The Work of Repentance Versus Faith Only

[rrowell]

So the words you pointed out in these verses are "Are being" to say that BEING denotes a process. As if to say, taking place or happening; ie "being".

Let's use that in a sentience. "I'm being lazy", "That man is being silly." Your being ridiculous. " Does the word "being" mean a process here in these sentences? No. It's one or the other. There might be a crescendo but that does not mean what's happening in theses sentences by the word 'BEING" is any less or more than when it started BEING.

Lets try some more; "He's being hired as we speak." "The child is being born right now."

Do these sentences mean a process? Well, sort of, but do these sentences denote something that could not be taking place, or will not take place? No. Not necessarily.

Dose the word "being" mean something the subject is doing them self? No. We can not say that.

He used the word "being", as in "being saved", "being" is the word "be" in its present participle in progressive tense expressing continuous action, the same way you used it in every example, so your examples and your answer contradict them selves?
Quite simply "being saved" is an action, (verb), a work, action and work are synonymous, one has to do something to create a process, a process requires "action" therefore "being saved" is to be "in the process of being save"

 

[dadof10]

It's the difference between the deposit and the fulness. The deposit is currently planted in weakness, corruption, dishonor and a natural body.

All those matters of fact will be put off in the fulness.

s

Are you saying that we "are being saved" now, but "in the fullness", at the end of our lives, we "are saved"?

 

[Danus]

He used the word "being", as in "being saved", "being" is the word "be" in its present participle in progressive tense expressing continuous action, the same way you used it in every example, so your examples and your answer contradict them selves?
Quite simply "being saved" is an action, (verb), a work, action and work are synonymous, one has to do something to create a process, a process requires "action" therefore "being saved" is to be "in the process of being save"

And as I said, fine, but if you're going to believe that, then who's to it upon whom? This "process" That's what this is ultimately about.

If salvatio0n is a process, when then does salvation begin and end and whom initiates it, is the question that people who hold meritorious grace ask themselves.

He believes it's him and that Paul taught that. I pointed out that that's not necessarily true, and it's more clear that it is not than it is.

Paul has tons of writings that also say it's NOT something we do, but something God does upon whom he chooses. Verses where he more clearly spells this out, but we can also use these verse offered to see the same thing, and if someone wants to think they are choosing salvation, fine. It's not a problem. That's why Paul worded it as he did.

Go ahead and say your being saved. It's still God and not you doing the saving and it still has a starting point that constitutes the fullness of it for those who will be saved. if you can't truly know it while being saved then you should question salvation, and your trust in Christ. I don't.

 

[dadof10]

My AC man has cooled the house off quite well, so maybe I can get back to this in some comfort.

Cool...

Again, I'm not trying to persuade you to think about Paul as I do., But let's look at your verses and I'll see if I can shed light on them from my perspective.

And I am not capable of persuading you. I'm just trying to get your best arguments for a doctrine that I think is heretical.

The words "Are being" does not nullify predestination. It simply informs what's happening, or taking place to those it is happening to or taking place.

Here are the verses you quoted to say that salvation is a process.



So the words you pointed out in these verses are "Are being" to say that BEING denotes a process. As if to say, taking place or happening; ie "being".

Let's use that in a sentience. "I'm being lazy", "That man is being silly." Your being ridiculous. " Does the word "being" mean a process here in these sentences? No. It's one or the other.

Of course it does. In each of your examples, "I", "That man" and "You" are in the process of the behavior named. If the behavior was past, you would use a past tense verb. If it were in the future, you would write "I will be...". I'm at a loss here, Danus. You really think that "those of us who are being saved" does not denote something in the process of happening?

There might be a crescendo but that does not mean what's happening in theses sentences by the word 'BEING" is any less or more than when it started BEING.

Lets try some more; "He's being hired as we speak." "The child is being born right now."

Do these sentences mean a process? Well, sort of, but do these sentences denote something that could not be taking place, or will not take place? No. Not necessarily.

No, not at all. "Are being" ONLY denotes the action is happening now.

Dose the word "being" mean something the subject is doing them self? No. We can not say that.

No, we can't. This I agree with. "I am being driven to the store" for example. It is still going on as I write, though. It is a present tense verb.

We started this discussion talking about infused righteousness and imputed righteousness. Imputed meaning that Christ righteousness is imputed onto us, and infused meaning we are are actively taking part by choice to cooperate with god.

