Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[heymikey80]

Is this really your argument? They didn't believe "X" so why should I?

They had a chance to question the writers themselves. You're saying you can defy people who certainly must've asked the question? I mean, they wrote afterwards as to exactly what the issue was.

"are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith" Clement of Rome.

Salvation is not of our works.

 

[heymikey80]

It is simply this: If, as I am asserting, verse 9 consists in a denial that works of the Law of Moses justify, then, clearly, it makes perfect sense to conclude, in the "therefore" passage that Jew and Gentile have been made one by the dissolution of the very thing that splits them into two camps - the Law of Moses which functioned to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile.

Now that does beg the question. the parallel: If, as I am asserting, verse 9 consists in a denial that any works justify, then, clearly, it makes perfect sense to conclude, in the "therefore" passage that Jew and Gentile have been made one by the dissolution of the very thing that splits them into two camps - the Law of Moses which functioned to distinguish the Jew from the Gentile.

Got it? Law never caused salvation. ("The Law made nothing perfect") Heb 7:19 So, the Law being the best of all good works, good works never caused salvation.

I am pretty sure you know this makes sense out of the entire block beginning at verse 8 and going on to the end of verse 19.

The problem, as I reiterate, is that there's no standing for interpreting it this way.

How could anyone deny that reading reading "works' as 'works of the Law of Moses' in verse 9, and reading "law" in verse 15 as "law of Moses" creates a single coherent argument out of the entire block of text? If you deny this, we are at an impasse since our discussion pushes me to try to defend the idea that it makes sense for an argument to be unified, self-consistent, and coherent. And how am I supposed to do that?

It again begs the question. Interpreting a word to mean something other than what it'd normally means, it needs support. And not support of the form, "When I use it it works." It needs support of the form, "Someone meant it this way at the time."

Again, and at the risk of conferring motive ungenerously, I can only conclude that your only option for preserving your position is to pre-emptively dismiss the possibilities I am raising. And we have no reason at all to be believe this is a legitimate move, your appeal to the early fathers notwithstanding.

No. It's been examined, and I've asked repeatedly for some kind of evidence that this has any indication Paul said that. Because he didn't say what you're saying. And that's the issue. In the absence of support, even a consistent hypothesis has to submit to the facts.

 

[Drew]

I've pointed out that in Eph 2:11ff Paul is saying that because they're saved through faith, not works, therefore they are joined into the family of God, from whom they've been excluded.

The problem is this: On my interpretation, the reason the Gentiles have been excluded is that they, of course, cannot do the works of the Law of Moses since they are not Jews.

Your position leaves the reader wondering "Why would a denial of salvation by good works imply that Gentiles are now in the family of God?" It is easy, by contrast, to see how a denial of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses pulls Gentiles into the family of God.

We know from Romans 3 that Paul does not believe that the Law of Moses makes the Jew any more capable of doing good works than the Gentile. If Paul had not made this clear, you could have argued "a denial of justification by good works means that the Gentile, who cannot do the good works the Jew is doing under the effectual guidance of the Law of Moses, is not at a disadvantage since justification is not based on good works. Therefore, the Gentile is as as much a candidate for God's grace as the Jew."

But, of course, you cannot make this argument, since Paul has taken that possibility off the table.

I cannot imagine how you are going to answer this question, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

[dadof10]

"For I am convinced that neither death nor life..." Rom 8:38. That's not someone else's life.

The rest is plainly in the verse: "will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Ok, it's a paraphrase, then? You put the entire sentence in blue, half was your paraphrase ("it's not possible that my life would separate me"...), the rest was part of the verse (..."from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord").

 

[heymikey80]

Ok, it's a paraphrase, then? You put the entire sentence in blue, half was your paraphrase ("it's not possible that my life would separate me"...), the rest was part of the verse (..."from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord").

Paraphrase?

It's an application of the statement to the one reading the statement, if you like.

The only interpretation was "my": that is, "my" is not present in the actual text.

Are you saying Paul's allusion to "life or death" is not alluding to the life or death of the person reading? If so, make your case. Otherwise the words are identical.

 

[Drew]

They had a chance to question the writers themselves. You're saying you can defy people who certainly must've asked the question?

??? How is this not question-begging speculation? Surely you realize that you cannot put much weight into an entirely unsupported assumption that the Early Fathers "got the inside information" from the writer of Ephesians as to what the intended sense of 'works' in verse 9 is. Where is there any evidence to support this assertion of a "question and answer" session between the Early Fathers and the author of Ephesians?

Surely, you must realize that your position amounts to (1) Asserting that we cannot challenge the conclusions of these Early Fathers; and / or (2) Assuming that that Early Fathers must have got an "inside scoop" to resolve this issue.

Is that a position you really want to own. Did the Early Fathers write inspired scripture? Why do you accord them so much authority?

Again, this has the feeling of a pre-emptive strike. Once the mere possibility that 'works' (v. 9) means works of the Law of Moses is allowed, the context argument greatly supports such a position.

