Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

Huh? I'm confused by your view. Can people "not saved" earn their way into being saved by "their actions"?

There is no doubt as to the origin of the condemnation of God: sinfulness.

If they were not corrupted by sin, of course all could earn eternal life. The question is whether anyone is able to do so, in corrupted creation.

 

[savedbygrace57]

The obedeince of Christ earned and bestowed salvation for all whom He died. Rom 5:19b

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[dadof10]

Paul is already talking about salvation. Paul's reference to persecution begins at Rom 8:18. But note at Rom 8:17, Paul uses the term "glorified" to talk about salvation. We're to be glorified with Christ through our resurrection (cf Rom 8:13).

Paul maintains this thought. "justification" and "glorification" are reiterated at Rom 8:28-29, sweeping across both the immediate of Rom 8 and further back at Rom 3-5.

It's just not tenable that Paul is limiting himself to "God's still around in persecution". Paul is actually saying that those justified and glorified by God, there is no created thing that will counteract that. And that includes the corrupt world's introduction of doubt, just in normal living. It's a pernicious form of persecution -- continued life -- but it's clear.

It's on his list.

Paul cites it (Rom 8:38).

And Paul denies it of force.

Could you please tell me in what context "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" would be able to EFFECT OUR SALVATION? Paul is obviously RESPONDING to a real issue within the Roman Church. There MUST have been a misunderstanding, a person or group that thought these things could EFFECT THEIR SALVATION. I just don't see it.

The only thing it could be is that the Jews thought that persecution meant being cut-off from God's love and Paul was saying "No, nothing can cut you off from His love". Gotta get to work...

 

[heymikey80]

Could you please tell me in what context "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" would be able to EFFECT OUR SALVATION? Paul is obviously RESPONDING to a real issue within the Roman Church. There MUST have been a misunderstanding, a person or group that thought these things could EFFECT THEIR SALVATION. I just don't see it.

The implications of patron gods is quite clearly to benefit people. Take a look at any of the prayers to patron gods and you'll see the clear implications: god-advocacy is intended to result in an observable physical benefit from the god.

Paul is demanding a different view, a view that he knows is counter-cultural.

Aside, you're telling me you want to know in what context Paul's rejection would actually occur -- which is odd. Why are you asking me to prove something Paul is denying? I'm assuming this is some kind of rhetorical thing I don't fathom, so I've answered as much as I can. But I can't refute something Scripture actually asserts. Therefore the only way I can understand your question is, why Paul would even bring it up.

In modern times the health & wealth gospel, the word-of-faith movement, the name & claim movement, all in modern times advocate the physical and financial blessings to be received from God. These are actually constants of human religion.

The only thing it could be is that the Jews thought that persecution meant being cut-off from God's love and Paul was saying "No, nothing can cut you off from His love". Gotta get to work...

It's possible this occurs as well, and if so Paul's countering that view as well. Paul addresses certain issues (I'd say quite a few) in Judaic theology as "caving" to a superficial pagan view of the world. Paul sees Judaic theology of his day as shoehorning the expansive God of the Universe into the model of a city-state pagan demon.

 

[smaller]

It's possible this occurs as well, and if so Paul's countering that view as well. Paul addresses certain issues (I'd say quite a few) in Judaic theology as "caving" to a superficial pagan view of the world. Paul sees Judaic theology of his day as shoehorning the expansive God of the Universe into the model of a city-state pagan demon.

That is just a most excellent observation of fact.

s

 

[Davies]

Good afternoon,

All religions, except Christianity, are work-righteous faiths. Christianity says there is nothing you can do to be justified before God. All others say, if you do such and such, then you will receive such and such, maybe. These religions are easy to spot, because as they work themselves out, the tree blossoms and the fruit gives it away.

The passage below talks about what religion would look like if the Bible had been contrived by man.

"If such beings as these had contrived a religion, it would have borne the same appearance in the Bible as it does in Italy or Spain, where it is degenerated into a mere trade for the benefit of tyrannical and voracious priests; or it would have been such a religion as that of Mahomet, allowing its subjects to propagate it with the sword, that they might enrich them-selves with the plunder of conquered nations; and indulging them in the gratification of their lusts, particularly in polygamy, or the unbound enjoyment of women. - Samuel Davies, The Divine Authority and Sufficiency of the Christian Religion

- Davies

 

[dadof10]

There's no intervening question. The answer of Paul to the question at v. 35 is Rom 8:36-39.

Paul's answer is an answer of typical length of the time. Paul asks rhetorically about a group of persecutions, whether they would separate us from God's love (:35b). His answer is Scripture -- Rom 8:36. Paul is pointing out that this verse points to those God loves, who are being persecuted. It's a demonstration: God's people are persecuted, and do not lose God's love.

Ok. Like I said, where the question gets answered is really a small point. Why don't we just agree that he answers the question in BOTH places? What do you say, let's find common ground and take the first step toward lasting unity. ;)

Then comes Paul's interpretation and really his opinion of the argument, that when he looks at it, nothing created can separate us from God's love.

Agreed again.

