the Jews did, yet the Gentiles did BY NATURE the things contained in that law which would be IMPOSSIBLE if Calvin's total depravity were true.

(4) does not matter what word I used, in Romans chapters 1-3 Paul is speaking of groups not a certain individual. You denied this, so did you ever asnwer my question as to who this particular individual is that Paul is speaking about?

EDIT: I went back to look at post #30 and in that context Paul is speaking to the GROUP Jew when he said "Who will render to every man according to his deeds" So on judgment day God will render to each person (every man) according to his deeds, yet in the overall context in Rom 2 Paul is speaking to the group Jews.

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we (group Jew) better than they (group Gentile)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they (both groups Jew and Gentile) are all under sin;" The "they" and "all" refer back tothe GROUPS Jew and Gentile, no individuals mentioned in this verse at all.

My first response is to your straw man argument. There is no reason a faith need be dead to precede good works. God gives a perfectly good working faith.
The seed must be planted and watered. God must give the increase, then it produces fruit. The fruit can not precede the seed.

To show from a different perspective, the new covenant promises a new heart and a new men. How can the old heart do anything but that which is in it, which is evil? From Solomon we get all is vanity, which is true from an old man old heart perspective. This is exactly why we need a savior and to be reborn. It is only after we are reborn that we can produce any works that are good from God's perspective. Thereby there can be no "faithful obedience" without a preceding faith.

I do not disagree with the fact that a salvific faith produces good works...yet your presentation and understanding is incorrect.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest Bass-

Whether it's called 'the works of the flesh' (KJV), 'the deeds of the flesh' (NASB), or 'the acts of the sinful nature' (NIV), it is still our original nature. Your arguing against it will not make it any less real. It is who we all are, including yourself.

That is why our salvation needed to be accomplished solely through God's own actions rather than ours. Any action we participate in is automatically flawed, due to we ourselves being flawed. And in order to accomplish successfully what was needed for our salvation, the work had to be completely free of flaws.

As for questioning my faith, by doing so you have committed the very act which Jesus Christ himself taught his disciples that they were never to commit:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in yyour brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can yuo say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (The Gospel of St. Matthew 7:1-5,NIV)

Beware, lest the judgement you desire to mete out to others becomes the judgement that condemns yourself.

Hi,

The NIV mistranslated flesh as sinful nature. Again, from Romans 2 the Gentiles BY NATURE were able to do the things in the law eve though they did not have Moses' law. Obviously thier nature was ont toally depraved for if it were it wouls have been IMPOSSIBLE for them by nature to do the things in the law.

Zech 12:1 God forms the spirit with in man and that spirit would be as pure as its Maker. If God formed a depraved spirit in me then my depraved actions are all God's fault and accountability - not mine. Gen 4:7 from what God says to Cain it is clear that Cain did not have total depravity for he could choose to do well and rule over sin. Peter's listeners in Acts 2, the eunuch in Acts 8, the jailer in Acts 16 were all in a lost state (you would say depraved state) yet they were desiring to know what to do to be sved, know about Christ, so there was no total depravity with them.


God simply provided a way for man to be saved, it is up to man to take it. God does not save while men sit and do nothing.
A verse I have referenced a few times is Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


As far as questioning your faith, I do not know what your faith is, all I am doing is pointing out what the bible says. So far no one has BIBLICALLY shown a way for a person to be saved without ever doing any type of work.

My first response is to your straw man argument. There is no reason a faith need be dead to precede good works. God gives a perfectly good working faith.
The seed must be planted and watered. God must give the increase, then it produces fruit. The fruit can not precede the seed.

To show from a different perspective, the new covenant promises a new heart and a new men. How can the old heart do anything but that which is in it, which is evil? From Solomon we get all is vanity, which is true from an old man old heart perspective. This is exactly why we need a savior and to be reborn. It is only after we are reborn that we can produce any works that are good from God's perspective. Thereby there can be no "faithful obedience" without a preceding faith.

I do not disagree with the fact that a salvific faith produces good works...yet your presentation and understanding is incorrect.

The biblcal way of salvation:

1)obedient faith>>>>>>>>2)saved state>>>>>>>>>>3) remain faithful unto death or fall from that saved state do to unfaithfulness which inlcudes lack of good works.


Your way:


1) dead faith only>>>>>>>2) then works>>>>>>>>>>>3) saved whether faithful or not.


Your whole process begins and ends at #1 with a dead faith. A dead faith cannot do anything for it's DEAD therefore one cannot preceed from there.
(Actually your process cannot even have a #2 else you admit one cannot be saved without doing works of some type.)

1 Cor 3:6 "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."


Is there any increase without the work of planting and watering? No.



Again, total depravity is a man-made teaching. Man's heart is not only evil never able to do good. Again, how were those Gentiles able to do the things contained in the law? BY NATURE
Solomon never said man is totally depraved.

One can have faith only, but it is dead and cannot save until acted upon. Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"

The chief rules believed but since ther belif lacked works (confession) their belief only would not save them.


In Jn 3:16 jesus tied belief to not persihing (salvation) and did the saem thing with repentance in Lk 13:3,5:

Believe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish
repent>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish

Since there is just one way to be saved, no alternatives, then a saving belief MUST include the work of repenting. "Belief only" being void of repentance [or confession] is dead and cannot saved. All the belief only in the world cannot save an impenitent person. If you have one saved at "belief only" then you have one saved BEFORE he does the work of repentance, that is, saved while impenitent of sins which is not possible at all.

If belief only saves then the devils will be saved, James 2:19. But the devils will not be saved for what separates the devils belief only from a saving belief are obedient works. So even though the devils believe they do not have an obeident belief that leads them to repent or confess.


You posted: "I do not disagree with the fact that a salvific faith produces good works."

But the issue of this thread is can a Christian be saved without doing those good works?

If you answer "no" then you prove my point, that being, no works = no salvation.

But if you answer "yes" then you go agaisnt what you say here about faith producing good works along with going against Eph 2:10, Matt 25, etc, etc.


So can one be saved by a "fatih only" i.e., be saved by a faith that does not produce good works?

 

[justaname]

Hi,

The NIV mistranslated flesh as sinful nature. Again, from Romans 2 the Gentiles BY NATURE were able to do the things in the law eve though they did not have Moses' law. Obviously thier nature was ont toally depraved for if it were it wouls have been IMPOSSIBLE for them by nature to do the things in the law.

Zech 12:1 God forms the spirit with in man and that spirit would be as pure as its Maker. If God formed a depraved spirit in me then my depraved actions are all God's fault and accountability - not mine. Gen 4:7 from what God says to Cain it is clear that Cain did not have total depravity for he could choose to do well and rule over sin. Peter's listeners in Acts 2, the eunuch in Acts 8, the jailer in Acts 16 were all in a lost state (you would say depraved state) yet they were desiring to know what to do to be sved, know about Christ, so there was no total depravity with them.


