The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[EdenBorn]

I will put a good atheist over a corrupt Christian any day. In fact, I prefer the belief that a corrupt Christian will suffer a penalty far worse then a corrupt atheist.

Do not fool yourself with a notion that your baptism or past conviction for God will reap your salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do not fool yourself with a notion that your baptism or past conviction for God will reap your salvation.

That's what the Bible seems to say pretty clearly:

14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first." (Hebrews 3:14 NIV1984)

The thing we must persevere in to the very end in order to be saved on the Day of Wrath is our faith, our trust and confidence in the blood of Christ. A faith and trust that can be seen in what we do because of who we have become by the Spirit of God.

"10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things (the character qualities he just listed--see context), you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:10-11 NIV1984)

What we do, according to the character qualities of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, is how we know if we are persevering in our confession of faith and trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and can be sure we will be saved on the Day of Wrath and welcomed into the kingdom. What we do, or rather who we are, is how we can know we have been justified by our faith in Christ and have the righteousness of Christ that can save us on that Day.

"...love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him." (1 John 4:17 NIV1984)

 

[EdenBorn]

That's what the Bible seems to say pretty clearly:

14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first." (Hebrews 3:14 NIV1984)

The thing we must persevere in to the very end in order to be saved on the Day of Wrath is our faith, our trust and confidence in the blood of Christ. A faith and trust that can be seen in what we do because of who we have become by the Spirit of God.

"10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things (the character qualities he just listed--see context), you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 1:10-11 NIV1984)

What we do, according to the character qualities of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, is how we know if we are persevering in our confession of faith and trust in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and can be sure we will be saved on the Day of Wrath and welcomed into the kingdom. What we do, or rather who we are, is how we can know we have been justified by our faith in Christ and have the righteousness of Christ that can save us on that Day.

"...love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him." (1 John 4:17 NIV1984)

But then you read the rest of the Bible and realize that those passages do not mean what you portray them to be. The Church criticizes Protestant theology on the basis that these interpretations are 'legal fictions'. As in, when all is taken into account, the notions are problematic.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But then you read the rest of the Bible and realize that those passages do not mean what you portray them to be. The Church criticizes Protestant theology on the basis that these interpretations are 'legal fictions'. As in, when all is taken into account, the notions are problematic.

What do you think I'm trying to make these passages portray? That justification is, somehow, by what a person does? Or that, somehow, the person who believes will not always believe to the very end and be saved? I'm surprised that you think my post was refuting what you said, because it is not. Past works and/or faith, if that faith ceases, will not save a person on the Day of Judgment.

It seems in the church, 'persevering in faith to be saved' is almost always heard through the ears of 'persevering in works to be saved', and/or, it's impossible to stop trusting in the blood.

As far as the works part goes, somehow we've come to the conclusion that James did not know what he was talking about when he said the faith that can save you is the faith that can be seen in what you do, not just in what you say you believe alone. And I think the problem is too many people who defend grace think any mention of works automatically equates to a works justification gospel. Hardly true. The faith that justifies, all by itself, apart from what we do, is the faith that can be seen in what it does, specifically in godly love for others:

"The only thing that counts (toward justification--see context) is faith..." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

"...faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

This doesn't mean the faith that justifies is the faith that justifies by, both, faith and works of the law ("love your neighbor as yourself"--Leviticus 19:18). What it means is the faith that justifies (the only thing that counts towards justification) is the faith that can then eventually be seen in the obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

Loving others (the putting off of the harmful, sinful nature--spiritual circumcision) is the signifying mark of being justified in Christ, not the actual agent of justification. Just as circumcision was the signifying mark of Abraham's justification, not the agent of that justification.


And as far as the question of whether one can stop believing in the gospel they once did believe in...I don't know for sure. Perhaps the key lies in knowing just what constitutes 'believing'. Does it mean the believing that actually results in a genuine justification, or the 'believing' of the honest but reserved inquirer of the faith who never really came to the total surrender and agreement with God about their sin and their lostness that true justification requires.