Sure, it's persecution. But Paul is emphasizing the plain fact: that God's love is unaffected by persecution.

OK, let's stop right here. Why would he need to emphasize this "plain fact"? It seem to us a no-brainer, but Paul found the need to EMPHASIZE it. Why? The only reason I can think of is that some person or group of people IN ROME had a misunderstanding. More on that later.

Now, do you think brainwashing is persecution? Do you think extorting a denial is persecution? Do you think introducing doubts as an opposed culture like the Roman one is persecution? Of course it is. Paul is saying none of this can separate us from the love of God in Christ -- which love saves us.

I think, as you put it, "extorting a denial" is definitely persecution, so is forced "brainwashing". I don't think living in a opposing culture is persecution, but the penalty for not submitting to sinful behavior is the definition of Christian persecution.

And therein lies the very serious problem with in, then out, salvation. Paul is saying it's not going to have an effect on those who have been justified (Rom 8:28-29). The power is simply not there for created things to overcome the Uncreated.

OK, Why would he need to say it? There is obviously a misunderstanding that Paul is correcting. What is this misunderstanding? Again, I'll address this in the next post.

Now we can talk about where that bar of justification appears. We can discuss how God predestines people, how He calls people as well. But Paul didn't leave a crack of daylight for anything to enter. Once someone is justified by God, there's no loss of love; and no loss of salvation.

Do you think God loves sinners? Do you think Paul was a sinner, even after he was "saved"? Did God love him? Does sin "separate" us from God?

 

[dadof10]

The implications of patron gods is quite clearly to benefit people. Take a look at any of the prayers to patron gods and you'll see the clear implications: god-advocacy is intended to result in an observable physical benefit from the god.

Paul is demanding a different view, a view that he knows is counter-cultural.

Aside, you're telling me you want to know in what context Paul's rejection would actually occur -- which is odd. Why are you asking me to prove something Paul is denying? I'm assuming this is some kind of rhetorical thing I don't fathom, so I've answered as much as I can. But I can't refute something Scripture actually asserts. Therefore the only way I can understand your question is, why Paul would even bring it up.

My time has been constrained lately and I haven't been as clear as I ought. I apologize. Let me lay out what I'm saying as concisely as I can.

As you mentioned above: "Sure, it's persecution. But Paul is emphasizing the plain fact: that God's love is unaffected by persecution."

My point is WHY does he need to stress this plain fact? The obvious answer is that within the ROMAN Church there were people who thought that persecution somehow negatively affected "God's love". I think we can agree on this.

The entire point of verses 31-39 is to counter this misunderstanding within the ROMAN Church. The question is, what are they misunderstanding? You think they have the idea that persecution somehow negatively effects salvation, I think they have the idea that persecution negatively effects only God's love for us. Let's take a look at this within the context of what the Roman Church is misunderstanding. Let's start at verse 31.

"What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us?"

Paul is clearly addressing a misunderstanding in Rome. He is stressing that no one can bring a "charge" against "God's elect".

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

This is their misunderstanding, that someone or something can separate them from the love of Christ. I think we both agree up to this point.

"Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

This is where we part ways.

The misunderstanding in Rome has to fit the words here. There has to be a logical way that "tribulation...distress...etc." CAN separate us from the love of Christ or salvation. It has to be a possibility to their minds. The only way I can think of for them to LOGICALLY misunderstand (if there is such a thing ), is if the Jewish converts in Rome thought that persecution was a sign of abandonment by God, a "curse", like in the OT. Persecutions, to the Jews, happened when they were unfaithful to God and He responded by removing His love, so to speak. Now, it's only logical that, coming from a Jewish culture that taught this, they would misunderstand CHRISTIAN persecution to be the same. Same God, right?

I think this is what Paul was hearing from the Roman Church and what he was responding to here.

As I said above, the misunderstanding has to fit the words of the text, it has to be possible for "tribulation..." to separate us from whatever Paul means by "God's love". You think he means "salvation", but I don't think this makes sense, I don't think it's a logical misunderstanding.

What I'm asking of you is to explain HOW the misunderstanding in Rome, which led to this response from Paul, could be referring to salvation. In other words, how could the Christians in Rome think that persecution could effect SALVATION? What point of reference do they have?

That Paul only means only "the love of Christ" here and not salvation, takes into consideration the historical Jewish mindset concerning persecution, which means it makes sense in that context. That Paul means "salvation" by "the love of Christ", and that someone could think that persecution effects it, has to fit with some point of reference, some historical or logical construct within the mind of the Christians in Rome and Paul. I just don't see it.

In short, I asking for you to make your view of the Roman misunderstanding (that persecution effects salvation) make sense, because that's the only way Paul's response makes sense.

 

[dadof10]

I would like to mention one more observation here. There is no mention of sin in these verses. Paul is speaking of things that ostensibly "separate us from the love of Christ", yet no mention of any sin. Hummm...Seems like a clue as to what he means by "love of God", and what he doesn't mean.

 

[dadof10]

Good afternoon,

All religions, except Christianity, are work-righteous faiths. Christianity says there is nothing you can do to be justified before God.

