Jesus On Faith And Works

[Pahoran]

No, a person who is not of the elect would hardly be apathetic, but the Bible state is in open rebellion against God. Jesus says much the same thing (Matt. 12:30, etc.). And that is only confirmed by my experience when I constantly encounter Arminians, LDS, Catholics, etc., who tell me, "I could never worship your God", or "if you're God really exists, I'd rather go to hell", etc.

Theo, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. It's a very little secret, since you seem to be the only person who doesn't know it, but here it is: you're not God.

And since you're not God, it follows that rejecting your smug presumpton of elite status does not constitute "open rebellion against God." It constitutes nothing more or less than open rejection of your unbiblical doctrines.

Absolutely every person who says those things to you says them because they are convinced that God is not the author of your doctrines; such statements simply demonstrate the strength of their conviction. They are in the same position as a military officer in receipt of a highly dubious order purporting to come from the commanding general, who questions the authenticity thereof: he is duty bound to settle the question of its authenticity before carrying it out. Questioning the authenticity of the order in no way constitutes rebellion against his CO.

So it is with us. I am satisfied that your doctrines do not come from God. Actually, from my POV, explaining away the plain teachings of Jesus to safeguard your interpretation of a few Pauline prooftexts--or, IOW, giving your interpretation of Paul priority over what Jesus said--is the closest anything on this thread comes to rebellion against God.

I cannot understand why you insist on minutely interpreting the teachings of Jesus in such a legalistic fashion. Jesus was not drafting legislation to be dissected by lawyers; he was teaching us what we should do and how we should do it. If I'm following you correctly, you seem to hold that anyone actually trying to follow Christ can't be a real Christian.

I've read more than a few testimonys of ex-LDS, an ex-RCC Reformed believers who said they didn't really think there sins were that big of a deal before they learned of the Reformed "doctrines of grace". So to the elect, "truly despairs of their sin" really hits home. We realize how great, awesome, and Holy God truly is, and that He can't stand the presence of sin, and we realize how puny we are in comparison to God, and how unrighteous and sinful creatures we are.

And you rejoice in the belief that God will save you in your sins, having already unconditionally elected you to salvation, while all of the non-elect will spend eternity in unremitting torture--and you smugly imagine such a horror to be "just."

Of course we don't know who the elect are.

Only that you are one of them.

And that's why we are to share the gospel with all. We can't just "preach to the elect", because we don't know who they are. It's not like they grow in the dark or something.

But not knowing who they are is not an excuse to not admit the following facts:

1) According to your doctrine, the non-elect do exist.

2) According to your doctrine, God knows who all the non-elect are.

3) According to your doctrine, the non-elect have no chance of salvation whatsoever.

4) Therefore, according to your doctrine, the non-elect have no real hope; only a false hope based upon the fact that they cannot now know of their non-elect status.

Isn't that right?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Knight who says Ne]

Theopolus said:

Of course we don't know who the elect are.

and Pahoran replied:

Only that you are one of them.

This creates a bit of a paradox. If Theopilus doesn't know who the elect are, then he couldn't possibly know if he is the elect. Wishful thinking at best.

Pahoran said:

But not knowing who they are is not an excuse to not admit the following facts:

1) According to your doctrine, the non-elect do exist.

2) According to your doctrine, God knows who all the non-elect are.

3) According to your doctrine, the non-elect have no chance of salvation whatsoever.

4) Therefore, according to your doctrine, the non-elect have no real hope; only a false hope based upon the fact that they cannot now know of their non-elect status.

Isn't that right?

Nicely put Pahoran.

Eariler in the thread, I said:

God elects those who are saved. if the victum of the previous [a rapist/muderer] isn't an elect, they are condemed.

Theopolus answered:

The condemned aren't condemned due to "not being elected for salvation".

They are condemned for the sins they committed.

We all come under the comdenation of sin, including the elect. It is through the attonement of Jesus that we are saved from our sins. If they are condemned because of sin and the attonement has no power to save them because they aren't of the elect, then my statement still holds true.

