Salvation by faith alone/only?

[Grubal Muruch]

I believe the real problem here is this:

People correctly believe that one we put our faith in Jesus, our final salvation is basically assured. Fine - this idea is asserted all over the place in the New Testament. I entirely accept this idea.

But then such people make a Biblically unjustified, and otherwise illogical move - they assume that believing the above is incompatible with also believing that, at the final judgement, it will be our "deeds" that are the basis of salvation, which is what Paul is clearly asserting in Romans 2:6-7.

But there is no incompatiblility if we allow the following (which Paul asserts elsewhere anyway): The person who accepts Christ by faith, and faith alone, is then given the Spirit, and the Spirit then transforms that person into one who produces the good works that will be the basis of the awarding of salvation at the final judgement.

At the end of the day, we need to accept the truthfulness of Romans 2:6-7.

I'm afraid you've made one mistake in your interpretation, the basis for our rewards is NOT Salvation, because we already received that after we put our trust (faith) in Christ, the basis is, we are rewarded for certain works that we did (not in the flesh) but, in the power of the Holy Spirit...As true believers...

 

[glorydaz]

I am simply believing what Paul is saying.

You, and others, are placed in the extremely challenging position of explaining why Paul would say that people are given eternal life based on persistence in doing good (equivalently, "what they have done", from verse 6), when he does not really believe this!!!

Does that not strike you as odd? Where is the evidence that Paul does not really believe this? Has he prefaced the statement with a "this is how you would be saved if it were not for salvation by faith" disclaimer?

In my last post, I have explained precisely how what Paul says here is not incompatible with his other statements about salvation by faith.

I see not one shred of evidence to believe that Paul does not mean exactly what he says here.

And, yes, I believe the statement about Jacob and Esau.

This sounds like quibbling to me. We already know that God has ordained that we manifest good deeds once we've been filled with the Spirit. It's like a discussion of what comes first ...the chicken or the egg. We're saved by grace through faith, and our good deeds are a manifestation of our faith. Are we saved because of Christ's work on the cross or are we saved by the Holy Spirit's fruit in our lives? What if a man dies shortly after believing and hasn't had a chance to rack up any good deeds? What a dilemma....

Back to this...are you saying God hated Esau. That he loves some people and hates others?

 

[Drew]

The basis and foundation of our "Salvation" is ONLY, Christ, and Him crucified. We must interpret Scripture on this, number one premise. If we don't, then we get lost in the misrepresentation of other Scripture. We are NOT saved by, Christ's sacrifice on the cross, AND our works. It's one way or the other, and Jesus said it best, "I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but by me...

The fundamental error here is the 'one or the other' presumption. This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post, where I pointed out how we do not need to deny the truthfulness of Romans 2:6-7, as you are clearly doing.

Do you believe this statement?:

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

If you do, we are in agreement.

If you do not, you are deciding to screen out certain statements from Scripture.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

The fundamental error here is the 'one or the other' presumption. This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post, where I pointed out how we do not need to deny the truthfulness of Romans 2:6-7, as you are clearly doing.

Do you believe this statement?:

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

If you do, we are in agreement.

If you do not, you are deciding to screen out certain statements from Scripture.

Context is EVERYTHING. And we MUST keep ONE general rule, and that is, Christ's finished work on the cross takes
precedence over ALL our interpretation of other Scripture. We must first decide if (other Scripture) coincides with Christ's work on the cross if it doesn't, then it's not because Scripture contradicts, it's OUR interpretation that's off...

 

[Free]

This sounds like quibbling to me. We already know that God has ordained that we manifest good deeds once we've been filled with the Spirit. It's like a discussion of what comes first ...the chicken or the egg. We're saved by grace through faith, and our good deeds are a manifestation of our faith. Are we saved because of Christ's work on the cross or are we saved by the Holy Spirit's fruit in our lives? What if a man dies shortly after believing and hasn't had a chance to rack up any good deeds? What a dilemma....

It is interesting how often people argue to the exception and not the rule. Exceptions do not prove the rule false. Scripture speaks of salvation as a past event, a present and continuing reality, and a future event. That should help to clear up a bit of the misunderstandings regarding whether works result in our salvation, whether they are a result of our salvation, or both.

 

[Drew]

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Now let's be fair: If we view this as a sentence in English, it is clear that the sentence asserts that eternal life is awarded to those who persist in doing good.

As much as we might close our eyes and click our heels, we cannot change the text to this:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who place faith in Jesus, he will give eternal life.

Now lest misrepresentation-palooza rear its head, I want to be clear: I believe that eternal life is indeed given to those who place faith in Jesus.

But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, this is not what this text in particular says.

Can those of you who do not believe the Pauline version explain what Paul was trying to tell us when he dictated those words, if not the "literal" interpretation I accept, and you reject.

 

[Free]

Context is EVERYTHING. And we MUST keep ONE general rule, and that is, Christ's finished work on the cross takes
precedence over ALL our interpretation of other Scripture. We must first decide if (other Scripture) coincides with Christ's work on the cross if it doesn't, then it's not because Scripture contradicts, it's OUR interpretation that's off...