 

[heymikey80]

The problem is this: On my interpretation, the reason the Gentiles have been excluded is that they, of course, cannot do the works of the Law of Moses since they are not Jews.

Your position leaves the reader wondering "Why would a denial of salvation by good works imply that Gentiles are now in the family of God?" It is easy, by contrast, to see how a denial of salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses pulls Gentiles into the family of God.

Of course it's the main verb -- the salvation of Gentiles -- that points to their rightful inclusion in God's family.

Not the absence of Law.

and in point of fact it is not as easy as you're saying, in your view. The appropriate question to ask would be, "If the law weren't ever a barrier to salvation, why would it be a barrier to inclusion in God's family?"

We know from Romans 3 that Paul does not believe that the Law of Moses makes the Jew any more capable of doing good works than the Gentile.

Thus the Law was never a greater barrier to salvation.

If Paul had not made this clear, you could have argued "a denial of justification by good works means that the Gentile, who cannot do the good works the Jew is doing under the effectual guidance of the Law of Moses, is not at a disadvantage since justification is not based on good works. Therefore, the Gentile is as as much a candidate for God's grace as the Jew."

But, of course, you cannot make this argument, since Paul has taken that possibility off the table.

You realize, this is a very easy question to answer. Romans 2:6-7. Jew and Gentile are equal on this count.

They both fail equally. Rom 2:12-13

Paul even recalled this equality in sin in Rom 3:9, and proceeded to quote the witness of the Law in Rom 3:10-19. Nobody escapes this condemnation. God's Law says it again & again.

I cannot imagine how you are going to answer this question, but I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

"That was easy."

 

[heymikey80]

??? How is this not question-begging speculation? Surely you realize that you cannot put much weight into an entirely unsupported assumption that the Early Fathers "got the inside information" from the writer of Ephesians as to what the intended sense of 'works' in verse 9 is. Where is there any evidence to support this assertion of a "question and answer" session between the Early Fathers and the author of Ephesians?

Whew. So you're saying the Apostles didn't disciple the next generation? Didn't follow Jesus' commands at Mt 28:18-20?

Hm. How could they be so disobedient and still be Christians in your eyes?
:biglol

 

[dadof10]

Then Paul is being tautological.

If he is, we all are, those of us who quote Scripture to bolster our case, anyway. This is all he is doing here.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:30
You're saying all this only happens to those persecuted?

No. He is moving on to another subject.

"What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?" (v.31)

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (v.35) He even mentions persecution here by name.

Did the Jews hold that persecution = curse? Yes or no. This is what Paul is responding to. Jesus suffered and DIED. These two things were not looked upon as blessings in the OT, but they are now.

I'd say rather that Paul is talking about the Resurrection, and therefore salvation is quintessentially the subject:

For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Rom 8:22-23

Then what does "tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword" have to do with the resurrection? How would these things effect a person's salvation? They don't, but they do effect how a person might view their current circumstances and start to question if God truly loves them, especially since the Jewish mindset was that suffering=curses.

 

[dadof10]

Paraphrase?

It's an application of the statement to the one reading the statement, if you like.

Whatever you want to call it.

The only interpretation was "my": that is, "my" is not present in the actual text.

Uh, no...Your question (which I answered, BTW) was:

"How does abandonment work when Paul says it's not possible that my life would separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus my Lord? (Rom 8:38-39)"

NIV: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

RSV: "For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 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.

KJV: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 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."


"My" is not present, neither is "not possible" or "my life". He is speaking broadly, because if you can make the case that "life" means "my life" then I guess you have to narrow "death" to mean "my death" too.

Are you saying Paul's allusion to "life or death" is not alluding to the life or death of the person reading? If so, make your case. Otherwise the words are identical.

That's exactly who it refers to, life and death in general, including those who are reading it. What it isn't doing is narrowing the definition to mean "MY life", which is what you paraphrased, or whatever.

Your sentence proves your point very well, but it changes the meaning of the actual words of Scripture. Paul is not personalizing these things, which is why in all the versions the word is "us" not "me". What your transliteration says is the point you are trying to make, viz., that it's not possible (not in the text), for Paul's life (not in the text) to effect his salvation (not in the text). It's simply not the same meaning.

 

[smaller]

This is my post, what does this have to do with unbelief or a form of blindness? The thread is, Can Obedience to God Earn Salvation....

Obviously you don't understand how the prior observations relates directly to the topic matter. And you also make a very good case for the exact phenomena described prior.

And it can be put in front of you over and over again and you still will not be able to see or acknowledge that it is in fact God who put the spirit of slumber upon people so they could not see or hear and allows Satan to blind minds.

There is not a freewiller on the planet that can see or understand those scriptural fact sets.

s

 

[rrowell]

Obviously you don't understand how the prior observations relates directly to the topic matter. And you also make a very good case for the exact phenomena described prior.

And it can be put in front of you over and over again and you still will not be able to see or acknowledge that it is in fact God who put the spirit of slumber upon people so they could not see or hear and allows Satan to blind minds.