Except "have faith" as you define it, right? So there is SOMETHING you must do to to earn salvation in your opinion? As opposed to the Catholic faith, which your quote inaccurately describes, which states we are saved by infant baptism, which is purely by Grace.

 

[Davies]

Except "have faith" as you define it, right? So there is SOMETHING you must do to to earn salvation in your opinion? As opposed to the Catholic faith, which your quote inaccurately describes, which states we are saved by infant baptism, which is purely by Grace.

Hi dadof10,

I don't deny works accompany saving faith, but in order to be obedient, you first have to believe in Jesus, the Son of God (God), the essentials of the faith, the Gospel, and believe how to obey. Before a person does anything, they must believe. The reason a person does anything for it to be legitimate is that it was done by faith.
Hebrews 11:6

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.


The works that come with salvation manifest to show us the nature of the faith we have. This is difficult for us to discern in others, and so the proper place for these things to be discerned is between each individual and God. But a good witness can influence people by pointing the way to Jesus, and it can help to give us assurance that we are in the faith. I think we should be careful though to not focus too much on ourselves. It's better to keep our eyes on what Jesus our God has done and is doing on man's behalf, because I believe our sanctification, becoming more like Jesus, will progress much faster and we will be less likely deceived by others and our own hearts. When we take our eye off God, then we end up looking like the rest of the unbelieving world.



- Davies

 

[dadof10]

Hi dadof10,

I don't deny works accompany saving faith, but in order to be obedient, you first have to believe in Jesus, the Son of God (God), the essentials of the faith, the Gospel, and believe how to obey. Before a person does anything, they must believe. The reason a person does anything for it to be legitimate is that it was done by faith.
Hebrews 11:6

So, in order to be saved we MUST believe? How do you not consider this belief a "work"? It's something a person MUST do, right? Therefore, by your own definition, you are not a Christian.

 

[Grazer]

So, in order to be saved we MUST believe? How do you not consider this belief a "work"? It's something a person MUST do, right? Therefore, by your own definition, you are not a Christian.

By this logic atheists are saved

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Davies]

So, in order to be saved we MUST believe? How do you not consider this belief a "work"? It's something a person MUST do, right? Therefore, by your own definition, you are not a Christian.

I don't want to confuse what we do and what we believe. There is a difference. To top this off, we can't take credit for the free gift of faith that God gives us, unless we would be accused of taking the credit for our salvation. Even the works we do. God should receive all the glory for them, not us.
1 Corinthians 4:7

New King James Version (NKJV)

7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?


Philippians 2:13

New King James Version (NKJV)

13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.


- Davies

 

[dadof10]

By this logic atheists are saved

No, by this logic, we are justified by something we MUST do, HAVE faith. This is no different than saying we MUST keep the commandments, be baptized or obey God in order to be saved. This speaks to the heresy of "faith alone" and the fallacy that those who hold this belief, are NOT justified by "works". If keeping the commandments, charity, baptism, etc. are all "works" so is having faith.

 

[dadof10]

I don't want to confuse what we do and what we believe. There is a difference.

Does "believing" take an act of the will?

To top this off, we can't take credit for the free gift of faith that God gives us, unless we would be accused of taking the credit for our salvation.

Good. Take this concept and apply it to baptism. It's something that we MUST do (like HAVE faith) but WE don't take the credit, it is a gift from God. The only difference is that in infant baptism, the person who receives the Grace does NOTHING to merit it, whereas the person who receives the Grace of faith has to make an act of the will IN ORDER to receive it.

 

[WIP]

Is it possible that even though one believes it is still by the grace of God that anyone is saved at all?

 

[Atonement]

Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

NO!

Hopefully after 30 pages this has been the answer (because I'm not reading through 30 pages).

 

[dadof10]

Is it possible that even though one believes it is still by the grace of God that anyone is saved at all?

Yes. And it's possible that even though someone obeys God, gets baptized, keeps the commandments, etc., it is by the Grace of God also. That's my point. The "faith alone" crowd attempts to remove HAVING faith or BEING faithful or "accepting Jesus", from the definition of works. I say GREAT. I don't think Paul is talking about faith when he uses the word "works" either. I also don't think he is talking about charity or baptism or keeping the commandments, but only works OF THE LAW.

You have to prove that somehow having faith is exempt from "works salvation" if it's something you have to DO, an act of the will, in order to be saved.

 

[smaller]

Yes. And it's possible that even though someone obeys God, gets baptized, keeps the commandments, etc., it is by the Grace of God also. That's my point. The "faith alone" crowd attempts to remove HAVING faith or BEING faithful or "accepting Jesus", from the definition of works. I say GREAT. I don't think Paul is talking about faith when he uses the word "works" either. I also don't think he is talking about charity or baptism or keeping the commandments, but only works OF THE LAW.

You have to prove that somehow having faith is exempt from "works salvation" if it's something you have to DO, an act of the will, in order to be saved.

You have submitted your own conscience to a sacerdotal dispensary who tells you what to believe and how to think which is only how 'they' think.

What you or anyone else thinks matters not one whit to them.

s