It's a hard question because the implication is that persevering in even a less than committed belief in Christ would result in salvation. Thus the admonition to keep believing. It's a toughee. But it should mean nothing to the person who isn't wavering in faith and has the evidence of the new creation via the fruit of the Spirit (aka 'works') to confirm the justification they have received in Christ. The admonition to us is if we don't have that evidence of salvation is to pursue that evidence. And if it becomes evident in that pursuit you really aren't a new creation by faith in Christ you can become one.

 

[EdenBorn]

What do you think I'm trying to make these passages portray? That justification is, somehow, by what a person does? Or that, somehow, the person who believes will not always believe to the very end and be saved? I'm surprised that you think my post was refuting what you said, because it is not. Past works and/or faith, if that faith ceases, will not save a person on the Day of Judgment.

It seems in the church, 'persevering in faith to be saved' is almost always heard through the ears of 'persevering in works to be saved', and/or, it's impossible to stop trusting in the blood.

As far as the works part goes, somehow we've come to the conclusion that James did not know what he was talking about when he said the faith that can save you is the faith that can be seen in what you do, not just in what you say you believe alone. And I think the problem is too many people who defend grace think any mention of works automatically equates to a works justification gospel. Hardly true. The faith that justifies, all by itself, apart from what we do, is the faith that can be seen in what it does, specifically in godly love for others:

"The only thing that counts (toward justification--see context) is faith..." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

"...faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV1984)

This doesn't mean the faith that justifies is the faith that justifies by, both, faith and works of the law ("love your neighbor as yourself"--Leviticus 19:18). What it means is the faith that justifies (the only thing that counts towards justification) is the faith that can then eventually be seen in the obedience of 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

Loving others (the putting off of the harmful, sinful nature--spiritual circumcision) is the signifying mark of being justified in Christ, not the actual agent of justification. Just as circumcision was the signifying mark of Abraham's justification, not the agent of that justification.


And as far as the question of whether one can stop believing in the gospel they once did believe in...I don't know for sure. Perhaps the key lies in knowing just what constitutes 'believing'. Does it mean the believing that actually results in a genuine justification, or the 'believing' of the honest but reserved inquirer of the faith who never really came to the total surrender and agreement with God about their sin and their lostness that true justification requires.

It's a hard question because the implication is that persevering in even a less than committed belief in Christ would result in salvation. Thus the admonition to keep believing. It's a toughee. But it should mean nothing to the person who isn't wavering in faith and has the evidence of the new creation via the fruit of the Spirit (aka 'works') to confirm the justification they have received in Christ. The admonition to us is if we don't have that evidence of salvation is to pursue that evidence. And if it becomes evident in that pursuit you really aren't a new creation by faith in Christ you can become one.

Catholic belief of justification is about synergism, meaning works are what keep you fused to Christ. When one neglects works, that synergy, or sync, becomes lost.

Protestant doctrine states that once a person is saved, they are always saved, and if it seems they they fell from grace, they were never really saved in the first place.


When it comes down to it, they are both simply different paradigms of salvation which conjure the same result and ordinance of being Godly. Except for one thing:

God cannot justify sin. He requires satisfaction. You cannot be once saved, always saved and sin even one time or the entire theology falls apart.

 

[gr8grace]

Catholic belief of justification is about synergism, meaning works are what keep you fused to Christ. When one neglects works, that synergy, or sync, becomes lost.

Protestant doctrine states that once a person is saved, they are always saved, and if it seems they they fell from grace, they were never really saved in the first place.


When it comes down to it, they are both simply different paradigms of salvation which conjure the same result and ordinance of being Godly. Except for one thing:

God cannot justify sin. He requires satisfaction. You cannot be once saved, always saved and sin even one time or the entire theology falls apart.

You forgot the Christian belief/ doctrine in this list: Christ satisfied Gods Justice on the Cross for payment of ALL sin. Since God has a propitiated mind towards all sin because He is satisfied In His Son,a believer therefore has NO sin greater than His Son. Because His Justice was satisfied in His Son. Any other system belittles Christ and His complete work on the Cross.