God simply provided a way for man to be saved, it is up to man to take it. God does not save while men sit and do nothing.
A verse I have referenced a few times is Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, he (Christ) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


As far as questioning your faith, I do not know what your faith is, all I am doing is pointing out what the bible says. So far no one has BIBLICALLY shown a way for a person to be saved without ever doing any type of work.

The biblcal way of salvation:

1)obedient faith>>>>>>>>2)saved state>>>>>>>>>>3) remain faithful unto death or fall from that saved state do to unfaithfulness which inlcudes lack of good works.


Your way:


1) dead faith only>>>>>>>2) then works>>>>>>>>>>>3) saved whether faithful or not.


Your whole process begins and ends at #1 with a dead faith. A dead faith cannot do anything for it's DEAD therefore one cannot preceed from there.
(Actually your process cannot even have a #2 else you admit one cannot be saved without doing works of some type.)

1 Cor 3:6 "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."


Is there any increase without the work of planting and watering? No.



Again, total depravity is a man-made teaching. Man's heart is not only evil never able to do good. Again, how were those Gentiles able to do the things contained in the law? BY NATURE
Solomon never said man is totally depraved.

One can have faith only, but it is dead and cannot save until acted upon. Jn 12:42 "Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:"

The chief rules believed but since ther belif lacked works (confession) their belief only would not save them.


In Jn 3:16 jesus tied belief to not persihing (salvation) and did the saem thing with repentance in Lk 13:3,5:

Believe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish
repent>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not perish

Since there is just one way to be saved, no alternatives, then a saving belief MUST include the work of repenting. "Belief only" being void of repentance [or confession] is dead and cannot saved. All the belief only in the world cannot save an impenitent person. If you have one saved at "belief only" then you have one saved BEFORE he does the work of repentance, that is, saved while impenitent of sins which is not possible at all.

If belief only saves then the devils will be saved, James 2:19. But the devils will not be saved for what separates the devils belief only from a saving belief are obedient works. So even though the devils believe they do not have an obeident belief that leads them to repent or confess.


You posted: "I do not disagree with the fact that a salvific faith produces good works."

But the issue of this thread is can a Christian be saved without doing those good works?

If you answer "no" then you prove my point, that being, no works = no salvation.

But if you answer "yes" then you go agaisnt what you say here about faith producing good works along with going against Eph 2:10, Matt 25, etc, etc.


So can one be saved by a "fatih only" i.e., be saved by a faith that does not produce good works?

As you continue on your straw man argument, I will leave no other response than this.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Faith is nothing, it is dead without works. ANd a dead faith cannot do anything, so it is not poassible one is first saved by a dead faith THEN do works.


The Jews were trying to keep God's law perfectly thereby meriting salvation. AN interesting passage on this I have been looking at recently is found the context of Gal 3:12...."And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."

The law of Moses did not even require faith. When Paul says "the man that doeth them (keepthe law)" he means If one could perfectly keep that law then he earned salvation faithlessly. But none could do this for what Paul said in Gal 3:10,11, those Jews would sin at some point and bring the curse of that law upon themselves.

Coffman Commentary correctly puts it this way: (my emp)

The reason this is true is cited in Galatians 3:10. There was another important indication of the same truth, which Paul then quoted from Habakkuk 2:4, "The righteous shall live by faith"; thus the prophets had borne testimony to the fact that the purpose of God, even in the Old Testament, was looking for an "obedient faith" in his children, and not merely for the legalistic type of rule-keeping which was the essence of the Law. The Law did not even require faith, as seen in the quotation Paul gave here from Leviticus 18:5, the meaning of which may be paraphrased, "No matter about faith; do the Law and live." This was the essence of Judaism. See note 2, at the end of the chapter.

Now regarding the conceit that would make Habakkuk say, "The righteous shall live by FAITH ONLY? such a meaning was never in any Old Testament usage of faith. As we have already observed, trust/faith or faith only simply did not pertain to the word in the Old Testament. Paul was here merely pointing out that, from the beginning, God had been interested in receiving "faithful obedience" from his followers, and not a mere faithless rule-keeping. We might add that the meaning of trust/faith or faith only is also foreign to the meaning of the word in the New Testament, or even in the Greek language, as Professor Howard has so effectively demonstrated.

Tie this in to Rom 4:4,5.

In this context Paul uses Abraham as an example. In verse 4 Paul speaks of this worker who works to keep God's law perfectly in order to earn his salvation therefore his salvation is of debt and not of grace. Yet Abraham was not a faithless worker of merit trying to earn salvation by being perfectly sinless, for Abraham sinned and therefore was in need of grace. Yet Abraham had a faithful obedience that was not perfect, but God was not looking for perfection but looking for that "faithful obedience" to His will which is what Abraham had/did.

I disagree. Works is the difference between what James and Paul say.

(1)James speaks of an obedient faith and uses Abraham offering Isaac as an example of one with an obedient faith therefore Abraham was justified by obedient works.

Paul speaks of works of merit in Rom 4;4,5 and other places speaks of the works of the law of moses. Neither works of merit or works of the OT law can justify.

So we have:

James is saying faith without obedient works cannot save

Paul is saying (meritorious) works done faithlessly cannot save.


A clear contrast between works of merit and faithful obedient works can be seen in Rom 10:3:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

There are two different types of works contrasted in this verse:

1) establish their OWN righteousness (not God's righteousness)
2) submitting (obeying) the righteousness of God.


Paul has sorrow over the fact that fleshly Israel is lost and they were lost for they were "going about to establish their own righteousness" that is, they were FAITHLESSLY doing their own works of merit trying to earn salvation. Paul tells us then what they needed to do to be saved and that being: "submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God", that is, obey God's commandments, Psa 119:172...all thy commandment are righteousness.

So we have in this one verse TWO different types of works being contrasted and we see that one work that does not save and one that does save. And this difference in works is the same difference in the works James speaks of and Paul speaks of.

(2) Eph 2:8,9 speaks of how the Ephesians became saved, that is by grace through faith not by works of merit and verse 10 speaks of the good works the saved have been preordained to walk in.


(3) Christ work is sufficent to save all but allwill not be saved for all will not obey, Heb 5:9, all will not obey when it comes to repenting. Man is NOT toally depraved where he is not able to obey....Rom 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:"
So even though the Gentiles did not have the law of Moses as the Jews did, yet the Gentiles did BY NATURE the things contained in that law which would be IMPOSSIBLE if Calvin's total depravity were true.