There is not a freewiller on the planet that can see or understand those scriptural fact sets.

s

Please refrain trying to make your posts sound intellectually above everyone, because its not, it is only confusing...

Call me stupid if you want, but try that again in English so this freewiller can understand what you are trying to say. :eeeekkk

 

[smaller]

Please refrain trying to make your posts sound intellectually above everyone, because its not, it is only confusing...

Call me stupid if you want, but try that again in English so this freewiller can understand what you are trying to say. :eeeekkk

Try a line or two at a time with a reasoned response or request for clarifications. The above types of posts don't do much for anyone because they contain no legitimate engagements in facts.

s

 

[rrowell]

Originally Posted by smaller
Obviously you don't understand how the prior observations relates directly to the topic matter. And you also make a very good case for the exact phenomena described prior.

And it can be put in front of you over and over again and you still will not be able to see or acknowledge that it is in fact God who put the spirit of slumber upon people so they could not see or hear and allows Satan to blind minds.

There is not a freewiller on the planet that can see or understand those scriptural fact sets.

Originally Posted by rrowell
Please refrain trying to make your posts sound intellectually above everyone, because its not, it is only confusing...

Call me stupid if you want, but try that again in English so this freewiller can understand what you are trying to say. :eeeekkk

s

Try a line or two at a time with a reasoned response or request for clarifications. The above types of posts don't do much for anyone because they contain no legitimate engagements in facts.

s

That what I thought, your answer was as meaningful and useful as your post (of which I quoted)

 

[smaller]

That what I thought, your answer was as meaningful and useful as your post (of which I quoted)

Stated prior rr, it can be put in bold red 24pt and it still can't be seen or heard.

Romans 11
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ; ) unto this day.

 

[rrowell]

Stated prior rr, it can be put in bold red 24pt and it still can't be seen or heard.

Romans 11
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear ; ) unto this day.

Okay, I am a freewiller as you call us, what is it (in English) that you claim I cannot see?

 

[smaller]

Okay, I am a freewiller as you call us, what is it (in English) that you claim I cannot see?

Already stated same if you claim to have read.

If any person can not see or hear or OBEY it is not necessarily just them involved with that matter.

The factual scriptural dynamic is that there is always potentially 3 parties involved within the heart of every believer and with every choice and move.

God, Satan and the person.

Most freewillers suffer under an intentional delusion that it is only them.

s

 

[rrowell]

Already stated same if you claim to have read.

If any person can not see or hear or OBEY it is not necessarily just them involved with that matter.

The factual scriptural dynamic is that there is always potentially 3 parties involved within the heart of every believer and with every choice and move.

God, Satan and the person.

Most freewillers suffer under an intentional delusion that it is only them.

s

So you stated your highly opinionated position of a freewiller when it comes to obeying , with your highly analytical self concluded evaluation and knowing the mind of a freewiller, when one "disobeys" who in you highly intelligent witty mind is presumed to be involved?

 

[smaller]

So you stated your highly opinionated position of a freewiller when it comes to obeying , with your highly analytical self concluded evaluation and knowing the mind of a freewiller, when one "disobeys" who in you highly intelligent witty mind is presumed to be involved?

I might reflect that if anyone can not hear or see that it is in fact a cause of God.

And would extend that same measure to the claim of individuals 'earning' their salvation. Any such actions can not be removed as an action of God with them.

Is any such obedience apart from Gods Interactions within them?

Prolly not.

Which party then might the earn camp lean to? Obviously they discount (most of the time) that there are factually 3 parties engaged in all of these matters and see only themselves.

They in fact can not see a simple fact. That these matters are never just about us, but are in fact intimately linked both with the actions of God and the actions of the resistance movement, being led to see 'only themselves.'

And to me, when they see this way, they do so from the impositions of God Himself in not recognizing that is not the case and such can NOT see because they are not allowed to by God.

s

 

[Randy]

This thread came about as a result of a post I made in another thread:

"The only way one can make his salvation something earned/something of debt and not of grace is by keeping God's law sinlessly perfect. But Abraham and David both sinned so they could not earn salvation by works they needed grace and received grace by obedient faith and not works of merit.

Since the only way to gain salvation by debt and not of grace is by perfect sinlessness.....

This means any argument accusing those who do sin but obey as trying to earning salvation are bad, false arguments for obedient works do not, cannot ever earn salvation.


Would you accuse Abraham of trying to earn salvation by his obedient faith?"

The entrance into the kingdom Of God is by a sincere faith in Jesus. The lord himself tied obedience to love. That is if you love Him you will obey Him. God who sees our hearts knows those who love Him. Jesus noted the change in Zacchaeus

The guy on the cross next to Jesus also seemed to defend Jesus and asked if the Lord would remember him when Jesus came into His Kingdom. Jesus responded to that sincere faith in him. We note the other man next to Jesus on the cross didn't even receive a reply in his unbelief. That guy didn't ask for life he asked if Jesus was the Son of God to get them off the cross. Well that wasn't the Fathers will for Jesus to come down off the cross.


But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.â€
9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.â€