 

[EdenBorn]

You forgot the Christian belief/ doctrine in this list: Christ satisfied Gods Justice on the Cross for payment of ALL sin. Since God has a propitiated mind towards all sin because He is satisfied In His Son,a believer therefore has NO sin greater than His Son. Because His Justice was satisfied in His Son. Any other system belittles Christ and His complete work on the Cross.

Unless you posit universalism, you cannot rectify what you just stated. That's the contradiction of faith without works- if it takes mere baptism to save one from Hell, and Hell for those who don't, then you belittle the entire premise of the Logos.

There is no belittling the work on the cross in Catholic synergism, because the 'completeness' you speak of isn't what you and your theology thereof tries to posit it as. It's a complete straw man of the meaning of the sacrifice.

 

[WIP]

Reminder: This forum does allow RCC debate. Discussion of that nature are allowed in 1-on-1 and End Times forums only.

 

[EdenBorn]

Reminder: This forum does allow RCC debate. Discussion of that nature are allowed in 1-on-1 and End Times forums only.

Can you expand on that? Because that sounds extremely anti-Catholic.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...works are what keep you fused to Christ. When one neglects works, that synergy, or sync, becomes lost.

Scripturally, this is true in regard to the manifest blessing of being in Christ. Like the Israelites of old, the condition for enjoying the manifest blessings of God was their obedience. They were warned that their disobedience would drive them out and away from the good blessings of the Lord. That is true for us, too.

They didn't automatically lose their status as the children of God when they were out of the Promised Land. They lost the blessing of being the children of God when they were out of the Promised Land.

Obedience is not the condition for being in Christ, except as a barometer of being in Christ through faith or not. But it is the condition for living in the abundance of God. You don't lose the Holy Spirit through disobedience (except if that disobedience is because you no longer believe/ trust in Christ's blood). You lose the manifest blessing of the Holy Spirit when you disobey.

Protestant doctrine states that once a person is saved, they are always saved, and if it seems they they fell from grace, they were never really saved in the first place.

I'm no authority, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct to broad stroke all Protestant doctrine this way.

Hebrews teaches that justification is a one-time, for all-time event. I know that sounds like once saved (justified), always saved, but as I've been pointing out the scriptures do speak of the necessity of continuing in the faith that justifies one-time for all time (as if it were possible not to). IOW, justification is indeed one-time, for all-time if you keep the faith, the believing, that does that for you. Form there it's a question of if 'not believing' anymore is really referring to the genuinely one-time, for all-time justified person. I don't know. I just know it says you have to persevere to the end in the believing you had at first. The twist being, apparently the faith that you had at first, as flawed as it may be for it to be able to be lost, was capable of saving you if you had kept it.

God cannot justify sin.

Correct.

That's precisely why justification is not, and can never be, based on the merit of human behavior. Justification has to come from outside of what we do and given through the unmerited gift of faith--the ability to believe that the gospel of the forgiveness of God is real and can be trusted.

He requires satisfaction.

As Jarrod pointed out, Christ is the satisfaction God demands for sin.

You cannot be once saved, always saved and sin even one time or the entire theology falls apart.

This is true only if justification is indeed based, even partly, on the merit of human obedience as some doctrines teach.

The 'faith + deeds performed = justification' doctrine is really, at the end of the day, equivalent to the 'deeds performed = justification' doctrine for this very reason. Any element of human merit in the equation effectively makes it the weakest link and, therefore, the condition upon which justification relies. It's nothing more than the damnable works gospel.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Can you expand on that? Because that sounds extremely anti-Catholic.

Until he explains it more clearly to you, just leave 'Catholic', and any references to Catholicism (e.g. 'synergism') out of what you say. There are Protestant denoms that share similar beliefs that make it possible to discuss these general ideas about justification and salvation without making this a Catholic vs. Protestant discussion.

 

[EdenBorn]

I'm no authority, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct to broad stroke all Protestant doctrine this way.

