Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

[Ernest T. Bass]

You might want to think about the consequences of your belief that Jesus did not share our exact nature.

The same flesh (human nature) Adam had, Jesus also had. If Jesus did not share our same exact nature, then He was not of us. Therefore, if Jesus did not have our exact human nature, then whatever nature He had is what He redeemed. That would mean you and I and all other sons of Adam are still not redeemed.


Hebrews 2:14 ---> "And since these children have a common inheritance of flesh and blood, he too shared that inheritance with them."

Heb 2:14 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,
Phil 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

If Christ had no OS, no sin nature, no total depravity it cannot be said He was made in the likeness of men.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Each person is indeed accountable for their own sin.


However that’s not the discussion point.

How was Adam’s one act of disobedience passed on to all mankind, resulting in judgement for all mankind, showing we all need a Savior, both Jew and Gentile.


Paul is making a legal argument that is designed to destroy the stronghold within the minds of Jews who have been taught that because they are natural children of Abraham, they are blessed and therefore entitled to eternal life.


Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul dealt with this issue.



JLB

Rom 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."


If it is true "all men" are UNCONDITIONALLY condemned due to Adam's offence, then it is equally true that same "all men" will unconditionally be justified due to Christ's act of righteousness - Universalism. For the universal effect of Adam sinning, there is an equal universal effect of Christ's perfect righteousness.

Again, the implication is if 18(a) is universal (including infants) then 18(b) is equally universal in having ALL justified (universalism in salvation).

Here's the sticking point:

How can the righteousness of Christ be said to bring justification unto ALL MEN when we know ALL MEN will not be saved (Mt 7:13)?

In 18 (a) it appears then that "all men" is not universal in scope but is applicable to those that have reached an age of accountability and are able to sin and have chosen to sin. This excludes infants.

In 18(b) "All men" being justified refers to ALL the accountable men who have sinned but have chosen to obey Christ taking advantage of the remedy Christ has provided for them for their having sinned.

 

[The Light]

We are saved by grace alone, by Christ alone, through faith alone.

3 different alones here, care to pick 1?
Dare I say that the POSSIBILITY of salvation from sin and death is attainable only by the grace of God through his Anointed One, Jesus. Grace made it possible, but some doing is required in order to take advantage of what God has made possible thus the saying "you are saved by grace THROUGH faith." Faith entails being faithful so one can receive the crown of life Jesus spoke of in Revelation 2:10.

 

[Walpole]

We are saved by grace alone, by Christ alone, through faith alone...

Do you have a verse which states this? The only verse in Scripture I can find which mentions "faith alone" is a condemnation of it.

James 2:24 ---> "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."


Furthermore, you have a series of conditions that are stated as being alone. This is llogical as you can't have a series of conditions predicated as being alone. By definition, alone means ---> separate, apart, or isolated from others; to the exclusion of all others or all else

Therefore, first "alone" precludes belief in any subsequent "alone".

 

[Son of Israel]

No mystery to me

Lev 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Lev 12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

(Job 25:4) How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Luk 2:22 And when the days of her (Mary's) purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

Hence;

(Luk 18:19) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

(Joh 3:14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

(Rom 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

(2Co 5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

(2Co 5:21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[GodsGrace]

If men are born with sin, that would being born lost, not safe.

Again....
A baby cannot be lost.
For the reason YOU stated...he is not responsible for sinning.
He has not sinned.
And even if he lies or steals something at the age of 4,,,he STILL will not be responsible.

But I do understand your position that we are born innocent with no sin nature.

I don't know which 'church fathers' you are specifically referring to but there are false teachings that exist today that started from some of those men.

I always make it very clear which church fathers I'm referring to.
The PRE-NICENE fathers,,,those prior to 325AD.

Would you know which false teaching the Early Fathers would be responsible for?
I can't think of any.

 

[GodsGrace]

I do not see any difference between sin nature and total depravity.

I do not know how you define sin nature but the following websites define it this way: (in blue-my emp)
"The sin nature is that part of human beings that impels us to commit sin. The Bible teaches that we have a sin nature. Not only do we commit sin, but it is our nature to do so."

The sin nature - What is it?

