Legalism

[Cnkw3]

“Legalism“ or “Legalist” are terms I see thrown around quite a bit. They are mainly used by people that teach we are saved by faith alone or by grace alone and that there is NOTHING you can do for salvation and there is NOTHING you can do to stay saved. Les Feldick comes to mind. David Jeremiah said this recently……
He defined “legalism” as being judged by your ability to do certain things and not do other things. A “return to the law”.
He and all others will throw this around but wont quote scripture to back it up because you cant find it in the Bible. I do not even think the word “legal” is even in the Bible. This is a made up misused concept!

The first thing is this….If you are doing something in obedience to God under the proper covenant it CANNOT be “legalism”. If God directed it as a part of his law then it is not legalism. Because what you are saying is that you are doing something wrong through your obedience and I don’t believe this is true. Feel free to prove me wrong. We are told that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to ALL that OBEY him.

Second is…..True “legalism” would be binding a law or a practice on someone that came from man and not God. A perfect example of that are the Pharisees in Jesus day. They came up with their own additions to the law and they bound them on the people. These didnt come from God they came from man and Jesus condemned it and them.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:2-3
Legalism!

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:7-9
There is the best Bible definition I can find for this man made term…”legalism”. It is “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”.
So when David Jeremiah calls me a “legalist“ for “adding baptism to the gospel” we can know he is a false teacher. Why? Because it was Jesus not me that said…
preach the gospel to every creature, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
So this directive that includes baptism as a part of salvation is not a “doctrine of man” so therefore CANNOT be “legalism”.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

“Legalism“ or “Legalist” are terms I see thrown around quite a bit. They are mainly used by people that teach we are saved by faith alone or by grace alone and that there is NOTHING you can do for salvation and there is NOTHING you can do to stay saved. Les Feldick comes to mind. David Jeremiah said this recently……
He defined “legalism” as being judged by your ability to do certain things and not do other things. A “return to the law”.
He and all others will throw this around but wont quote scripture to back it up because you cant find it in the Bible. I do not even think the word “legal” is even in the Bible. This is a made up misused concept!

The first thing is this….If you are doing something in obedience to God under the proper covenant it CANNOT be “legalism”. If God directed it as a part of his law then it is not legalism. Because what you are saying is that you are doing something wrong through your obedience and I don’t believe this is true. Feel free to prove me wrong. We are told that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to ALL that OBEY him.

Second is…..True “legalism” would be binding a law or a practice on someone that came from man and not God. A perfect example of that are the Pharisees in Jesus day. They came up with their own additions to the law and they bound them on the people. These didnt come from God they came from man and Jesus condemned it and them.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:2-3
Legalism!

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:7-9
There is the best Bible definition I can find for this man made term…”legalism”. It is “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”.
So when David Jeremiah calls me a “legalist“ for “adding baptism to the gospel” we can know he is a false teacher. Why? Because it was Jesus not me that said…
preach the gospel to every creature, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
So this directive that includes baptism as a part of salvation is not a “doctrine of man” so therefore CANNOT be “legalism”.

Interesting post. I have been thinking about legalism in other terms as well. I’ve noticed some believers use the Bible not as how it describes itself (as useful for teaching, etc.), but it’s used to back up their position in a kind of “God is obligated to do XYZ for me cause it says so” (usually in one isolated verse.) Instead of a collection of works that together impart understanding useful for (see above) it’s a law that binds God to give them some benefit.

A typical example is, “he who calls in the name of the Lord shall he saved.” This becomes a prerequisite that, if they fulfill the conditions and “call on Jesus” God must save them. For these, the New Testament is just a more comfortable law book guaranteeing what they like. It’s probably a difficult view to see if you’ve embraced it.

 

[Hopeful]

“Legalism“ or “Legalist” are terms I see thrown around quite a bit. They are mainly used by people that teach we are saved by faith alone or by grace alone and that there is NOTHING you can do for salvation and there is NOTHING you can do to stay saved. Les Feldick comes to mind. David Jeremiah said this recently……
He defined “legalism” as being judged by your ability to do certain things and not do other things. A “return to the law”.
He and all others will throw this around but wont quote scripture to back it up because you cant find it in the Bible. I do not even think the word “legal” is even in the Bible. This is a made up misused concept!