(4) does not matter what word I used, in Romans chapters 1-3 Paul is speaking of groups not a certain individual. You denied this, so did you ever asnwer my question as to who this particular individual is that Paul is speaking about?

EDIT: I went back to look at post #30 and in that context Paul is speaking to the GROUP Jew when he said "Who will render to every man according to his deeds" So on judgment day God will render to each person (every man) according to his deeds, yet in the overall context in Rom 2 Paul is speaking to the group Jews.

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we (group Jew) better than they (group Gentile)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they (both groups Jew and Gentile) are all under sin;" The "they" and "all" refer back tothe GROUPS Jew and Gentile, no individuals mentioned in this verse at all.

To get your understanding headed in the right direction we need to focus on this issue of "group vs individual" thing we are stuck on. Then we will move into the very real problems you face in Ephesians with your entire argument. Galatians and Romans also obviously, but Galatians and Romans will be easier once we get to the bottom of where the faith originates from in Ephesians. We will be able to see it easier in other places once we get Ephesians down.

I have never argued that man is totally depraved. Please let go of this as I have with charging you with saying Christ is not sufficient. You have said plainly (over and over) you do believe Christ is sufficient, so our problem appears to be elsewhere. I do argue that man can't do good apart from God's influence. But as we agree...God is constantly trying to woo us because He desires all come to repentance, God can easily influence/turn man. Do you agree that God can easily influence/turn a man for His ultimate purpose/glory?

It is understood that a group can not exist without the individual. Who existed/s in that time or today who is not in one of those two groups? Who is not either a Jew or a Gentile? Who is not covered by the statement Jew or Gentile? So as I said in my last post...He is talking to all individuals then and were ever to come BECAUSE THEY FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE TWO GROUPS. You did not answer my question. Why didn't he say "Both have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" instead of "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? (Romans 3:23) If what you say about just speaking to the two groups in general and nothing to individuals can be applied....why did he not use the word both?

 

[Harry3142]

Ernest Bass-

What is your education in Greek? Can you even read Greek? If not, your argument against any translation of Scripture commonly accepted is based on nothing but bias.

As for being required to obey the law in order to be saved, are you referring only to the 613 laws and commandments found in Torah, or are you referring to the 10's of 1,000's of laws attached to those laws via subsets in order to convert them from being societal to being salvific. The Sabbath commandment alone had well over 1,000 laws attached to it, and the teaching in the 1st century was that in order to obey that one commandment in a way that ensured salvation, all 1,000+ laws had to be obeyed perfectly.

This has been a source of confusion to many people. They read of the Pharisees' teaching that the people must obey the law to be saved, and they assume that what is being referred to are the 613 original laws of Torah. But the original purpose for those laws had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or even any kind of afterlife. In fact, they were taught that the only 'afterlife' they were to accept as real was the body's returning to the dust of the earth after death (Genesis 3:19).

So what was the reward for keeping the original laws of Torah? Here it is:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

Do you see anything in that passage concerning an afterlife's even existing, muchless their earning a place in it by keeping the laws of Torah? No, you do not. It was a very pragmatic, here-and-now contract between God and the Hebrews, with their obedience to the laws and commandments in this life being rewarded solely in this life.

As for an afterlife's even existing, Solomon himself summed up what their belief was concerning that:

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?

So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22,NIV)

The idea that there was an afterlife was not accepted by Jews until shortly before Christ's sojourn among us. Even then it wasn't accepted by all of them (to this very day it is not accepted by most of them). The Sadducees accepted the traditional belief that death was a wall, not a doorway to another life. And those who did accept that an afterlife existed, especially the Pharisees, knew that the laws and commandments of Torah in their original state wouldn't obtain that eternal life for them. So they added numerous laws to the original laws and commandments in an attempt to convert them from being societal to being salvific. By the time that Jesus arrived there were literally 10's of 1,000's of these laws in subsets attached to the original laws and commandments, and in order to obey any of those laws in a manner that ensured eternal life, every one of the laws in its subset had to be followed perfectly. It was those subsets that Jesus referred to as the 'heavy burdens' which the Pharisees were forcing the people to bear, and it was also those laws, rather than the original laws of Torah, which the Pharisees accused Jesus himself of violating.

As for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, I myself believe that if our acceptance of Jesus' atoning sacrifice is genuine, we will feel the compassion which leads us to perform such acts. In fact, I would suspect anyone who claimed to be a Christian, but did not have compassion for those in need, of being a fraud. But rather than its being a matter of accepting the salvation which God offers freely to all, and then adding to that acceptance the belief that we must obey a set of laws, I see it as our accepting the salvation which God offers freely to all, and as a direct result of that acceptance being imbued with such a compassion for those in need that our work alleviating their suffering comes as naturally to us in our reborn state as our heartbeat came to us in our original state.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

As you continue on your straw man argument, I will leave no other response than this.

I just asked a simple question that you do not want to answer.

To get your understanding headed in the right direction we need to focus on this issue of "group vs individual" thing we are stuck on. Then we will move into the very real problems you face in Ephesians with your entire argument. Galatians and Romans also obviously, but Galatians and Romans will be easier once we get to the bottom of where the faith originates from in Ephesians. We will be able to see it easier in other places once we get Ephesians down.

I have never argued that man is totally depraved. Please let go of this as I have with charging you with saying Christ is not sufficient. You have said plainly (over and over) you do believe Christ is sufficient, so our problem appears to be elsewhere. I do argue that man can't do good apart from God's influence. But as we agree...God is constantly trying to woo us because He desires all come to repentance, God can easily influence/turn man. Do you agree that God can easily influence/turn a man for His ultimate purpose/glory?

It is understood that a group can not exist without the individual. Who existed/s in that time or today who is not in one of those two groups? Who is not either a Jew or a Gentile? Who is not covered by the statement Jew or Gentile? So as I said in my last post...He is talking to all individuals then and were ever to come BECAUSE THEY FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE TWO GROUPS. You did not answer my question. Why didn't he say "Both have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" instead of "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? (Romans 3:23) If what you say about just speaking to the two groups in general and nothing to individuals can be applied....why did he not use the word both?

You first say "I have never argued that man is totally depraved" but then you say " I do argue that man can't do good apart from God's influence". This is what I would say is total depravity, man unable to do good on his own. Also if what you say here is true, then if one is lost it would be God's fault for His failure to influence. If God formed a depraved spirit within me that I cannot do good but the only way I can do good is if God influences me, then whose fault is my condemnation if God does not influence me? God's

Groups are made up of individuals but it is the group not any particular individual Paul is speaking about. Again in Rom 3:9 'they' and 'all' refer to the groups not any particular individuals. Since individual Jews have sinned, then the group Jew is under sin. It does not mean every single Jew has to sin for the group to be classified as being under sin. Jewish infants and Jesus did not sin but since other Jews did sin the group is under sin.

