Salvation by faith alone/only?

[glorydaz]

AGAIN AND AGAIN, I ask you, where does Romans 2 or ANYWHERE suggest that "this offer is void if caught - disobeying the Law"???

You are again ascribing to salvation by law following. Salvation is ONLY ONLY ONLY given as a gift. Perfect Law following, if and when done, would suggest a WAGE PAID. Even the perfect law follower MUST DEPEND UPON GRACE!!!

You continue to miss the boat...

Salvation is a gift. It can NEVER be something earned, even by a perfect law follower.

What I find interesting is that you and Drew seem to be arguing on the same side and yet you're saying totally different things. No, I am not ascribing to salvation law following. There is no amount of law following that will give us eternal life, because we are not perfect like our Lord was. He is the only ONE ever able to obey in every point and be sinless at the same time. I've been saying that all along.

The contentious spirit coming from both you and Drew is getting out of hand. Why all the jabs? "You continue to miss the boat..." etc. Both you and Drew are screaming and yelling with your big letters and your bullying tactics. What's up with that? Relax. I know very well you're entirely capable of carrying on a well-thought out and compelling argument. I've seen you do so in the past. Please, Joe, since we both love the same Lord, let's try and calmly reason together without all these attacks.

 

[francisdesales]

So what do you plan on doing with the scripture that tells us "the doer of the law is justified before God?'

Why are they justified, Glorydaz? That's the crucial misunderstanding you continue to have. GOD is doing the justifying - based upon HIS OWN ideas of granting conditional mercy upon men. Paul is not saying that "God owes the doer of the law" or "God MUST justify the doer of the law".

Unfortunately, that is what you are stating.

If someone can do the law (like Paul), God would "owe" them, if salvation was based upon wages. They would appear before God as "self-justified". They would have SOMETHING TO BOAST OF!!! Ephesians 2 does not allow such an understanding of law obedience.

That is simply not the case, impossible, according to Scriptures. NOT because no one can (since Paul states that he did) "do the law", but because salvation is a gift, not wages. IF salvation was "wages paid", then people WOULD be self-reliant.

Now, pray tell, how does that "jive" with Jesus command to "be like children" to enter the Kingdom???

Was Jesus the only perfect doer of the law, or not?

That is not pertinent to this discussion.

Jesus was the only sinless man, but there is no Biblical discussion on THAT REQUIREMENT to be sinless so as to earn salvation!!!

DOING so does not earn salvation, so it is a moot point.

Certainly, anyone can be called righteous, but no one is righteous except God and Jesus Christ.

What God states is indeed what it is. God doesn't call an elephant "dog". What He calls, it is. This fallacy of yours stems from the fabled "forensic imputed justification" theology. Christ comes to abide in us, we are MADE just, not only "just for pretend".

There is no "word search" out that there will change the truth of the Holy Scripture.

Nor, it appears, are there any words in Scriptures that lay out your "theology"... I have continued to ask for them, but they are not forthcoming. They merely are proving my point - that Paul's point is not about WHETHER someone can perfectly follow the Law, but WHAT GOOD IS IT!!! It is meaningless, since even a perfect man cannot rely on himself in God's eyes. My Phil. citation makes that clear.

I'll have to leave this one for the readers to decide for themselves. As for me, there is no doubt.

Yes, I have heard that ignorance is bliss...

It is quite plain that even the perfect follower of the Law is owed NOTHING by God. You keep bringing up non-sequitars, instead of addressing the issue - that perfect law following cannot earn anything from God. Salvation is plainly a gift. This somehow escapes glorydaz.

Regards

 

[Grubal Muruch]

WHERE on earth are you getting this from??? :o

DID you read the Scriptures that I pointed out??? It doesn't sound like you did. But let me post it for others who are more open to reading Scriptures...

Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves: Each one not considering the things that are his own, but those that are other men's. For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names.
Phil 2:3-9 (DRA)

Good gravy, how could you miss the kenosis in this statement? Why did God highly exalt him? For HUMBLING HIMSELF! Not for self-justifying himself through perfect law following. You appear to have a GRAVE misunderstanding of what was accomplished by Christ. In addition, it seems you'll ignore Scriptures to keep this mirage of a theology afloat...



Is not Jesus the One Who grants the gift of salvation, since He is the One Who judges??? You present a false dilemna.

That Jesus is "the just one" does not mean no one else can be called just or righteous. Do a word search on "righteous" and see how often it applies to other people...

Fran, I have a question for you, why when someone disagrees with you, do you accuse them of believing that salvation comes through works?? Just an interesting little question to find where your coming from. With all due respect of course...

 

[Sinthesis]

All right, let me rephrase to make the question even more structurally similar to the actual passage:

A question for all, except fds (unless he wants to answer it as well).

Consider this couplet of statements:

The employer “will repay each person according to what they have done.â€[a] 7 To those who by persistence in working hard seek the company's best interest, he will give a $ 1000 raise.

What is the criteria for getting a raise?

This is a very simple question. Please answer it.

How can an equal raise for all "those" be "according to what they have done"? Humans by nature can't do anything (by persistence in working hard seek the company's best interest) in an equal way. Some will have "done" more.

 

[francisdesales]

Fran-----Where does Romans 2 mention that Gentiles put their faith in Jesus Christ? Any suggestion of that anywhere? Please stop inventing things to put in Scriptures. It is getting tiring correcting all of these assumptions.

Grubal----What possible reason would "anyone" have to "prove" that faith in Jesus is mentioned or not, in Roman 2??

Good gravy, because that is what you are claiming! You state that people who were unaware of the Law had faith in Jesus, although Jesus OR faith is not mentioned anywhere in Romans 2...! Is it any wonder you are accused of inventing theology when you have resorted to this twisting of Scriptures? Can we not just simply read what is there???

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Really, Joe. I'm surprised you didn't point out the part in red. I'm sure you'd have realized that Paul was talking about himself when he was "unconverted." Obviously, he was not a "doer of the law"

Obviously, you refuse to read the passage in your desperate bid to escape the reality of your position.

Paul says he was BLAMELESS in following the Law - BEFORE his conversion...

Obviously, he WAS a "doer of the law".

What Paul realizes, if you could read what I post, is that THIS SORT of "doing the Law" is self-reliance, an assumption that one can earn salvation by being a doer. "God owes me". Paul realizes such sort of obedience, perfect as it is, cannot grant salvation. Only a faith IN GOD's righteousness can remain man's hope for being saved. Paul's own righteousness has no power to obligate God :nod

How many more times must I repeat this before it sinks in???

Regards

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I am certainly not kidding.

In several of the gospel accounts, Jesus declares all foods clean.

This is a direct, clear, and unambiguous challenge to the Law of Moses which declared that certain foods are indeed unclean.

And I can predict what will happen - people will transform that clear statement into something it is not, just like what is being done with texts like Romans 2:6-7.

It can only be a "clear statement" when examining context, surrounding verses and, similar passages. I could just as easily claim that Jesus "abolished" the Law concerning murder by saying to kill His enemies in front Him who do not acknowledge Him as their King. That He "abolished" the Law concerning love by saying to be His disciple, you must hate your parents/siblings/spouse.


As far as "unclean food" goes, there is no word in the Greek text that can be translated "declared". This is not a problem of mistranslating a single word. The word simply doesn't exist! It was added, along with other words that can't be found in the Greek manuscripts. There is nothing close to the word "declared" being rendered from the Greek. If you examine several King James versions, they have "thus he declared..." a continuation of Jesus' words, not commentary by Mark. A more accurate translation would be "thus purging/purifying all food/meat". Again, Jesus' words, not Marks.

Jesus was making the point that it is what comes out of a man, that defiled him. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murder, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
Jesus was making the point that the above behavior is what we should concentrate on first, before worrying about unceremoniously eating with unclean hands or eating unclean foods. Because, clean and unclean food are digested the same way.