I also stated:

God elects those who are saved. God must therefore also elects those who are condemend,

and Theoplos responded:

No, that doesn't follow at all.

The condemned are already under condemnation for their sins.

God's election of the saved is an active role, while the condemnation of the wicked is simply a passive by-product of their not being elected.

It wasn't God's action (ie. in election) that condemned them.

It was their sins that condemned them.

Again, we all come under the condemnation of sin and only through the attonement can we be saved. By your own admission, the condemnation is a passive by-product of not being elect. Therefore, your God didn't care enough about the world and elected only a small number for salvation, and therefore also elected for condemnation (by not electing them for salvation) the remainder.

I noticed Theoplus elected to ignore these:

God elects those who are saved. If a child isn't elected, the child is condemned to eternal hell.

God elects those who are saved. If an elect is also a rapist and a murderer, they are saved.

Theopolus last said:

And that is only confirmed by my experience when I constantly encounter Arminians, LDS, Catholics, etc., who tell me, "I could never worship your God", or "if you're God really exists, I'd rather go to hell", etc.

Add my name to your list because your God is not the God of the Bible and is not any God I would want to spend eternity with. The God of the Bible is loving.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son....

No mention of elect in that quote.

[revelation]

While I don't agree with Theophlus on election. I do however agree with him on Salvation without works. But you misunderstand what he is saying and what he means I think.

he was teaching us what we should do and how we should do it. If I'm following you correctly, you seem to hold that anyone actually trying to follow Christ can't be a real Christian.

True believers will follow Christ. That is not the point Theo is making. The point is that if a person follows Christ in order to gain exaltation in the celestial kingdom, he is in reality, earning his way into the kingdom. God does not pay wages for work done to gain entrance into the celestial kingdom, it is a free gift to the wicked sinner. Romans 4:4-5 "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."

Once a wicked sinner realizes that God has already given him the celestial kingdom, the wicked sinner is now free from the law in the sense that they do not have to earn their way to heaven by trying to do their best.

Naturally, this message really does bring an awesome peace in our hearts and a realization of just how much God loves us. He loves us unconditionally! Only then, when we realize how good he is, do we then desire to give our lives over to him in obedience. It is a Selfless gift to God because we get nothing in return for it than we don't already have.

And you rejoice in the belief that God will save you in your sins, having already unconditionally elected you to salvation, while all of the non-elect will spend eternity in unremitting torture--and you smugly imagine such a horror to be "just."

Theo said: God's election of the saved is an active role, while the condemnation of the wicked is simply a passive by-product of their not being elected

As a lutheran myself, I ask you: how is it possible that God wants ALL men to be saved yet condemnation is the product of their not being elected? If God wants ALL men to be saved then all are elected. Men themselves choose to reject it. Therefore they choose not to be included in the elect.

God saves us in our sins: Romans 4:5 "...to the man who trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as rigteousness" although again, I don't agree with Theo's theology on election. I believe God wants all men to be saved.

4) Therefore, according to your doctrine, the non-elect have no real hope; only a false hope based upon the fact that they cannot now know of their non-elect status.

Good point.

[urroner]

John 4: 36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.

What is meant by "wages?"

Matt 20 1( - 16): For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

So God "hired" people and paid them wages. Again, what is meant by "wages?"

Would the laborers in the last set of scriptures have done any work if they weren't promised any wages? I can't find anywhere in those 16 verses where they ever said or even thought "Gee, we love this man, the householder, so we work for him and expect nothing in return." Did anybody else find it in there? As far as I can tell, they work because they expected something in return.

edited: I'm not saying that I can earn my way to Heaven, without the Atonement, that would be totally impossible, but God has said that we will be judged by our works, good and bad and we will have a reward based on our works.

[freakin a man]

Situation 1: Bob confesses Jesus is Lord at age 20. Bob reads the Bible every day, talks to people about Jesus to everyone he sees. At age 30 Bob dies in a car crash still devoted to Christ. Is Bob still saved?

