Is belief "works"?

[savedbygrace57]

Hi savedbygrace57,

I wouldn't have this issue to be a source of disunity between us. I admit, I could be wrong on this one. That doesn't change what I believe regarding the sovereignty of God, His grace, His death and resurrection, and if we come to Him in faith, His promise not to turn me or anyone else away. That's what I would like to encourage others to believe, and I hope you do too. I think you do. Oh yea, I do agree with you that Jesus accomplished what He set out to do.

- Davies

As stated earlier, you appear to me to believe in Salvation by works ! That is anti scriptural !

 

[Grazer]

One question that people have asked but no one has answered so I'm going to ask it again.

If believing counts as works and we are not saved by works, does that mean atheists are saved?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

ET

I think Peter fits your request..

No

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Hi Ernest,

I agree with what you've said here. What I'm trying to get at is to look at the Scriptures through a proper hermeneutical manner so that people can understand why they've drawn the conclusion they've drawn. I agree that no one can provide that passage you're asking for, however, that doesn't bring them to a reconciliation of the passages that they see as opposing each other. What I'm trying to present is a way to look at "all" of the passages on both sides and bring them together into one unified doctrine, it can be done, I've seen it. However, in order to do it we've got to have standards that don't change. It's clearing up the confusion on the issue that we can unify all of the passages.

Hi,

Good luke with this for it's been my experience that those who think belief only saves will just look only at verses that mention belief, as Jn 3:16, and then erroneously declare belief only saves while not considering ALL salvic verses like the ones dealing with repentance, comfession and baptism. They go along with verses that put believing BEFORE salvation but try to find ways around verses that put repentance, confession and baptism BEFORE salvation.

Secondly they do not consider that 'believe' is sometimes used as a synecdoche where believe includes repenting, confessing and baptism. Example, those that "believed" in Acts 2:44 were the same ones that were baptized in verse 41, so believed in v44 included being baptized. The same idea is found in 1 Pet 3:21 where Peter said 'baptism doth also now save us'. This verse does not teach baptism alone saves no more than Jn 3:16 teaches belief alone saves. Baptism in 1 Pet 3:21 is used as a synecdoche where baptism includes belief repentance and confession as believeth in Jn 3:16 includes repentance, confession and baptism. You get them to understand and agree to these two points and I will be impressed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If believing counts as works and we are not saved by works, does that mean atheists are saved?

Call faith a 'work' if you want, it doesn't matter. Paul contrasts work with faith setting it apart from the works salvation argument as that is understood. Faith in the blood of Christ is what justifies a person. And it only makes sense, because it is the blood of Christ that removes sin guilt and replaces it with God's righteousness thus making that person righteous before God (justifying them). Nothing else can do that. So, to look at if from a 'is faith a work?' point of view is misguided. That's not the point.

And until an atheist does that (trusts in the blood of Christ for right standing before God) they will continue to be lost and separated from the love of God and will have no share in the kingdom of God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

eb



Thats a different debate, because every man there does not mean all men without exception. I give my reasons why for that here:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=35690&page=2

See posts # 22, 24-25

Lets see if you debate them !

The primary meaning of every man (pas) is literally every single man universally. Nothing in Heb 2:9 suggests that every man/pas is used in any figurative sense meaning less than every single man universally. Limited atonement is Calvin's idea and not biblical. You are trying to let your theology define 'every man' and not contexts.

Romans 5:18 "So then as through one trespass (the judgment came) unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness (the free gift came) unto all men to justification of life".


The same "all men" in both places refer to the same people. Paul's point here is that "all men" who have been affected by sin since it entered the world, Christ has a remedy for the sins of these same all men who have been affected by sin. One commentator puts it: "The WHOLE RACE is on the receiving END OF BOTH guilt and grace (Titus 2:11). "Unto all men": Don't make the mistake of interpreting all men as of all men unconditionally. The benefits of Christ's death are available to the WHOLE RACE (which infers that the whole race is in need of a Savior). But Paul has already mentioned that conditions are attached to this justification (Romans 5:1; 4:6-8). Calvinism is wrong when it claims that Jesus only died for the elect, that is, He only died for those God had predestined for salvation, apart of their own personal choices. Paul asserts that the benefits of the death of Christ are available to as many who are also affected by the fact that sin was introduced into the world" (my emp)


Paul declared in Rom 3 that "all have sinned" so Christ's death is the remedy for all that have sinned and thereby been affected by sin. Sin did not just affect those lucky few that Calvinism claims God supposedly chose to be saved before the world began. So Christ's death is not just a remedy for the "Calivinist elect" but for "all men" who have been affected by sin ever since sin entered the world.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

He Ernest,

I'm glad you phrased it this way, "Those that believe will..." Who works in us to will and to do according to His pleasure? Philippians 2:13

The question will still remain for the person who rejects the offer of forgiveness found in Jesus, why. They reject Him and so they will remain in their sins. Why do people reject Him? I don't think we can answer that question. We could site Scripture like people don't come to the light because their deeds are evil, John 3:19, but that doesn't explain the why though. Why do they like to do their evil deeds rather than repent and escape the judgement to come? Unbelief. Why do don't they believe? The question still remains. I'd still like know why you sin, if you think you are in 100% in control of yourself? Or, perhaps the better question is, do you behave perfectly now that you are a Christian?