The first thing is this….If you are doing something in obedience to God under the proper covenant it CANNOT be “legalism”. If God directed it as a part of his law then it is not legalism. Because what you are saying is that you are doing something wrong through your obedience and I don’t believe this is true. Feel free to prove me wrong. We are told that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to ALL that OBEY him.

Second is…..True “legalism” would be binding a law or a practice on someone that came from man and not God. A perfect example of that are the Pharisees in Jesus day. They came up with their own additions to the law and they bound them on the people. These didnt come from God they came from man and Jesus condemned it and them.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:2-3
Legalism!

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 15:7-9
There is the best Bible definition I can find for this man made term…”legalism”. It is “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”.
So when David Jeremiah calls me a “legalist“ for “adding baptism to the gospel” we can know he is a false teacher. Why? Because it was Jesus not me that said…
preach the gospel to every creature, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
So this directive that includes baptism as a part of salvation is not a “doctrine of man” so therefore CANNOT be “legalism”.

That was a wonderful post.
Whoever came up with the concept of "legalism" was, like all false doctrines, accommodating sin in the alleged faithful.
Refusing to tell lies?
Legalism, because "thou shalt not bear false witness" is in the Law of Moses...according to some.
However, if you do tell a lie, you are manifesting you have neither repented of sin nor been reborn of God's seed. (1 John 3:9-10)
I tell those who fight against obedience to God and manifesting our new, divine nature, that I would rather be "legal" than "unlegal".

 

[Cnkw3]

Interesting post. I have been thinking about legalism in other terms as well. I’ve noticed some believers use the Bible not as how it describes itself (as useful for teaching, etc.), but it’s used to back up their position in a kind of “God is obligated to do XYZ for me cause it says so” (usually in one isolated verse.) Instead of a collection of works that together impart understanding useful for (see above) it’s a law that binds God to give them some benefit.

A typical example is, “he who calls in the name of the Lord shall he saved.” This becomes a prerequisite that, if they fulfill the conditions and “call on Jesus” God must save them. For these, the New Testament is just a more comfortable law book guaranteeing what they like. It’s probably a difficult view to see if you’ve embraced it.

What good are promises if they are not kept?

 

[Whatever]

I believe legalism is referring to those who say things like:
"If you are a Christian, then you wont play cards."
"If you are a Christian, then you wont go to the movies"
"If you are a Christian you can't dance."
I can think of a thousand more of those. Kind of like what Paul says:

(I like the New Living Translation sometimes)
Colossians 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, 21 “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? 22 Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. 23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

 

[Hopeful]

I believe legalism is referring to those who say things like:
"If you are a Christian, then you wont play cards."
"If you are a Christian, then you wont go to the movies"
"If you are a Christian you can't dance."

Better to think of it in those terms, than to include repentance from sin, getting baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring faithfully till the end.
Those are the things the proponents of "legalism" really want men to refrain from.

I can think of a thousand more of those. Kind of like what Paul saysI like the New Living Translation sometimes)
Colossians 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, 21 “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? 22 Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. 23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

I think Paul's label for those espousing that doctrine was "Judaizers".
And dealt only with the Law of Moses...ie, circumcision, dietary rules, tithing, feast keeping, Sabbaths, etc.
It is a close parallel to what the antagonists of "legalism" refute, but stops short of all the other things inherent in Christianity. (some of which I listed above)

And welcome to the site.

 

[Consecrated Life]

So this directive that includes baptism as a part of salvation is not a “doctrine of man” so therefore CANNOT be “legalism”.

Could you define how vital you consider that to be, " ..a part of salvation.." ?
According to Jesus the thief on the cross who joined Jesus in paradise that day was a full partaker in salvation .
Do you believe that his failure not to partake in the , " ..part of salvation.." you mention , that part being baptism, somehow caused his final estate to be diminished ?
Was Jesus lying to him ?

Luk 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

 

[Cnkw3]

I believe legalism is referring to those who say things like:
"If you are a Christian, then you wont play cards."

I don’t think a christian will sit in casinos

"If you are a Christian, then you wont go to the movies"

I dont think Christian’s will go to certain kind of movies.

"If you are a Christian you can't dance."