Not that I have read through the thread but there is nothing stated in the last page or two that is against any understanding of Christ's work on the cross. Of course, your statement does presume that your interpretation is the correct one.

Just a couple of thoughts.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

It is interesting how often people argue to the exception and not the rule. Exceptions do not prove the rule false. Scripture speaks of salvation as a past event, a present and continuing reality, and a future event. That should help to clear up a bit of the misunderstandings regarding whether works result in our salvation, whether they are a result of our salvation, or both.

Could you please explain in simpler terms what you posted, I didn't quite understand your meaning...

 

[Free]

It is interesting how often people argue to the exception and not the rule. Exceptions do not prove the rule false. Scripture speaks of salvation as a past event, a present and continuing reality, and a future event. That should help to clear up a bit of the misunderstandings regarding whether works result in our salvation, whether they are a result of our salvation, or both.

Could you please explain in simpler terms what you posted, I didn't quite understand your meaning...

I had two thoughts there which I should have separated a bit more.

By "the rule," I mean that which happens most of the time and what we expect to happen most of the time, or simply the way things are most of the time. Those things which are exceptions to the rule, that is, those things which do not happen most of the time, do not necessarily prove the rule false. People often argue to the exceptions as though they prove the rule(s) false.

For example, those who don't think that baptism is necessary for salvation often point out the thief on the cross--he wasn't baptized but yet Jesus said he would be with him in Paradise. Those who use that argument conclude that therefore baptism isn't necessary for salvation. But clearly the case of the thief on the cross would be an exception to the general rule that Christians are generally baptized, and some would say even commanded to be baptized for salvation. I am not here trying to argue that baptism is necessary for salvation, just simply that such arguments against that position are the exception, not the rule. (And let's not turn this into such a debate, it is only an example).

Perhaps not the best example but I'm sure you understand what I mean (you probably did anyway).

As to what I was replying to--"What if a man dies shortly after believing and hasn't had a chance to rack up any good deeds? What a dilemma...."--this follows the "deathbed confession" argument. But again, this is the exception, not the rule. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people that get saved, get saved with quite a bit of time left in their lives; enough time to do good works or purpose in their hearts to do so.

As to the rest of my post, many argue that works are simply the result of our salvation, evidence of our salvation or our faith, and not something we do to attain salvation. This might have been the case if salvation was merely a past event.

However, since salvation is also spoken of as a continuing process and future event, it could very well be that good works play a part in making sure that process continues to the end. In this way, works are not only evidence that we are believers, they are true to the words of Paul in Romans 2.

And, of course, several similar passages can be presented which fully support such an understanding of Romans 2. Paul has much to say on being persistent, fighting the good fight, and running the race, often with conditional (if/then) statements.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I had two thoughts there which I should have separated a bit more.

By "the rule," I mean that which happens most of the time and what we expect to happen most of the time, or simply the way things are most of the time. Those things which are exceptions to the rule, that is, those things which do not happen most of the time, do not necessarily prove the rule false. People often argue to the exceptions as though they prove the rule(s) false.

For example, those who don't think that baptism is necessary for salvation often point out the thief on the cross--he wasn't baptized but yet Jesus said he would be with him in Paradise. Those who use that argument conclude that therefore baptism isn't necessary for salvation. But clearly the case of the thief on the cross would be an exception to the general rule that Christians are generally baptized, and some would say even commanded to be baptized for salvation. I am not here trying to argue that baptism is necessary for salvation, just simply that such arguments against that position are the exception, not the rule. (And let's not turn this into such a debate, it is only an example).

Perhaps not the best example but I'm sure you understand what I mean (you probably did anyway).

As to what I was replying to--"What if a man dies shortly after believing and hasn't had a chance to rack up any good deeds? What a dilemma...."--this follows the "deathbed confession" argument. But again, this is the exception, not the rule. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people that get saved, get saved with quite a bit of time left in their lives; enough time to do good works or purpose in their hearts to do so.

As to the rest of my post, many argue that works are simply the result of our salvation, evidence of our salvation or our faith, and not something we do to attain salvation. This might have been the case if salvation was merely a past event.

However, since salvation is also spoken of as a continuing process and future event, it could very well be that good works play a part in making sure that process continues to the end. In this way, works are not only evidence that we are believers, they are true to the words of Paul in Romans 2.

And, of course, several similar passages can be presented which fully support such an understanding of Romans 2. Paul has much to say on being persistent, fighting the good fight, and running the race, often with conditional (if/then) statements.

The main premise is this, the thief on the cross AND those who have a lifetime to create good works/fruit (through the power of the Spirit) both come and came by "FAITH" not works. It's ALWAYS been of faith (Old and New Testament) Faith is the common denominator...

 

[glorydaz]

The fundamental error here is the 'one or the other' presumption. This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post, where I pointed out how we do not need to deny the truthfulness of Romans 2:6-7, as you are clearly doing.

Do you believe this statement?:

7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

If you do, we are in agreement.

If you do not, you are deciding to screen out certain statements from Scripture.

Really? Someone is denying the truthfullness of what Paul has written here?