Situation 2: Bob confesses Jesus is Lord at age 20. Bob reads the Bible every day, talks to people about Jesus to everyone he sees. Bob at age 34 suffers a series of setbacks at work and his health. Family problems develop. At age 36, Bob reads some anti-Christian material and at age 37 Bob becomes an atheist. Is Bob still saved?

The reason I pose this issue is that many Christians say that if a person leaves the faith, they where not truely a Christian to begin with. Therefore they where never saved. So if one truely believes that a person can't lose their salvation, how does one know if a person is truely saved? In situation 1, most that i have encountered would say Bob is saved where as in situation 2 they would say that Bob was never saved to begin with. The only difference between situation 1 and 2 is that Bob dies at age 30 before things start going wrong in his life and he reads anti-christian material and becomes an "ex-christian".

So how does any EV who believes in "once saved always saved" truely know who is saved and who is not even in their own ranks? How can Theo claim he is truely saved? Bob would say the same thing as Theo when Bob was 27 but little did Bob know what was going to happen in this 30's.

[urroner]

Exekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Apparently God doesn't have any pleasure the wicked to die, but wants them to change, but it seems that certain Christians believe that He doesn't want them to change. Interesting.

[freakin a man]

Exekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezekiel 33:

11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Apparently God doesn't have any pleasure the wicked to die, but wants them to change, but it seems that certain Christians believe that He doesn't want them to change. Interesting.

God wants people to change but if they are not of the elect, then apparently even if they do change it does not matter. They are still damned. Salvation is a lottery. Better just hope the balls fall in your favor or get ready to burn forever.

[Theophilus]

Theopolus said: [...]

Theopolus answered: [...]

and Theoplos responded: [...]

and Theoplos responded: [...]

I noticed Theoplus elected to ignore these: [...]

Theopolus last said: [...]

First of all, I am constantly amazed at how so many who claim to be Bible-believers get my name wrong, considering my name comes from the Bible... But if you can't get the spelling right, it would be nice to at least see some consistency...

This creates a bit of a paradox. If Theopilus doesn't know who the elect are, then he couldn't possibly know if he is the elect. Wishful thinking at best.

Apparently you misunderstood. When I say we can't know who the elect are, I'm speaking in general, I'm speaking about others besides myself. And yes, if you don't think I can know I'm of the elect, you are perfectly free to believe that. My salvation is hardly dependent on what you believe, after all...

I noticed Theoplus elected to ignore these:

God elects those who are saved. If a child isn't elected, the child is condemned to eternal hell.

God elects those who are saved. If an elect is also a rapist and a murderer, they are saved.

Well, of course.

First of all, I didn't think those needed responding to.

Second of all, I noticed that those particular examples were not designed to understand God's truth, but simply to appeal to human emotion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that those assertions were designed to elicit responses of, "how could a loving God dare condemn a poor, innocent, sweet little lovable child, the dear fruit of parents who love him dearly?" And the second one, similarly designed to get responses of, "what kind of a warped, crazy, unfair, unjust God would dare to save an evil, murderous, villainous rapist or murderer?!"

Well, if you insist on a response to your rigged examples, I have no problem giving one.

The Bible teaches that all are sinners. That includes, you, me, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Gordon Hinckley, your parents, my parents, your children, your grandchildren... everyone. No matter how much we may "love" our fellow man, or our family member, no matter how "innocent" we may think they are in our own eyes, they are sinners, and worthy of nothing but condemnation.

And for the rapist and murderer, who dares claim that their sins are less worthy of condemnation than rape or murder? Perhaps we would do well to remember Jesus' sermon on the mount, where Jesus equates name-calling with murder, and lustful thoughts with adultery? Anyone who acts, like the Publican, proclaiming, "Thank you, God, that I am not like that sinner over there", is only deluding himself.

Indeed, that God would save a murderer (such as Moses, or David) only attests to the depths of His mercy and grace.

Add my name to your list because your God is not the God of the Bible and is not any God I would want to spend eternity with. The God of the Bible is loving.

And so too is my God "loving". Which should be no surprise, as my God is the God of the Bible.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Sure sounds to me like my God is the God of the Bible...