- Davies

Phil 2:12 goes with 13 and v12 says "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. "

The Phil. were already obeying God and they obeyed as a matter of their own free will and their choosing to obey is how that were working out their own salvation. Peter in Acts 2 told them to "save yourseves" as Paul told Timothy to "save thyself". People save themselves or work out their own salvation when they choose to obey the gospel of Christ. The gospel tells me to be saved I must beleive repent confess and be baptized and when I choose of my own will to obey what God has said in His gospel then God is working in me. God does not work in men separate and apart from the gospel to save men but God saves men through His gospel Rom 1:16. Again only those that obey God's gospel are the ones God is working in and saving. 2 Thess 1:8 God will have vengeance upon those that OBEY NOT the gospel of CHrist, so God in not working in them and saving them.

Beleiving or not beliving is a personal choice and not something forced upon man by God lest God become culpable for what men do.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I don't know of any faith alone position that states that faith alone excludes repentance, confession, and baptism. In fact quite the opposite. The clearly faith-alone position of Westminster is:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. -- WCF 11.2

So there is clearly a misunderstanding on your part as to your opposition's view of "faith alone".

Which is correct, A or B?

A) faith/belief, repentance, confession, baptism---------------------------------then saved

or

B) faith/beleif void of repentance confession baptism------------- saved-------then repents confesses and baptized AFTER already saved

If you chose B then you are saying salvation is gained by a faith/beleif void of repentance confession and baptism and that one repents confesses and baptized ONLY AFTER they have been saved. Meaning you have people saved while unrepentant, denying Christ and while still lost in their unremitted sins because you put repentance confession baptism AFTER they are already saved.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Somehow they continue to confuse James' "faith alone" teaching (James 2:24) with Paul's "righteousness apart from works" teaching (Romans 4:6) as if they were the same thing and erroneously apply James' conclusion to Paul's very different argument.

This issue has been discussed many times. The bible speaks of many different types of works: works of God, works of Satan; works of righteousness, works of the flesh, works of meirt, etc. Those that follow faith only theology wrongly assume that when Paul says "apart from works" they assume that "works" here include ALL types of works when it does not! The works Paul is excluding are works of merit and not obedient works of the gospel as belief repentance confessing and submitting to baptism. Rom 6 and Rom 10 are just two passages where Paul puts odedience BEFORE salvation/justification.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

One question that people have asked but no one has answered so I'm going to ask it again.

If believing counts as works and we are not saved by works, does that mean atheists are saved?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Do atheists believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, Jn 3:16? No


Do atheists repent of their sins Lk 13:3,5? No

Do atheists confess with their mouth Rom 10:9,10? No

Are atheists baptized for remission of sins? No

 

[Grazer]

Do atheists believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, Jn 3:16? No


Do atheists repent of their sins Lk 13:3,5? No

Do atheists confess with their mouth Rom 10:9,10? No

Are atheists baptized for remission of sins? No

But isn't all that counted as works according to some?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

As stated earlier, you appear to me to believe in Salvation by works ! That is anti scriptural !

In Acts 2 when Peter's listeners asked what they must do, what was the answer given to them?

Was the answer "do nothing for God already unconditionally prechose you before the world began"?

Was the answer "do nothing lest you try to earn your salvation"?

Was the answer "do nothing for Christ has already done everything for you including shedding His blood"?

(The answer is found in Acts 2:38)

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

But isn't all that counted as works according to some?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Beleif repentance confessing with the mouth and submitting to baptism are obedient works. So those that do these obedient works are doing righteousness. And it's not possible to ever be righteous without doing righteousness. God does not reckon people righteous while they continue to live and remain in and work unrighteousness.

 

[Butch5]

One question that people have asked but no one has answered so I'm going to ask it again.

If believing counts as works and we are not saved by works, does that mean atheists are saved?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Hi Grazer,

The answer to your question is no. However, we can't just use the word "works" in blanket statements. As I've pointed out when Paul says works don't save he is using the word works in the context of works of the Mosaic Law. The problem is that Christians tend to proof-text and take passages out of context and then use them to make blanket statements. This is not how to understand the Scriptures. When we look at the Scriptures we will see the word works used in different contexts. For instance, Paul uses it in two different contexts in the very passage that is often quoted to argue against works Ephesians 2:8-10. He says the Ephesians were not saved by works but rather were created for good works. So, he made a distinction between two different types of works. He refers to "works" and "good works," and says works don't save, yet the Ephesians were created for good works. As one continues to read it can be seen that Paul goes on to explain what he means when he says they are not saved by works. He goes on to explain that they are not saved by works because Christ has broken down (metaphorically) the wall of separation (a literal wall in the temple separating the Jew and Gentile) and has abolished the commandments contained in ordinances. The commandments contained in ordinances is a reference to the Mosaic Law. So, we see that in context the works that don't save speak of the works of the Mosaic Law.

