Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[Eventide]

You're welcome, but Jn 3:16; Lk 13;3,5; Mt 10:32,33 amd Acts 2;38 are not part of my opinion. Please don't confuse me with poster 'smaller' who came here presenting his opinion as fact and never gave a book, chapter, verse to back up any thing he posted.

So you're telling us that you have absolute perfect understanding in all these portions of scripture which are living and powerful and intimately connected to every other portion of scripture..

Have you exhausted the word of God so that there is nothing else to be gleaned or understood..? Perhaps you believe that you have already attained to the fullness of the stature of Christ.. And have the perfect mind of Christ in these matters..

It's remarkable to me that people (especially a professing Christian) can actually believe that..

 

[rrowell]

Then IMO E, you do not understand what the church of God actually is.

Because it's certainly not exclusive to your assembly of believers..

This is religious fanaticism at it best.

Apparently your problem is understanding the difference in "Church" and "Assembly"...

There is one Church, and many assemblies of That One Church...

 

[rrowell]

Yet choice advocates only see their own will, alone, making choices. And perpetually imperfect choices at that.

There is a vastly more interesting 'choice' available to those who want to observe matters of choice.

What are you a poet? every thing you say is open ended... you can't make a direct statement of faith

How about a choice to be truthful about the mix of wills?

What mix of wills? His will is all anyone should worry about.

You see freewillers can not even muster the sight to see the fact of the other wills in play within their own will, and can generally not be truthful to that fact. Their choice then is cloaked within an internal lie.

That's why we were given the Bible, so we can make a "choice" to follow him and not rubbish like you just posted.

Freewill advocacy is nothing more than a blinded choice to ignore the other operating wills that are not their own and that operate within them.

You say "free will" don't get it, you say predetermined don't get it, and I have yet to see your statement of faith, all you've done is ride a fence and stir the pot.

Is such a choice free? Uh, no. Nothing more than a blind move against the obvious. Nothing free about that whatsoever.

All the while that Paul sought to do good, he openly admitted in Romans 7:21 that evil was in fact present with him at the same time.

and by his own free will he perceptually obeyed and remained "elect".

At least the man was honest.

That he was...

 

[smaller]

What are you a poet? every thing you say is open ended... you can't make a direct statement of faith

You sniff testing me? I subscribe to the SoF posted here.

What mix of wills? His will is all anyone should worry about.

No 'free' will has chosen itself into sinlessness.

That's why we were given the Bible, so we can make a "choice" to follow him and not rubbish like you just posted.

Simplistic notions are not my favorite approach to interesting topic matter.

For example I've put up the fact that there are, operationally speaking, 3 wills that function within mankind.

When you broach that fact then you can tell me which 'choice' is which.

Freewill obedience requires a stand alone will. There are no such wills.

To any honest viewer who has any reasonable grip on scriptural understandings there is no quantifiable way to rule out either the Will of God or the will of the adversary(s) operational within the will of the person.

You say "free will" don't get it, you say predetermined don't get it, and I have yet to see your statement of faith, all you've done is ride a fence and stir the pot.

Sniff testing is the first line of defensive posturing from weak engagement in factual dialog.

and by his own free will he perceptually obeyed and remained "elect".

That he was...

Again, quite beside the point made.

Whatever Paul saw would not apply to the evil present/devil in the flesh of Paul.

Paul could be entirely obedient (truthful to the Word) and the other working entirely opposite simultaneously.

What availed for one would be completely worthless and the opposite for the other working. This is how every believer currently stands. The evil present with Paul was not saved, blessed, obedient and remained opposed to every fact of Word even while Paul was not.

s

 

[rrowell]

You sniff testing me? I subscribe to the SoF posted here.


No 'free' will has chosen itself into sinlessness.



Simplistic notions are not my favorite approach to interesting topic matter.

For example I've put up the fact that there are, operationally speaking, 3 wills that function within mankind.

When you broach that fact then you can tell me which 'choice' is which.

Freewill obedience requires a stand alone will. There are no such wills.

To any honest viewer who has any reasonable grip on scriptural understandings there is no quantifiable way to rule out either the Will of God or the will of the adversary(s) operational within the will of the person.



Sniff testing is the first line of defensive posturing from weak engagement in factual dialog.



Again, quite beside the point made.

Whatever Paul saw would not apply to the evil present/devil in the flesh of Paul.

Paul could be entirely obedient (truthful to the Word) and the other working entirely opposite simultaneously.