As to the rest of your comment, it seems that too many people seem not to realize that God doesn't come "made to order", you can't just simply create God in your own image. God exists, and existed before we were ever born. God is who God is (that's even His name, "I am who I am"), we can take Him or leave Him, but if we accept Him, we have to accept Him as He is, not like how you "want Him to be".

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son....

No mention of elect in that quote.

It's just too bad that you didn't even quote the entire verse:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hmmm....

God loves "the world", but only saves "whosever believeth".

How can you claim God loves "the world" (in the sense you interpret it), if He is so unwilling to save the "unbelievers"?:

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There is a distinction, a disconnect, between "world" and "believers".

He loves "the world", but only saves the "believers".

You complain that my God might condemn a "child" (which would be because of their sins), but your god condemns "unbelievers". Frankly I don't see any kind of significant difference.

Theophilus

[urroner]

My salvation is hardly dependent on what you believe, after all...

Nor is it based on what you believe either.

[freakin a man]

The Bible teaches that all are sinners. That includes, you, me, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Gordon Hinckley, your parents, my parents, your children, your grandchildren... everyone.

Jesus also?

[Bsix]

Excuse me for being late to this discussion and responding to earlier parts that some may be way past.

For starters, I think it is pretty clear that to Jesus, salvation/exaltation depends on what we do. As such, "belief in Jesus" is something that we are commanded to do. It is a work. If we do not believe, we will not be saved.

It is also quite clear that our eternal reward is based on our works. Jesus himself said:

Matt 16: 24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

If the exercise of this thread is to attempt to understand the requirements of salvation based only on the direct teachings of Jesus, without any presumptions of doctrine from other NT writings...I think you'd be hard pressed to accept the notion that faith alone is will save you.

Regards,

Six

[Knight who says Ne]

It's just too bad that you didn't even quote the entire verse:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hmmm....

God loves "the world", but only saves "whosever believeth".

How can you claim God loves "the world" (in the sense you interpret it), if He is so unwilling to save the "unbelievers"?:

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There is a distinction, a disconnect, between "world" and "believers".

He loves "the world", but only saves the "believers".

My point, which you clearly missed, was that God gave his son to the world, not just the elect. Everyone who has the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ has the chance to repent and believe. No election is indictated in the verse. You keep contradicting yourself. According to your beliefs, salvation comes to the elect. So which is it. Salvation to believers or the elect?

You complain that my God might condemn a "child" (which would be because of their sins),

A child is condemned by their sins? and you see nothing wrong with that?

but your god condemns "unbelievers". Frankly I don't see any kind of significant difference.

My God extends the mercy of salvation to all the world and your God only extends it to a certain few, so it surprises me you can't make the distinction. The difference bewteen you God and mine (the one of the bible) is crystal clear.

BTY: I extended the curtesy of capitalizing your God. I would ask the same curtesy of you.

Well, of course.

First of all, I didn't think those needed responding to.

Second of all, I noticed that those particular examples were not designed to understand God's truth, but simply to appeal to human emotion.

No. They were posed to understand election.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems obvious that those assertions were designed to elicit responses of, "how could a loving God dare condemn a poor, innocent, sweet little lovable child, the dear fruit of parents who love him dearly?" And the second one, similarly designed to get responses of, "what kind of a warped, crazy, unfair, unjust God would dare to save an evil, murderous, villainous rapist or murderer?!"

Well, if you insist on a response to your rigged examples, I have no problem giving one.

The Bible teaches that all are sinners. That includes, you, me, Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Gordon Hinckley, your parents, my parents, your children, your grandchildren... everyone. No matter how much we may "love" our fellow man, or our family member, no matter how "innocent" we may think they are in our own eyes, they are sinners, and worthy of nothing but condemnation.

And for the rapist and murderer, who dares claim that their sins are less worthy of condemnation than rape or murder? Perhaps we would do well to remember Jesus' sermon on the mount, where Jesus equates name-calling with murder, and lustful thoughts with adultery? Anyone who acts, like the Publican, proclaiming, "Thank you, God, that I am not like that sinner over there", is only deluding himself.