However, Paul is not saying we are choosing to do that as much as he is simply saying that it is happening. Even the word perseverance, or persistence, dose not necessarily mean ones own will to persevere, or to do. It could easily mean something happening out side of ones will and doing so in a persistent state, by a persistence means out side of ones self, onto ones self. And so, this does not add definitive proof to the claim that we do this, or that we "DO" anything, since it could mean being done onto us.

True. "Am being saved" can (and in my opinion does) mean just that. God is saving (process) us. My only point is that this salvation didn't happen once in (or out of) time. It is not a past event, it is going on as Paul wrote, and, since it is happening in time, it can be reversed. It's not a foregone conclusion that the goal will be reached.

I could swap verses with you, but I'd rather not. I like your verses, but lets consider the idea of a process. Because even if salvation is a process, it's still not of our own doing, but of God's. One of the verses you pointed to say this clearly.

Philippians 2:12-13
New International Version (NIV)
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.....if Paul where ever speaking to today's Catholic it's right here in this verse. ....I don't mean that disrespectful, but he must have chuckled to himself when he wrote this, because in one sense he's saying keep up the good work folks, and he finishes it off what letting you know who's actually doing it. :toofunny

Ok. I don't see what's funny here, but...OK. I agree with you. We must cooperate with God's Grace to be saved, which is what Paul is saying. I think your view of Catholic soteriology is flawed. Please keep in mind what I have been writing. Everything I have written is from the Catechism, it's not my own personal opinion, it's Catholic doctrine. So, when I say we are justified by GRACE ALONE, that's Catholic dogma. As I have said in almost every post to you, we must cooperate with God's Grace, but He gives us the will to work. It's all Grace, as is baptism, charitable giving, etc.

If Paul agreed with Calvin, he would never have written that anyone "is being saved". Calvin didn't use this language because to him salvation is a one time event that happened when the person was created. To Calvin there is only "are saved", to Paul, there is "are saved', but also "are being saved". To Paul, it is possible for a person to lose his salvation, which is why actions (including persevering in faith) effect salvation.

(Rom 2 6-10)
Romans 2:6-10
New International Version (NIV)
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.†7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

 

[smaller]

Are you saying that we "are being saved" now, but "in the fullness", at the end of our lives, we "are saved"?

One, there is not a single example in the entire New Testament of any christian stated to be heading for the lake of fire, period. That presentation does not exist in the text. If you think otherwise, go find a single named example of that doctrine. It's not there, specifically applied to any believer as a fact.

Two, a person can assuredly fall victim of Satan as a fallen warrior in this present life. That does not mean for a minute that if they are defeated and fallen that God in Christ forsakes them, ever.

Three, and I don't say this to diminish your sect, but many sects don't teach their people that they are saved. Only that they might be at any given point in time and that is a might and a maybe. No more than a reasonable assurance but never a fact.

I term that the guarantee of uncertainty and the absolute assurance of doubt.

Pretty strange approach in my eyes.

And some forms of determinism aren't much better. Even though they may claim OSAS many still adhere to perseverance, meaning they themselves don't really know either until the end. They can only guess. And in their own axioms they may in fact be stating things as knowing (OSAS) when the fact is by their own positions they don't really know if they themselves are saved. Again, a bit strange. In effect saying, yes we are OSAS, but we really don't know if we're saved. :eeeekkk

s

 

[dadof10]

Believing, having faith is not a behavior.

But it does take an act of the will, which makes it a "work", just like NOT coveting, NOT stealing, and the rest of the big ten. If HAVING faith is not a work, then neither is keeping the commandments.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[heymikey80]

But it does take an act of the will, which makes it a "work", just like NOT coveting, NOT stealing, and the rest of the big ten. If HAVING faith is not a work, then neither is keeping the commandments.

No, the issue here as usual is not that works don't exist, but that they're not a cause nor a requirement for salvation.

Faith is.

"not of works" is what the Apostle said.

Pitting the Teacher against the student is not a tenable point of attack.

The will is certainly responsive to faith, but without faith, repentance doesn't cause faith, it results from faith.

And so faith is the conduit through which salvation flows -- not of works, of faith, unto good works.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No, the issue here as usual is not that works don't exist, but that they're not a cause nor a requirement for salvation.

Faith is.

"not of works" is what the Apostle said.

Yes, "not of works", meaning, NO ONE is made righteous before God on the merit of good behavior. That is IMPOSSIBLE to do. No one is that good.

