dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
A couple of questions...
Does a person have to have faith in Jesus in order to be saved?
If a person rejects Jesus is he saved anyway?
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Not all born-again Christians make it through the sanctification process!
- Thread starter John Zain
- Start date
A couple of questions...
Does a person have to have faith in Jesus in order to be saved?
If a person rejects Jesus is he saved anyway?
Deborah13
Member
- Nov 30, 2012
- 14,684
- 1,936
I see that you have perseverance in the faith that saved you. That faith you had in the beginning. Knowing that only by His righteousness and faithfulness, can you be saved.
Bless you.
Douvie
Member
- Apr 25, 2013
- 23
- 0
Short answer: YES. Long answer: Also yes.
Christ is the only way. But if one has rejected in the past, but if one comes to realise his/her error and repents, forgiveness will come from the Lord.
However if one rejects the offer from the Saviour then one is not saved. So no! One is not saved if one rejects the Saviour.
Last edited by a moderator:
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
Then salvation takes a RESPONSE from us? It takes cooperation, right? Without a response, salvation can't happen.
So, when someone equates losing salvation to GOD FAILING US, it's a bit of a non-sequitur. WE fail God and lose our salvation, He doesn't fail us..
If we believe and God promises to save us, God can change His promise if the creature fails? Acts 16:31
This is on a very good thread that I have noticed has been Ignored by all who believe in losing the Promise of God.
The Logical rationale: Rom 8:31-32 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32)
Paul uses “a fortiori” logic to present God’s way of dealing with mankind.
If God is willing to Give mankind His Highest and Best(His Son) it stands to reason that he would not withhold the lesser(eternal life, deliverance from the lake of fire.....)
The Greek tense Rationale: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
The Greek word for “believe” in Acts 16:31 is pisteuo and is in the constantive aeroist tense which means to believe in a point of time which is perpetuated throughout eternity – and you shall be saved forever. This is referring to an instant of faith, and it means once and forever you are saved.
Do you know all these? Do you realize how SECURE you are in Christ?
Compared to Gods perfection we fail Him numerous times every second, if we are completely Honest with ourselves. That is why He promises to save us if we believe, He knows we will fail. He will not.
In actuality, you are failing God at this moment by not believing He has you secure. But He will still Hold you securely In His salvation of you even if you do not believe Him.
ezra
Member
- Sep 17, 2012
- 6,179
- 2,624
{no} if we reject jesus we never was saved to start with .
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
Change His promise? Huh? Is that the same thing as reneging on a promise? Acts 16:31 has nothing to do with eternal security.
Which one? The "changed" promise or the original one?
Nice switch. "Pisteuo" is the word for believe, not saved. If this word means "perpetuated throughout eternity", wouldn't the sentence go "believe (perpetuated throughout eternity) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."? The salvation is not eternal, the belief is.
Yes, as long as I remain in Christ. If I reject Christ at some point in the future, I lose my salvation. (Matt. 24:13)
Right, and if we fail, He will forgive us, IF we ask. If we remain in a "failing" relationship with God, we lose our salvation.
Where does Scripture teach that not believing in eternal security means "failing God"?
What about if I reject Him outright? If, after having accepted Him as Lord and Savior, I reject this salvation, am I still saved?
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
{no} if we reject jesus we never was saved to start with .
This is ridiculous. If a person "accepts Jesus", then "shows" his saving faith by his works (James 2), isn't he saved/justified? If, at some point in time, he rejects Christ, then the "accepting" and "showing" were never real? You might as well just say there is no eternal security, because you can't possibly know, and knowing is the heart of SECURITY.
Let's let Scripture answer your question:
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
It is NOT works that saves anyone. That is Pelagian theology. Here is the historical perspective2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
... he [Pelagius] fashioned after the ethical principles of the Stoics and upon which his vision was centred. We must also take into account that his intimacy with the Greeks developed in him, though unknown to himself, a one-sidedness, which at first sight appears pardonable. The gravest error into which he and the rest of the Pelagians fell, was that they did not submit to the doctrinal decisions of the Church.