Indeed, that God would save a murderer (such as Moses, or David) only attests to the depths of His mercy and grace.

Is this an answer? Indeed, providing salavtion to a murderer or a rapist or amy other sinner who repents and believes would indeed attest to His mercy and grace.

To condemn a child who isn't elect and extend salvation to a murder who is only of the elect attests to His barbarism.

[Bsix]

I think you could find all manner of the teachings of Jesus Christ wherein he specifies required actions in order to be saved.

A couple of examples that come to mind. The ruler who asked Jesus what was required for salvation (inheriting "eternal life"). As recorded in Luke 18, Jesus did not simpy say "believe." Rather, Jesus started lising the commandments that must be followed. The ruler, seemingly interupting Jesus declared that he had obeyed since his youth.

Jesus replied that one more thing (a work?) was required...and it wasn't to simply believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus commanded the ruler to distribute his wealth to the poor and he'd get his treasure in heaven (Salvation.) Jesus then called upon the ruler to follow him once he'd done that.

Jesus Christ declared that except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. John 3. Jesus went on to explain that being born again required both a water and a spiritual rebirth. Until Protestant revisionism, tradtional Christian theology has always held that Jesus was speaking of actual physical baptism being required for salvation.

Regards,

Six

[Tanyan]

I can't believe I am going to share these but here they are : http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/myth.htm

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/whatsnew.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONCE_saved_always_saved

See also Catholic- Robert A.Sungenis book ; NOT BY FAITH ALONE, The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrin Off Justification. ISBN # 1-57918-008-6

[why me]

This thread is quite long and yet, I see no winners on this thread, only individuals debating something that seems impossible to solve.

I tend to take the average guy with the average brain approach to this topic. I cannot see us being saved just by grace. I do think that it is true that if we believe in christ, we do have a good chance to be saved, depending on the works which we do on this earth. To believe and not do the work of god and yet, still be saved, ie, go to heaven just doesn't seem realistic to me. Jesus told the prostitute to sin no more. That was quite a statement to make. To sin no more means that she needed to live her lfe without sin, as best as possible. He did not say to her...go still sin, for you will be saved if you believe in me.

The problem with this world today, is that there are many individuals who do not contemplate their actions or works. They see no reason to do good works, except to do good works for themselves. To love your neighbor means to do good works. Love is action centered. To love your enemie, means to do good works...love is an action word.

Good works are done out of love of god and out of love for humanity and for love of nature. To exist without going good works, is the same as living for the adversary. For the adversary despises good works. And so, what is this argument about? It sounds unbelievable that educated people can argue over good works. Yes, we all need to do good works not just for heaven's sake, but for are own sake as human beings.

There are too many bad works being done each day. I want to believe that god wants his children to do good in this world...and not evil. And I do believe that he is disappointed with the evil that is done.

And so, good works create a ladder that we can climb to be closer to god. To think otherwise, would be a mistake.

[Knight who says Ne]

And so, good works create a ladder that we can climb to be closer to god. To think otherwise, would be a mistake.

True enough. My problem with the salvation by grace alone doctrine (beside not being biblical) is that it gets distorted into "I believe in Jesus Christ. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't break the law and hurt people. I'll be saved."

[Zeta-Flux]

I think you could find all manner of the teachings of Jesus Christ wherein he specifies required actions in order to be saved.

Check out my first post on page 1 for just a *few* such examples.

[revelation]

I think you could find all manner of the teachings of Jesus Christ wherein he specifies required actions in order to be saved.

A couple of examples that come to mind. The ruler who asked Jesus what was required for salvation (inheriting "eternal life"). As recorded in Luke 18, Jesus did not simpy say "believe." Rather, Jesus started lising the commandments that must be followed. The ruler, seemingly interupting Jesus declared that he had obeyed since his youth.

Jesus replied that one more thing (a work?) was required...and it wasn't to simply believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus commanded the ruler to distribute his wealth to the poor and he'd get his treasure in heaven (Salvation.) Jesus then called upon the ruler to follow him once he'd done that.

