Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

I see no evidence at all that this has been established. In which posts do you believe this has been established (I confess I have no read everything you (and others) have written.

Did God command the Jewish people do evil works?

 

[heymikey80]

There is a connection. Please honour the detials of the text. Paul uses the word "therefore" in verse 11. This clearly establishes that the paragraph beginning at verse 11 is indeed some sort of elaboration of the implications of Eph 2:8-10.

Which it is. It is about the unity of Gentiles and Jews in Christ, as a result of their salvation, not of works.

I'm not arguing against the "therefore". I'm arguing that your inference that the "therefore" is about the Law, is not the case.

 

[Drew]

So if we took your application of the meaning of the term "works", we would get:

"... not from works-of-law, that no man should boast. or we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works-of-law, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Eph 2:9-10

I can understand why you would think this, but my position does not lead to such a reading.

I would agree that "good works" are in view in verse 10, not works of the Law of Moses. Are you going to argue that Paul simply cannot, by some mysterious law of grammar, talk about "works of the Law of Moses" in one sentence, and then speak about the general category of "good works" in the next? Anyway, I suggest that what Paul is saying is effectively this:

For it is by grace you (the Gentile at Ephesus) have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by the works of Law of Moses that only the Jew can do, so that no one who does these works of the Law of Moses, that is no Jew, can boast. 10 For we (both Jew and Gentile) are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I will anticipate a number of objections:

1. I have "added" to what the text says. Guilty. But this is not a problem. No one sentence (or couplet of sentences) ever stands on its own. I am prepared to defend each "addition" I have made by reference to the broader New Testament picture;

2. As a particular problem, I have inserted "Jew" for "no one" in the "no one can boast" statement. This is a challenge I am eager to face. I will argue that in Romans 3, Paul agains speaks about some unspecified person "boasting" and in Romans 3, it is clear beyond all doubt that such a person is indeed a Jew.

Again: What is your explanation for this statement from Paul:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I am going to keep asking. If you have already addressed this elsewhere, please identify the thread / post.

 

[Drew]

Which it is. It is about the unity of Gentiles and Jews in Christ, as a result of their salvation, not of works.

I'm not arguing against the "therefore". I'm arguing that your inference that the "therefore" is about the Law, is not the case.

Really, how can it not be the Law of Moses?

What, other than the Law of Moses is being referred to here:

...by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations

Paul is talking a codified law in the very context of a discussion of the Jew-Gentile distinction. What law could this be, other than the one law that sets the Jew apart from the Gentile - the Law of Moses?

 

[Drew]

Did God command the Jewish people do evil works?

No. But you are not addressing my question, which I will repeat: where (post number please) has it been established that "works of law" are "good works"?

 

[heymikey80]

Did God command the Jewish people do evil works?

No. But you are not addressing my question, which I will repeat: where (post number please) has it been established that "works of law" are "good works"?

You've agreed works of law are not evil. That means they're good. So they must be good works.

You said this at #262. I said it rhetorically at #270. And I'm saying it again.

 

[heymikey80]

I can understand why you would think this, but my position does not lead to such a reading.

Oh, no doubt. I'm simply saying that I could apply your argument the exact same way to "works" in Eph 2:10, as you are applying it to "works" in Eph 2:9.

There's nothing prohibiting it.

I would agree that "good works" are in view in verse 10, not works of the Law of Moses. Are you going to argue that Paul simply cannot, by some mysterious law of grammar, talk about "works of the Law of Moses" in one sentence, and then speak about the general category of "good works" in the next?

No. Once more, with feeling: "works" 2:9 does not refer to Mosaic Law in the first place. It refers to "works", which as everyone since the 400's BC knows is working for a benefit.

The grammar of the passage says flat-out the distinction between 2:9 and 2:10 -- "saved ... not from works ... for good works". Works: not a cause: a result.

 

[heymikey80]

Anyway, I suggest that what Paul is saying is effectively this:

For it is by grace you (the Gentile at Ephesus) have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by the works of Law of Moses that only the Jew can do, so that no one who does these works of the Law of Moses, that is no Jew, can boast. 10 For we (both Jew and Gentile) are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

I will anticipate a number of objections:

1. I have "added" to what the text says. Guilty. But this is not a problem. No one sentence (or couplet of sentences) ever stands on its own. I am prepared to defend each "addition" I have made by reference to the broader New Testament picture;

2. As a particular problem, I have inserted "Jew" for "no one" in the "no one can boast" statement. This is a challenge I am eager to face. I will argue that in Romans 3, Paul agains speaks about some unspecified person "boasting" and in Romans 3, it is clear beyond all doubt that such a person is indeed a Jew.

