Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

[Ernest T. Bass]

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".

I see that the free gift, eternal life, is offered to all and it is up to man to either accept this free gift offer by meeting the conditions God has placed upon it or reject the offer.

Men in this life do not have possession of eternal life but possess the promise of eternal life (1 Jn 2:25). Those that obey have this promise, those that disobey do not have this promise.

Rom 9:11 infants have done no good or evil. Having done no evil they are not born lost but born in a neutral, innocent, safe state. If they die in that state, as David's son 2 Sam 12:23, they would be saved. But as they mature intellectually and learn right from wrong (Isa 7:15-16; Deut 1:39) they become accountable to God (Rom 7:8-9) when they sin. THEN they are in need of the promise of eternal life and can gain that promise by obedience to Christ's NT gospel.

So men are not born lost nor born with the promise of eternal life but born neutral. Not until they become accountable God and sin THEN they become lost. Not until they obey THEN they gain the promise of eternal life. The promise of eternal life therefore has not been 'lost' but is always there for those that have sinned and turn to Christ in obedience.


Sin in the Bible is defined as transgression against God's law, not the loss of a gift.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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.

Again the Bible defines sin as transgression of God's law. Therefore one is not, cannot be a sinner until they are capable of sinning against God.
Before Adam and Eve sinned Eden was a perfect paradise. After they sinned physical sickness and death along with spiritual death entered the world as a consequence of their sinning. We today suffer these consequences of their sinning but do not inherit sin from them. Man is not a sinner unless and until he commits a transgression against God.

 

[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


Of course all men will not be saved.




JLB

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

If (a) proves "all men" are unconditionally born sinners due to Adam's offence then (b) proves that same "all men" will unconditionally be justified due to the righteousness of Christ and we have Universalism.

You say yourself though that all men will not be saved. So how do you explain (b)?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

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

Man does not have to be born with a sin nature in order to be a sinner. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but were capable of sinning. All that is needed for man to be a sinner is a law and free will in choosing to break that law. Man is not born with a nature that impels, makes, forces him to sin against his will. Such an idea makes man a passive innocent victim of sin rather than an accountable perpetrator of sin.

 

[JLB]

f (a) proves "all men" are unconditionally born sinners due to Adam's offence then

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. Romans 5:18


Brother, I don’t actually know what point you are trying to make at this point.

No where in verse 18 do we find the phrase “unconditionally born sinners”.

It makes no sense to keep trying to discuss what the verse does not say.


Could we list the things that we agree on, then maybe this discussion may become fruitful in making a point that we have not agreed upon.

• All men are born with a physical body that contains sin and death, which was passed on from Adam’s one act of disobedience.

Agree or Disagree?

 

[JLB]

Man does not have to be born with a sin nature in order to be a sinner.

I don’t think we will ever know, since all men have sin dwelling in their physical body.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Man does not have to be born with a sin nature in order to be a sinner. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but were capable of sinning. All that is needed for man to be a sinner is a law and free will in choosing to break that law. Man is not born with a nature that impels, makes, forces him to sin against his will. Such an idea makes man a passive innocent victim of sin rather than an accountable perpetrator of sin.

Would you mind answering the poll?

 

[Tradidi]

Again the Bible defines sin as transgression of God's law. Therefore one is not, cannot be a sinner until they are capable of sinning against God.
Before Adam and Eve sinned Eden was a perfect paradise. After they sinned physical sickness and death along with spiritual death entered the world as a consequence of their sinning. We today suffer these consequences of their sinning but do not inherit sin from them. Man is not a sinner unless and until he commits a transgression against God.

I agree, we are not sinners until we commit sin. But we do suffer the consequences of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, as you just said.

So then, please explain what we are disagreeing on?

 

[Link1983]

Is obeying the Lord and His Commandments required for salvation?

Yes! Obeying and ONE commandment!
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another.
John 13:34 AMP

John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another. | Amplified Bible (AMP) | Download The Bible App Now

I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another.

bible.com

 

[JLB]

Yes! Obeying and ONE commandment!
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another.
John 13:34 AMP

John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another. | Amplified Bible (AMP) | Download The Bible App Now

I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you too are to love one another.

bible.com

Amen. The law of the Lord has always been one commandment.


“Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the LORD God of your fathers has promised you—a land flowing with milk and honey.’
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:1-4

• You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

The “way” we obey this one commandment is to love our neighbor as ourself.


If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 1 John 4:20



JLB

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

At this stage of my life at 77 years old and being a believer for 42 years, and having a personal relationship with God, the words "REQUIRED" and "LOVE" seem to be POLAR OPPOSITES to each other
To me the description of the two together is more like a description of legalism or rule keeping.

When you get married, then as you grow older together, and you both work hard on the relationship, the love grows deeper, and you appreciate each other so much more than when you both were young.

What you do for each other isn't because your "REQUIRED" to, and the love you feel isn't because you "SHOULD" or "HAVE TO", in both cases, as well as all other cases in your relationship, everything you do is because you can't help it out of the beautiful love you share for one another.
To me, true, honest love erases requirements and responsibilities and obligation, because everything your ALLOWED to do can be seen as a"MAGNIFISENT GIFT" of opportunity to show LOVE, as a reflection to God or your wife, of gratitude
for all that has come to be precious and absolutely astounding between the 2 of you.

