Saved by Grace not of works !

[savedbygrace57]

The ability to place our faith as we choose is created within ALL of mankind. God created us so...

You teach a works salvation, and deny that Christ's Death alone saves !

 

[Grubal Muruch]

You teach a works salvation, and deny that Christ's Death alone saves !

No matter, "faith abides."

 

[savedbygrace57]

No matter, "faith abides."

Salvation by works is not of God, and it dishonors Christ saving death.

 

[savedbygrace57]

With all due respect your wrong. Faith is an "absolute" And you "cannot be saved without it...

You are teaching salvation by works, condemned by scripture.

 

[Drew]

Perhaps it could, "per chance" be, the fact that you "dispute" every word I say...That's also a sign that you do not understand...

Please.

The fact that I challenge your position does not necessarily mean I do not understand it.

Another possibility, of course, is that you are mistaken and I am presenting the correct Biblical position.

Please engage the argument about Ephesians 2:8-9, and the meaning of the "works" in that text.

 

[Drew]

Unfortunately, you've used Rom. 2 in your argument. We've all been down that road and it was a dead-end. Going down dead-end roads is not going to get us anywhere.

It was only a dead end in the sense that none of you has provided a credible argument as to why we should not take Paul at his word when he writes this:

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

Paul says what he says: eternal life is granted according to what we have done.

 

[Drew]

Oh, Ephesians 2.

Are you saying you want to make Eph. 2 as "famous" as you made Romans 2? If that's the case, I'm not sure I'd care to enter in. Your form of debate is the same as SbG's. Every answer someone puts forth is dismissed as not an answer at all, but you add, "What does the verse say?" in bigger and bigger type until you weary your opponent down. ;)

A falsehood.

It is only because moderators cannot, or will not, limit misrepresentations by you and other posters that such outright untruths are tolerated.

To compare my style of debate to that of SBG is, frankly, absurd.

The real issue here, of course, is this:

If you really do have a counter-argument to my position on Ephesians 2, why are you not actually providing same?

 

[Drew]

With all due respect, I've read your stuff and do not "agree" with you, nor you I, so why bother...

The reason you should bother is this: there is no surer indication of a position that is in trouble is the refusal to engage clear arguments that challenge that position.

Do you really believe that other readers will not wonder why you (and others) manifestly refuse to engage the two detailed arguments I have now presented in respect to Ephesians 2?

1) You didn't answer my question, (that's #1 on your hit parade)

Of course it is. And my assessment is correct - you have not dealt with my argument.

It is actually fascinating that you seem to think that its acceptable to maintain the correctness of your position even though you have not dealt with arguments that challenge it. In any serious "debate" that is properly moderated, I believe such a strategy would simply not be tolerated.

In anything close to a responsible debate, one simply does not have the luxury of ignoring arguments that challenge one's postion.

Yet you seem to think otherwise.

 

[Drew]

If past history is any indication, there is every likelihood there are indeed people "lurking" and reading the arguments and, in this case, observing the dance of evasion where posters try to wriggle out of the responsibility of engaging such arguments. I put the following forward for consideration:

1. In the Ephesians text, we are told that we are not saved by "works". Since the word "good" does not appear, one cannot simply presume that the writer is addressing good works. He could, instead, be talking about the works of the Law of Moses - remember, the writer is addressing a church that is embedded in a cultural matrix in which the Law of Moses featured prominently;

2. Honouring proper principles of debate, I have acknowledged both possibilities: (a) the writer is addressing good works; (b) the writer is addressing the works of the Law of Moses. I then provided actual arguments - I did not merely declare the correctness of the position that the writer is denying salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

3. Other participants here simply refuse to engage these arguments. And what's worse, they have put forward no arguments of their own - they seem to think that simple declaring that this text deals with good works is all that is needed.

 

[glorydaz]

It was only a dead end in the sense that none of you has provided a credible argument as to why we should not take Paul at his word when he writes this:

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.

Paul says what he says: eternal life is granted according to what we have done.

And he says this here.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

As Paul states quite clearly in the book of Romans, we are justified by faith. Any who hope to attain eternal life must come to Christ through faith. If that verse is a stumbling block to you, I suggest you set it aside until the Holy Spirit makes it more clear than any of us have been able to thus far.

 

[glorydaz]

You are promoting Salvation by works too. Scripture condemns that !

Perhaps you should rethink your position.
You appear to be stuck because your basic premise is flawed.
Your foundation is not built on solid ground.

 

[Drew]

And he says this here.

As Paul states quite clearly in the book of Romans, we are justified by faith. Any who hope to attain eternal life must come to Christ through faith. If that verse is a stumbling block to you, I suggest you set it aside until the Holy Spirit makes it more clear than any of us have been able to thus far.

Here is the problem:

You appear to be saying "Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 about being saved by good works since here in Romans 10 he says we are saved by faith"

Do you really not see the problem? Do you not believe that everything Paul wrote is inspired scripture?

I take this position: I accept the truthfulness of both the Romans 2 stuff and the Romans 10 stuff. How are these positions reconciled?

Its actually not all that complicated: The person who, in the present, accepts Jesus through faith alone is given the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then transforms that person into the kind of person who will indeed persist in doing and will therefore most assuredly "pass" the future final "good works" judgement at which eternal is indeed at stake.