To use Ephesians 2:8-10 to say that works play no role in salvation sets up a contradiction with Paul's words in Romans 2 where he said those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life. When one understands that Ephesians 2:8-10 is referring to the works of the Mosaic Law there is no contradiction between it and Romans 2 as there is with the typical interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10. The two harmonize perfectly. In Romans 2 Paul says those who continue in well doing are seeking eternal life and in Ephesians 2:10 he says the Ephesians were created for good works.

 

[Butch5]

Hi,

Good luke with this for it's been my experience that those who think belief only saves will just look only at verses that mention belief, as Jn 3:16, and then erroneously declare belief only saves while not considering ALL salvic verses like the ones dealing with repentance, comfession and baptism. They go along with verses that put believing BEFORE salvation but try to find ways around verses that put repentance, confession and baptism BEFORE salvation.

Secondly they do not consider that 'believe' is sometimes used as a synecdoche where believe includes repenting, confessing and baptism. Example, those that "believed" in Acts 2:44 were the same ones that were baptized in verse 41, so believed in v44 included being baptized. The same idea is found in 1 Pet 3:21 where Peter said 'baptism doth also now save us'. This verse does not teach baptism alone saves no more than Jn 3:16 teaches belief alone saves. Baptism in 1 Pet 3:21 is used as a synecdoche where baptism includes belief repentance and confession as believeth in Jn 3:16 includes repentance, confession and baptism. You get them to understand and agree to these two points and I will be impressed.

Now you're getting to the very heart of the problem. It's a matter of proper reasoning and critical thinking. Scriptural ping pong will never settle the issue, it only frustrates as we've seen by people just dropping out of the conversation. That is why I suggested a foundation of sound hermeneutics which are not subject to change or influenced by opinions. When we go to the Scriptures and follow the logical flow of argumentation from the author as opposed to proof-texting we can see what he's saying. When we look at how words are used in Scripture we can see that certain words include concepts. For instance, if we were to follow the use of the word "pisteuo" through the Scriptures we would find that is doesn't simply mean to only believe facts as the English word believe does, but rather it carries with it the idea of trusting and faithfulness.


You see, I don't believe the confusion comes from the Scriptures but rather from people reading English translations and imposing their own ideas (drawn from their understanding of English) onto the text.

 

[Grazer]

Beleif repentance confessing with the mouth and submitting to baptism are obedient works. So those that do these obedient works are doing righteousness. And it's not possible to ever be righteous without doing righteousness. God does not reckon people righteous while they continue to live and remain in and work unrighteousness.

I'm still very confused. I'm just going to go with http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48314

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I'm still very confused. I'm just going to go with http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48314

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

God does not randomly or unconditionally chose certain individuals to be saved leaving the rest lost with no hope. God saves those that conditionally obey Christ Heb 5:9 by believing repenting confessing and submitting to baptism - none of which atheists obey.

Obeying God's will is equivalent to working righteousness.

So every one is in a state where they are either obeying/working righteousness or disobeying/working unrighteousness. There is no inbetween.

So until [and not any sooner] one obeys God's will/works righteousness he is in and remains in a state of disobedience/working unrighteousness.

 

[savedbygrace57]

jb

Call faith a 'work' if you want, it doesn't matter.

Yes it does since men are not saved by their works, thats anti scriptural ! Eph 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If you, me or anyone insist they are saved by their works, then they may as well kiss Grace Salvation good by ! Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

[savedbygrace57]

eb

God does not randomly or unconditionally chose certain individuals to be
saved leaving the rest lost with no hope.

Yes He does. God chose certain People before the foundation of the World to be saved by Grace and the rest to be damned for their sins. They had not one shred of hope of being saved by God. They are called vessels of wrath Rom 9:22

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Now you're getting to the very heart of the problem. It's a matter of proper reasoning and critical thinking. Scriptural ping pong will never settle the issue, it only frustrates as we've seen by people just dropping out of the conversation. That is why I suggested a foundation of sound hermeneutics which are not subject to change or influenced by opinions. When we go to the Scriptures and follow the logical flow of argumentation from the author as opposed to proof-texting we can see what he's saying. When we look at how words are used in Scripture we can see that certain words include concepts. For instance, if we were to follow the use of the word "pisteuo" through the Scriptures we would find that is doesn't simply mean to only believe facts as the English word believe does, but rather it carries with it the idea of trusting and faithfulness.


You see, I don't believe the confusion comes from the Scriptures but rather from people reading English translations and imposing their own ideas (drawn from their understanding of English) onto the text.

As far as I can see, those that go along with the faith only teaching can wrap this up quickly, in seconds literally, by posting an example of one who lived under Christ's NT that was saved while still unrepentant, saved while continuing to deny Christ and saved while still lost in his unremitted sins. This thread has been going for a few days...no example yet given...very telling.