What availed for one would be completely worthless and the opposite for the other working. This is how every believer currently stands. The evil present with Paul was not saved, blessed, obedient and remained opposed to every fact of Word even while Paul was not.

s

You made absolutely no point at all other than there is evil and good... and have done nothing but derail this thread and stir up controversy...

all of what you say does not even make English sense?

 

[smaller]

You made absolutely no point at all other than there is evil and good... and have done nothing but derail this thread and stir up controversy...

all of what you say does not even make English sense?

Failure to grasp the details of the engagement on your part ends up in a dead end response.

Yawning out of the conversation.

zzzzz

s

 

[watchman333]

Let's cut to the chase: Can obedience earn salvation? No, but I would not recommend disobedience.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

So: Jesus saves ... no one, actually?

Jesus saves those that obey Him. His death on the cross did not save certain people uncondtionally.

That's a mistake. They're two different words, and they mean different things both in English and in Greek.

Oh, and just so you know: "rely" in greek is "pisteuo" -- "believe" / "have faith".

Reliance without obedience will not save. Again God will have vengeacne upon those that obey not.

You're saying "belief" and "obedience" are the same thing. Why talk about "obedient faith" when faith is obedience to you?

When a theology starts talking about two different things as the same thing, and then in another breath as different -- I have to start wondering if the theology is consistent. I'd encourage anyone to wonder the same.

I use obedient faith to contrast it from faith only. Unfortunately when some read Rom 4:5 where it says "worketh not, but believeth" they add the world "only" behind the word believeth. So I said obedient belief because that is what Abraham had and not belief only.

So ... those who were formerly disobedient are fuel for Hell?

If they are FORMERLY disobedient that means they are not disobedient now but are obedient now.

Your view holds no place for forgiveness. There is no salvation in a gospel of works.

God will only forgive those who are obedient in repenting of their sins. God will not forgive the impenitent. Rom 2:5

The lack of recognition here in Ep 2 that baptism isn't in view, that obedience isn't in view, that works aren't in view for bringing about salvation leads me to conclude that your position is emptied of its standing.

Eph 2:5,6 refers to the Ephesians having obeyed the gospel by being baptized/raised up together with Christ. No verse says the Ephesians were uncondtionally saved in thier disobedience. Eph 1:13,15 "In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,... Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,"

So the Ephesians condionally obeyed by having belief/faith.

Again the only way the Ephesians could be "in Christ" was by being baptized, Gal 3:27.

There Peter himself said it wasn't washing with water, but the response of a good conscience before God.

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

Since there is just one way to be saved the Ephesians faith must have included baptism.

This obsession with washing the flesh even beyond its absence in Apostolic mention leads me to conclude another aspect of this theology is wrong: preoccupation with baptism beyond what the Apostles expressed.

Here's what Paul the Evangelist thought of baptism:
"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name." 1 Cor 1:14-15

Baptism just isn't that essential to evangelism.

1 Cor 1:17 is a not-but elliptical type statement where Paul put more emphasis on his preaching over his baptizing but not to the exclusion of baptizing. Paul did baptized 1 Cor 14,16 and he was under the great commission to go, teach and make disciples by baptizing. So the idea you have that Paul was not to baptize contradicts the fact he did baptize and was under the great commission. 1 Cor 1:12,13 Paul proves the necessity of baptism.

No, your entire thread is now inconsistent because you've asserted faith is obedience.

Faith is obedience, so when the bible says Abraham believed that means he had an obedient belief and not belief only.

Actually I just cited the verse which says GOD ONLY raises one up with Christ!!

This raising up occurs when one is baptized, Col 2:12; Rom 6:4. There is no verse that says one is raised up with Christ at the point of faith only.

I didn't toss faith into the mix. But now I will. It's the response of a new born child of God, as Ep 2 says.

And the new birth occurs when one has been water baptized for no verse says the new birth takes place at faith only.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Oh, you don't like that part sight of Paul? You would propose to do what then? Discount Paul's statements of fact because it doesn't suit your obvious gaffe in understandings? Eliminate 1 Cor. 13 on that contrived basis?

Let's just face the truth that Paul saw in part and was saved anyway.

Hey, you know what I really love about Paul? He was honest and truthful about the facts of his own condition. A very rare quality today. Very hard to find such believers.

Here is again what Paul had to say about the conditions of our planting:

1 Cor. 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body

Do the Words of Jesus regarding being poor, wretched, pitiful, blind and naked connect to the above? Uh, yeah. These conditions remain a fact for every believer in a natural flesh body, soon to turn to dust.