To use your own words:

Give first century people some credit for using hyperbole, metaphor, and other literary devices.

 

[francisdesales]

What I find interesting is that you and Drew seem to be arguing on the same side and yet you're saying totally different things. No, I am not ascribing to salvation law following. There is no amount of law following that will give us eternal life, because we are not perfect like our Lord was.

SEE? You did it again!!! You do not even realizing your are contradicting yourself, do you... I am utterly amazed...

You state, "I am not ascribing to salvation law-following"

Then, in the next line, you state a "theoretical", that IF someone was perfect like our Lord, than THAT would gain salvation!!! So you ARE ascribing salvation to the potential law-follower...Elsewhere, you totally forget that Christ PUT ASIDE all such notions of self-justification!!!

CAREFULLY think about this...

If person "x" could be perfect, they gain salvation. Just because person "x" 'cannot' (according to you), that does NOT remove the mistake you have made - that the POTENTIAL exists for man to self-justify himself.

I have said this over and over again. I guess you just don't WANT to hear the point I am making. Let's try one more time.

For argument's sake, let's take Paul at his word, who said he was indeed perfectly following the Law.

According to you, HE HAS JUSTIFIED HIMSELF, a legitimate path to salvation (albeit "impossible to actually do, according to you)! God now owes Paul salvation. What does Paul SAY about this line of thinking in Philipians???

Salvation has become a "wage" that God owes Paul. It matters not whether this is hypothetical or not. The fact remains that in your mind, someone COULD obligate God!!!

In NO CASE can salvation be earned. Even a perfect follower of the law (like Paul) cannot be justify self in God's eyes. Boasting is of no avail in the realm of salvation.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Fran, I have a question for you, why when someone disagrees with you, do you accuse them of believing that salvation comes through works?? Just an interesting little question to find where your coming from. With all due respect of course...

Even if the POTENTIAL exists for the perfect law-follower to go to God and claim "you owe me salvation", you have turned salvation from gift to wages, payment due from God. It matters not if, in your mind, no one can fulfill the Law (despite tons of Scriptures to the contrary). The mere idea of earning salvation if one is perfect is "salvation through self-justification/works".

Now, not only is there indeed the potential to follow the Law, but at least Paul claims he DID follow the Law. Blamelessly. Recall my citation from Phillipians. What did Paul realize? That self-justification could not lead to salvation.

Paul, the blameless follower of the Law, realized (after Christ opened His eyes of faith) that no one can earn salvation. All that matters is trusting in God to righteously fulfill His promises to those who obey Him. But on no account can we consider salvation a wage.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

Salvation has become a "wage" that God owes Paul.

Yes - that is the "Law of Works" - specified in Lev 18:5. And we are no longer under this. What seems to be the issue here?

 

[francisdesales]

The contentious spirit coming from both you and Drew is getting out of hand. Why all the jabs? "You continue to miss the boat..." etc. Both you and Drew are screaming and yelling with your big letters and your bullying tactics. What's up with that? Relax. I know very well you're entirely capable of carrying on a well-thought out and compelling argument. I've seen you do so in the past. Please, Joe, since we both love the same Lord, let's try and calmly reason together without all these attacks.

There is no "contentious spirit" here. It seems you are trying to get some thread sympathy, as if you are some sort of victim, while forgeting that I am not even an "adult"...

The underlined and highlighted/bolded words are meant to emphasize points that seem to be ignored by you. I could understand such a complaint if I never made these points before, but I have stated and restated, and had hoped that larger letters, red letters, bold letters, underlined letters, MIGHT get your attention, MIGHT get you to think.

Sorry, I had hopes...

 

[francisdesales]

Yes - that is the "Law of Works" - specified in Lev 18:5. And we are no longer under this. What seems to be the issue here?

I would suggest that there NEVER was such a means to receive salvation. Paul states that salvation has ALWAYS been by faith, using Abraham as the primary example, justified BY God before the Law was given to Moses.