As I have already pointed out, the language of Rom 3:9 is no different than Joel prophesying God's spirit would be poured out upon "all flesh". 'All flesh' does not mean every single individual just as when Paul said 'all under sin' does not mean every single individual. In fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, the Lord baptized the apostles in Acts 2 with the Holy Spirit and Cornelius in Acts 10 with the Holy Spirit. Apostles were Jews, Cornelius a Gentile therefore all flesh meaning the two groups Jew and Gentile and not every single individual (including animals which have flesh). They viewed all humanity at that time as being divided between two groups - Jew and non-Jew and it was not uncommon for them to refer to all humanity by those two groups.

Ernest Bass-

What is your education in Greek? Can you even read Greek? If not, your argument against any translation of Scripture commonly accepted is based on nothing but bias.

As for being required to obey the law in order to be saved, are you referring only to the 613 laws and commandments found in Torah, or are you referring to the 10's of 1,000's of laws attached to those laws via subsets in order to convert them from being societal to being salvific. The Sabbath commandment alone had well over 1,000 laws attached to it, and the teaching in the 1st century was that in order to obey that one commandment in a way that ensured salvation, all 1,000+ laws had to be obeyed perfectly.

This has been a source of confusion to many people. They read of the Pharisees' teaching that the people must obey the law to be saved, and they assume that what is being referred to are the 613 original laws of Torah. But the original purpose for those laws had nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, or even any kind of afterlife. In fact, they were taught that the only 'afterlife' they were to accept as real was the body's returning to the dust of the earth after death (Genesis 3:19).

So what was the reward for keeping the original laws of Torah? Here it is:

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land - your grain, new wine and oil - the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. (Deuteronomy 7:12-15,NIV)

Do you see anything in that passage concerning an afterlife's even existing, muchless their earning a place in it by keeping the laws of Torah? No, you do not. It was a very pragmatic, here-and-now contract between God and the Hebrews, with their obedience to the laws and commandments in this life being rewarded solely in this life.

As for an afterlife's even existing, Solomon himself summed up what their belief was concerning that:

I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?

So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him? (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22,NIV)

The idea that there was an afterlife was not accepted by Jews until shortly before Christ's sojourn among us. Even then it wasn't accepted by all of them (to this very day it is not accepted by most of them). The Sadducees accepted the traditional belief that death was a wall, not a doorway to another life. And those who did accept that an afterlife existed, especially the Pharisees, knew that the laws and commandments of Torah in their original state wouldn't obtain that eternal life for them. So they added numerous laws to the original laws and commandments in an attempt to convert them from being societal to being salvific. By the time that Jesus arrived there were literally 10's of 1,000's of these laws in subsets attached to the original laws and commandments, and in order to obey any of those laws in a manner that ensured eternal life, every one of the laws in its subset had to be followed perfectly. It was those subsets that Jesus referred to as the 'heavy burdens' which the Pharisees were forcing the people to bear, and it was also those laws, rather than the original laws of Torah, which the Pharisees accused Jesus himself of violating.

As for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, I myself believe that if our acceptance of Jesus' atoning sacrifice is genuine, we will feel the compassion which leads us to perform such acts. In fact, I would suspect anyone who claimed to be a Christian, but did not have compassion for those in need, of being a fraud. But rather than its being a matter of accepting the salvation which God offers freely to all, and then adding to that acceptance the belief that we must obey a set of laws, I see it as our accepting the salvation which God offers freely to all, and as a direct result of that acceptance being imbued with such a compassion for those in need that our work alleviating their suffering comes as naturally to us in our reborn state as our heartbeat came to us in our original state.

No one has to be able to know Greek to understand the NIV is a horrible translation. It discredits itself in the preface where it says the authors did not strive for a word for word translation, which is the very thing they should have been striving for. So instead of a word for word translation you get a "dynamic translation" where the authors gave their personal BIASED opinion of what the verse is saying. The bible does not teach total depravity so the NIV authors put it in their perversion. They even perverted what is probably the most well known bible verse, Jn 3:16 to change it to teach eternal security. Calvinism is not taught in the bible yet the Calvinistic bias of the author's of the NIV is evident.

The NIV "translators" were not consistent in their translation of sarx (flesh), they changed its meaning when it was convenient for them in order for them to promote their unbiblcal bias: (my emp)

The NIV and Sarx​

A careful study shows that the NIV has been most inconsistent in its translation of sarx. In certain passages the translators have used the phrase “sinful nature” for sarx. For example, the word sarx is used 10 times in Ephesians, and the NIV has rendered it “sinful nature” only in Ephesians 2:3. This seems to me to be a theologically motivated translation. Of course, Calvinistic commentators were making use of this verse before the publication of the NIV. Hendriksen, for example, says “The flesh or depraved human nature, accordingly, produces evil desires” (New Testament Commentary: Ephesians 115).​

​

In Colossians the term sarx is used 9 times. It has been rendered “sinful nature” only in 2:11 and 2:13. Note the way sarx is translated throughout Colossians in the NIV.​

Col. 1:22 – physical body (The reference is to Christ. Why did not they translate it “sinful nature”?)​

Col. 1:24 -flesh (The reference is to Paul’s physical body.)​

Col. 2:1 – met me personally (for “seen my face in the flesh”)​

Col. 2:5 – body​

Col. 2:11 – sinful nature​

Col. 2:13 – sinful nature​

Col. 2:18 – unspiritual​

Col. 2:23 – sensual​

Col. 3:22 – - (Here the NIV omits any translation for the phrase kata sarka, “according to the flesh.”)​

​

It is granted that sarx does not have the same meaning in every occurrence, and many of the renderings of the NIV are quite good. The problem is that the NIV has used “sinful nature” only when it seems to bolster the theological view of hereditary total depravity. The use of so many different words and phrases by which to render sarx obliterates the actual usage of sarx. The practice of using many English words to translate a single Greek word has brought much criticism of the KJV.​

​

In Romans 1:3 where sarx is used of Christ it is translated “human nature.” When sarx is used of man in Romans 7:5,18, and 25 it is rendered “sinful nature.” In Romans 8:3, where sarx is used 3 times, the NIV has it “sinful nature” in the first instance where it refers to man. But when it refers to Christ coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (the Greek is sarkos harmatias, flesh of sin), they have used “sinful man.” Such haphazard rendering can only be for the purpose of advancing the theological view of total depravity.​

Please remember that the translators responsible for the phrase “sinful nature” sincerely believed that man does have an inherited depraved nature; their translation is simply a reflection of their theological self-understanding. Also keep in mind that many of the passages translated as “sinful nature” were already being used by Calvinists as proof-texts for their doctrine. Our task really hasn’t changed all that much. Still we must urge people to look to the sum of God’s word on this and every subject.​

http://www.truthmagazine.com/the-new-international-versions-translation-of-sarax​

One cannot be saved by obeying the law of Moses, one must obey the gospel of Christ to be saved, failure to obey it leaves one lost, 2 Thess 1:8



You posted " As for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, I myself believe that if our acceptance of Jesus' atoning sacrifice is genuine, we will feel the compassion which leads us to perform such acts. In fact, I would suspect anyone who claimed to be a Christian, but did not have compassion for those in need, of being a fraud.