Jesus Christ declared that except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. John 3. Jesus went on to explain that being born again required both a water and a spiritual rebirth. Until Protestant revisionism, tradtional Christian theology has always held that Jesus was speaking of actual physical baptism being required for salvation.

Regards,

Six

In this very example from the Bible that you are using Jesus, in the end concludes what?

"26Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?" 27Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God"

Firstly that if you want to be saved by your works, perfection is required, secondly, that it is impossible for man to be saved by his works. Thirdly, what is not possible with man, is possible with God

[revelation]

This thread is quite long and yet, I see no winners on this thread, only individuals debating something that seems impossible to solve.

I tend to take the average guy with the average brain approach to this topic. I cannot see us being saved just by grace. I do think that it is true that if we believe in christ, we do have a good chance to be saved, depending on the works which we do on this earth. To believe and not do the work of god and yet, still be saved, ie, go to heaven just doesn't seem realistic to me. Jesus told the prostitute to sin no more. That was quite a statement to make. To sin no more means that she needed to live her lfe without sin, as best as possible. He did not say to her...go still sin, for you will be saved if you believe in me.

The problem with this world today, is that there are many individuals who do not contemplate their actions or works. They see no reason to do good works, except to do good works for themselves. To love your neighbor means to do good works. Love is action centered. To love your enemie, means to do good works...love is an action word.

Good works are done out of love of god and out of love for humanity and for love of nature. To exist without going good works, is the same as living for the adversary. For the adversary despises good works. And so, what is this argument about? It sounds unbelievable that educated people can argue over good works. Yes, we all need to do good works not just for heaven's sake, but for are own sake as human beings.

There are too many bad works being done each day. I want to believe that god wants his children to do good in this world...and not evil. And I do believe that he is disappointed with the evil that is done.

And so, good works create a ladder that we can climb to be closer to god. To think otherwise, would be a mistake.

You said you cannot see us being saved just by grace. However your statment is contrary to the Bible.

Acts 15 :11 "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Ephesians 2:5 "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsâ??it is by grace you have been saved."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ?? 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

2 Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us to a holy lifeâ??not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,"

[Theophilus]

True enough. My problem with the salvation by grace alone doctrine (beside not being biblical) is that it gets distorted into "I believe in Jesus Christ. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't break the law and hurt people. I'll be saved."

If I grant that there are those who turn salvation by grace alone into "easy believism", or "cheap grace" (to their own destruction), is there any chance that you will acknowledge that this is far from the norm, and that there are many, many millions of believers who take seriously the idea of the Lordship of Christ, even though one's salvation doesn't depend on it?

I realize how easy and convenient the straw-man argument of "cheap grace" is to throw, but you are only fooling yourselves, for those of us who actually believe grace alone, and live with the Lord Christ in our lives (such as Rock, Rhino, Revelation, CKS, etc.) realize that you're misrepresenting the majority, painting with a too-broad brush the flaws of the minority.

And of course, the flip side of your criticism of salvation by grace alone being allegedly an "easy ride", making things "too easy", it seems to me that from where I sit, those who reject the Biblical teaching of salvation by grace alone go out of their way to make salvation too hard. It's like you think that salvation isn't worth anything unless man contributes something to it (and that is the key, man always wanting some control over his fate).

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

And just one thought... Should we abandon truth, simply because it can be misused by others?

I don't think so.

Theophilus

[revelation]

True enough. My problem with the salvation by grace alone doctrine (beside not being biblical) is that it gets distorted into "I believe in Jesus Christ. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't break the law and hurt people. I'll be saved."

Grace alone is very biblical, see the verses in my above post.

Does grace alone get distorted so that people do whatever they want? Yes it does. But those who are truly saved, won't distort it like you have outlined. Your not alone on your thoughts though. Some of the believer's in the Bible had the same question or thoughts as you.. How did Paul respond?

"15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obeyâ??whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?"

Yes, the awesome Grace of God will lead some to think it is a licence to sin. But true believer's, because of the grace of God, will offer themselves to God in obedience.