I dont think Christian’s should perform certain types of dancing

I can think of a thousand more of those. Kind of like what Paul says:

(I like the New Living Translation sometimes)
Colossians 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, 21 “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? 22 Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. 23 These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

When you read the context of Col 2 I believe Paul is referring to those who are being persuaded to live according to the Jewish law. I dont think he is saying that “in Christ” we are just free to do whatever we want.

 

[Cnkw3]

Could you define how vital you consider that to be, " ..a part of salvation.." ?

I dont have to define it. I can read.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:15-16
When does Jesus (not me) say salvation comes? Before or after baptism?
Then a few days later we have the first gospel sermon and we see this spoken..
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
What was baptism “for”. Remission of sins. One cannot be saved until their sins are removed. If you see a different way for sins to be removed then please show me the passages.
See, you dont need it defined. You only need to read.

According to Jesus the thief on the cross who joined Jesus in paradise that day was a full partaker in salvation .

I agree. But what covenant did the thief live under. Old or New? Did the thief ever hear the preaching of Acts 2? No! But you have. Why do you think you can be saved like the thief when Jesus has commanded you to do what we see above. Can you be saved like Moses? No. Then why can you be saved like the thief?

Do you believe that his failure not to partake in the , " ..part of salvation.." you mention , that part being baptism, somehow caused his final estate to be diminished ?

No. He never heard the NT gospel of Jesus Christ preached. It had not come into effect yet. Paul said…”I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for IT is the power of God unto salvation”. Had the thief ever heard the NT gospel that is the power unto salvation?
Was Paul saved like the thief? If not then why not, he was face to face with Christ talking to him just like the thief.

Was Jesus lying to him ?

Luk 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

No. Just like he did not lie to the paralytic when he said ”your sins are forgiven you. This guy wasn’t even looking for salvation. He just wanted to walk but Jesus saved him from his sins. That was the kind of Power Jesus had on earth. Mk 2:9.

 

[Consecrated Life]

According to Jesus the thief on the cross who joined Jesus in paradise that day was a full partaker in salvation .

I agree. But what covenant did the thief live under. Old or New? Did the thief ever hear the preaching of Acts 2? No! But you have. Why do you think you can be saved like the thief when Jesus has commanded you to do what we see above. Can you be saved like Moses? No. Then why can you be saved like the thief? ( Cnkw3)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking into this matter is not showing any improvement in your spiritual discernment .

The thief entered into paradise by the shed blood, according to Jesus .
It is His shed blood which makes the " new covenant ".

Mat 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The thief being the first person recorded in scripture to attain salvation by the new covenant, the shed blood of this Jesus who is the Christ.
My question stands !
How was the thief's eternal estate in the presence of Jesus secured minus baptism , as you claim to understand it ?
What Jesus lying to him ?

 

[Cnkw3]

I agree. But what covenant did the thief live under. Old or New? Did the thief ever hear the preaching of Acts 2? No! But you have. Why do you think you can be saved like the thief when Jesus has commanded you to do what we see above. Can you be saved like Moses? No. Then why can you be saved like the thief? ( Cnkw3)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking into this matter is not showing any improvement in your spiritual discernment .

The thief entered into paradise by the shed blood, according to Jesus .
It is His shed blood which makes the " new covenant ".

Mat 26:28
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

The thief being the first person recorded in scripture to attain salvation by the new covenant, the shed blood of this Jesus who is the Christ.
My question stands !
How was the thief's eternal estate in the presence of Jesus secured minus baptism , as you claim to understand it ?
What Jesus lying to him ?

No. He was NOT “the first person recorded in scripture to attain salvation by the new covenant.”
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Hebrews 9:16-17
Everybody knows how a will works. Does a will go into effect right at the moment someone dies? No. It has to be opened and then read and is not in force until after this takes place. Jesus died, was risen then days later he commanded to great commission. The commission the thief never heard. The commission you and I are under.

Now you answer my question….If the thief is our pattern for salvation then why wasn’t Saul of Tarsus saved in the same way?

 

[Consecrated Life]

No. He was NOT “the first person recorded in scripture to attain salvation by the new covenant.”
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Hebrews 9:16-17
Everybody knows how a will works. Does a will go into effect right at the moment someone dies? No. It has to be opened and then read and is not in force until after this takes place. Jesus died, was risen then days later he commanded to great commission. The commission the thief never heard. The commission you and I are under.

