If you believe you can lose your salvation, you are not saved!(explanation)

[Drew]

Free Grace: In post 302, I raised two possibilities that scholars have considered with respect to what Paul means when he refers to "works of the Law of Moses". These are:

1. Human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God; or
2. Elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.

Do you deny that it is not possible that item 2 is what Paul means?

 

[FreeGrace]

Hello Free Grace. I realize you are having to deal with lots of posts, but I believe you have not dealt with the following question:
Please explain what was going through Paul's mind when he wrote these words, yes these particular words:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NASB]

Please do not talk about other texts to the exclusion of this text. I think you have to say that Paul is saying something here he knows to be false. Why would Paul do that?

Let's start with 2:1 where Paul addresses those who "pass judgment on someone else". This refers to moralists, specifically Jewish moralists, who viewed themselves as superior to the "Goi", or Gentiles. This is the context for what follows.

v.7 is simply a statement that if anyone perfectly (by persistence) obeyed the law then eternal life would be earned and received. However, Paul states later (3:10-11) that no one can accomplish such a feat.

Because the moralist claims God's favor on the basis of works, they cannot attain eternal life. Which is why Paul made such a point throughout ch 3 and 4 about justification being on the basis of faith, without ANY other condition.

I believe I did address this passage, but maybe in a different thread.

Essentially, Paul's point to the moralist, who claims one earns eternal life by works, that one must be perfect to attain eternal life. Which is impossible, as Paul proves as the text progresses.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here is your quote: "Actually, there is such thing as a "disobedient faith", it is faith that saves."

This is a huge typo. I would NEVER consciously believe or state that a "disobedient faith saves". My point, if one carefully read the whole context of the post, was that saving faith IS an obedient faith. I was pointing out that there is no such thing as a disobedient faith.

It's not me who is not reading carefully, it's you who aren't writing carefully.

Will forgiveness be forthcoming, or do I have to do some penance for my mishandling of the keyboard? Okay, both have made their point so let's drop reference to this and stick to the topic.

 

[Drew]

Paul never preached any of this in his ministry. His focus was on faith in Christ, not keeping the Law.

Not the point. My point is that many elements of the Law of Moses have to do with things that arguably are not "good works" and are rather shared behaviours that members of a community engage in to mark themselves as distinct. In this case, it would be Jews marking themselves as distinct from Gentiles. This is highly relevant to our discussion as this adds weight to the argument that when Paul denies "justification by works", he is not denying "justification by good works", he is instead denying that God only justifies Jews.

Let's be clear about something: scholars who know a lot more than both you and I have been debating this topic a lot, so what I am suggesting cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

 

[FreeGrace]

[QUOTE="Drew, post: 1125251, member: 67"First: Do you agree that the "works" in Ephesians 2"9 are the works of the Law of Moses (post 262 makes a detailed argument to that effect).[/QUOTE]
No, I don't because there is nothing in the context that mentions the Law. In fact, Paul doesn't mention the Law until 2:15. So "works" in v.9 is about what the person does himself which will not save.

Note that if you are going to deny that these "works" are the works of the Law of Moses, you need to actually address the argument presented in post 262 - if you do not address it, it will almost be certainly seen by readers as tacit admission that the argument is correct, and that the "works" are those prescribed specifically by the Law of Moses.

I've read over 262 and presented my case. Or, actually, didn't see any proof for yours. There is NO context to think that "works" in Eph 2:9 refers to works of the Law.

[Edited] There is no context to support your case. [Edited]

[Let's stick to the topic and debate equitably. Telling others their views have no value to you is a violation of ToS 2.4. WIP]

 

[FreeGrace]

Free Grace: In post 302, I raised two possibilities that scholars have considered with respect to what Paul means when he refers to "works of the Law of Moses". These are:

1. Human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God; or
2. Elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.

Do you deny that it is not possible that item 2 is what Paul means?

The problem is that your claim is that "works" in Eph 2:9 refers to #2. But #2 is about "works of the Law of Moses", not just "works". Unless Paul specifies the Law or Moses when he writes about works, I see no reason to assume that he means the Law.

 

[FreeGrace]

Not the point. My point is that many elements of the Law of Moses have to do with things that arguably are not "good works" and are rather shared behaviours that members of a community engage in to mark themselves as distinct. In this case, it would be Jews marking themselves as distinct from Gentiles. This is highly relevant to our discussion as this adds weight to the argument that when Paul denies "justification by works", he is not denying "justification by good works", he is instead denying that God only justifies Jews.

Let's be clear about something: scholars who know a lot more than both you and I have been debating this topic a lot, so what I am suggesting cannot be simply dismissed out of hand.

I haven't dismissed your view "out of hand". I've said why I don't accept it. No context for it.

 

[JLB]

The Law was given to the Children of Israel and those who left Egypt with them...

Amen.