That is exactly what Protestantism is. It is Lutheran doctrine. Now some denominations under the Protestant flag may have neglected that over the centuries, but the doctrine is the prime Protestant theology of salvation.

That's precisely why justification is not, and can never be, based on the merit of human behavior.

Then what merits salvation? That's sort of the contradiction I've been trying to show. On one end, it is stated that salvation cannot be merited by human behavior, but on the other, Hell exists for evil people and beings.
If righteousness is imputed, and not given by consistent will of the person through works, then a Protestant has to either concede that a person can never sin after being saved or that their sin is justified. In which case, God cannot justify evil and saying a person will never sin is laughable.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm no authority, but I'm pretty sure it's not correct to broad stroke all Protestant doctrine this way.

That is exactly what Protestantism is. It is Lutheran doctrine. Now some denominations under the Protestant flag may have neglected that over the centuries, but the doctrine is the prime Protestant theology of salvation.

I'm sure it is.

I don't think it got neglected. It's been under serious examination by some within the movement. A refinement if you will.

That's precisely why justification is not, and can never be, based on the merit of human behavior.

Then what merits salvation?

The 'work' of believing.

Remember, in regard to justification, the work that can't justify is contrasted with believing, which can justify.

That's sort of the contradiction I've been trying to show. On one end, it is stated that salvation cannot be merited by human behavior, but on the other, Hell exists for evil people and beings.

"23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23 NIV1984)

When we sin in our natural state, we earn exactly what we deserve--death. When we inherit eternal life it's a gift of God because of the gracious gift of faith, given to us apart from what we do, through which we believe and are justified.

If righteousness is imputed, and not given by consistent will of the person through works, then a Protestant has to either concede that a person can never sin after being saved or that their sin is justified.

Justification is a legal declaration of righteousness. The guilt of our sins is removed by the blood of Christ making us legally righteous before God because we trust in the blood to do that...and to continually do that, provided our sin is not rooted in an outright rejection of the blood of Christ, because obviously, there is no forgiveness, no blood to cover, the sin of rejecting the blood of Christ.

The righteousness that is imputed does not mean a person is suddenly imbued with perfect behavior. It means they have a legal declaration of righteousness through the removal of sin guilt, and the sure hope of a future righteousness. Righteousness is credited to their account, their sin not being held against them, not because they don't sin, but because it is continually removed in Jesus Christ through a continual trust in his blood to do that.

In which case, God cannot justify evil and saying a person will never sin is laughable.

But what is not laughable is the blood of Christ always before the Father in heaven continually cleansing the person who sins in weakness or ignorance or under duress, who wants it to do that and relies on it as evidenced by their continued faith in the blood to do that. A purposeful rejection of that cleansing hardly represents a person who is trusting in the blood to cover their sins. That is the sin, the evil, that the blood of Christ can not remove and which would be laughable to think it could.

 

[EdenBorn]

I'm sure it is.
I don't think it got neglected. It's been under serious examination by some within the movement. A refinement if you will.

Seems more like a scattering then a refinement.

The 'work' of believing.

Remember, in regard to justification, the work that can't justify is contrasted with believing, which can justify.

Believing is not a work. By definition, it is completely arbitrary without works. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, meaning that if the faith does not produce fruit then it is nothing more then a vain object.
Saying that works have no value is to say that nobody except Christians can be saved. To agree with that is to say that all people can choose to believe in God, and this is an inherently false claim. A person can't be forced to believe what their mind does not allow. The concept of invincible ignorance is not simply a concept, it is a fact. Of course, it's only people that believe in Christ who say otherwise. Obviously, there is an outrageous conflict of interest there.

There are many things wrong with OSAS, and it only exists as a consequence of 16th century movements. It didn't exist the other 1500 years beforehand- I find it pretty miraculous that nobody in this wide world, for all that time and generations, never landed on it.
The theology should be unanimously disposed of.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Believing is not a work.