You're gonna hafta inject all that stuff into a verse that doesn't say the first thing about Moses, or the Law. And I don't have to inject some special meaning for the word "works". The problem isn't that you're dragging it from another statement in the letter. The problem is that there's a much better explanation from within the letter, completely drawn from the letter's context, and clearly directed at the audience -- without rewriting the letter, "Here Paul, here's what you should've said."

As for objection 2 -- the text of Romans 3 doesn't appear in Ephesians 2. That's a far higher mark to meet, to resolve them against one another. And you're trying to prove something in Romans 3 that you haven't proved in Ephesians 2. At what point do we stop this and you actually prove something? It takes a citation that can't be properly understood, in context, another way.

Again: What is your explanation for this statement from Paul:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

I am going to keep asking. If you have already addressed this elsewhere, please identify the thread / post.

To close the door to works. God's repayment for our works is consistently, "GUILTY OF SIN".

And yes, I've addressed this at #280.

Romans 3:9 states that "we have already said that both Jew and Gentile are under sin."

Romans 2:12 states that "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law."

Now, you were saying salvation is by works ... but everyone has sinned. And any one sin is condemning, how can doing works help?

 

[heymikey80]

Which it is. It is about the unity of Gentiles and Jews in Christ, as a result of their salvation, not of works.

I'm not arguing against the "therefore". I'm arguing that your inference that the "therefore" is about the Law, is not the case.

Really, how can it not be the Law of Moses?

What, other than the Law of Moses is being referred to here:

...by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations

Paul is talking a codified law in the very context of a discussion of the Jew-Gentile distinction. What law could this be, other than the one law that sets the Jew apart from the Gentile - the Law of Moses?

That verse you mention is at Eph 2:14. The "therefore" is at the start of Eph 2:11. You're asserting that 2:14 "law" is linked to "works" at Eph 2:8 through "therefore" at Eph 2:11.

I'm saying "therefore" isn't connecting works. It's progressing from the Gentiles described in Eph 2:1-10 to unify them with the Jewish people they're separated from at Eph 2:11-12.

Why I would assent that "law" connects "works" simply because "therefore" is between them ... is anyone's guess. Would I connect "Jesus" with "sin" for the same reason?

 

[Drew]

You've agreed works of law are not evil. That means they're good. So they must be good works

No. The Law of Moses is a specific code. The fact that it contains some prescriptions that clearly constitute good works does not, on that basis, make it identical to the more general category of "good works'.

Your argument is like this one:

1. View to be challenged: Fred denies justification by 'works of the US constitution";

2. The works of the US constitution are not evil;

3. Therefore Fred is denying justification by "good works".

This argument is not valid. The category "good works' is broader than the category "the works of the US constitution", even though the former contains the latter.

This fact - that the works of the Law of Moses are all (arguably) 'good works' does not make it identical to the category of good works!

I will return to this later. Its a bit tricky, but I am convinced my position is immune to your argument.

 

[heymikey80]

No. The Law of Moses is a specific code. The fact that it contains some prescriptions that clearly constitute good works does not, on that basis, make it identical to the more general category of "good works'.

Your argument is like this one:

1. View to be challenged: Fred denies justification by 'works of the US constitution";

2. The works of the US constitution are not evil;

3. Therefore Fred is denying justification by "good works".

This argument is not valid. The category "good works' is broader than the category "the works of the US constitution", even though the former contains the latter.

This fact - that the works of the Law of Moses are all (arguably) 'good works' does not make it identical to the category of good works!

I will return to this later. Its a bit tricky, but I am convinced my position is immune to your argument.

1. But as I've reiterated numerous times, "works" is a broader, not a narrower, group of works than "good works".

That's why the issue is the exact reverse of the problem you're describing, in Eph 2:8-10.

The category "works" is broader than the category "good works", even though the former contains the latter.

2. But let's address your particular objection: that Moses is a specific code of good works, and Paul is objecting to the specificity of the code.