The sin nature - What is it? What does it mean that we possess a sin nature?

www.compellingtruth.org

Another website:
"The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin;"

What is the sin nature? | GotQuestions.org

What is the sin nature? What does it mean that we all have a sin nature?

www.gotquestions.org

As I have explained before, I do not believe in the idea that man is born with a nature that impels-makes-forces-causes man to sin against his will. Such a thing makes man a passive, innocent victim of sin who cannot be rightly, justly condemned.

Men do not need any such nature to sin but just a free will and a law to transgress. Those that willfully choose to sin is how men become sinners thereby making man a willful, guilty perpetrator accountable for his sins he freely chose to commit and not force-made-impelled to commit against his will.

I'm beginning to see the problem.
GOT QUESTIONS is a calvinistic site.

The sin nature does not IMPEL or FORCE us to sin.

It's not a thing that makes us sin...sinning is still our choice.
After we are born again we receive a new nature and we receive the Holy Spirit.
Sinning is less likely.

 

[Tradidi]

I gave verses validate the concept of "faith alone", and NOT WORKS. You refuted none of them. You gave me James ... faith without works is dead, etc. I addressed your verses, I said Paul was addressing how we are justified in God's eyes through faith alone and James was addressing how we are justified to the view of MEN by faith and works. You may not agree, but I responded to your verses, you ignored mine.

Hi Fred,

I'm working my way through this interesting thread and I noticed that so far (I'm on page 5) nobody has answered your argument. On page 5 you said "I will let my inquiry for an explanation drop." But I think you raised a common point that deserves to be answered, as there is no contradiction at all between St. James and St. Paul. Please pardon me if it has already been answered further on in this thread.

A text without a context is a pretext. When trying to understand what St. Paul was saying, and more importantly, what he was not saying, we need to look at the context and answer a few questions first. Who was St. Paul writing to? Why was he writing to them? Were there any particular problems he was trying to straighten out?

St. Paul was writing to the Christians in Rome, some of whom were converts from paganism and some of whom were former Jews. The former Jews among them still held to some very Jewish beliefs, which they tried to incorporate into their newfound religion and which they sometimes tried to impose on the other Christians. It was these Jewish beliefs that St. Paul was trying to correct. In the example we're looking at, it was the Jewish notion that salvation comes through "works of the law", which these former Jews understood to be things like circumcision, food laws, Sabbath laws, the ceremonial laws, etc. To a Jew under the old covenant, in order to be saved, one had to observe what they called "the works of the law". A Christian under the new covenant was no longer bound by those "works of the law", but their salvation was based on faith in Christ and a new kind of works, i.e. repentance, baptism, declaring with our mouths, perseverance, etc.. in short, being "doers of the word and not hearers only" (James 1:22).

So, to interpret Romans 4:5 (and others) to mean that St. Paul was condemning (or declaring as non essential) "works" in general is simply false. In fact, in the same epistle to the Romans, we see St. Paul teaching the exact opposite, i.e. that works justify us (Romans 4:13) and that we will be rewarded according to our works (Romans 4:6).

There's an excellent presentation by Steve Ray on Sola Fide, which I highly recommend to anyone who loves the truth: By Faith Alone

 

[Tradidi]

Original Sin may denote either (1) the actual sin committed by our first parents, or (2) the unhappy state to which that sin reduced them and their posterity. (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine)

An example may help. A rich man has two servants. One day he promises to make them heirs of his fortune, on the condition that they obey his laws. Unfortunately, the servants disobey their master's laws and thereby lose their inheritance. The children of these servants likewise will not enjoy the inheritance that their parents lost through their disobedience.

The loss of inheritance, as well as the parent's disobedience that caused this loss are both called Original Sin.

For sin to exists requires 1) law to exist and 2) that law has to be transgressed which makes the idea of original sin impossible. Rom 7:8-9 infants are not capable of sinning and are without law therefore sin has no power over infants. Sin is something that springs up in man later in life when he learns right and wrong becoming accountable to God. One who has not transgressed God's law cannot be called a sinner no more than an unpainted wall can be called painted.

What you say is true of actual sin, but has nothing to do with Original Sin. Original is is not an actual sin, i.e. you cannot commit it, but rather the loss of the gifts we would have inherited if our first parents would not have committed actual sin. One of those gifts that was lost was Sanctifying Grace, i.e. our right to heaven.

If Matt 19:24 is to be taken literal, then how can wealthy men as Abraham, Job, David etc be saved?

Mattew 19:24 is to be taken literally. The "eye of the needle" was a very small gate in the walls of Jerusalem. This "eye of the needle" would not allow camels in unless they were stripped of their saddle and all their other gear (kind of like the rich man with his possessions).