Is this person "saved by faith"? Yes.

Is this person "saved by good works"? Yes, but only because such saving good works are the inevitable result of true faith.

Do you see what I am saying? We need to accept everything that Paul writes and not filter bits out that we do not like. Like so many, you appear to come to this issue having already decided that its "on or the other" when, in fact, Paul says its both.

Please explain to us: Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul meant what he wrote in Romans 2?

 

[Gazelle]

Here's a link to the thread where I repeated a theological explanation regarding Paul's justification by faith remarks and James' justification by works remarks. Please look for it.
http://www.christianforums.net/f17/salvation-faith-alone-only-38070/

 

[glorydaz]

Here is the problem:

You appear to be saying "Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 about being saved by good works since here in Romans 10 he says we are saved by faith"

Do you really not see the problem? Do you not believe that everything Paul wrote is inspired scripture?

I take this position: I accept the truthfulness of both the Romans 2 stuff and the Romans 10 stuff. How are these positions reconciled?

Its actually not all that complicated: The person who, in the present, accepts Jesus through faith alone is given the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then transforms that person into the kind of person who will indeed persist in doing and will therefore most assuredly "pass" the future final "good works" judgement at which eternal is indeed at stake.

Is this person "saved by faith"? Yes.

Is this person "saved by good works"? Yes, but only because such saving good works are the inevitable result of true faith.

Do you see what I am saying? We need to accept everything that Paul writes and not filter bits out that we do not like. Like so many, you appear to come to this issue having already decided that its "on or the other" when, in fact, Paul says its both.

Please explain to us: Do you, or do you not, believe that Paul meant what he wrote in Romans 2?

Yes, I certainly would agree that good works are the inevitable result of true faith. In the same way Rom. 4 tells us man is justified before God by faith, and James tells us we are justified before man by our good deeds. Rom. 2 would then fit the bill as a description of someone with faith...persistance would then be what man can see...an outward sign of one's faith. But.......Romans 2 does not say man is saved by good deeds. It is merely showing that we can look and see the outworking of one's faith. Just as we aren't saved by our humility, but those who love God should be displaying it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Perhaps you should rethink your position.
You appear to be stuck because your basic premise is flawed.
Your foundation is not built on solid ground.

There is nothing more foundational than Salvation is by Grace through Faith and not of works. Eph 2:8-9

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Titus 3:5

5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

You teach as well as many others, that Salvation is by what one has done. If believing isn't something man does, then prove it from scripture..

You deny the very basic tenent of the Christian Faith..

 

[glorydaz]

Here's a link to the thread where I repeated a theological explanation regarding Paul's justification by faith remarks and James' justification by works remarks. Please look for it.
http://www.christianforums.net/f17/salvation-faith-alone-only-38070/

LOL...funny. I just brought that into the mix. I've used it in the past and it's been argued against, but it's clear to me that it's true, nonetheless.

 

[glorydaz]

If past history is any indication, there is every likelihood there are indeed people "lurking" and reading the arguments and, in this case, observing the dance of evasion where posters try to wriggle out of the responsibility of engaging such arguments. I put the following forward for consideration:

1. In the Ephesians text, we are told that we are not saved by "works". Since the word "good" does not appear, one cannot simply presume that the writer is addressing good works. He could, instead, be talking about the works of the Law of Moses - remember, the writer is addressing a church that is embedded in a cultural matrix in which the Law of Moses featured prominently;

2. Honouring proper principles of debate, I have acknowledged both possibilities: (a) the writer is addressing good works; (b) the writer is addressing the works of the Law of Moses. I then provided actual arguments - I did not merely declare the correctness of the position that the writer is denying salvation by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

3. Other participants here simply refuse to engage these arguments. And what's worse, they have put forward no arguments of their own - they seem to think that simple declaring that this text deals with good works is all that is needed.

I do happen to agree with you on this portion of Ephesians. Paul is talking about circumcision of the flesh here. It's clear by how he follows it up.

 

[Drew]

But.......Romans 2 does not say man is saved by good deeds. It is merely showing that we can look and see the outworking of one's faith. Just as we aren't saved by our humility, but those who love God should be displaying it.

No. You are simply not reading these simple English sentences correctly. They do indeed assert that man is saved according to what they have done - its right there in simple language:

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.

How can I have a proper discussion when you seem to ignore the clear meaning of the text. How does "according to what they have done" change into "according to what they believe"?

 

[Drew]

I do happen to agree with you on this portion of Ephesians. Paul is talking about circumcision of the flesh here. It's clear by how he follows it up.

Ok, good. For my part, I will "concede" that even though Eph 2:8-9 is not denying salvation by good works, that fact alone does not mean that Paul believes in salvation by good works.

I am quite convinced that Paul does indeed believe in final salvation according to good works as he says right here:

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.

....however, the Ephesians 2 text, even when properly interpreted, does not make that case by itself.

 

[Drew]

There is nothing more foundational than Salvation is by Grace through Faith and not of works. Eph 2:8-9

I have provided detailed arguments as to why the "works" in this text are the works of the Law of Moses, and not "good works".

In order for your position to be seen as credible - that the "works" here are "good works" - you need to engage those arguments.

But I will wager a flagon of ale, you will provide us with some reason as to why you do not need to engage those arguments.

Let's see what you come up with....