Does God want a vague code? Is that what all this is about -- that Judaism would be good enough on its own, but Paul is rejecting it because there are other codes coequal with the Law of Moses, from Mount Sinai, from the Mouth of God, the Hand of God?

Why then would God have specified a specific code to the Jewish People? If God wanted a vague code, wouldn't that have been ... wrong?

If God wanted a different code -- Why then would God have specified the wrong code to the Jewish People? If God wanted a different code, wouldn't that have been ... wrong?

You begin to see how none of these answers actually sufficiently answers the objection.

3. In point of fact Scripture says this law is more holy and spiritual and righteous than any others. So we're at the top of the representation of "good works" -- the very best that we can describe. It's also exactly what God wanted to tell us about righteousness.

And you're saying that's not enough?

 

[Drew]

You've agreed works of law are not evil. That means they're good. So they must be good works.

Here is an argument:

1. Paul wants to identify Jews as a group;

2. The Law of Moses was given to Jews only and functioned as an ethnic demarcator for them;

3. The term “works†does not, by the very meaning of the term, necessarily denote “good worksâ€. It could, as just one example, denote the works of the Law of Moses;

4. Therefore, it is plausible that Paul can use the concept of “those who do works†as a way to identify Jews. This is true even though it may indeed be the case that the Law of Moses contains prescriptions for doing good works. Therefore, one cannot (legitimately) simply assert that “doing works†must mean “doing good works†in all cases.

Some further remarks:

Point of Method # 1: One must not beg the very question at issue by presuming what the term ‘works’ means. I am not begging the question, precisely because all I have done is establish the plausibility that ‘works’ can, in some settings, denote the works the Law of Moses.

Point of Method # 2: One must not, again, beg the question by presuming that the concept of “those who do works†cannot be used as an ethnic identifier. When history shows that some set of codified laws clearly functioned to mark out one group as distinct from another, it is at least plausible that when an author refers to “those who do worksâ€, that author could be intending to identify all those people that fall under the jurisdiction of that law (and not to those who do good works). This possibility is strengthened by two considerations: (1) In first century Palestinian, almost all Jews followed the prescriptions of the Law of Moses, at least to some degree; (2) Many of the practices of the Law of Moses were so unusual and so “public†(e.g. food laws, the temple, festivals) that it would be inevitable that following the Law of Moses was almost equivalent to saying “I am a Jewâ€. This point is strengthened by the fact that God Himself (in Leviticus) tells the Jews that they are to obey the Law of Moses precisely because “I have set you apart from the nations to be mineâ€. And we also know that many of the ‘works’ of the Law of Moses functioned to set the Jews visibly apart from the Gentile (the festivals, the food laws, etc.).

 

[Drew]

I haven't added "good" or anything else to "works". It's simply works.

Here's the problem: next sentence Paul does say where "good works" is placed -- it's the result of new creation -- not its cause.

To place "good works" ahead of salvation places "good works" exactly where Paul has removed it, and all other works.

Begs the question. This argument only works if you assume that "works" = 'good works' in verse 9.

You need to show how the text cannot be read as follows (without, of course, simply presuming that "works' in verse 9 must be good works):

For by grace you (the Gentile at Ephesus) have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of doing the works of the Law of Moses, so that no Jew may boast that you, the Gentile at Ephesus, cannot be saved (since you, as a non-Jew, cannot do the Law of Moses). 10 For we (both you the Gentile at Ephesus and me, Paul, the Jew) are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Again, I challenge you to show how such a reading does not work without, of course, begging the question by presuming that the "works" in verse 9 (which I will remind you yet again is not qualified by the word "good") denotes "good works".

 

[Drew]

The fair-minded reader needs to ask which of the following views makes more sense given both the local context and the broader context of the whole letter:

1. The salvific power of doing good works is being denied;

2. The salvific power of doing the works of the Law of Moses is being denied.

False dichotomy.

3. The salvific power of doing any works is being denied.

Paul is explicitly, in so many words, saying the salvific power of doing any works is a zero. That is, work for salvation is itself repudiated.

Good works from salvation is explicitly, flatly embraced at 2:10.

It is not a false dichotomy. I do not see your argument. Clearly, it would beg the question to simply assert that 'works' must mean "good works" in verse 9 when it (obviously) could mean 'works of the Law of Moses", at least until the broader context is examined.