Jesus called it a 'work'. That 'work' is what is contrasted with anything else to be justified. Don't confuse terms. We're talking about justification here--what it takes to be declared legally righteous before God. Only believing/ trusting in the blood of Christ can do that. Because only the blood of Christ can remove the sin guilt that makes us unrighteous. There is no (other) work that can remove sin guilt. Only believing that God will remove your sin guilt through Jesus' blood can make one righteous and eligible for the kingdom.

By definition, it is completely arbitrary without works. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, meaning that if the faith does not produce fruit then it is nothing more then a vain object.

Right. The faith that justifies is the faith that can be seen in what it does. The 'faith' that can't produce the evidence of it's existence is a 'faith' that can not justify and thus save on the Day of Wrath.

Saying that works have no value is to say that nobody except Christians can be saved.

The argument is that works (except the 'work' of believing) has no value towards justification--being declared righteous and free of sin guilt before God. It's important to keep the terminology straight. It is justified people who are then saved from destruction on the Day of Wrath, their work being the evidence of the righteousness they gained by faith apart from their works. And so it is in that way that works have value toward salvation, but not toward justification.

And only Christians can be saved, but justification is open to all who would believe and become a Christian through that justification.

To agree with that is to say that all people can choose to believe in God, and this is an inherently false claim.

1 John 5 talks about those who reject the faith that God sends into the world to convict the world of the truth that we know by nature no one has the capacity in and of themselves to know is true and believe in. Faith is the capacity to know the surety of the unseen gospel. And because we are given that capacity we can then choose to believe, placing our trust in what we now know, by the gracious gift of faith, to be true. John talks about those who REJECT that testimony, in effect calling God a liar. They reject the gift of faith that enables a person to then believe and be justified through that faith so they can be saved on the Day of Wrath.

A person can't be forced to believe what their mind does not allow.

I agree. Even with the presence of faith to show a person the gospel is true that does not mean they will choose what they now know to be true and be justified by that belief, that trusting in what they now know to be true.

The concept of invincible ignorance is not simply a concept, it is a fact.

Yes. But it is faith that makes ignorance no longer invincible to helpless man. But most choose not to accept the truth made known to them by the work of faith in the world through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God and do not place their trust in what is being shown to them to be true. God eventually turns them back over to their 'invincible ignorance' so that they can't believe. While those who do accept it are justified and saved on the Day of Wrath...provided they continue in the faith that justified them. Their work being the evidence, not the source, of that justification.

There are many things wrong with OSAS, and it only exists as a consequence of 16th century movements. It didn't exist the other 1500 years beforehand- I find it pretty miraculous that nobody in this wide world, for all that time and generations, never landed on it.
The theology should be unanimously disposed of.

All I know is the Bible says that a person must persevere in the faith they had at first to saved on the Day of Wrath. The promise of God of salvation is the surest thing in all of the universe. But apparently you have to stay in the promises by faith, not works, to have that sure thing. The works are but the evidence that we are doing that. And, on the Day of Wrath, they are the evidence that we did do that.

I think we've made this waaaaaay too complicated by over thinking it. Somehow we think acedemics equates to spirituality. Hardly true IMO.

 

[WIP]

Can you expand on that? Because that sounds extremely anti-Catholic.

We are not anti-Catholic on this site but there are reasons for limited discussion. Please read the ToS.

 

[EdenBorn]

Jesus called it a 'work'. That 'work' is what is contrasted with anything else to be justified. Don't confuse terms. We're talking about justification here--what it takes to be declared legally righteous before God. Only believing/ trusting in the blood of Christ can do that. Because only the blood of Christ can remove the sin guilt that makes us unrighteous. There is no (other) work that can remove sin guilt. Only believing that God will remove your sin guilt through Jesus' blood can make one righteous and eligible for the kingdom.




Right. The faith that justifies is the faith that can be seen in what it does. The 'faith' that can't produce the evidence of it's existence is a 'faith' that can not justify and thus save on the Day of Wrath.