Regards

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Good gravy, because that is what you are claiming! You state that people who were unaware of the Law had faith in Jesus, although Jesus OR faith is not mentioned anywhere in Romans 2...! Is it any wonder you are accused of inventing theology when you have resorted to this twisting of Scriptures? Can we not just simply read what is there???

Regards

Outrageous are your assumptions my dear friend. I said no such thing. This is truly an egregious attempt to "sully" my stand for truth. Your obvious "Modus operandi" is to place untruths to my person and thusly, misrepresent my views. Perhaps an apology would "accentuate" your grief for mentioning such a distorted menu of trifling error!!!

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Even if the POTENTIAL exists for the perfect law-follower to go to God and claim "you owe me salvation", you have turned salvation from gift to wages, payment due from God. It matters not if, in your mind, no one can fulfill the Law (despite tons of Scriptures to the contrary). The mere idea of earning salvation if one is perfect is "salvation through self-justification/works".

Now, not only is there indeed the potential to follow the Law, but at least Paul claims he DID follow the Law. Blamelessly. Recall my citation from Phillipians. What did Paul realize? That self-justification could not lead to salvation.

Paul, the blameless follower of the Law, realized (after Christ opened His eyes of faith) that no one can earn salvation. All that matters is trusting in God to righteously fulfill His promises to those who obey Him. But on no account can we consider salvation a wage.

Regards

To quote, Ronald Reagan, "Well there he goes again."

 

[francisdesales]

Outrageous are your assumptions my dear friend. I said no such thing. This is truly an egregious attempt to "sully" my stand for truth. Your obvious "Modus operandi" is to place untruths to my person and thusly, misrepresent my views. Perhaps an apology would "accentuate" your grief for mentioning such a distorted menu of trifling error!!!

Grubal,

Let me remind you, I am not just bouncing around these threads just peeking in. You addressed this directly to me. What is outrageous is your ATTEMPT to sound offended by my "false accusation". :bigfrown

How about you go re-read your post #340 and my response in post #358 and subsequent comments by you...

I see this as a truly desperate attempt to turn the tables, because I think you are realizing that on this subject, much of what you ASSUME in Scriptures is simply not FOUND in Scriptures. You took it for granted without actually reading what the verses state.

Regards

 

[ivdavid]

I would suggest that there NEVER was such a means to receive salvation. Paul states that salvation has ALWAYS been by faith, using Abraham as the primary example, justified BY God before the Law was given to Moses.

You're right in saying that salvation has ALWAYS been by faith. But that's not to say Lev 18:5 was not given, nor that Rom 6:14 was not stated.

Refer this post of mine. There is a justification by the law and a justification by the king. When everyone is a transgressor and can find life only under mercy, I would say that justification is only by the king and has always been so - though justification by the law was a theoretical possibility never realised practically.

 

[francisdesales]

To quote, Ronald Reagan, "Well there he goes again."

Yea, tear down that wall "of ignorance", Mr. Gorbachev... ;)

Is this how you are going to address the serious holes in your theology? You present ideas that are simply not found in Scriptures. And now, we must pretend we never said something.

Here is the "doozy", in response to discussion on Romans 2 that I had made...

The Gentiles were entering eternal life because they were putting their faith in Christ, and becoming "born-again Spiritually." Not because they were following the law. For if they fell short in one area of the law, they were guilty of breaking the whole law...Therefore, it was a fruitless attempt and bound to fail...

Perhaps you want to try again on pointing to me where Romans 2 mentions anything about Gentile pagans having faith in Jesus Christ? Or, how about the requirement to be perfect in fulfillment of the Law???

Regards

 

[Drew]

Your a "braver" man than I, to accuse Christ of "disobeying" the law on purpose...

Did Jesus, or did Jesus not declare all foods clean?

Remember: the Old Testament declares that some foods make you unclean.

Here is the relevant text as per Mark's gospel:

And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?†(Thus He declared all foods clean.)

How is this not a clear statement that conflicts with the Law of Moses?