I do not understand what you are saying about verse 10. Are you sure you did make a typo. Either way, what Paul says in verse 10 in no way rules out the conclusion that verse 9 is a reference to the Law of Moses. As per a very recent post, you would have to explain, in a non-question-begging fashion of course, why the following reading cannot be correct:

For by grace you (the Gentile at Ephesus) have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of doing the works of the Law of Moses, so that no Jew may boast that you, the Gentile at Ephesus, cannot be saved (since you, as a non-Jew, cannot do the Law of Moses). 10 For we (both you the Gentile at Ephesus and me, Paul, the Jew) are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

 

[Drew]

Of course the problem here is that Ephesians 2:11 follows Ephesians 2:8-10.

Of course.

Paul isn't talking about law first; he's talking about works first.

Why is that problematic to my position? I am saying that the shape of Paul's argument is:

1. No one is saved by doing the works of the Law of Moses (Eph 2:9)
2. Therefore, God has brought Jew and Gentile together into one family, not least by abolishing the very law, the doing of whose works would otherwise lead the Jew to think that He is entitled to salvation to the exclusion of the Gentile.

At Eph 2:8-10 Paul also isn't talking to Jews alone. He's talking to Gentiles (cf 2:1). And he's not talking about law at all. He's talking about works.

This obviously begs the question. Please try to stop doing this. You need to make a case that "works" is not a way of referring to the work (practices) of the Law of Moses.

In point of fact we're having to inject the "works-of-law" argument into 2:11ff instead of the differences Paul describes: circumcision, citizenship in Israel, foreigners to covenant promises, without hope in the world.

But surely you understand that doing the practices of the Law of Moses functions to say to the world "I am a Jew, heir to the promises of the covenant". Equally, doing the works of the Law of Moses function as a clear badge of citizenship in the nation of Israel. Do you deny this? Now about circumcision. True, circumcision is not part of the Law of Moses. But even the reference to circumcision strengthens my case precisely because it adds evidence to the already substantial pile of evidence to the effect that what is on Paul's mind is not "whether any human being can be saved by doing good works", but rather "salvation is not limited to Jews". If anyone can read verses 11 and following and say this is not a focused treatment of how Gentiles are to be understand themselves as equal members of God's covenant family as Jews, well I would have to question that person's judgement.

 

[dadof10]

I am not aware that scriptures present maybe salvation to believers.

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. (1Cor. 15:1-2)

Notice it doesn't say "then you were never really saved". Paul is obviously writing to SAVED people. He says so right in the text. So, you are saved IF, and you are not saved IF NOT. Sounds like your definition of "maybe" to me.

"And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Col. 1:21-23)

You must "continue in the faith" or you will not be "reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him".

"Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, 6 but Christ was faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope." (Heb. 3:5-6)

The author of Hebrews is saved, right? So, WE must "hold fast" or we will cease to be "his house".

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire." (2Pt. 2:20-22)

Now, is it possible for a person who has "known the way of righteousness" to "turn back"? It is obvious it's possible because Peter says "It has happened to them..."

There are others, but this should be enough.

As noted prior there are exactly zero scriptures showing a single believer being eternally lost. Zero.

"By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Tim. 1:19-20)

Here are two NAMED BELIEVERS ("made a shipwreck of their faith") who have been "delivered to Satan". Are these named believers saved? Not until they repented from their "blasphemy". There is also Judas, who you don't accept. I know the arguments that say "he was never REALLY saved", but these are so lame as to be comical.

This is really beside the point. Every doctrine that is taught in Scripture doesn't need a named example to be True. This is simply ridiculous. Scripture (or any teaching tool), can teach without saying "and here is a real life example".

What you think you see isn't even there to see.
If what you think you see is true why would Paul not judge himself? Don't you see the frailty of that view?

No, I don't. He says he doesn't judge himself. Why don't you believe him?

There is no doubt that any believer can be taken by our mutual adversary back to blindness. This doesn't mean such warriors of faith were/are/will be eternally abandoned by God in Christ. Were there a single named given example of otherwise you'd have a point.

No one is "abandoned by Christ", This is a common straw-man used by the "presumptuous" crowd. WE abandon Christ through sin, He doesn't abandon us.