And those who later would join them... to actively abide by the Sinai covenant requirements which were designed primarily for people living in the covenant land of promise.

Physical Circumcision, and Sabbath Laws, Clothing Laws, Food Laws, as well Feast Days which required traveling to Jerusalem 3 times a year.

These covenant requirements are no longer applicable, as God intended for them to all be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost to hear the Gospel and take it to the world.

6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?
8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?
9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:6-11

JLB

 

[Drew]

I've read over 262 and presented my case. Or, actually, didn't see any proof for yours. There is NO context to think that "works" in Eph 2:9 refers to works of the Law.

This is not how a proper debate proceeds. You have indeed presented your case, but you have not addressed my argument, and you need to do that to be seen as a credible proponent of your position. If you had addressed my case, there would be quotes from that argument and an explanation of where I have made a mistake. I cannot emphasize this enough: you cannot simply ignore an argument whose conclusion you do not like, you need to engage it, deal with it, address it, etc. Presenting a different case is fine, but it does not relieve you of the obligation to deal with my argument.

At a very high level, then:

1. In Eph 2:9, Paul denies "justification by "works";
2. He does not say "good works", he says works;
3. In verse 11, he has a "therefore" statement and then proceeds to provide a lengthy treatment of how Gentiles can be in God's family too, precisely the thing you would expect someone to write if they wanted to tell a Gentile that not only Jews - the ones do the works of the Law of Moses and think they can be justified by those works - can be justified.

Now, frankly, I believe this argument is a slam dunk, and I suspect you have no counterargument to it, otherwise you would have provided it.

Remember, at this point, I am not contesting your assertion that the Law of Moses prescribes good works, so Paul's argument is really still against justification by good works. I will get to that later. For now, I ask you to address the argument in post 262 that, in Eph 2:9, Paul is referring to works of the Law of Moses.

But I must insist: you cannot evade dealing with the details of post 262 if you wish to be seen as a credible proponent of your position.

 

[JLB]

Let's start with 2:1 where Paul addresses those who "pass judgment on someone else". This refers to moralists, specifically Jewish moralists, who viewed themselves as superior to the "Goi", or Gentiles. This is the context for what follows.

v.7 is simply a statement that if anyone perfectly (by persistence) obeyed the law then eternal life would be earned and received. However, Paul states later (3:10-11) that no one can accomplish such a feat.

Because the moralist claims God's favor on the basis of works, they cannot attain eternal life. Which is why Paul made such a point throughout ch 3 and 4 about justification being on the basis of faith, without ANY other condition.

I believe I did address this passage, but maybe in a different thread.

Essentially, Paul's point to the moralist, who claims one earns eternal life by works, that one must be perfect to attain eternal life. Which is impossible, as Paul proves as the text progresses.

Unfortunately for OSAS Romans Chapter 1 clearly states these phrases...

21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts...
24 - Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,


Peter teaches the same thing, as he says -

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:20-22


it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness...than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm not ignoring your examples. They are examples of "dead faith" by your definition. When you "got out of bed and went to church", you say that you had faith. OK, but it didn't justify, therefore it was dead, right? So, you have to prove that Abraham's obedient, trusting, God approved, good deeds performing faith, is the same as your dead (by your own definition) faith.

Well, I guess we've got that sorted out now. My faith was not dead faith, because, by pure definition, it did something:

"faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB italics in orig. )

Let's both be careful to not deviate from the actual definition of 'dead faith'. If we stay on this particular subject of faith what we need to explore is the long term implications of a faith that remains dead and what it proves about that faith. The other subject of discussion, of course, is in regard to faith that is not dead, but is proven by what it does that it is not the faith that justifies (i.e. Abraham's circumcision).

 

[Drew]

Let's start with 2:1 where Paul addresses those who "pass judgment on someone else". This refers to moralists, specifically Jewish moralists, who viewed themselves as superior to the "Goi", or Gentiles. This is the context for what follows.

I agree, but this does not in away provide justification for reading 2:6-7 as it is written - that eternal life will be awarded according to what we have done. In fact, it actually strengthens the case for taking these verses as they are written: The moralist needs to be told that if he thinks he is better than others, he better think again for a judgment is coming at which only the ones who "persist" in doing good will be given eternal life. And the moralist is in danger of not passing the threshold.

v.7 is simply a statement that if anyone perfectly (by persistence) obeyed the law then eternal life would be earned and received. However, Paul states later (3:10-11) that no one can accomplish such a feat.

Many problems here:

1. Paul does not say you need to be perfect - you appear to make the implausible assumption that to "persist in doing good" means to be perfect. A big leap, I suggest. We would never say "if you persist at working hard in life, you will succeed" and expect to be understood as saying that you have to always be working with 100 % effort.