Now you answer my question….If the thief is our pattern for salvation then why wasn’t Saul of Tarsus saved in the same way?

Very telling to me that the shed blood of this Jesus who is the Christ presents a problem for you as it pertains to discussing the thief securing salvation ?
This blood being the New Covenant.

Mat 26:28

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

That the blood of Christ is a perplexing point to be avoided in discussing seems very bizarre to me.
This blood being the New Covenant.
Your final word on it being that this shed blood on the cross of Christ being absolutely useless to the thief in securing his salvation, as you have claimed.
For myself I cannot imagine the shed blood of Christ every being useless.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What good are promises if they are not kept?

Our promises? No good if not kept. God made few promises that don’t have requirements on our side. Few. The vast majority require us to fulfill the conditions.

 

[Runner]

"Legalism" is missing the forest for the trees. It is what the Pharisees did - focusing on the mechanics and technicalities of some requirement while completely missing the point and purpose of the requirement.

On another forum I used to debate with a guy who was a very fastidious, know-it-all sort. He insisted that each time we stumble in our Christian walk, we simply must confess our stumble and God is thereby obligated to forgive us. He insisted there is no requirement of remorse or repentance. It's a purely mechanical transaction, like buying a new toaster at Walmart. That's legalism.

The notion, which I share, that we must continue in the faith until death in order to be saved is not legalism or even related to legalism. The notion is not that we must fulfill any particular requirements or quota of requirements in order to be justified/saved.

The notion is simply that we must continue in the faith in order to be saved. God will determine on an individual basis whether we have done that. To me, this notion is not only far more biblical than the alternative but is also a far deeper and more intuitively believable notion than Once Saved Always Saved. The conversion experience makes salvation possible but does not accomplish it.

 

[Cnkw3]

Very telling to me that the shed blood of this Jesus who is the Christ presents a problem for you as it pertains to discussing the thief securing salvation ?
This blood being the New Covenant.

Mat 26:28

Why is it a problem for me? Its not. I have another thread titled…at what point is the blood applied. Feel free to participate.
We all know the blood washes away our sins. Rev 1:5. We all know that Christ tasted death for every man. Since all men aren’t saved then there must be a point in time when the blood ”removes sins“. At what point in time is that for us today? Please use Bible to support your position. If you dont its a waste of time.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

How did the blood remove the sins of the thief? The same as it removed the sins of Abraham, David, Moses.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:24-25
The blood flows forward and backward. David could have never been declared righteous if not for the Blood of Christ.

That the blood of Christ is a perplexing point to be avoided in discussing seems very bizarre to me.

Where do you get this? What’s perplexing is that you dont want to answer my question about Saul. Why was Saul not saved in the same manner as the thief? He was talking directly with Christ and Jesus told him to go into the city and you will be told there what you MUST do! Did the blood save Saul? When? Why didnt Jesus just declare him saved right then and there on the road? Thats how we are all saved right?

This blood being the New Covenant.
Your final word on it being that this shed blood on the cross of Christ being absolutely useless to the thief in securing his salvation, as you have claimed.
For myself I cannot imagine the shed blood of Christ every being useless.

Dont make stuff up. If I said the blood was “useless” for the thief then quote it. If not then stop lying. The problem with people like you is you have been following a false doctrine all your life and you are now so invested in it that there is no turning back. If you admit you need to change then the consequences are too difficult to accept. The Bible talks about people getting themselves into a position where there is no room for repentance. In other words…..its too late.

 

[jaybo]

I dont have to define it. I can read.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:15-16
When does Jesus (not me) say salvation comes? Before or after baptism?
Then a few days later we have the first gospel sermon and we see this spoken..
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
What was baptism “for”. Remission of sins. One cannot be saved until their sins are removed. If you see a different way for sins to be removed then please show me the passages.
See, you dont need it defined. You only need to read.

I agree. But what covenant did the thief live under. Old or New? Did the thief ever hear the preaching of Acts 2? No! But you have. Why do you think you can be saved like the thief when Jesus has commanded you to do what we see above. Can you be saved like Moses? No. Then why can you be saved like the thief?