Obviously such topic matters from scripture presentations have been in play for quite awhile.
Maybe salvation is an idea set that your sect has taken and continues to teach. It's the idea, not the unit. Nothing personal. I don't think any less of them for their ideas.

???

Of course you do. I've always gotten a kick out of people who believe they may be lost at any given point in time. They never believe it for themselves at any point in time. Their idea is only put upon others.

Please...You can stop the mis-characterization of my view at any time. If you can make my view sound arrogant, all the better for your weak argument. ALL baptized people are SAVED, both Catholic and Protestant, BUT (here it comes again), WE CAN ALL LOSE OUR SALVATION THROUGH SIN. Please try to deal with this view and stop kicking the straw man.

But the reality is if your salvation by your own view can be no more than a maybe it can also be a maybe not at any given point in time. Perhaps even now.

Correct, I never claimed otherwise. This is why all the verses stressing PERSEVERANCE.

Simple logic dictates that if you can not say you are saved or that you may be lost, that you may in fact be lost as we speak.

You are missing the point. I am not my JUDGE, God is. You are taking the presumptuous position of judging yourself as "saved" because you have think you "have faith". Paul says point blank that he does not judge himself, God does. I think I am in pretty good company.

You can't really say you are factually saved by your own statements. Only that you might be.

Right, neither Paul nor I am lulling ourselves into a false state of eternal security. We are both "working out" our salvation in the hope of the promises of Christ. We are hoping that our merciful Judge will hold "nothing against" us when we humbly come before Him.

If you are an aficionado of Word, then you certainly know there is quite an extensive scripture set for eternal security.

LOL...No. There is no GUARANTEE of salvation in Scripture.

Paul certainly did not pin his justification upon himself.
Romans 3:24
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

This is your response to this verse? "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)

Of course he didn't "pin his justification on himself", he pinned it on GOD Who is his Judge. That's my point. He says simply and straightforwardly that he is not his judge, so, even though he has nothing on his conscience, he is not thereby justified because HE IS NOT HIS OWN JUDGE. He is MAYBE saved, because he in not presuming on his own judgment. Your exegesis leaves a lot to be desired.

I don't doubt that believers can be influenced to potentially doubt their salvation by our mutual adversary in this present life. In those who see that way, I do not say it is them alone in that view.

I do not see their imposed doubt as able to eternally fumble them as it is not a question of themselves alone. There are influences on believers that are not them and there is also the working of God in Christ. The latter will ultimately prevail for them.

Where is the "named believer" who is being influenced by "our mutual adversary" and Jesus, the latter eventually winning out?

Well, one might think that in order to cast a believer 'eternally' aside there might be at least one example?

And one might think there would be an example of a named person who has the "adversary" on one shoulder and Jesus on the other, but there is not, is there?

Those verses do not prove what you claim whatsoever. You infer that a person who falls in blindness is eternally lost. The scriptures do not make that case and also require other scriptures such as the few I cited above to be eliminated or reworded to suit what you think you see, but really isn't there at all.

Let's go over the few you cited in context and see if they prove "eternal security.

Hebrews 13:5
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Here is the context:

"Let brotherly love continue. 2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. 3 Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them; and those who are ill-treated, since you also are in the body. 4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous. 5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, "I will never fail you nor forsake you." 6 Hence we can confidently say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?" 7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. (Heb. 13:1-8)

This is an obvious reference to being content with your earthly possessions because "God will never forsake you", he will take care of your needs. This can't be logically stretched to mean "You will be saved eternally".

Romans 8:
38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; 34 who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:31-39)

Here Paul is encouraging those who are, or might be persecuted for the Lord. Even if everything and everyone is against them, God will still love them. This is concerning perseverance in the face of torture and death. Again, NOWHERE does this verse make the case that a believer can't lose his salvation.

Believers down to the last one reflect what they think they see in scripture. They are reflections ONLY of their own hearts and certainly not reflections PERFECT.

Often those reflections vary.

So, are your "reflections" open to subjectivity? Could you be wrong in your interpretation? Could you be wrong in your subjective JUDGEMENT on whether you are saved? Humm....If the answer is "yes", can you really have a 100% assurance of salvation? Or is it that you view EVERYONE ELSES "reflections" as "not PERFECT", but your reflections are perfect? After all, if there is even one little doubt in your mind, you go from an assurance to "maybe". Welcome to the club.