Faith in the forgiveness of God is the ONLY way a person can be made righteous before God. The ONLY way to have your unrigheousness removed is through the forgiveness of God. That is the sure hope of salvation we have placed our faith in that will see us safely through the Judgment, not the false hope of the merit of our good behavior.

We can tell who has placed their hope in that forgiveness by their good behavior.

 

[Danus]

Cool...


And I am not capable of persuading you. I'm just trying to get your best arguments for a doctrine that I think is heretical.



Of course it does. In each of your examples, "I", "That man" and "You" are in the process of the behavior named. If the behavior was past, you would use a past tense verb. If it were in the future, you would write "I will be...". I'm at a loss here, Danus. You really think that "those of us who are being saved" does not denote something in the process of happening?



No, not at all. "Are being" ONLY denotes the action is happening now.



No, we can't. This I agree with. "I am being driven to the store" for example. It is still going on as I write, though. It is a present tense verb.



True. "Am being saved" can (and in my opinion does) mean just that. God is saving (process) us. My only point is that this salvation didn't happen once in (or out of) time. It is not a past event, it is going on as Paul wrote, and, since it is happening in time, it can be reversed. It's not a foregone conclusion that the goal will be reached.



Ok. I don't see what's funny here, but...OK. I agree with you. We must cooperate with God's Grace to be saved, which is what Paul is saying. I think your view of Catholic soteriology is flawed. Please keep in mind what I have been writing. Everything I have written is from the Catechism, it's not my own personal opinion, it's Catholic doctrine. So, when I say we are justified by GRACE ALONE, that's Catholic dogma. As I have said in almost every post to you, we must cooperate with God's Grace, but He gives us the will to work. It's all Grace, as is baptism, charitable giving, etc.

If Paul agreed with Calvin, he would never have written that anyone "is being saved". Calvin didn't use this language because to him salvation is a one time event that happened when the person was created. To Calvin there is only "are saved", to Paul, there is "are saved', but also "are being saved". To Paul, it is possible for a person to lose his salvation, which is why actions (including persevering in faith) effect salvation.

(Rom 2 6-10)
Romans 2:6-10
New International Version (NIV)
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.†7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I was not taking a cheap shot at Catholicism. Just pointing out how some see Paul and how Paul may have very well had to deal with the same thing.

"Religion" can be a funny thing. It attracts and repels all sorts and always tends to promote pluralism, right or wrong; but Christianity says we are saved by grace. It says we can't earn it nor do we deserve it. Conversely, say...Islam. Islam says we are saved meritoriously by very specific means, and our own will to do so. Islam is trusting in ones self.

Unfortunately, we have plenty of Christians who feel the same way because they don't see their Christianity as a relationship with God, but a religion. Yet they will also agree that their "religion" says they are saved by grace, not by works; yet they will turn right around and willfully attempt to earn the very grace they say is given to them and argue it as correct, plural truth while venomously denouncing other who preach grace, not works.

The whole argument then becomes this View attachment 2524

I did not choose my salvation. I am saved by God, not by anything I've done. It was God's choice to save me and it happened at a point in my time.

That salvation does not require maintenance on my part, because it's an intrinsic new-ness to me by Him. My relationship with God is in flux, but my salvation is secure.

This is not a concept. Again, no one finds something and keeps looking. No, they simply hold and value what they found. So if salvation is a process, then it's a process of seeking it. Could that be true for some? Sure. God says those who seek Him will find him.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Jesus said to work for everlasting life.....

no work = no everlasting life

work = everlasting life

 

[dadof10]

One, there is not a single example in the entire New Testament of any christian stated to be heading for the lake of fire, period. That presentation does not exist in the text. If you think otherwise, go find a single named example of that doctrine. It's not there, specifically applied to any believer as a fact.

You're right. The only example I can think of at the moment of anyone being in Hell is the rich man in the Lazarus parable. He may not have even been in Hell, but in a place of torment, but that is another thread. There is, however, Romans 2:

"For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"

Obviously Paul is speaking about people of faith because we can't have eternal life without it. The next sentence:

"but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

This is an obvious reference to Hell. It is possible for people with faith to lose it and turn to "wickedness". There is also this:

""Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matt. 7 21-23)

Here we have people calling Jesus "Lord" and prophesying "in [His] name", yet being rejected from "the Kingdom of Heaven". Sounds like people with faith to me.

Two, a person can assuredly fall victim of Satan as a fallen warrior in this present life. That does not mean for a minute that if they are defeated and fallen that God in Christ forsakes them, ever.