Infants cannot do any of things showing God does NOT have a plan of salvation for babies for they are born safe and if one dies as an infant he will be be in heaven. According to OS if one dies as a baby he will be lost eternally.

This not correct. Once you understand that Original Sin is not an actual sin, but rather the loss of an inheritance caused by the sin of our first parents, then you should also understand that infants that die without having committed actual sin will not be condemned. But neither will they regain the lost inheritance, unless they have been baptised. I believe the most common opinion among theologians is that these children will enjoy an eternal natural happiness, but they will not enjoy the beatific vision (see God face to face).

Even the CC has accepted that babies do not need to be baptized immediately because of the fear that they would go to hell if they died. It's done today because old habits are hard to break.

See above. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never taught that unbaptised babies go to hell. What She has always taught is that they will not enjoy the beatific vision. The common opinion is that between heaven and hell is a state of natural happiness, which is usually called Limbo. But as far as I know this is only a common opinion, not a doctrine that has to be believed. The only doctrine that a Catholic has to believe is that those who are not baptised cannot go to heaven.

I guess Paul is confused?
Romans 3:28 ESV
[28] For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

No, Paul was speaking about the Jewish "works of the law", i.e. circumcision, sabbath laws, ceremonial laws, etc.., and not about the works that justify us (Romans 4:13). See my previous post.

 

[JLB]

My point is that the Bible shows that for sin to exist, there must be a law and that law is transgressed.

The law of sin and death.

This is the law that Adam transgressed, that caused death to spread to all men.


Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Romans 5:12,14


again



For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Romans 5:17

The point I want you to see, the point I want you to reconcile, with everything else, the point I’m asking to to focus on please and discuss is...

• through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men,

Sin and death from Adam spread to all men.


No need to try and explain what sin is or is not, on some genetic level.

Sin dwells in the human body because Adam’s sin and death spread to all men, resulting in condemnation in which all men need a Savior.



JLB

 

[JLB]

How can the righteousness of Christ be said to bring justification unto ALL MEN when we know ALL MEN will not be saved (Mt 7:13)?

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Matthew 7:13

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Again....
A baby cannot be lost.
For the reason YOU stated...he is not responsible for sinning.
He has not sinned.
And even if he lies or steals something at the age of 4,,,he STILL will not be responsible.

But I do understand your position that we are born innocent with no sin nature.

Infants are not lost for they have no sin that would cause them to be lost. They are born in a safe state.

I always make it very clear which church fathers I'm referring to.
The PRE-NICENE fathers,,,those prior to 325AD.

Would you know which false teaching the Early Fathers would be responsible for?
I can't think of any.

Sprinkling rather than immersion for baptism, infant baptism, original sin are some of the errors from the "church fathers"

"The Ante-Nicene writings chronicle the early stages of that great apostasy so vividly prophesied in the New Testament (see: Acts 20:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff; 1 Timothy 4:1ff; 2 Timothy 4:1ff, etc.). For example, as early as the middle of the 2nd or 3rd century, “sprinkling” was being suggested as a substitute for immersion. Cyprian (c. 200-258) justified it (Epistle LXXV), as did the Didache (? date). Infant baptism was making its debut about that time as well. Irenaeus (c. 175-195) argued in favor of the practice (Against Heresies II.XXII), as did Cyprian in his Epistles (LVIII). Tertullian (c. 150-222), a teacher at Carthage in North Africa, opposed infant baptism, but nonetheless accommodated the idea in contending that the “soul,” along with the body, is inherited from one’s parents, hence infants are born with sinful souls."

The Church Fathers: Benefits and Abuses

The writings of the so-called "Church Fathers" are valuable sources of information for that period known as the "post-apostolic" age. Unfortunately, the literature frequently is also abused.

www.christiancourier.com

The bible teaches each congregation is to have its own elders/bishops. Yet the 'church fathers' in time changed that to having one bishop over an area with many congregations which eventually lead to the hierarchy found within Catholicism.

"Corruptions in church government also came quick and were radical. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107) referred to himself as “the bishop” of Syria (Romans 2:2), and he makes a distinction between “the bishop” and “elders” in his Epistle to Smyrnaeans(c.8). Cyprian was designated as “the bishop of the church in Carthage” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, VII.III). These volumes are invaluable for the study of that movement which ultimately resulted in Catholicism in its various forms (Roman, Greek, and English)."