The issue is can one become a Christian and remain saved without doing good works. You say one is a fraud if he does not do good works. So my point stands: salvation is not possible without doing some type of works.

 

[Harry3142]

Ernest Bass-

"Suppse one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' " (The Gospel of St. Luke 17:7-10,NIV)

In my 68 years I have encountered numerous people who insist that works must augment faith, or else they will lose their salvation. In each and every case they also fully expected those worls to earn them praise from God. But the facts are that we are to do what God wants us to do while expecting absolutely nothing as a reward for our accomplishments. They are to be done solely because we know that they are to be done. This outlandish belief in the 'works are necessary' people that their works will be seen as to their credit is a direct violation of Scripture.

Also, whenever I have encountered those who insist that we must keep 'the law' in order to hold on to salvation, it has actually been only half a sentence. The entire sentence has been, "You must keep the law as we interpret it in order to be saved." Whenever any set of laws is insisted on, there are always those who manipulate themselves into positions of authority and then insist that those laws must conform to their own interpretation.

As for the NIV Bible, you may use any translation you desire and you will still not get around what is taught in it. SInce scholars are now saying that Greek wasn't the original language of certain gospels, but instead either Hebrew or Aramaic, we are too far removed from their original language to have any translation which is absolutely perfect. And the KJV Bible is so poor a translation that many churches, including one I attended for 30 years, have banned it from being read in their services.

 

[justaname]

I just asked a simple question that you do not want to answer.

You first say "I have never argued that man is totally depraved" but then you say " I do argue that man can't do good apart from God's influence". This is what I would say is total depravity, man unable to do good on his own. Also if what you say here is true, then if one is lost it would be God's fault for His failure to influence. If God formed a depraved spirit within me that I cannot do good but the only way I can do good is if God influences me, then whose fault is my condemnation if God does not influence me? God's

Groups are made up of individuals but it is the group not any particular individual Paul is speaking about. Again in Rom 3:9 'they' and 'all' refer to the groups not any particular individuals. Since individual Jews have sinned, then the group Jew is under sin. It does not mean every single Jew has to sin for the group to be classified as being under sin. Jewish infants and Jesus did not sin but since other Jews did sin the group is under sin.

As I have already pointed out, the language of Rom 3:9 is no different than Joel prophesying God's spirit would be poured out upon "all flesh". 'All flesh' does not mean every single individual just as when Paul said 'all under sin' does not mean every single individual. In fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, the Lord baptized the apostles in Acts 2 with the Holy Spirit and Cornelius in Acts 10 with the Holy Spirit. Apostles were Jews, Cornelius a Gentile therefore all flesh meaning the two groups Jew and Gentile and not every single individual (including animals which have flesh). They viewed all humanity at that time as being divided between two groups - Jew and non-Jew and it was not uncommon for them to refer to all humanity by those two groups.

No one has to be able to know Greek to understand the NIV is a horrible translation. It discredits itself in the preface where it says the authors did not strive for a word for word translation, which is the very thing they should have been striving for. So instead of a word for word translation you get a "dynamic translation" where the authors gave their personal BIASED opinion of what the verse is saying. The bible does not teach total depravity so the NIV authors put it in their perversion. They even perverted what is probably the most well known bible verse, Jn 3:16 to change it to teach eternal security. Calvinism is not taught in the bible yet the Calvinistic bias of the author's of the NIV is evident.

The NIV "translators" were not consistent in their translation of sarx (flesh), they changed its meaning when it was convenient for them in order for them to promote their unbiblcal bias: (my emp)

The NIV and Sarx​

A careful study shows that the NIV has been most inconsistent in its translation of sarx. In certain passages the translators have used the phrase “sinful nature” for sarx. For example, the word sarx is used 10 times in Ephesians, and the NIV has rendered it “sinful nature” only in Ephesians 2:3. This seems to me to be a theologically motivated translation. Of course, Calvinistic commentators were making use of this verse before the publication of the NIV. Hendriksen, for example, says “The flesh or depraved human nature, accordingly, produces evil desires” (New Testament Commentary: Ephesians 115).

In Colossians the term sarx is used 9 times. It has been rendered “sinful nature” only in 2:11 and 2:13. Note the way sarx is translated throughout Colossians in the NIV.
Col. 1:22 – physical body (The reference is to Christ. Why did not they translate it “sinful nature”?)
Col. 1:24 -flesh (The reference is to Paul’s physical body.)
Col. 2:1 – met me personally (for “seen my face in the flesh”)
Col. 2:5 – body
Col. 2:11 – sinful nature
Col. 2:13 – sinful nature
Col. 2:18 – unspiritual
Col. 2:23 – sensual
Col. 3:22 – - (Here the NIV omits any translation for the phrase kata sarka, “according to the flesh.”)

It is granted that sarx does not have the same meaning in every occurrence, and many of the renderings of the NIV are quite good. The problem is that the NIV has used “sinful nature” only when it seems to bolster the theological view of hereditary total depravity. The use of so many different words and phrases by which to render sarx obliterates the actual usage of sarx. The practice of using many English words to translate a single Greek word has brought much criticism of the KJV.

In Romans 1:3 where sarx is used of Christ it is translated “human nature.” When sarx is used of man in Romans 7:5,18, and 25 it is rendered “sinful nature.” In Romans 8:3, where sarx is used 3 times, the NIV has it “sinful nature” in the first instance where it refers to man. But when it refers to Christ coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (the Greek is sarkos harmatias, flesh of sin), they have used “sinful man.” Such haphazard rendering can only be for the purpose of advancing the theological view of total depravity.
Please remember that the translators responsible for the phrase “sinful nature” sincerely believed that man does have an inherited depraved nature; their translation is simply a reflection of their theological self-understanding. Also keep in mind that many of the passages translated as “sinful nature” were already being used by Calvinists as proof-texts for their doctrine. Our task really hasn’t changed all that much. Still we must urge people to look to the sum of God’s word on this and every subject.
http://www.truthmagazine.com/the-new-international-versions-translation-of-sarax


One cannot be saved by obeying the law of Moses, one must obey the gospel of Christ to be saved, failure to obey it leaves one lost, 2 Thess 1:8



You posted " As for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, I myself believe that if our acceptance of Jesus' atoning sacrifice is genuine, we will feel the compassion which leads us to perform such acts. In fact, I would suspect anyone who claimed to be a Christian, but did not have compassion for those in need, of being a fraud.