Here is more:Distressed by the apathy he found among Christians in Rome (he himself was said to have sold all his possessions), Pelagius contended that they were encouraged in this by Augustine’s view of divine grace, which asserted man’s inability to earn salvation. Pelagius particularly disliked the prayer of Augustine in his Confessions, “Give what Thou commandest—and command what Thou wilt.” The controversy expanded when the Goths invaded Rome (410) and forced Pelagius and his ex–lawyer colleague Celestius to migrate to North Africa. This was the territory of Augustine, who lost no time in confronting what he denounced as a dangerous heresy.
It is not clear how much Celestius contributed to the latter, but Augustine took issue with it chiefly on three points: the denial of original sin; the view that justifying grace is not given freely, but according to merit; and the assertion that after baptism sinless perfection is possible. About 412 Pelagius went on to Palestine, where at the synod of Jerusalem in 415 he contrived to avoid censure on charge of heresy. Meanwhile the more aggressive Celestius had been condemned by the church at Carthage for expressing opinions of which Pelagius might not have approved (for example, the outright rejection of infant baptism).
A two–pronged attack by Augustine and Jerome (a powerful combination) led to Pelagius’s condemnation by two African councils in 416, a decision upheld by Pope Innocent I, who in 417 excommunicated Pelagius and Celestius
Douglas, J. (1992). Pelagius. In J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort (Eds.), Who's Who in Christian history (J. Douglas & P. W. Comfort, Ed.) (546–547). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.It is not clear how much Celestius contributed to the latter, but Augustine took issue with it chiefly on three points: the denial of original sin; the view that justifying grace is not given freely, but according to merit; and the assertion that after baptism sinless perfection is possible. About 412 Pelagius went on to Palestine, where at the synod of Jerusalem in 415 he contrived to avoid censure on charge of heresy. Meanwhile the more aggressive Celestius had been condemned by the church at Carthage for expressing opinions of which Pelagius might not have approved (for example, the outright rejection of infant baptism).
A two–pronged attack by Augustine and Jerome (a powerful combination) led to Pelagius’s condemnation by two African councils in 416, a decision upheld by Pope Innocent I, who in 417 excommunicated Pelagius and Celestius
Here are some text comparisons of verse 4:
ESV | Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
1901 ASV | Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
NASB95 | Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
NIV | Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
You should be able to see the uniformity of the contrast between grace and works in all of them, including the KJV, from which I made the long copy above.1901 ASV | Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
NASB95 | Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
NIV | Ro 4:4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
My point is simple:
Nothing in the Epistle of James, the half brother of Jesus, and the first Bishop of Jerusalem says that anyone is saved by works. works are indeed a fruit of salvation, but in order to have a fruit, you first have a tree from which to pluck that fruit.
Nor can Philippians 2:12-13 support that if they are considered IN CONTEXT and not as stand-alone verses.
Philippians 2:12 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.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure
What I have given you is a historical perspective as well as a Bible perspective, and here is another one, it is called the Critical Apparatus, and it is significant because it takes every known variation of every Scripture in the New Testament, and makes scholarly-based estimations of the accuracy of each Greek variant of any particular verse. In total, there are about 6000 different fragments, and different sources from which we can gather information about a particular verse. The science of this academic field is so exact, that the original variations are known and cataloged, and the scholars can trace the families of texts that carried forth a particular variation.13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure
Of course there are some verses that have no variations, and in that case, the original Greek texts from the original authors have been copied exactly as the Apostles wrote them. Romans 4:4 is one of those verses.
Considering the fact that Paul wrote that, and it has not been altered in the slightest in over 2000 years, that is a strong attestation as to what Paul meant when he wrote that section.