2. Clearly in 3:10-11, Paul must be talking about non-believers who do not have the Spirit at work in them. He cannot be saying that believers cannot do good, precisely because at so many places, not least Romans 8 where he claims we will be conformed to Christ. How can a person who is being conformed to Jesus' image not do good works? It is astounding, frankly, that anyone would use Romans 3:10-11 to argue against the possibility of being awarded eternal life based on good works - Paul must be talking about non-believers in Romans 3:10-11.

3. And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room: You are essentially saying that, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul knowingly writes something he knows to be false - that eternal life will be awarded based on what we have done. You have no no "out " here - your position requires you to believe that Paul writes untrue statements, and then goes on to prove that he has done so. No rational person does this.

 

[JLB]

Well, I guess we've got that sorted out now. My faith was not dead faith, because, by pure definition, it did something:

"faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB italics in orig. )

Let's both be careful to not deviate from the actual definition of 'dead faith'. If we stay on this particular subject of faith what we need to explore is the long term implications of a faith that remains dead and what it proves about that faith. The other subject of discussion, of course, is in regard to faith that is not dead, but is proven by what it does that it is not the faith that justifies (i.e. Abraham's circumcision).

Let's not change the definition of faith, and where it comes from.

Faith comes by hearing God.

Obedience to what you hear from God, is what makes faith active and "alive", able to function and produce a divine result.


JLB

 

[Drew]

Essentially, Paul's point to the moralist, who claims one earns eternal life by works, that one must be perfect to attain eternal life. Which is impossible, as Paul proves as the text progresses.

Really? So Paul says:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [Romans 2:6-7, NASB]
.....and then proceeds to disprove the very thing he asserted?

That would be like me saying:

"Admission to Harvard is based on grades"

....and then going on to argue that it's impossible to get good enough grades and that admission is actually based on whether your father or mother went to Harvard.

I suggest it is obvious that no reasonable person would ever construct such an argument.

This is why Romans 2:6-7 is fatal to the view that good deeds are not relevant to salvation - to save that view, one has to make the exceedingly implausible claim that Paul goes around saying one thing, and then disproving what he has just said in the next breath.

 

[JLB]

1)Christ saves those that obey, Heb 5:9.
2)Christ saves those that believe Jn 3:16.
3) therefore obey = believe



Since there is just one way to be saved then the logical implication is believing is obeying/obedience. Believing must include repentance, confession and baptism or Christ contradicts Himself.

Of course the biblical reference to "believe" carries the idea of obey.

As I have pointed out many times, Unbelief and disobedience are the same Greek word.

Unbelief = Disobedience

6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Hebrews 4:6 NKJV

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 KJV

Unless one obeys the Gospel command to Repent, which means in every since of the word to turn to God with committed, faithful, obedience.


It is the violation of this holy command, by "turning away from", or "departing from" God that is the "disobedience" the new testament writers warn us about.

Those who disobey the Gospel, will suffer the same wrath and more from God when Jesus Christ returns.
2 Thessalonians 1:9-11, 2 Peter 2:20-24


JLB

 

[JLB]

1)Christ saves those that obey, Heb 5:9.
2)Christ saves those that believe Jn 3:16.
3) therefore obey = believe



Since there is just one way to be saved then the logical implication is believing is obeying/obedience. Believing must include repentance, confession and baptism or Christ contradicts Himself.

Of course the biblical reference to "believe" carries the idea of obey.

As I have pointed out many times, Unbelief and disobedience are the same Greek word.

Unbelief = Disobedience

6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Hebrews 4:6 NKJV

Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:
Hebrews 4:6 KJV

Unless one obeys the Gospel command to Repent, which means in every since of the word to turn to God with committed, faithful, obedience.


It is the violation of this holy command, by "turning away from", or "departing from" God that is the "disobedience" the new testament writers warn us about.

Those who disobey the Gospel, will suffer the same wrath and more from God when Jesus Christ returns.
2 Thessalonians 1:9-11, 2 Peter 2:20-24


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

This is not how a proper debate proceeds. You have indeed presented your case, but you have not addressed my argument, and you need to do that to be seen as a credible proponent of your position. If you had addressed my case, there would be quotes from that argument and an explanation of where I have made a mistake. I cannot emphasize this enough: you cannot simply ignore an argument whose conclusion you do not like, you need to engage it, deal with it, address it, etc. Presenting a different case is fine, but it does not relieve you of the obligation to deal with my argument.

At a very high level, then:

1. In Eph 2:9, Paul denies "justification by "works";
2. He does not say "good works", he says works;
3. In verse 11, he has a "therefore" statement and then proceeds to provide a lengthy treatment of how Gentiles can be in God's family too, precisely the thing you would expect someone to write if they wanted to tell a Gentile that not only Jews - the ones do the works of the Law of Moses and think they can be justified by those works - can be justified.

Now, frankly, I believe this argument is a slam dunk, and I suspect you have no counterargument to it, otherwise you would have provided it.