The issue is can one become a Christian and remain saved without doing good works. You say one is a fraud if he does not do good works. So my point stands: salvation is not possible without doing some type of works.

No you built a straw man argument and you hold to it. It is apparent you care not to discuss the issue, you want to win an argument, and you will use any tactic to win, even if it is unethical.

Shalom

 

[kjw47]

The bible does not put obedient works AFTER salvation but before, consider the order of Acts 2:38 or Mk 16:16 that put obedience BEFORE salvation.

Paul in Rom 6:16 said you serve either one of two masters, you either serve:

1) sin unto death

or

2) obedience unto righteosness


I serve obedience unto righteousness. Which do you serve?


God does not just look at the heart, He will judge according to ones deeds, Rom 2:6-11.

Eph 2:8,9 does not eliminate works it includes the work of faith. And EPh 2:10 speaks of those that are already Christians, already saved. Titus 2:14 Rev 2:26 Matthew chpater 25 it is no way possible one can be saved yet have no good works.

To clarify, there are OBEDIENT works that must be done to become saved/become a Chrsitian those being one must believe, Jn 8:24, repent, Lk 13>3,5 confess, Matt 10:32,33 and be baptized for remission of sins Mk 16:16 cf Acts 2:38. After one becomes saved/a Christian then he must do GOOD works that God preordained Christians to walk in. Are you willilng to argue one can be saved yet NOT walk in those good works God preordained Chrisians to walk in? THrefore my argument is that it is no way possible for one to be saved without ever doing any work at all. You cannot show me verses that get one saved by DOING NOTHING or where one is kept saved by DOING NOTHING.

Jn 10:4 "And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice."

Jn 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"

How can one be a sheep and not do the works of hearing and following? (“Hear” is from akouo, which signifies to listen...it denotes an obedient listening to Jesus (see J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 23).



Again, "the finished work of Christ" does not help your argument. What Christ did is sufficient to save every man yet not evey man will not be saved for every man will not obey Christ, Heb 5:9...Christ is the author of salvation to all them that obey him, not all them that do nothing.

Few obey Jesus, because few know his teachings. That is why Few will find the entrance to the narrow gate and walk the cramped road that leads to life.
Its hard as well, to hear Jesus' voice if one doesn't know his teachings. Most refuse to believe Jesus over men' dogmas.
As far as works go--James taught--Faith without works is dead---meaning---Works build up a strong faith that will live when its on the line--without works ones faith will be worthless when it is needed most, it will be as dead. So in a sense, works are very much needed for strong faith reasons and excercising faith is what will get one saved.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

You first say "I have never argued that man is totally depraved" but then you say " I do argue that man can't do good apart from God's influence". This is what I would say is total depravity, man unable to do good on his own. Also if what you say here is true, then if one is lost it would be God's fault for His failure to influence. If God formed a depraved spirit within me that I cannot do good but the only way I can do good is if God influences me, then whose fault is my condemnation if God does not influence me? God's

Groups are made up of individuals but it is the group not any particular individual Paul is speaking about. Again in Rom 3:9 'they' and 'all' refer to the groups not any particular individuals. Since individual Jews have sinned, then the group Jew is under sin. It does not mean every single Jew has to sin for the group to be classified as being under sin. Jewish infants and Jesus did not sin but since other Jews did sin the group is under sin.

As I have already pointed out, the language of Rom 3:9 is no different than Joel prophesying God's spirit would be poured out upon "all flesh". 'All flesh' does not mean every single individual just as when Paul said 'all under sin' does not mean every single individual. In fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, the Lord baptized the apostles in Acts 2 with the Holy Spirit and Cornelius in Acts 10 with the Holy Spirit. Apostles were Jews, Cornelius a Gentile therefore all flesh meaning the two groups Jew and Gentile and not every single individual (including animals which have flesh). They viewed all humanity at that time as being divided between two groups - Jew and non-Jew and it was not uncommon for them to refer to all humanity by those two groups.

Ernest,

1. If you can make up your own definitions to words...you will always win. If we are going to have this conversation, you have to abide by standard definitions. Words have to mean something. They offer the means to meaning and by extension a way to find truth.

Depraved=corrupt, wicked or perverted. This is the definition we need to go by. I understand it may be more convenient for you to go by the "Unabridged Dictionary of Ernest" but for the purpose of this conversation could we allow sanity to sink in? God can influence anyone who is corrupt, wicked or perverted! Thank God that is why I am in the Body! I was corrupt, wicked and perverted when Christ grabbed a hold of me. God does however "turn us over to a depraved mind" when we go to far and will not try to influence us any further. Romans 1:28

God did not form a depraved spirit within any person. But sin is in the blood my friend. It is passed down from generation to generation. Yes...we are born with it...it is literally in your\my blood from birth. It is the first thing our parents gave us and something we will struggle with our whole life. (Romans 7:13-25)

2. If you were right and we could not all also take lessons from Romans 1-3, he would have used the word Both not all in Romans 3:23....he used all. Accept this...or accept whatever you choose to. I will tell you this: if Paul using the word all does not mean all to you...if it instead means both...you need to revise the "Unabridged Ernest Concordance" also.

3. You keep explaining everything God's word doesn't mean. God seems to have said a bunch of things that He didn't quite mean. Thank God we all have you to explain to us what He didn't mean. I will take God at His plain word. If He uses the word all, I will assume He meant all....not tell Him what He meant and didn't mean.

I will not dwell on any of these points further. These are over. I believe we both know where we stand on these issues. We have hit them over and over. I will try to check in tomorrow and we can start on Ephesians. I do not have much hope that we will solve anything at this point, but I must needs try. I am praying about this conversation ernestly. (pun kind've intended) B)

I have no idea what I did to make it all bold....except be me....I promise I am not yelling this post

 

[justaname]

Sorry Ernest I did not read your complete response post. Although I hold to my former position your question should be answered.

The thief on the cross performed no "works" to be saved. Now if you say faith is a "work" then faith is all that is needed for salvation.