Respectfully, I state that if you disagree with what I posted above, then your argument is with Paul, and not me. All I did is copy the words of Paul, then explain why it is impossible for anyone to make the case for an "altered text". Of course, I am not on the same level as Paul, an Apostle! But if anyone were to state that "Paul did not mean that when he wrote that" and to impose a works-centered salvation, that person must have the authority of someone greater than an Apostle to state that. No Apostles exist today.
In a previous post (here?) I explained to you that it is impossible for anyone to be saved by works alone according to Scripture. Finally, I close with the first time that the words of Romans 4:4 were written in the Bible
Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it
Since this is in the beginning of the Bible, and Moses wrote it before 1200 BC, that MUST be a strong theme in Scripture, right? I can respect the position that you may take by saying "I do not like that." but all of this post is doing is demonstrating that the entire Bible from the beginning to its (near its) end salvation by grace, and not by works. As a result anyone taking a different position does so in utter opposition to what God caused the Apostle Paul and Moses to write.6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it
Please, if you respond, and do not like what I posted, tell me exactly how I am wrong in citing those sources.
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
Palagianism mostly concerns free-will, not faith vs. works. Anyway, I'm not sure why you went here. I'm Catholic, and the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic long ago. I don't hold the teachings of Pelagius.
I don't think the text was altered, nor that Paul didn't mean what he wrote. I don't know where you are getting these ideas. Do you maybe have me confused with someone else?
OK. I don't hold we are justified by works ALONE, nor by faith alone, but by working faith.
You stated above "Nor can Philippians 2:12-13 support that if they are considered IN CONTEXT and not as stand-alone verses."
My view is that IN CONTEXT, when Paul condemns "works" in his "faith v. works" sections, he is speaking primarily of works of the law and circumcision, not all deeds. The burden of proof is on you to show that by "works" Paul means baptism, charity, refraining from sin, etc. I don't think Paul had these things in mind when he condemns "works" and contrasts them with faith. Read Acts 15. That there were "Judiazers" teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation, was the first real theological challenge to the early Church. This is the heresy Paul was reacting to and what took the brunt of his condemnation.
Anyway, this is sort of off topic. If you would like to continue in the faith v. works vein, start another thread or post on the other two that mention "works" here in A&T, and I'll be happy to respond there.
What I posted first contradicts your assertion
By Grace said:
Anytime anyone adds works to the requirement of salvation, that person is adding works, by definition, no matter how fancy of a word you use to describe it,
The heresy of Judiazing is the theme of Galatians, not Philippians. Philippians is an exposition on who Jesus Christ is, and what our responses should be.
Nothing of what you claim, especially regarding circumcision is mentioned in the passage, not those that are nearby. I suggest that you may be conflating Galatians and Philippians and creating a different doctrine than what was intended by Paul.
As to your assertion "Anyway, this is sort of off topic. If you would like to continue in the faith v. works vein, start another thread or post on the other two that mention "works" here in A&T, and I'll be happy to respond there. " I quote from the OP which clearly mentions salvation:
Therefore if the poster John Zain believes that I have derailed his OP, it is his duty to inform a moderator, who will then correct me.
Comprehender
Member
- Mar 29, 2012
- 249
- 0
I agree that God's strength is perfected in our weakness and that we are called to a life of holiness and separation.
Many are called (all of us are) but few are chosen, because few choose God over pleasing ourselves or others.
I don't agree that in this life, we can be completely free from sin. Sin is incorrect thought and related e-motions, intentions and actions. To my dying day, I will be imperfect, as everyone else is. It's nice in theory, to believe we are without sin... but in reality, we do harm ourselves and others by mistakes we make - every day. God made us perfectly imperfect, so we can be humble enough to learn & progress. We refuse to accept our God-given imperfection, so we make up stories about how God will only allow perfection & how we must jump through all kinds of hoops to obtain theoretical perfection.
God is love.
Love is hoping & striving for what is best, through trial & error - active faith.