For every scripture set that presents fallen salvation, it pertains to their present state not their eternal state. There is an equally compelling scripture set to reflect and to show otherwise on the eternal scale as well.

No there is not. The verses you posted, and others, don't claim 100% assurance or a guarantee of salvation. It's simply not there.

So in the final analysis, all presently having imperfect reflections, some imperfect reflections will have less light and will have some doubts.

Nothing personal.

Do you fit into this mold with the rest of us, or are your reflections "perfect"?

 

[smaller]

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. (1Cor. 15:1-2)

Notice it doesn't say "then you were never really saved". Paul is obviously writing to SAVED people. He says so right in the text. So, you are saved IF, and you are not saved IF NOT. Sounds like your definition of "maybe" to me.

Believing God in Christ maybe won't save a believer is probably pretty close to vain, and potentially unbelief. People obviously read the same words and come to believe entirely different conclusions.

"And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister." (Col. 1:21-23)

You must "continue in the faith" or you will not be "reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him".

Same thing as prior. A person can certainly fall in this present life back into unbelief. I don't deny that many fall victim to our mutual adversaries into same. That does not automatically equate to God in Christ abandoning them. We've covered this prior at length.

"Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, 6 but Christ was faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope." (Heb. 3:5-6)

The author of Hebrews is saved, right? So, WE must "hold fast" or we will cease to be "his house".

Same as prior. We can both read for example that many of Israel fell into unbelief. Romans 11:25-32 says they shall be saved anyway, even enemies of the Gospel.

"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire." (2Pt. 2:20-22)

Now, is it possible for a person who has "known the way of righteousness" to "turn back"? It is obvious it's possible because Peter says "It has happened to them..."

It's the same principle. Believers fall in this present life. Doesn't mean God in Christ abandons them.

There are others, but this should be enough.

What you see is merely a limited reflection on the matters. Above there is a scripture set showing how Israel fell in unbelief, yet are saved anyway. Not seeing the fact of it is a form of unbelief in the readers. It can be right there in print and some still can't believe it? Why? They too suffer in unbelief of that particular matter. Will God in Christ save them? Yes according to Paul

"By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among them Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1Tim. 1:19-20)

Here are two NAMED BELIEVERS ("made a shipwreck of their faith") who have been "delivered to Satan". Are these named believers saved? Not until they repented from their "blasphemy". There is also Judas, who you don't accept. I know the arguments that say "he was never REALLY saved", but these are so lame as to be comical.

Stated multiple times now. We have mutual adversaries of our faith and believers encountering same can certainly fall in unbelief in this present life. This does not equate to them not being saved. There is exactly zero statements showing any of the above NOT being saved. Only that they fell into unbelief in this present life.

Judas is a great example. Satan entered Judas. Should we view Judas alone then or should we rightfully see Judas and Satan in the same lump of flesh? Some just can't see the factual state of Judas and see only Judas. That too is a form of spiritual blindness. It can be shown in black and white that such are taken by our mutual adversary, but readers still can't see the fact of it.

If a lion ate your baby would you blame the baby or just see the baby rather than the baby in the belly of the lion? No. There is another adverse power at play in these matters. And there is A Greater Power who is able to save them anyway.

This is really beside the point. Every doctrine that is taught in Scripture doesn't need a named example to be True.

That's what your sect teaches you, that you can believe matters that are outright contrary to scriptures because 'they say so.'

Not every believer is going to get sucked into those dead end angles and will prefer scripture presentations. Your particular sect has a plethora of things I can't accept because they don't exist in the text. Too many for me to recount in brief. Yet many buy those positions. Your sect claims that if a person doesn't buy every one of their solely determined positions they are potentially damned. I don't buy that either.

This is simply ridiculous. Scripture (or any teaching tool), can teach without saying "and here is a real life example".

The fact is there is not one single named example of what you present. Not a one showing a believer who falls victim to our mutual adversary to be abandoned by God in Christ. And there are many scriptures showing an exactly opposite position, that God in Christ never ever abandons them. Your belief as stated prior effectively requests others to NOT believe outright statements of scripture. It is in effect a request, even a demand to NOT believe.

No, I don't. He says he doesn't judge himself. Why don't you believe him?