My position stands firm...there is none righteous no not one...thereby no one can perform good works without being reborn. The condition for salvation and rebirth set forth by the gospel is faith. Those who have a salvific faith produce good works.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest Bass-

"Suppse one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' " (The Gospel of St. Luke 17:7-10,NIV)

In my 68 years I have encountered numerous people who insist that works must augment faith, or else they will lose their salvation. In each and every case they also fully expected those worls to earn them praise from God. But the facts are that we are to do what God wants us to do while expecting absolutely nothing as a reward for our accomplishments. They are to be done solely because we know that they are to be done. This outlandish belief in the 'works are necessary' people that their works will be seen as to their credit is a direct violation of Scripture.

Also, whenever I have encountered those who insist that we must keep 'the law' in order to hold on to salvation, it has actually been only half a sentence. The entire sentence has been, "You must keep the law as we interpret it in order to be saved." Whenever any set of laws is insisted on, there are always those who manipulate themselves into positions of authority and then insist that those laws must conform to their own interpretation.

As for the NIV Bible, you may use any translation you desire and you will still not get around what is taught in it. SInce scholars are now saying that Greek wasn't the original language of certain gospels, but instead either Hebrew or Aramaic, we are too far removed from their original language to have any translation which is absolutely perfect. And the KJV Bible is so poor a translation that many churches, including one I attended for 30 years, have banned it from being read in their services.

From the passage you quoted from Lk 17, does not the servant have a duty to do? Yes he does...."So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty."

Lk 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Jesus is not the Lord of those that do nothing but is the Lord of them that do the things which He says.



Again, the bible ties faith and works so closely together that faith is a work.

The bible is its own best commentary:

In Eph 2:8 we are told the Ephesians were saved through faith. 1 Pet 3:21 Peter said baptism saves. Putting the two verses together we get:

Eph 2:8----------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves.

Since there is just one way to be saved and the bible does not contradict itself, then that can only mean that a saving faith INCLUDES the work of submitting to water baptism.


You post "Also, whenever I have encountered those who insist that we must keep 'the law' in order to hold on to salvation.."

If by "the law" you refer to the law of Moses then I have nowhere ever said, or ever will say, one must keep that law to be saved. What I am saying is one cannot be saved without being obedient to Christ's NT law, obey HIs NT gospel...."the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Rom 1:16

2 Thess 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Rom 10, Paul is sorrowful over the fact fleshly Israel was lost, and they were lost for they have not "submitted (obeyed) unto the righteousness (commandments) of God" verse 3...."But they have not all obeyed the gospel" v16


1 Pet 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

As far as the NIV, anyone can folllow that biased perversion all they care to but they will never know the truth of God's word by following it. The reason the NIV exists is to try and force man-made teaching into the bible. THe KJV is not perfect but is far, far better than the perversion of the NIV. One can find the truth with the KJV but not the NIV.

No you built a straw man argument and you hold to it. It is apparent you care not to discuss the issue, you want to win an argument, and you will use any tactic to win, even if it is unethical.

Shalom

Your accusing me of creating strawman is a strawman itself.

Few obey Jesus, because few know his teachings. That is why Few will find the entrance to the narrow gate and walk the cramped road that leads to life.
Its hard as well, to hear Jesus' voice if one doesn't know his teachings. Most refuse to believe Jesus over men' dogmas.
As far as works go--James taught--Faith without works is dead---meaning---Works build up a strong faith that will live when its on the line--without works ones faith will be worthless when it is needed most, it will be as dead. So in a sense, works are very much needed for strong faith reasons and excercising faith is what will get one saved.

So if one knows the teachings of Jesus, then they must obey those teaching to be saved? Yes

Can one have a saving faith that is void of works? No, as you said faith without works is worthless.

So works are a necesary requirement to be saved. On a few occasions in the NT, people asked the question on what they must do to be saved. Not a single time was the answer given "do nothing and thou shalt be saved" but each time they were given works to obey.

 

[IBeMe]

covenant: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
covenanter: one that makes a covenant
covenantee: the person to whom a promise in the form of a covenant is made
grace: a favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence


We're allowed to enter the covenant by grace.

The covenantee must abide by the terms of the covenant to receive the covenanter's promise.

... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...


Failure of the covenantee to abide by the terms of the covenant removes the covenanter's obligations; and may result in disciplinary action.

.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,




1. If you can make up your own definitions to words...you will always win. If we are going to have this conversation, you have to abide by standard definitions. Words have to mean something. They offer the means to meaning and by extension a way to find truth.

Depraved=corrupt, wicked or perverted. This is the definition we need to go by. I understand it may be more convenient for you to go by the "Unabridged Dictionary of Ernest" but for the purpose of this conversation could we allow sanity to sink in? God can influence anyone who is corrupt, wicked or perverted! Thank God that is why I am in the Body! I was corrupt, wicked and perverted when Christ grabbed a hold of me. God does however "turn us over to a depraved mind" when we go to far and will not try to influence us any further. Romans 1:28

God did not form a depraved spirit within any person. But sin is in the blood my friend. It is passed down from generation to generation. Yes...we are born with it...it is literally in your\my blood from birth. It is the first thing our parents gave us and something we will struggle with our whole life. (Romans 7:13-25)

2. If you were right and we could not all also take lessons from Romans 1-3, he would have used the word Both not all in Romans 3:23....he used all. Accept this...or accept whatever you choose to. I will tell you this: if Paul using the word all does not mean all to you...if it instead means both...you need to revise the "Unabridged Ernest Concordance" also.

3. You keep explaining everything God's word doesn't mean. God seems to have said a bunch of things that He didn't quite mean. Thank God we all have you to explain to us what He didn't mean. I will take God at His plain word. If He uses the word all, I will assume He meant all....not tell Him what He meant and didn't mean.

I will not dwell on any of these points further. These are over. I believe we both know where we stand on these issues. We have hit them over and over. I will try to check in tomorrow and we can start on Ephesians. I do not have much hope that we will solve anything at this point, but I must needs try. I am praying about this conversation ernestly. (pun kind've intended) B)

I have no idea what I did to make it all bold....except be me....I promise I am not yelling this post

I have not made up my own dictionary, so your argument fails here.


People claim the bible teaches TOTAL depravity where man is TOTALLY enalbe to do ANY good whatsoever, that is waht TOTAL would mean according to a dictionary. Yet Peter's listeners in Acts 2 the eunuch in Acts the jailer in Acts 16 among others were all in a lost state yet while in that lost stae they wanted to know about Jesus and be saved. If they were really TOTALLY depraved that would be impossible for them to do for they could have cared less about what Peter, Phillip or Paul preached.
How were those Genitles in Rom to able to keep what in God's law BY NATURE? If totally depravity were their nature then they by nature would NOT have done what is in God's law.