 

[Drew]

How can an equal raise for all "those" be "according to what they have done"? Humans by nature can't do anything (by persistence in working hard seek the company's best interest) in an equal way. Some will have "done" more.

I see no objection here, at least when we hop out of the analogy and go back to the actual text - God is perfectly free to offer the same reward to people who have manifested different "levels" of good works.

The fact that Joe may do more good works than Fred does not mean that God is "not allowed" to give them both the same reward.

And I know that you are aware of the parable about the workers who work different amounts but all get the same payment at the end of the day.

 

[glorydaz]

Why are they justified, Glorydaz? That's the crucial misunderstanding you continue to have. GOD is doing the justifying - based upon HIS OWN ideas of granting conditional mercy upon men. Paul is not saying that "God owes the doer of the law" or "God MUST justify the doer of the law".

Unfortunately, that is what you are stating.

And I respectfully submit that His Own ideas are laid out for us in the Scripture.
We must be perfect doers of the law (as Christ was) or we come by grace through faith in Jesus.
We either satisfy the perfect law of God completely, which we can't, or we accept Jesus' work on the cross as a gift from God.

If someone can do the law (like Paul), God would "owe" them, if salvation was based upon wages. They would appear before God as "self-justified". They would have SOMETHING TO BOAST OF!!! Ephesians 2 does not allow such an understanding of law obedience.

That is simply not the case, impossible, according to Scriptures. NOT because no one can (since Paul states that he did) "do the law", but because salvation is a gift, not wages. IF salvation was "wages paid", then people WOULD be self-reliant.

Paul, of course, only thought he was a doer of the law when he was a pharisee. Once he was saved, and accepted Jesus (who taught the law could be summed up in two commandments), he realized he hadn't been a doer of God's law but a doer of man's interpretation of God's law. Jesus was really good at showing the pharisees they were not following the spirit of God's law, but the letter. They were clean on the outside but not on the inside...so they weren't clean in God's eyes.

Now, pray tell, how does that "jive" with Jesus command to "be like children" to enter the Kingdom???

Well, when we come by faith, realizing the impossibility of pleasing God on our own, we put all our trust in Him instead of in ourselves. We become His children and He becomes our Father.

Jesus was the only sinless man, but there is no Biblical discussion on THAT REQUIREMENT to be sinless so as to earn salvation!!!

DOING so does not earn salvation, so it is a moot point.

Not exactly moot if you consider that Jesus was the sinless lamb who took the sins of the world. Since we couldn't do it ourselves, He did it for us.

What God states is indeed what it is. God doesn't call an elephant "dog". What He calls, it is. This fallacy of yours stems from the fabled "forensic imputed justification" theology. Christ comes to abide in us, we are MADE just, not only "just for pretend".

Our position in Christ is what allows us into the presence of a Holy and Righteous God. It isn't a "pretend" righteousness, it's more of a legal status....that enables us to have a relationship with God. As sinners, we were condemned and under the penalty of the law. Now we're justified and entitled to all the privileges due to those who have perfectly kept the law...that, of course, is Christ.

Therefore, when God looks at us, He sees Christ. His righteousness is counted as ours. I think that's all imputed righteousness means. We cannot come into the presence of God unless we're in Christ.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Nor, it appears, are there any words in Scriptures that lay out your "theology"... I have continued to ask for them, but they are not forthcoming. They merely are proving my point - that Paul's point is not about WHETHER someone can perfectly follow the Law, but WHAT GOOD IS IT!!! It is meaningless, since even a perfect man cannot rely on himself in God's eyes. My Phil. citation makes that clear.

It is quite plain that even the perfect follower of the Law is owed NOTHING by God. You keep bringing up non-sequitars, instead of addressing the issue - that perfect law following cannot earn anything from God. Salvation is plainly a gift. This somehow escapes glorydaz.

Regards

My answer to that is the Gospel message itself. The law was given so man would see himself as a sinner and acknowledge his inability to please God, apart from a relationship with God. Thus the need for man to come to Him on His terms and not our own. We were bought with a price, and now we are His.