I certainly agree with Paul, and it's clear as a bell what he's saying. It seems to me that you're the one who's upset because you don't see the word faith in his statement. Faith is the centerpiece of Paul's discussion...must he use it in every sentence for it to be there?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

In like manner, let's look at Romans 4. "But to him that worketh not....his faith is counted for righteousness." You say this is a metaphor. Why is that? We see faith in Romans 2 because faith is what Paul is talking about, yet you deny what Paul is saying quite clearly here and call it a metaphor.

1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I submit you're doing exactly what Paul aludes to with this..."whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

You're just being contentious because you must prove yourself right at all costs. The cost is getting pretty high at this point since you insist we interpret this verse as you have instead of with the understanding the Spirit gives each of us individually. So, stop telling us we're denying what Paul is saying. That's bearing false witness. Our persistance in well doing is not the basis for our salvation, but the result of our salvation. Which is exactly what Paul is saying quite clearly.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Really? Someone is denying the truthfullness of what Paul has written here?

I certainly agree with Paul, and it's clear as a bell what he's saying. It seems to me that you're the one who's upset because you don't see the word faith in his statement. Faith is the centerpiece of Paul's discussion...must he use it in every sentence for it to be there?

In like manner, let's look at Romans 4. "But to him that worketh not....his faith is counted for righteousness." You say this is a metaphor. Why is that? We see faith in Romans 2 because faith is what Paul is talking about, yet you deny what Paul is saying quite clearly here and call it a metaphor.



I submit you're doing exactly what Paul aludes to with this..."whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

You're just being contentious because you must prove yourself right at all costs. The cost is getting pretty high at this point since you insist we interpret this verse as you have instead of with the understanding the Spirit gives each of us individually. So, stop telling us we're denying what Paul is saying. That's bearing false witness. Our persistance in well doing is not the basis for our salvation, but the result of our salvation. Which is exactly what Paul is saying quite clearly.

AMEN!!!

 

[reba]

Keep the discussion friendly guys
​

 

[glorydaz]

Keep the discussion friendly guys
​

Sorry, Reba.

What I should have said....

Drew, it isn't that I'm denying what Paul says in Romans 2, it's that I disagree with your interpretation of what he says.

IMO, he is not saying continuance in well doing is the "basis for salvation" or earns us eternal life. He is saying those who exhibit those qualities will have eternal life. I know you agree only those with faith will exhibit those qualities.

 

[reba]

Hot topics just need a reminder. Thanks for understanding!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Hot topics just need a reminder. Thanks for understanding!

The true "formula" is "Grace+Faith+Nothing.

 

[MarkT]

Being a former minister in the Church of Christ, I taught vehemently that salvation was dependent upon obedience just as much as faith, and faith was not enough, by itself, to bring about salvation. The bible seems to teach both views, that salvation is by faith alone and that it is not. This was one of the big factors in my deconversion, and I wonder what others have to say about the subject...

Salvation is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who keep his commandments will be saved. Obedience and faith are closely associated. Those who have faith are obedient. Those who are obedient show their faith in their obedience. Faith working in the obedient in turn increases faith when we can see our faith is justified. You can see our faith is justfied by looking at the world, how the world has turned against God and everyone is going their own way, haters of God, lovers of self, dogs, just as Jesus predicted it would be so in the last days.

Actually the word 'faith' implies all those things you are talking about. It implies love. It implies trust. It implies obedience.

 

[Sinthesis]

You are obviously not familiar with my position on this matter.

I have, in many threads, been as clear as clear can be that, yes, it is not "our" works that save - it is the works generated by the Holy Spirit that save. I have clearly stated this once more in this very thread!


My position on this matter is clear.

Obviously your position on this matter is either not clear, or you profess two contradictory positions. Perhaps it is your insistence on using the word "basis" when interpreting Romans 2:6-7 that is throwing people off. Please try to make your point without using the word "basis" (or any of its synonyms;)).

 

[Drew]

Obviously your position on this matter is either not clear, or you profess two contradictory positions.

My positions are only contradictory to those who insist, without Biblical justification, that the following is not possible:

A person who places faith in Jesus in the present is given the Holy Spirit. That Spirit then transforms the person into the kind of person who manifests good works (persists in doing good) and is then, in the future, awarded eternal life based on those good works.

But, of course, this is indeed possible.

So my positions are clearly not contradictory. And, in fact, I assert that the material in italics is a terse summary of Paul's position.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

My positions are only contradictory to those who insist, without Biblical justification, that the following is not possible:

A person who places faith in Jesus in the present is given the Holy Spirit. That Spirit then transforms the person into the kind of person who manifests good works (persists in doing good) and is then, in the future, awarded eternal life based on those good works.

But, of course, this is indeed possible.

So my positions are clearly not contradictory. And, in fact, I assert that the material in italics is a terse summary of Paul's position.

Good works NEVER bring about God's mercy and forgiveness. That's ONLY done through the work of Christ on the cross and subsequent Resurrection...Your the only one I've encountered on this forum that believes we can only be saved by works. I'm not picking on you, I just would like to understand, where you learned this ? It's a lot different than I've ever come across. Christian believers, usually adhere to the idea that works are not the way to Salvation. Could you tell me a little about your religious background ?