We are free from obeying the law, but because of Grace, we want to obey the law anyways.

[why me]

You said you cannot see us being saved just by grace. However your statment is contrary to the Bible.

Acts 15 :11 "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Ephesians 2:5 "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsâ??it is by grace you have been saved."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godâ?? 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

2 Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us to a holy lifeâ??not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,"

I do think that the concept of being saved through grace works for me. However, I see grace more as a stipulation. We are saved through grace and yet, one must obey the commandments and be an example through good works. To be a christian, one must be a follower of christ not just in word but also in deed. It is an action noun. Fortunately, we have the atonement to atone for our sins. But on this earth we need to attempt to live a righteous life. We need to follow the example of christ.

I just can't buy into the idea that if we believe in Christ as our savior, we will be equal in heaven with those who have done christ's work on earth. How to separate the sheep from the goats regardless if we believe in Christ? How to separate true christians who practiced love on this earth from the mouth christians? There are examples of works as the way to get closer to god in the bible. And I think that you know this. By our works we will be known.

[Catholic Guy]

You said you cannot see us being saved just by grace. However your statment is contrary to the Bible.

Acts 15 :11 "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Ephesians 2:5 "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions it is by grace you have been saved."

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast."

2 Timothy 1:9 "who has saved us and called us to a holy lifeâ??not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,"

Revelation,

His statement is not contrary to the Bible.

"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

"Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46).

"For he will render every man according to his works . . ." (Rom. 2:6-8 ).

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13).

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).

"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas. 2:17).

"But some one will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).

You see that we could go around and around on this forever without an end. The real question is who has the authority to interpret the Bible infallibly?

[why me]

We are free from obeying the law, but because of Grace, we want to obey the law anyways.

Perhaps but perhaps not. It is left up to the individual, isn't it. I may love god one day and do his will and obey the law...but a year later I may still believe but just cannot do the law. I am still saved.

One cannot put oneself into the complicated minds of the human beings. We need to do the law, regardless of grace. Jesus said to live by the law and stop living by the letter of the law, and start living how god commanded to do, seek eternal life and go totally into life as the good samaritan, change the heart and live according to the gospel, as Jesus Christ lived his life. Treat the human with mercy and with love. It is an active life guided by good human action works. Such is the way of christ and such is salvation.

Revelation,

His statement is not contrary to the Bible.

"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

"Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46).

"For he will render every man according to his works . . ." (Rom. 2:6-8 ).

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13).

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).

"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas. 2:17).

"But some one will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).

You see that we could go around and around on this forever without an end. The real question is who has the authority to interpret the Bible infallibly?

Aren't catholics great! And who says that catholics are not christians? Many protestants do claim so and yet, here is catholic guy giving a great christ-centered post where grace and works mingle together to create a better world for all of us to live in.

[Theophilus]

His statement is not contrary to the Bible.

It certainly is contrary to the Bible.

And your manner of response simply showed all manner of problems in rightly dividing the word of Truth:

1) Instead of addressing the passages which Revelation brought up, you completely ignored them, and offered your own "proof-texts", seemingly trying to "pit Scripture against Scripture". I'm guessing that your point is, "my verses support me, so your verses must be wrong". But why couldn't we simply say the opposite, your verses must be wrong, since they contradict what Revelation has already demonstrated? No, when I see people try to argue from the Bible woh completely ignore the passages which contradict their view, I know they cannot be preaching God's truth.

2) You completely ignore the context of the "proof-texts" you quote, assuming whatever meaning suits your purpose, even if the passage's context does't support it.

3) You don't even seem to try to understand the opposing position, preferring instead to argue against a strawman (always an easier alternative to arguing against truth itself).

Addressing the last point first, most people seem to think that "grace alone" means "anti-works". Such is NOT THE CASE. We believe that those saved by grace are to do works, and in fact will do works. The only difference being that those works do not contribute to our salvation. And we believe the reason that believers will do works is very obvious, namely that salvation is God taking a person, giving him the gift of faith (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.), changing their heart of stone into a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19, 36:26, etc.), changing us into a "new person", someone who wants to serve God, not out of any selfish ambition or reward, but simply out of love and gratitude.

"Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21).

I agree with that 100%, of course. But as I arleady explained, we believe that true believers will do good works (through God working in us, Gal. 2:20, Eph. 2:10, etc.). So you need not worry about those who preach and believe "easy believism", or "cheap grace", for the above ensures that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

But the above doesn't say, "works are required". Indeed, you are simply assuming that it is a "prescriptive" statement, rather than a descriptive one.

"Why do you call me "Lord, Lord," and not do what I tell you?" (Luke 6:46).

Exactly.

True believers will serve Christ as Lord. Those who ignore the Lordship of Christ don't truly trust in Him.

"For he will render every man according to his works . . ." (Rom. 2:6-8 ).

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13).

Keep reading until you get to chapter 3, where Paul concludes that "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God", and, "there is no one righteous, no not one", and about those who try to be "doers of the law" Paul concludes thusly:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

There is none (save Jesus) who is a "doer of the law".

There are none who can keep the law, for "all have sinned".

So Paul is right in preaching God's justice, that all will get what they deserve. But you seem to have stopped reading prematurely, and apparently didn't get up to the part where Paul teaches that by their sins, all deserve nothing but condemnation, for all have sinned.

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgments . . . (Heb. 10:26-27).

Quite obviously, such a blatant rejection of God is indicative of one who has no faith (trust) in God.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" (Jas. 2:14).

"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (Jas. 2:17).

"But some one will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. . . .Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? (Jas. 2:18-20).

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).

Ah yes, the infamous James passages...

Wonderful verses to take out of context, as you so skillfully do.

First of all, they are not as plain as you would make it appear. For instance, one needs to coampre James 2:24 ("justified by works and not by faith alone"), with Paul in Rom. 4:1-5 (him that worketh not is justifed by faith). Either this is a plain contradiction of Scripture, or else Paul and James are speaking of two different things (I believe the latter).

First of all, we need to notice the general context of the specific epistles. Paul is writing a treatise on the law, sin, and salvation. James is not. James is writing to those who are already believers, and speaking of appropriate Christian behaviour (hence the emphasis on works).

Second of all, you apparently didn't notice that James isn't referring to true faith, but to claimed faith ("a man says he has faith"). Does everyone who claims to have faith, truly have faith? If so, why qualify that statement with "says he has"? And this man, who claims to have faith, according to James doesn't have any works to back up that alleged "faith". If it's a true faith, where are the "fruits" of that "faith"? Of course that "faith" cannot save, not because "faith alone" is unBiblical, but because the alleged, claimed "faith" here, is no faith at all. If it were, it would produce works as its fruits.

Thirdly, if you compare Rom. 4 and James 2, Romans 4 is speaking of being justified before God, while James 2 is talking about being justified before man:

Jam 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.

You see here that the "works" spoken here are not "to contribute to salvation", they are used to demonstrate ("shew me") a saving faith to other men. But why are "works" not only not included, but explicitly denied, in Rom. 4? It is because God, who knows our hearts (and indeed, is the one who gave us our faith in the first place (Phil. 1:29, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 12:3, etc.) has no need to see "works" to confirm a saving faith.

You see that we could go around and around on this forever without an end. The real question is who has the authority to interpret the Bible infallibly?

It's not about "authority", Catholic Guy (and if you want to go that route, then obviously since you're not the Pope, you can't claim to have authority to interpret Scripture!).

It's about rightly dividing the word of Truth.

It's about being guided by the Holy Spirit, not by trying to support your religion's beliefs.

It's about interpreting passages in their context.

It's about letting Scripture interpret Scripture, by accepting all of the Bible's teachings.

It's about not ignoring passages which contradict your view, such as:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

*** 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

You can't say salvation is by "grace + works".

Grace and works are mutually exclusive.

It's either one or the other.

If it's by works, then it is "no more grace".

If it's by grace, then it is "no more of works".

To God alone be the glory, for He is the author and finisher of our faith,

our Saviour from beginning to end.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Theophilus