It is not a slam dunk to me. There is no place where Paul states that one is justified by works, or "good works".

Remember, at this point, I am not contesting your assertion that the Law of Moses prescribes good works, so Paul's argument is really still against justification by good works.

That is my argument as well.

I will get to that later. For now, I ask you to address the argument in post 262 that, in Eph 2:9, Paul is referring to works of the Law of Moses.

Well, I just don't what ELSE to say. There is no context for claiming that "works" means "works of the Law of Moses", as I have already explained. In fact, Paul doesn't even get to the Law until 6 verses later. So why would one think Paul was thinking of the Law in v.9, when all he was doing was differentiating works from faith?

But I must insist: you cannot evade dealing with the details of post 262 if you wish to be seen as a credible proponent of your position.

I've already dealt with it. I have nothing more to say about it. Sorry that you don't agree.

 

[FreeGrace]

Unfortunately for OSAS Romans Chapter 1 clearly states these phrases...

21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts...
24 - Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,

Peter teaches the same thing, as he says -

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.
21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
22 But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:20-22


it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness...than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.JLB

I'm not seeing anything "unfortunate" for OSAS here. Nor do I see anything that resembles loss of salvation, or loss of salvation. Please point to the exact words that claim that one can lose their salvation.

 

[dadof10]

No. You're putting an unfair spin on what I said (whether intentionally, or not is not the point). James defines dead faith as the faith that is alone, being unaccompanied by works.

"faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." (James 2:17 NASB bold mine, italics in original)

This has nothing to do with the fact that there is faith that moves someone to do something faithful and obedient, but is still incapable of justifying the person who does that work.

You have only ever mentioned "dead faith" and "justifying faith". I didn't know there was a third option, faith that does "good deeds" but does not justify. Your premise has always been that "good deeds shows that we have the faith that justifies", so I assumed that if a person who has faith (like Abraham in Gen 12) and demonstrated the kind of faith he has by performing good deeds and trusting in God (like Abraham in Gen 12), this would be considered justifying faith as opposed to dead faith.

One thing I learned from the Messianics is that it is entirely possible, for example, to keep Sabbath, and be doing that out of faith in God, just as we 'don't steal' because we have faith in God, knowing full well that 'not stealing' does not wipe away past transgressions and make us righteous. IOW, 'do not steal' can not, and does not have the power to justify a person.

This is not a fair comparison. To not do something is not the same thing as showing a true faith by positive actions. In James, the hypothetical man "walks by" a poor person, thereby showing he has "dead faith". He did nothing when actions were required. By the same token, to feed the person (a positive action) would have showed his true faith. The latter is exactly what Abraham did in Gen 12. He "went out..." obeying God, furthering His plan for humanity and trusting in Him thereby receiving His approval. To prove your case, you have to demonstrate how a person can have an obedient, trusting faith that garners God's approval, yet doesn't justify. Seems like a daunting task.

So, this third option. Could you define it? How many good deeds, or of what caliber do the works have to be before the faith is demonstrated to be "justifying"?

 

[FreeGrace]

I agree, but this does not in away provide justification for reading 2:6-7 as it is written - that eternal life will be awarded according to what we have done.

Well, that's the thing. Paul never said that eternal life will be awarded "according to what we have done". He was real clear about how to earn eternal life, as I have already explained. The phrase "by persistence in doing good" gives no room for "some of the time" or even "most of the time", but persistently. Now, what human being has that record?

Again, as I've already explained, Paul dashes that idea to pieces in Rom 3:9,10 and 23. No one can. Therefore, Paul's point is that no one can earn eternal life by good works. The very thing that you argue FOR, Paul refutes.

In fact, it actually strengthens the case for taking these verses as they are written: The moralist needs to be told that if he thinks he is better than others, he better think again for a judgment is coming at which only the ones who "persist" in doing good will be given eternal life.

YES!! And Paul's point, if one follows him into ch 3 is that NO ONE CAN persistently do good works.

And the moralist is in danger of not passing the threshold.

No, the moralist is refuted for his erroneous belief that he can earn eternal life by works.

Many problems here:

1. Paul does not say you need to be perfect - you appear to make the implausible assumption that to "persist in doing good" means to be perfect. A big leap, I suggest. We would never say "if you persist at working hard in life, you will succeed" and expect to be understood as saying that you have to always be working with 100 % effort.

Well, I can't help any further. That's exactly what "persistence" means. It doesn't mean "some of the time" or even "most of the time", but it means persistently. Which he dashes to bit in 3:9,10, and 23.

3. And perhaps the biggest elephant in the room: You are essentially saying that, in Romans 2:6-7, Paul knowingly writes something he knows to be false - that eternal life will be awarded based on what we have done.

No, he's making the point that the moralist would have to be persistently good, which NO ONE can be. The statement is totally true.