If his salvation was hinged on him doing as you think above why wouldn't he judge himself??? That might seem rather critical. That was my statement prior.

No one is "abandoned by Christ", This is a common straw-man used by the "presumptuous" crowd. WE abandon Christ through sin, He doesn't abandon us.
???

Well thank you for acknowledging the obvious.

Your claim is that people abandon God in Christ. My sight is that they are taken in unbelief, victims of the god of this world who blinds their minds. Christ never abandoned them and there is more than just the person in that equation.

Ultimately your sect potentially damns you for every sin in thought, word and deed that you do unless you yourself incorporate certain rituals and exercises of incantations. I don't buy that entire package. Christ's sacrifice was entirely sufficient on the issue of sin. The only factor is a believers recognition of that fact and reconciling themselves to the matter in belief.

Please...You can stop the mis-characterization of my view at any time. If you can make my view sound arrogant, all the better for your weak argument. ALL baptized people are SAVED, both Catholic and Protestant, BUT (here it comes again), WE CAN ALL LOSE OUR SALVATION THROUGH SIN. Please try to deal with this view and stop kicking the straw man.

God in Christ saves sinners. And not on the basis of rituals and incantations, but by His Action and Power. I'm not into substitute methodologies.

Correct, I never claimed otherwise. This is why all the verses stressing PERSEVERANCE.

I am not in the 'those who don't persevere fall' camp. Yes, they fall in this present life. They will be saved anyway if they have called upon God in Christ to save them. God in Christ is faithful to His Promises. People, not so much. And it is because there are other powers in play that people fall. God in Christ will show His Own Superiority to any such powers.

You are missing the point. I am not my JUDGE, God is. You are taking the presumptuous position of judging yourself as "saved" because you have think you "have faith". Paul says point blank that he does not judge himself, God does. I think I am in pretty good company.

Your position is what I might term the faith of continual vacillation. You might have it at any given moment, you might not. Depends on any given moment that you might think or not. It's entirely based your sole constructed performances, or not. Your sect also says that unbelievers with sufficient performances can also be saved. That is one area where I agree with them.

So you see even in your sect unbelievers can be saved.

Right, neither Paul nor I am lulling ourselves into a false state of eternal security. We are both "working out" our salvation in the hope of the promises of Christ. We are hoping that our merciful Judge will hold "nothing against" us when we humbly come before Him.

You merely and again hinge that matter on your performance. Humbly coming before God in Christ for any of us comes with the fact that we all have an evil conscience. That fact is not eliminated by 'humbly coming before Him.'

LOL...No. There is no GUARANTEE of salvation in Scripture.

You only show you don't believe the scriptures showing otherwise, as prior shown. It can be put right in front of your face that those who call upon the Lord shall be saved. It's not a maybe. Yet you don't, even can't believe it though it's right there to see and accept. What can I say? It would appear to me to be a form of unbelief.

This is your response to this verse? "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)

As it pertains to sin many believers accept that the sin questions are settled. We have it, period. Christ does not count our sins against us who in faith accept His Sufficient Sacrifice on this matter and are reconciled to that fact. None of us make ourselves sinless after belief no matter how much ritualistic applications we apply. Therefore salvation in not hinged on this matter, but ON FAITH of His Sufficiency.

Fairly simple delineation of principle.

Of course he didn't "pin his justification on himself", he pinned it on GOD Who is his Judge. That's my point.

Of course. That is exactly the point. Paul's salvation was not a matter of his sufficient performances, but of that Performance of God in Christ and his Total and Complete Sufficiency. It's only a question of belief in faith of that fact.

He says simply and straightforwardly that he is not his judge, so, even though he has nothing on his conscience, he is not thereby justified because HE IS NOT HIS OWN JUDGE. He is MAYBE saved, because he in not presuming on his own judgment. Your exegesis leaves a lot to be desired.

You don't, even can't see the outright circular logical fallacy in your own statement. If his salvation was based on his performances WHY WOULDN'T HE JUDGE himSELF for his sufficiency? Why would Paul NOT judge himself? If you say it is God alone who judges is it then some mysterious measure that only God in Christ knows but has not disclosed?

A believer is justified on the basis of faith. Not on matters of sin. Exactly ZERO of us make ourselves 'sinless' post salvation. Zero of us.