The Church Fathers: Benefits and Abuses

The writings of the so-called "Church Fathers" are valuable sources of information for that period known as the "post-apostolic" age. Unfortunately, the literature frequently is also abused.

www.christiancourier.com

Universalism taught by 'church fathers':

Quotes by Early Church Fathers on Universalism

A common objection that we often hear is that universal reconciliation is some “new age” false teaching — but is it? Not hardly. Any honest researcher will at least acknowledge that man…

forbiddentheology.com

These so called "church fathers" were NOT inspired men nor should their writings ever be considered as such.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I'm beginning to see the problem.
GOT QUESTIONS is a calvinistic site.

The sin nature does not IMPEL or FORCE us to sin.

It's not a thing that makes us sin...sinning is still our choice.
After we are born again we receive a new nature and we receive the Holy Spirit.
Sinning is less likely.

I have been saying all along that sinning is a choice of man therefore man does not need to be born with any kind of nature in order for him to sin. Adam and Eve had no sin nature be were very capable of sinning.

Men are not born with sin hence not born sinners. Yet men by CHOOSING to habitually practice sin BECOME sinners. Those they hear and obey the gospel then put that sinful life to death, the old man of sin dies, Rom 6:1-7 in baptism where one then rises to walk in newness of life. None of this has anything to do with a 'sin nature' man is born with. Even if it could be proven man has a sin nature it cannot be proven he was born with that sin nature. He would have that nature by free will choice in having chosen to sin. Just as he can turn to follow things of the Spirit by that same free will choice.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Original Sin may denote either (1) the actual sin committed by our first parents, or (2) the unhappy state to which that sin reduced them and their posterity. (Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine)

An example may help. A rich man has two servants. One day he promises to make them heirs of his fortune, on the condition that they obey his laws. Unfortunately, the servants disobey their master's laws and thereby lose their inheritance. The children of these servants likewise will not enjoy the inheritance that their parents lost through their disobedience.

The loss of inheritance, as well as the parent's disobedience that caused this loss are both called Original Sin.

The problem with this analogy is that sin is not something passed down from one person/generation to another. Eze 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Sin is not something passed down, no one is responsible, accountable for Adam's sin or anyone else's sin. Each person is responsible, accountable for their own personal sin they commit..."the soul that sinneth, it shall die"

What you say is true of actual sin, but has nothing to do with Original Sin. Original is is not an actual sin, i.e. you cannot commit it, but rather the loss of the gifts we would have inherited if our first parents would not have committed actual sin. One of those gifts that was lost was Sanctifying Grace, i.e. our right to heaven.

Original sin defines sin DIFFERENTLY from the Bible.

Rom 4:15
1 John 3:4
Romans 7:7-9

From these 3 passages, for sin to exist and person be a sinner their (1) must be a law (Rom 4:15) that law must be transgressed (1 Jn 3:4) by an accountable person (Rom 7:8-9). TO have sin exist without transgression of law is defining sin differently from the Bible. You post original sin cannot be committed but the Bible defines sin as a transgression committed against God's law.

Physical death and spiritual death (loss of heaven) are CONSEQUENCES we face due to Adam sinning. Men spiritually die as a consequence of their own sinning not due to inheriting Adam's sin.

Isa 59:2 "But your (not Adam's) iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your (not Adam's) sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."
Acts 3:19 "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins (not Adam's) may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

The Bible teaches about forgiveness of "your sins" but does not speak at all about forgiveness of original sin.

Mattew 19:24 is to be taken literally. The "eye of the needle" was a very small gate in the walls of Jerusalem. This "eye of the needle" would not allow camels in unless they were stripped of their saddle and all their other gear (kind of like the rich man with his possessions).

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Going through an eye of a needle is an impossibility. It was a proverb used to describe the impossibility of some thing. For two verses later Christ speaks of that which is "impossible". A man cannot save himself by himself, a man's riches cannot save him for that is impossible.