And one might see that being truthful is freedom even if it is partially sighted.

There is no cause to lie past the obvious.



A believer who says they see everything perfectly is a marked fibber who is being gamed by the adversary and are a warning to others to stay away from such.

There is an immense working of spiritual forms of megalomania that comes upon many who pick up Gods Words and think they know it all and have it all yet can't even see where they are.

If you don't know you don't know, you don't know.

s

There's nothing contrived, it is an obvious fact that at the time of 1 Cor 13 the entire NT had not been revealed, the bible was still in the process of being revealed at that time.


Jesus did say one can know the truth and Paul told the Ephesians they could understand when they read his epistles.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Then IMO E, you do not understand what the church of God actually is.

Because it's certainly not exclusive to your assembly of believers..

This is religious fanaticism at it best.

Jesus established only one chruch, that is what the bible teaches, if you believe where I attend is not that one church that is your opinion. But your opinion does not undo the biblical fact that Jesus esatablish only ONE church. He never established hundreds or thousands of religious groups that contradict each other in what they believe. Again, Jesus said God word is truth and truth does not contradict itself like all these religious groups do so that is proof enough for me that all these groups do not have the truth.

If Christianity were truly made up of thousands of groups that contradict each other, then Chrsitianity would be a contradictory, hyproctical joke with no credibility and I would not waste any of my time on any of it.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

So you're telling us that you have absolute perfect understanding in all these portions of scripture which are living and powerful and intimately connected to every other portion of scripture..

Have you exhausted the word of God so that there is nothing else to be gleaned or understood..? Perhaps you believe that you have already attained to the fullness of the stature of Christ.. And have the perfect mind of Christ in these matters..

It's remarkable to me that people (especially a professing Christian) can actually believe that..

I never said I have absolute perfect knowledge. What the bible says and what I have said is that one can know the truth, one can understand what the bible says. If one desires to become a Christian one can read the bible and understand and know what it takes to become a Christian. I do know that Christianity is not a free-for-all where people can believe what ever they chose to believe and all be correct.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Let's cut to the chase: Can obedience earn salvation? No, but I would not recommend disobedience.

Obedience does not earn savlation. So any argument that says obeying the gospel by believing, repenting, confessing with the mouth and being water baptized is earning salvation is a false argument.

 

[Eventide]

Jesus established only one chruch, that is what the bible teaches, if you believe where I attend is not that one church that is your opinion. But your opinion does not undo the biblical fact that Jesus esatablish only ONE church.

I absolutely do believe that there is only one church of God, not many.

I'd be interested in hearing what this one true church is though that you're talking about... And Im sure others would also.. If it truly is Christ's one true church.

So what is it ?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I absolutely do believe that there is only one church of God, not many.

I'd be interested in hearing what this one true church is though that you're talking about... And Im sure others would also.. If it truly is Christ's one true church.

So what is it ?

It began at Pentecost in Acts 2 and you can read about it from there.

 

[Webb]

And, yes, Bass is right. You can read of that church by simply reading the NT. A certain denomination once asked us for our "creed book" that they might put it in their library along with the creed books of other churches. We simply sent a copyof the New Testament. "The Bible only makes Christians only."

 

[Eventide]

It began at Pentecost in Acts 2 and you can read about it from there.

Yes, I know it well and am a part of that same body.

 

[heymikey80]

Jesus saves those that obey Him. His death on the cross did not save certain people uncondtionally.

It would be a really good idea not to rhetorically change the statement from the other side. It is that Jesus' sacrifice will save specific people unquestionably, bot based on what they do.

Reliance without obedience will not save.

Okay, so now reliance isn't obedience? Last posting your statement was, "rely = obey.". Which is it?

Again God will have vengeacne upon those that obey not.

And you've said, obedience follows, so you're saying faith causes obedience. I get that. The problem there is that obedience is what follows from faith, given more conditions of corruption being redeemed, of hindrances being removed. But there's no bar where obedience "kicks in". Faith brings salvation. Faith brings submission. Submission, given God's redeeming work in us, does result in works. But it's not the works that are required to receive salvation. It's the faith.

And so once again it happens exactly as Scripture says: faith saves. Works inevitably follow where there is faith. Salvation is "not of works" (Eph 2:9) and "apart from works" (Rom 4:6). The righteous one "does not work but believes" (Rom 4:5) in order to receive righteousness.

I use obedient faith to contrast it from faith only. Unfortunately when some read Rom 4:5 where it says "worketh not, but believeth" they add the world "only" behind the word believeth. So I said obedient belief because that is what Abraham had and not belief only.