No. He never heard the NT gospel of Jesus Christ preached. It had not come into effect yet. Paul said…”I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for IT is the power of God unto salvation”. Had the thief ever heard the NT gospel that is the power unto salvation?
Was Paul saved like the thief? If not then why not, he was face to face with Christ talking to him just like the thief.

No. Just like he did not lie to the paralytic when he said ”your sins are forgiven you. This guy wasn’t even looking for salvation. He just wanted to walk but Jesus saved him from his sins. That was the kind of Power Jesus had on earth. Mk 2:9.

Baptism is not a requirement of salvation. It is a public "statement" whereby you ritually bury your old self -- after you have been saved, i.e., born again.

"be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" does not refer to water baptism. It is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Your sins are no longer charged against you when you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. It is a recognition that His sacrifice paid the penalty for your sins (and everyone else's). It's that simple!

 

[Cnkw3]

Our promises? No good if not kept. God made few promises that don’t have requirements on our side. Few. The vast majority require us to fulfill the conditions.

Absolutely. So what is the problem with…Whosoever calls on the name of the lord will be saved? This is a promise of God that requires us to meet certain conditions.
He also said….He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Again another promise with conditions. Why is it wrong to think….if i meet these conditions God will save me? He said it, we know he cant lie, so therefore it seems to me that we can have faith in his promise. The problem is when people blow off the conditions God has set and add their own like….saying some prayer to receive salvation when God NEVER made that promise.

 

[Cnkw3]

Baptism is not a requirement of salvation. It is a public "statement" whereby you ritually bury your old self -- after you have been saved, i.e., born again.

I noticed there is no Bible to support this.

"be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" does not refer to water baptism. It is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Yes it does. This has been proven many times over by going to Acts 10.

Your sins are no longer charged against you when you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. It is a recognition that His sacrifice paid the penalty for your sins (and everyone else's). It's that simple!

Again. Why dont people post scripture with their salvation declarations? If what you are teaching is truth then it must be in there somewhere? Its either in there or you are making it up. Its that simple!

 

[jaybo]

Why is it a problem for me? Its not. I have another thread titled…at what point is the blood applied. Feel free to participate.
We all know the blood washes away our sins. Rev 1:5. We all know that Christ tasted death for every man. Since all men aren’t saved then there must be a point in time when the blood ”removes sins“. At what point in time is that for us today? Please use Bible to support your position. If you dont its a waste of time.

How did the blood remove the sins of the thief? The same as it removed the sins of Abraham, David, Moses.
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 3:24-25
The blood flows forward and backward. David could have never been declared righteous if not for the Blood of Christ.

Where do you get this? What’s perplexing is that you dont want to answer my question about Saul. Why was Saul not saved in the same manner as the thief? He was talking directly with Christ and Jesus told him to go into the city and you will be told there what you MUST do! Did the blood save Saul? When? Why didnt Jesus just declare him saved right then and there on the road? Thats how we are all saved right?

Dont make stuff up. If I said the blood was “useless” for the thief then quote it. If not then stop lying. The problem with people like you is you have been following a false doctrine all your life and you are now so invested in it that there is no turning back. If you admit you need to change then the consequences are too difficult to accept. The Bible talks about people getting themselves into a position where there is no room for repentance. In other words…..its too late.

I stopped reading your post when I came to this: Since all men aren’t saved then there must be a point in time when the blood ”removes sins“. That is a serious doctrinal error!

All men (and women) -- all people -- are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It's unfortunate that many people (including yourself) don't realize that. Jesus was sacrificed once for the sins of all people for all time. The penalty for all sin has been paid for!!! All anyone has to do is accept the sacrifice on their behalf.

Ephesians 2:4-9, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in offenses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you are saved!]— and he raised us up together with him and seated us together with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

If you disagree with this, then you're saying that the sacrifice of Jesus was only partially effective; that there is something more that must be done to earn salvation. That is clearly contrary to Scripture!

 

[jaybo]

Absolutely. So what is the problem with…Whosoever calls on the name of the lord will be saved? This is a promise of God that requires us to meet certain conditions.
He also said….He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Again another promise with conditions. Why is it wrong to think….if i meet these conditions God will save me? He said it, we know he cant lie, so therefore it seems to me that we can have faith in his promise. The problem is when people blow off the conditions God has set and add their own like….saying some prayer to receive salvation when God NEVER made that promise.

What are those conditions? Again, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."