The argument is that works (except the 'work' of believing) has no value towards justification--being declared righteous and free of sin guilt before God. It's important to keep the terminology straight. It is justified people who are then saved from destruction on the Day of Wrath, their work being the evidence of the righteousness they gained by faith apart from their works. And so it is in that way that works have value toward salvation, but not toward justification.

And only Christians can be saved, but justification is open to all who would believe and become a Christian through that justification.



1 John 5 talks about those who reject the faith that God sends into the world to convict the world of the truth that we know by nature no one has the capacity in and of themselves to know is true and believe in. Faith is the capacity to know the surety of the unseen gospel. And because we are given that capacity we can then choose to believe, placing our trust in what we now know, by the gracious gift of faith, to be true. John talks about those who REJECT that testimony, in effect calling God a liar. They reject the gift of faith that enables a person to then believe and be justified through that faith so they can be saved on the Day of Wrath.



I agree. Even with the presence of faith to show a person the gospel is true that does not mean they will choose what they now know to be true and be justified by that belief, that trusting in what they now know to be true.



Yes. But it is faith that makes ignorance no longer invincible to helpless man. But most choose not to accept the truth made known to them by the work of faith in the world through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the Word of God and do not place their trust in what is being shown to them to be true. God eventually turns them back over to their 'invincible ignorance' so that they can't believe. While those who do accept it are justified and saved on the Day of Wrath...provided they continue in the faith that justified them. Their work being the evidence, not the source, of that justification.



All I know is the Bible says that a person must persevere in the faith they had at first to saved on the Day of Wrath. The promise of God of salvation is the surest thing in all of the universe. But apparently you have to stay in the promises by faith, not works, to have that sure thing. The works are but the evidence that we are doing that. And, on the Day of Wrath, they are the evidence that we did do that.

I think we've made this waaaaaay too complicated by over thinking it. Somehow we think acedemics equates to spirituality. Hardly true IMO.

Faith simply augments works, it is not the only path to good works. There are many humanitarian atheists who do much more work then the average Christian. When looking at it from the appropriate angle, how is a fruitless Christian secured over a humanitarian atheist? About 2/3 of all Christians on Earth produce no more works then they would if they declared themselves atheists. Or deist, or agnostic- anything other then being a Christian.

So when you say that only Christians can be saved, you are not only dooming everyone else, but also a good 2/3 of declared Christians as well. There is something wrong with that picture.

Many Christians will consistently state that those who believe in something different from OSAS or faith without works are limiting the 'completeness' of the cross, but I say it is completely the other way around. It is in fact those doctrines that propose works have no value, and that only a lottery of those who get to know Christ can be saved. This is an extreme adulteration of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of men: Salvation is afforded through goodness, not a blind faith.

Sacrifice does not require belief, it requires satisfaction. Jesus says that even those who blaspheme against him may still be forgiven. It's only when a person blasphemes the sacredness of good that they have, without question, made their bed for damnation. This implies strongly that not everyone saved is going to be a confessed Christian. In fact, many of saints through history were not Christians.

The concept of invincible ignorance is just something one has to accept. Punishing a person who was not a Christian through no fault of their own is not Godly. This includes even atheists, because what you say is true is, in retrospect, a collection of ancient books.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Faith simply augments works, it is not the only path to good works.

Of course faith isn't the only path to good works. Good works can be produced by either faith in the blood of Christ, or not by faith. The point is, only the righteous 'work' of believing produced by faith justifies. That's Paul's argument. Whether work is produced by faith or not is not the issue. The issue is it's impossible to make yourself righteous by doing good things. Only the forgiveness of sin can make a person free of sin guilt.

When looking at it from the appropriate angle, how is a fruitless Christian secured over a humanitarian atheist?

Because justification is not based on deeds performed. It is indeed important that you look at it from the appropriate angle. From God's perspective everybody alike falls woefully short of his standard of holiness. Measuring the capacity for righteous behavior in natural man is like searching for the greater measure of virtue among whores.