For me, when I think about my wife loving me, or when I think about God loving me, I'm simply ASTOUNDED and overwhelmed at times, that something as precious as love and sometimes so truly RARE, I can not only experience it, and not only call my own, but I have the amazing priviledge to return that love and know it's recived with the same warmth and love it was given.

So far beyond "REQUIRED" !!!

My name is OLIGOS

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

Tradidi, ( the above is for ETB).
What @Earnest T. Bass is referring to is concupiscence. He does not believe we are born with concupiscence --- what the Protestant faith knows as the sin nature, or the flesh.

I have repeatedly said that we are not IMPUTED with Adam's sin but only suffer the consequences of it.

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.

Adam lost for us the preternatural gifts:
Immortality
Infused Knowledge
Sanctifying Grace, as you've stated
and probably some more I can't think of right now.

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).

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).


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.

The early church did not teach that unbaptized babies go to hell.
Augustine, about 400AD, taught that babies are IMPUTED with Original Sin and if they died sans baptism they would be lost. Hence, the rush to baptize babies ASAP.

As to limbo,,,this was never a doctrine (teaching) of the church.
Some in the church taught it since babies in hell was such a horrid thought...and the church
never corrected this so it was believed by Catholic lay persons that the CHURCH taught the existence of limbo.

What we know for sure is that the CC does NOT teach that unbaptized babies go to hell.

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.

 

[Tradidi]

Augustine, about 400AD, taught that babies are IMPUTED with Original Sin and if they died sans baptism they would be lost. Hence, the rush to baptize babies ASAP.

I never studied St. Augustine's writings, so I can't comment on what he believed or taught. But I do know that the reason Traditional Catholics had/have their babies baptised asap, is because they realise the immense value of the beatific vision. Living in perfect natural happiness is nothing compared to the infinite supernatural happiness of seeing God face to face. And this supernatural happiness cannot be obtained without baptism. Hence, good Catholic parents do not take any unnecessary risk by delaying having their babies baptised, no matter how small that risk may be. The potential loss for their child is simply too great.

Modern "Catholics" however believe in all kinds of wishy washy feel good theories, thinking/pretending that practically everybody will end up in heaven, hence no need to rush having infants baptised.

In that sense, natural happiness can be regarded as "being lost" compared to supernatural happiness. I don't know whether this is what St. Augustine meant or believed, but I do know that is how Traditional Catholics believe it today.

 

[Tradidi]

Adam lost for us the preternatural gifts:
Immortality
Infused Knowledge
Sanctifying Grace, as you've stated
and probably some more I can't think of right now.

Adam and Eve enjoyed Sanctifying Grace, Integrity, Immortality, Happiness and Knowledge.
After their fall, they lost, and we are born without, Sanctifying Grace and subject to Concupiscence, Death, Suffering and Ignorance.
Baptism restores Grace, but not the other gifts until the next life.

What @Earnest T. Bass is referring to is concupiscence. He does not believe we are born with concupiscence --- what the Protestant faith knows as the sin nature, or the flesh.

I think it is pretty hard to deny that we are all subject to concupiscence, death, suffering and ignorance, although many people do not want to say so because they would be agreeing with a source they do not like to credit with having any truth

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

It's too bad when the wisdom of the elders is abandoned for the ignorance of the youth.

My name is OLIGOS

 

[Tradidi]

It's too bad when the wisdom of the elders is abandoned for the ignorance of the youth.

My name is OLIGOS

On the other hand, ignorant people get old too

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

On the other hand, ignorant people get old too

 

[JLB]

Men in this life do not have possession of eternal life but possess the promise of eternal life (1 Jn 2:25). Those that obey have this promise, those that disobey do not have this promise.

You are one of the very few people I have seen that seem to understand this principle.


We who are Christ’s do indeed have the hope of eternal life.

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7

• having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

If we are heirs, then we have the hope of inheriting eternal life.


And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. Matthew 19:29



However we who are joined to the Lord and are one spirit with Him are joined to and are one with the Spirit of life in Christ.


But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
1 Corinthians 6:17


However, we know that to have everlasting life, it means we can not die, and we know our physical bodies will indeed die someday, except those who are raptured.


So the hope of everlasting life is seen in the resurrection of the dead in Christ.


Paul says it this way to the Romans —


For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. Romans 8:24-25

• for why does one still hope for what he sees?

Paul says we are waiting for salvation eagerly... even the resurrection of our mortal bodies, when Christ Jesus returns.



Amen, come Lord Jesus.


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Man does not have to be born with a sin nature in order to be a sinner. Adam and Eve did not have a sin nature but were capable of sinning. All that is needed for man to be a sinner is a law and free will in choosing to break that law. Man is not born with a nature that impels, makes, forces him to sin against his will. Such an idea makes man a passive innocent victim of sin rather than an accountable perpetrator of sin.

Eve was deceived.
Genesis 3:13

But we now know what sin is and can no longer be deceived and instead we sin.

Adam, representing all mankind, sinned, thus bringing sin into the world.

You say we are born good.
How do you justify this?
Are there verses in the N.T. that state this?

 

[GodsGrace]

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.

The old man that diese in Romans 6:1-7 is a man of sin.
HOW do we know he was not born that way?

When I became a Christian some taught that we are born good.
I could not find this idea in the N.T.