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
What difference does it make. I don't hold Pelagian views. He was condemned as a heretic in the 5th century.
Nice try. Here is what I'm responding to:
You: "In a previous post (here?) I explained to you that it is impossible for anyone to be saved by works alone according to Scripture"
I never denied that obedience to God is necessary for salvation, but I do deny I have ever said we are saved by works ALONE. Do you have a quote from me that says otherwise, or will you be admitting your straw-man and apologizing now?
Are you reading what I write or simply responding to what you THINK I'm saying? First I'm a Pelagian, then I think salvation is by works alone, now this? Please re-read my post. You said you care about CONTEXT. OK, so do I.
When Paul contrasts faith and works in his letters (as in Rom. 4, which you mentioned), the "works" are ALWAYS in the context of "works of the law" or circumcision. "Works of the law" is what Paul means when he says "works" and contrasts them with faith. He DOES NOT MEAN baptism, charity, etc. If you think he does, simply prove it. Show me a place in Scripture where baptism or charity are called "works" and contrasted with faith. If you can't (and you CAN'T), then it logically follows that Paul is NOT talking about these things when he contrasts faith with works.
I showed you both in Romans 4 and then in Genesis, where it was fforst stated by Moses that Abraham believed, and it was reconed unto him as righteousness.
Please demonstrate where in these verses do you find " the "works" are ALWAYS in the context of "works of the law" or circumcision "
Genesis 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it
The mark of the covenant, or circumcision did not happen until Genesis 17:13, and the Law was not given until Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch. Therefore in the light of this verse, it is impossible to ascribe any sort of work of Abraham wherein he obtained righteousness.6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. 7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it
I am NOT calling you names, so that is settled. Please read the quote below if you doubt my assertion
Do you recall this, which you wrote"
Originally Posted by dadof10
OK. I don't hold we are justified by works ALONE, nor by faith alone, but by working faith.
I responded that you are adding an uncalled-for adjective to faith, and in doing so, you are adding to "faith" a component of works. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that substantiated your created word.
BTW I am not thinking of you as an enemy, or an opponent. What you seem to be, is a person who is trying to learn systematic theology. For that there are several very good books. the Moody Handbook of Theology is relatively simple, inexpensive if you get used, and easy to read. I do not believe that there is a good Catholic systematic theology (not because I am an "anti-catholic", which I am not) but because you guys have this doctrine of "Papal inerrancy" which does not always agree with Scripture. Again that is not a swipe, but a statement of fact, OK?
dadof10
Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 2,718
- 0
"What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin." (Rom 4)
What are the "works" Paul is talking about here? Let's go to the verses DIRECTLY PRECEDING Rom. 4 and find out:
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Rom. 3)
Now, let's keep going in Rom. 4 and see if this theme is continued as he brings Abraham into the conversation:
9 Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom 4)
This is the context of Romans 4 and ALL of Paul's "faith v. works" sections. It is blatantly obvious what Paul means by "works" and WHY he brings up Abraham in the first place. Because he is talking about circumcision and responding to the "Judaizers" who are teaching that circumcision is necessary for salvation.
Now, it's your turn. If you believe that by "works" Paul means all deeds (but faith), simply prove it.
I'm in good company:I am NOT calling you names, so that is settled. Please read the quote below if you doubt my assertion
Do you recall this, which you wrote"
I responded that you are adding an uncalled-for adjective to faith, and in doing so, you are adding to "faith" a component of works. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that substantiated your created word.Originally Posted by dadof10
OK. I don't hold we are justified by works ALONE, nor by faith alone, but by working faith.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." (Gal. 5:6)
Faith working, working faith...TomAto tomauto...
LOL...Please. Why would I want to "study" systematic theology from a Johnny-come-lately like Moody? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been formulating ST since the 2nd century.