Paul said "doesn't work but believes" (4:5). You assert this is, "believes and works". That's a contradiction of Paul's statement. It's not what Paul said, it's not what he meant. In fact Paul says it twice, also at "righteousness apart from works" (4:6). Righteousness is separated from works, according to Paul.

When you substitute "works of law" into Romans 4:1-6 the contradiction is obvious. Paul's argument is not sensible, it's not persuasive. Abraham never saw the law of Moses, 430 years later. David is clearly talking about sins being forgiven through faith, not about works + faith. It just breaks up a clear argument Paul states. When someone works, they expect a reward. But that's not how salvation happens to Abraham. That's what Paul says.

Now, you're expanding into other threads to talk about election, baptism being faith and saving us (so ... Jesus is baptism? the logic doesn't hold), none of which I'd agree with. But let's not derail our own thread. Your thread is about obedience. And it's simply not resolvable with what Paul said.

 

[Asyncritus]

Two major passages here are:

The first gives the perfect balance between faith and works:

1 Ephesians 2.8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

In other words, salvation is by faith in Christ Jesus, not by the works of the Law.

But that's not all:

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Interestingly, Rev 20 has this to say:

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 [...] and they were judged every man according to their works.

Note that at least 3 books are opened.

First observe that the BOOKS, plural, are NOT the book of Life which is described as "another Book ..."

Therefore, anyone whose name is in the BOOKS, plural, is dead.
Why?
Because they are judged ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS.

Those are the people who believe that their works will save them.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The book of life is the LAMB'S book of life:
Revelation 21:27[...]but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

These in the Lamb's Book of Life, belong to the Lamb -who ARE GIVEN salvation:"[...] but the GIFT of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So I conclude that entry into the Lamb's book of Life is not by works. Therefore, it must be by Faith, by Grace as Eph 2 says.

And the faith must be accompanied by the 'good works' which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hebrews 6 tells us what those works are, and note that they ACCOMPANY salvation:9 ¶ But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany (belong to, are attached to) salvation, though we thus speak.

10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

 

[dadof10]

No ambiguity? You 'might' be saved then. Or you might not.

That is the definition of ambiguity in a nutshell.

To the question "do you know for sure you are saved", my only answer was "no". I was asked again if I was satisfied with my answer, to which I responded "yes". There is absolutely no ambiguity in those answers. I think the problem is you DO get it, you just have no answer for it.

am·big·u·ous

   [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA
adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal:an ambiguous answer.

2. Linguistics . (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.

3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.

4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

Again, you are wrong. A "yes" or a "no" answer to a yes-or-no question can't be ambiguous.

To such views I like to say, show me how you might not be saved.

Make a convincing argument that you might not be.

Sometimes believers realize what they are trying to do to 'themselves' in that process.

I don't need to make the case that I might not be saved, Paul makes it for me.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1Cor. 1:18)

"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Cor. 2:15-16)

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12)

"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

As these verses prove, salvation is NOT assured, so, therefore can be lost. If salvation is a PROCESS, which these verses prove it is, this process can be frustrated.

One more:

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4)

Note, it is the Lord who judges him, not HIMSELF. Since my judgment BY GOD has not yet happened, I can only hope and obey. If you are JUDGING YOURSELF to be "saved" (e.g. assured of Heaven upon death), you are acting presumptuously.

 

[smaller]

am·big·u·ous

   [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA
adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal:an ambiguous answer.

2. Linguistics . (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.

3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.

4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.

Again, you are wrong. A "yes" or a "no" answer to a yes-or-no question can't be ambiguous.






I don't need to make the case that I might not be saved, Paul makes it for me.

"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1Cor. 1:18)

"For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, 16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life." (2 Cor. 2:15-16)

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12)

"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).

As these verses prove, salvation is NOT assured, so, therefore can be lost. If salvation is a PROCESS, which these verses prove it is, this process can be frustrated.

One more:

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified [Gk., dedikaiomai]. It is the Lord who judges me" (1 Cor. 4:4)

Note, it is the Lord who judges him, not HIMSELF. Since my judgment BY GOD has not yet happened, I can only hope and obey. If you are JUDGING YOURSELF to be "saved" (e.g. assured of Heaven upon death), you are acting presumptuously.

I understand what your sect teaches. You are not saved and can not say you are. Only that you might have a chance at it or at most optimistic slant, a reasonable assurance of some type.

Maybe faith at best. Perhaps even iffy.

Proof texting will yield many different views.

s