Rom 10:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;"

The antecedant of "they" and "all" is the groups "Jews and Gentiles". Again Paul's thesis in Rom 1-3 is about justification. He refers to the Gentiles who lived prior to the law of Moses and the Jews to whom the law of Moses was given and proves those two groups had no justication at all for Christ's blood had not yet been shed that brings complete justification therefore Paul concluded those two groups under sin. And in Rom 4,5,6 Paul explains justification comes by an obedient faith in Christ and Hs shed blood.

Nowhere in any of this context, or elsewhere, did Paul ever say indviduals are born sinners or born totally depraved. You are adding that idea to the text. Paul aready said about the Gentiles in Rom 2 they BY NATURE could do the things that were in the law of God.

Again, when Joel prophesied God's spirit would be poured out upon ALL flesh, did that mean every single person (including animals which have flesh) would be baptized with the Holy Spirit??

Sorry Ernest I did not read your complete response post. Although I hold to my former position your question should be answered.

The thief on the cross performed no "works" to be saved. Now if you say faith is a "work" then faith is all that is needed for salvation.

My position stands firm...there is none righteous no not one...thereby no one can perform good works without being reborn. The condition for salvation and rebirth set forth by the gospel is faith. Those who have a salvific faith produce good works.

Using the thief as "proof" fails on many levels:

1) the thief lived and died under the OT law, He was promised paradise while both He and Christ were alive under the OT law so he cannot be used as an example of NT salvation. He was therefore not accountable to Acts 2:38 for he lived and died BEFORE it came into effect. But we today who live AFTER Acts 2:38 are accountable to it.

2) Matt 9:6 "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house."

When Christ was ON EARTH He had been give the authority to forgive sins of those whom He thought was deserving as this thief. Yet Christ is not ON EARTH today forgiving sins as He did with the thief for Christ left earth 2000+ years ago. Yet He left behind as His authority on earth His Word, His NT gospel and His gospel requires one to believe, repent, confess and submit to water baptism to have sins forgiven/saved

3) part of what NT gospel requires for savlation is a beleif "...that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" Rom 10:9
Hath raised is past tense. But at the time of the thief Christ had not yet died much less been raised from the dead. So the thief was not required to believe in what had not yet had happened, he could not have the type of NT belief Rom 10:9 requires.

4) your "thief" argument is based on the CLAIM you made that "The thief on the cross performed no "works" to be saved"

Yet you cannot prove with any certainty that the thief had never performed "no works". It is possible that theif was one of those in Mk 1:5 that was baptized of John. In Luke 23, Luke gives his account of the crucifixition and from that account we can learn the thief knew there is a God and that God was to be feared, he knew he was guilty of his crime but that Christ was an innocent man. The thief knew that the cross would not be the end of CHrist and that Christ would have a kingdom and he saw his need to be in that kingdom. The thief accurately knew more about Christ than some of Christ's own disciples. Could it be that the thief accurately knowing so much about Christ coming in His kingdom, HIs innocence, etc that the thief was once a disciple himself that later fell away into a life of crime? Yes it is possible. So the very bases of your argument - that the thief had never done any works - cannot be proven.

covenant: a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
covenanter: one that makes a covenant
covenantee: the person to whom a promise in the form of a covenant is made
grace: a favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence


We're allowed to enter the covenant by grace.

The covenantee must abide by the terms of the covenant to receive the covenanter's promise.

... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...


Failure of the covenantee to abide by the terms of the covenant removes the covenanter's obligations; and may result in disciplinary action.

.

And Christ's NT covenant requires works to be in that covenant and remain in that covenant.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

Ernest,

Who is not either a Jew or a Gentile?

SL

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest,

Who is not either a Jew or a Gentile?

SL

The group Christian that is in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.

Now whether or not you as an individual is in this group or not does not effect this group in any way being in Christ.

 

[kjw47]

From the passage you quoted from Lk 17, does not the servant have a duty to do? Yes he does...."So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty."

Lk 6:46 "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Jesus is not the Lord of those that do nothing but is the Lord of them that do the things which He says.



Again, the bible ties faith and works so closely together that faith is a work.

The bible is its own best commentary:

In Eph 2:8 we are told the Ephesians were saved through faith. 1 Pet 3:21 Peter said baptism saves. Putting the two verses together we get:

Eph 2:8----------faith>>>>>>>>>>>>>saves
1Pet3:21--------baptism>>>>>>>>>>saves.

Since there is just one way to be saved and the bible does not contradict itself, then that can only mean that a saving faith INCLUDES the work of submitting to water baptism.


You post "Also, whenever I have encountered those who insist that we must keep 'the law' in order to hold on to salvation.."

If by "the law" you refer to the law of Moses then I have nowhere ever said, or ever will say, one must keep that law to be saved. What I am saying is one cannot be saved without being obedient to Christ's NT law, obey HIs NT gospel...."the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Rom 1:16

2 Thess 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Rom 10, Paul is sorrowful over the fact fleshly Israel was lost, and they were lost for they have not "submitted (obeyed) unto the righteousness (commandments) of God" verse 3...."But they have not all obeyed the gospel" v16


1 Pet 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"

As far as the NIV, anyone can folllow that biased perversion all they care to but they will never know the truth of God's word by following it. The reason the NIV exists is to try and force man-made teaching into the bible. THe KJV is not perfect but is far, far better than the perversion of the NIV. One can find the truth with the KJV but not the NIV.

Your accusing me of creating strawman is a strawman itself.

So if one knows the teachings of Jesus, then they must obey those teaching to be saved? Yes

Can one have a saving faith that is void of works? No, as you said faith without works is worthless.

So works are a necesary requirement to be saved. On a few occasions in the NT, people asked the question on what they must do to be saved. Not a single time was the answer given "do nothing and thou shalt be saved" but each time they were given works to obey.




It works like this---( excercising) Faith gets one saved-- works builds a strong faith.

Jesus taught--- the proof of ones love for him, is by listening to his teachings, and applying those teachings obviously.

 

[Secondhand Lion]

The group Christian that is in Christ Jesus, Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.

Now whether or not you as an individual is in this group or not does not effect this group in any way being in Christ.

Okay, now I believe we are getting somewhere. I have been trying to figure out where you are coming from.

Do you happen to believe in the Divine Flesh doctrines?

There is flesh and there is spirit. I do not deny these verses, but they are in reference to our spiritual walk/world. We do live here in the flesh, of course, where there is male and female, bond, free and so on.

The only doctrine that I am aware of that confuses the flesh and spirit and differences between the two (acting as if there is no difference between) is the Divine Flesh doctrines.