"The systematic presentation of the Christian faith is not a new concept. Wolfhart Pannenberg writes that "systematic theology... emerged long before the term came into common use. Materially the systematic presentation of Christian teaching is very much older. It was already the object of Gnostic systems in the 2nd century, and although it remained merely implicit in the works of the early Apologists, and anti-Gnostic fathers like Irenaeus, Origen presented his work on origins (peri-archon) in the form of a systematic presentation of the Christian doctrine of God."
http://www.theopedia.com/Systematic_theology
BTW. It's Papal Infallibility and it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ST. There is no contradiction between ST and the doctrine of Infallibility. It's apples and oranges...
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
LOL! Perhaps not anti-Catholic, but certainly ignorant of things Catholic. There are no good Catholic systematic theology books out there??? Ever hear of the Catholic Catechism? It's been around for a few years...
Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas?
What is "Papal Inerrancy"? Never heard of it.
Amazing how many people talk down Catholicism but can't figure out what it teaches...
Regards
Last edited by a moderator:
smaller
Member
- Oct 23, 2003
- 12,380
- 664
Why bother? It's disallowed to discuss it. If it isn't, then the logical conclusion is salvation by faith plus works, the conclusion of which, salvation, remains unknown i.e. there is no threshold level to measure by for works, what they are, what is sufficient, what will not be. It's a completely arbitrary open ended matter. It could theoretically range from as little as providing a cold cup of water one time to another person to selling everything one has and giving everything to the poor.
And the fact also in such constructs is there is assuredly no certainty. Salvation remains with a best case scenario of 'reasonable expectations' which means salvation is and remains a factual big maybe for the entire life of the adherents of those types of constructs. And if salvation is on maybe grounds, logic dictates that maybe not can be part of the picture just as readily and easily as maybe so.
If we could speak more openly on this subject I would be much harsher on the observations of fact from the sect in question and how they measure to other believers. Needless to say it is not pretty. So I can see the wisdom of it being non allowed topic matter.
In essence though any sect teaching MAYBE NOT salvation unto believers have issues. And part of that is that the holders themselves may NOT even be saved by their own measures. They really have no way of knowing any more than a reasonable shot at it. And that shot can just as readily evaporate at any time given their particular set up circumstances.
s
Last edited by a moderator:
smaller
Member
- Oct 23, 2003
- 12,380
- 664
Anyone who wants to hinge their salvation on works might try to tackle Paul's factual depiction of his own state here and say how the 'present tense' chief of sinners was saved?
Please note that the fact of the matter is not stated as 'I used to be' or 'I was' but instead, "I am."
1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Can any believer take a stab at how Paul made that a 'present tense' conclusion? Does anyone even have a clue?
There is a very reasonable and logical way that Paul derives that understanding.
And surely surely there must have been numerous sinners on the face of the earth at the time that were vastly more evil sinners than Paul? Surely?
Paul is actually showing very much a Divine Principle in action by applying that fact to himself.
So, if Paul was doing salvation works, how is it he wound up as 'thee chief sinner?'
By all means, speculate speculate speculate.
???
s
Please note that the fact of the matter is not stated as 'I used to be' or 'I was' but instead, "I am."
1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Can any believer take a stab at how Paul made that a 'present tense' conclusion? Does anyone even have a clue?
There is a very reasonable and logical way that Paul derives that understanding.
And surely surely there must have been numerous sinners on the face of the earth at the time that were vastly more evil sinners than Paul? Surely?
Paul is actually showing very much a Divine Principle in action by applying that fact to himself.
So, if Paul was doing salvation works, how is it he wound up as 'thee chief sinner?'
By all means, speculate speculate speculate.
???
s
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4
Before people continue on this age-old discussion, they should define several words, since it appears people tend to talk past each other.
Salvation
Justification
Faith
Works
When do these happen? What are they?
Once you get that down, it saves a lot of time.
Regards
Last edited by a moderator:
francisdesales
Member
- Aug 10, 2006
- 7,793
- 4