Justification is based on who's willing to admit their unrighteousness, and their bondage to it, and who then cast themselves on the mercy of God. The people who do that are the ones who 'go home justified', not those who strive to attain justification through obedience to commanded works. It chaffs against all natural reasoning, but if you do look at as the person who knows they have no righteousness of their own to rely on now relying on the righteousness God provides through the Holy Spirit it makes sense. The full potential of which we are promised to receive in the life to come. The Holy Spirit being the down payment guaranteeing the rest to come later...provided we continue in the believing that secures that down payment.

"22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV1984)

Does this mean a truly justified, believing person can walk away from the faith that justified him and no longer be justified? I don't know. I just know we have to have the faith that we started out with at the end in order to have the guarantee of the promise of salvation.

About 2/3 of all Christians on Earth produce no more works then they would if they declared themselves atheists. Or deist, or agnostic- anything other then being a Christian.

Welcome to what I call the 'church of the world'. Those of whom do not really constitute the true Church of God at all. Unbelieving hypocrites have overrun the church...and then point their finger at the church and deride it for how corrupt it is.

So when you say that only Christians can be saved, you are not only dooming everyone else, but also a good 2/3 of declared Christians as well. There is something wrong with that picture.

There is something wrong with the multitude of people who are too proud to acknowledge their sin guilt and come to Christ for forgiveness. Christ himself said few will find the road that leads to life. Pride is the sickness of mankind that leads to death. And most of us are afflicted with it. It's amazing the power of pride in a person.

Many Christians will consistently state that those who believe in something different from OSAS or faith without works are limiting the 'completeness' of the cross....

In regard to how to be justified, I'd agree. Faith in what Christ did on the cross is indeed sufficient all by itself to make a person legally righteous before God. I'm personally uncertain about what meaning that really has in regard to OSAS.

...but I say it is completely the other way around. It is in fact those doctrines that propose works have no value, and that only a lottery of those who get to know Christ can be saved.

First of all, let's be careful with our terminology and what the argument actually says. Works have no valuable contribution to being justified--made legally righteous before God. Justification simply can not be merited by work performed (except the 'work' of believing in the blood, through the gift of faith, that makes a person clean before God).

Secondly, since there is no other way to be justified among those who have heard the name of Christ only those who have been justified in Christ, aka 'Christians', can be saved on the Day of Wrath.

This is an extreme adulteration of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of men: Salvation is afforded through goodness, not a blind faith.

Right. Faith is not blind. Faith is the surety of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Justification is gained through faith, all by itself. Salvation is where works come into play, your work presented as evidence of whether you are justified in Christ, or not.

Sacrifice does not require belief, it requires satisfaction.

But since we only have the Word of God himself to go on that the blood of Christ satisfies His requirement for blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, it is our belief in his Word about a sacrifice that we can not see with our eyes that effectively offers that required sacrifice up to him on our behalf. So, as you can see, it is in fact ONLY faith and trust that can offer up the satisfactory sacrifice that God requires for forgiveness of sin.

 

[EdenBorn]

Of course faith isn't the only path to good works. Good works can be produced by either faith in the blood of Christ, or not by faith. The point is, only the righteous 'work' of believing produced by faith justifies. That's Paul's argument. Whether work is produced by faith or not is not the issue. The issue is it's impossible to make yourself righteous by doing good things. Only the forgiveness of sin can make a person free of sin guilt.

Some sins are greater then others. That's just a truth one has to accept, because the entire Bible brims with it. Eye for eye, for example, is a concept of payment directly coinciding the gravity of the sin. In John 19:11, Jesus tells Pilate that he had no power over him, and that it is the ones who handed him over had the greater sin.

The New Covenant expounds greatly on the consequences of sin. Those who spend their lives in vanity and idolatry are cut off completely from salvation, as such people live in evil rather then righteousness. Nowhere is it stated that if you do not have faith in Christ by name and power, you will not inherit Heaven. It only states that in doing so, you are secured.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Nowhere is it stated that if you do not have faith in Christ by name and power, you will not inherit Heaven. It only states that in doing so, you are secured.

And by that, you reach the conclusion that it is not necessary to have faith in Christ to be saved? You seem to leave the possibility open.