When any Pope sits in the chair of St. Peter, supposedly infallible in his groups determinations, he sits there as a sinner along with everyone else in his group who came to their conclusions. It will remain entirely unlikely that any man or group of men can have 'infallible conclusions' seeing only in part, as sinners and as through dark glass.

A believer does themselves truthfully to apply a little common sense to their theology rather than buying every hook, line and sinker thrown out by others.

Where is the "named believer" who is being influenced by "our mutual adversary" and Jesus, the latter eventually winning out?

Go read Romans 11:25-32 and we'll see if you have any reading skills.

Will have to cut to the chase on this last count as the post is getting too long and the balance is just a rehash of the basic differentials we've already covered.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

Oh, no doubt. I'm simply saying that I could apply your argument the exact same way to "works" in Eph 2:10, as you are applying it to "works" in Eph 2:9.

There's nothing prohibiting it.

No. Its not the same thing at all. In verses 10 the word "good" appears! So it is clear that Paul is indeed talking about good works. In verse 9, the word 'works' is not qualified by any other descriptor. In the absence of such a qualifying descriptor, one obviously begs the question if one presumes either that 'works' = 'good works' or 'works = 'works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

No. Once more, with feeling: "works" 2:9 does not refer to Mosaic Law in the first place. It refers to "works", which as everyone since the 400's BC knows is working for a benefit.

This begs the question! A fundamental principle of sound argument is that you cannot simply assume the very thing you need to make case for. How, for instance, do you know that people (Jews, in particular) in 400 BC do not understand 'works' to denote the practices of the Law of Moses? In fact, it is clear that, in some places at least (such as Romans 3), Paul uses the term 'works' in connection to the practices of the Law of Moses.

Again: The word 'works' in verse 9 is not qualified. So, given that there is such a category as 'good works' and such a category as 'works of the Law of Moses, you cannot simply assume that term denotes either of these meanings.

The grammar of the passage says flat-out the distinction between 2:9 and 2:10 -- "saved ... not from works ... for good works". Works: not a cause: a result.

No. You appear to be arguing thus:

1. Paul says something about 'works' in verse 9;
2. Paul says something else about 'good works' in verse 10;
3. Therefore, Paul must be talking about good works in verse 9.

This is obviously incorrect, precisely because the following makes perfect sense, and exactly mirrors (structurally) what Paul has written:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works of the Law of Moses, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

All I have done is to posit that 'works' in verse 9 denotes 'works of the Law of Moses'. The result is an entirely coherent block of text, proving that the structure of the passage does not undermine the possibility that 'works' (in verse 9) really means 'works of the Law of Moses'.

Of course, neither does the structure of the passage undermine your position - that 'works' in verse 9 = 'good works'.

But the fact that Paul is talking about good works in verse 10 does not require us to conclude that he is talking about good works in verse 9.

 

[heymikey80]

No. Its not the same thing at all. In verses 10 the word "good" appears! So it is clear that Paul is indeed talking about good works. In verse 9, the word 'works' is not qualified by any other descriptor. In the absence of such a qualifying descriptor, one obviously begs the question if one presumes either that 'works' = 'good works' or 'works = 'works of the Law of Moses.

In the absence of a descriptor you're applying yours.

But in the presence of a descriptor you're omitting yours.

Ultimately, you're applying an eisegetical meaning for no particular reason -- except to accomplish your view.

Meanwhile, I'm not. I'm drawing on the very clear, very obvious, very pedestrian, common idea of what "works" means. The common readers and listeners wouldn't miss this fact. That's not begging the question. That's drawing from the historical context. That's exegesis.

You mentioned Romans 3 as a place where "works of law" is implied. I've pointed out before, there's no such reference there. There is indeed a very different expression -- "a law of works". That and Romans 9:30-32 point out very clearly, the broader category of objection is works, law results from it.

Another different issue would be whether a Christian convert from Judaism has to repudiate the Mosaic Law, specifically its works. Paul has it that the Christian must repudiate it as a way to salvation -- but not in any other sense. But in the modern Gentilizing view of Christianity, the Jew must be removed. This isn't born out by history, so I doubt it seriously as well. One can be a Jew who's a Christian, by embracing Paul's theology. One can also be a Gentile who's a Christian, by embracing Paul's theology. The result must unify Gentile and Jew, while allowing the identity of both to be retained. That's what Paul's theology does.