"It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. The needle's eye here is that of the literal needle, and the expression was a proverbial one to indicate that which was absolutely impossible. Lord George Nugent (1845-6) introduced the explanation that Jesus referred to the two gates of a city, the large one for the beast of burden, and the small one for foot-passengers. This smaller one is now called "The Needle's Eye", but there is no evidence whatever that it was so called in our Savior's time. In fact, as Canon Farrar observes, we have every reason to believe that this smaller gate received its name in late years because of the efforts of those who were endeavoring to soften this saying of Jesus."
"The Fourfold Gospel" JW McGarvey

This not correct. Once you understand that Original Sin is not an actual sin, but rather the loss of an inheritance caused by the sin of our first parents, then you should also understand that infants that die without having committed actual sin will not be condemned. But neither will they regain the lost inheritance, unless they have been baptised. I believe the most common opinion among theologians is that these children will enjoy an eternal natural happiness, but they will not enjoy the beatific vision (see God face to face).

Again, from what I posted above, the BIBLE defines sin as a transgression of God's law by an accountable person.

YOU are defining sin as "the loss of an inheritance caused by the sin of our first parents"

Sin defined anyway other than transgression of God's law has no Bible basis.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The law of sin and death.

This is the law that Adam transgressed, that caused death to spread to all men.

Physical death spreads to all men as a consequence of Adam sinning. Therefore people, even infants, die as a consequence of Adam sinning not because they inherit Adam's sin. As a drunk driver crosses the center line crashing into another vehicle killing those occupants. They died as a consequence of the drunk driver's sinning but do not inherit his sin.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Romans 5:12,14


again



For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Romans 5:17

The point I want you to see, the point I want you to reconcile, with everything else, the point I’m asking to to focus on please and discuss is...

• through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men,

Sin and death from Adam spread to all men.


No need to try and explain what sin is or is not, on some genetic level.

Sin dwells in the human body because Adam’s sin and death spread to all men, resulting in condemnation in which all men need a Savior.



JLB

This does not resolve your problem with Rom 5:18 or 19.

If "all men" in 18(a) means all are born sinners because of Adam's offence, then "all men" in 18(b) means that same "all men" will be saved/justified because of Christ's obedience.

I think we agree that all men will not be saved. So if "all men" in 18(b) does NOT mean all are saved then "all men" of 18(a) does not mean all are sinners born with sin.

OS proponents want "all men" in 18(a) to be inclusive of literally all men but back away from that definition of "all men" in 18(b) which has lack of consistency but shows OS bias added in the verse.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Matthew 7:13

Yes, ALL MEN will not be justified by the obedience of Christ, many will be lost per Mt 7:13.

So how is Rom 5:18(b) to be understood that is consistent and compatible with 18(a)?

 

[JLB]

Physical death spreads to all men as a consequence of Adam sinning.

Ok. Great.

The reason it does is because each person is born with a body that contains sin. Sin dwells in our flesh and desire to make each person its slave.

Eventually each person gives in to the desires of this sin nature, and sins.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Yes, ALL MEN will not be justified by the obedience of Christ, many will be lost per Mt 7:13.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Matthew 7:13


Of course all men will not be saved.




JLB

 

[Tradidi]

Again, from what I posted above, the BIBLE defines sin as a transgression of God's law by an accountable person.

YOU are defining sin as "the loss of an inheritance caused by the sin of our first parents"

Sin defined anyway other than transgression of God's law has no Bible basis.

Do you agree that Adam and Eve sinned inside of Paradise?

Do you agree that because of that you and I were born outside of Paradise?

If you answered yes to both questions, you have the definition of Original Sin.

If you answered no to any of these questions, please explain.

You keep staring at the word "Sin" in "Original Sin", thinking it means an actual sin, a sin that we commit. You and I cannot possibly commit Original Sin, no matter how hard we try. Not even the devil himself can commit Original Sin. It is impossible.

If it makes it any easier, let's call it "Original State" instead. So here's the definition of Original State:

Original State may denote either (1) the actual sin committed by our first parents, or (2) the unhappy state to which that sin reduced them and their posterity.

 

[Tradidi]

Infants are not lost for they have no sin that would cause them to be lost. They are born in a safe state.

Salvation is a free gift. Adam and Eve had this free gift, but they lost it through disobedience.

Ever since that first sin of Adam and Eve, all men are born without this free gift. They can regain their free gift, but only through obedience.

A free gift, lost through disobedience, regained through obedience.

Infants that die before being able to reclaim the free gift of salvation will neither be damned in hell (because they have committed no sin and deserve no punishment), nor saved in heaven (because they do not have the free gift of salvation). If this is your definition of "safe state" then I agree. If not, please explain what you mean with "safe state".