Christ doesn't forsake us, we forsake Him. He gives us a will that's free, so we can choose Heaven or Hell.

Three, and I don't say this to diminish your sect, but many sects don't teach their people that they are saved. Only that they might be at any given point in time and that is a might and a maybe. No more than a reasonable assurance but never a fact.

I term that the guarantee of uncertainty and the absolute assurance of doubt.

Pretty strange approach in my eyes.

It may be strange to you because of what your sect is teaching you, but it's not strange to the early Church.

"You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." (Rom. 11:19-22)

"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

Here, the author seems to be making your point. He is talking to and about himself and others who have an "assurance of faith", but still need to "hold fast" because it can be lost. He continues...

" 26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10)

This is a reference to people who were at one time saved, but, through their BEHAVIOR, lost that salvation.

And some forms of determinism aren't much better. Even though they may claim OSAS many still adhere to perseverance, meaning they themselves don't really know either until the end. They can only guess. And in their own axioms they may in fact be stating things as knowing (OSAS) when the fact is by their own positions they don't really know if they themselves are saved. Again, a bit strange. In effect saying, yes we are OSAS, but we really don't know if we're saved. :eeeekkk

s

I'll leave it up to you to judge within the OSAS community. I think the whole doctrine is a crock.

 

[rrowell]

No, the issue here as usual is not that works don't exist, but that they're not a cause nor a requirement for salvation.

Faith is not given to you, it is acquired, to have faith in something requires knowing something exists even though you may not see it, a man has to know it is there before he can believe it, before he can have faith in it, and there must now be a choice to have it or not, therefor works is a requirement of faith... :

Acts 14:27 (KJV)
27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Opened the door says they now have a choice to go through it, or not...

Faith is."not of works" is what the Apostle said.

Pitting the Teacher against the student is not a tenable point of attack.

The will is certainly responsive to faith, but without faith, repentance doesn't cause faith, it results from faith.

Again the "works" Paul is referring to is taken out of context, it is not the same works James speaks of in James 2:17, the "works" Paul is talking about is the "Jewish Law" the "Jewish Law" aka Old Testament will not save you, these people Paul was speaking to were going by the "Old Law" or as Paul put it "works" and not the New Law NT requiring faith, the same faith James speaks of in James 2:17 that includes "works" a transitive verb meaning to carry on the operation of, meaning once you have the faith, you must "work" to keep it...

And so faith is the conduit through which salvation flows -- not of works, of faith, unto good works.

On this "part" of the operation I cannot disagree... faith is a part of the conduit, it cometh by hearing, followed by believing(faith), followed by repentance, followed by confessing, followed by baptism, followed by working to stay faithful is the full conduit leading to salvation. so as to your second part I cannot agree as a "work" is required to obtain faith, you must go through the door opened to you (a choice must be made, an action taken) Acts 14:27

 

[dadof10]

No, the issue here as usual is not that works don't exist, but that they're not a cause nor a requirement for salvation.

Faith is.

"not of works" is what the Apostle said.

Pitting the Teacher against the student is not a tenable point of attack.

The will is certainly responsive to faith, but without faith, repentance doesn't cause faith, it results from faith.

And so faith is the conduit through which salvation flows -- not of works, of faith, unto good works.

My point to Jethro (which he knows from a prior conversation) is that when Paul uses the word "works", he is speaking specifically of "works of the law" or circumcision. He doesn't mean "everything done" which is the contention by most "faith alone" adherents. If a work is defined as anything that anyone does, it must include the ACT of accepting Jesus or HAVING faith. If not, then Paul couldn't have been talking about EVERYTHING, right? There are exceptions, like faith and keeping commandments.

If you disagree, explain how the act of the will called "having faith" is salvific, yet the act of the will called "NOT coveting" or "NOT stealing" is not.

 

[heymikey80]

My point to Jethro (which he knows from a prior conversation) is that when Paul uses the word "works", he is speaking specifically of "works of the law" or circumcision.

That's not the case. Romans 2 describes these works of law, and they're not circumcision. Paul says so.

He doesn't mean "everything done" which is the contention by most "faith alone" adherents.

You're right. That's not true, either. It can be proved semantically pretty easily, too. "Don't work" is actually a work -- something you do.

(BTW, I'm a "faith-alone" adherent: it's also a semantic problem, "faith" is more than simple assent to facts. But I accept your statement, it's hard to label the "easy-believism" people separately from other understandings of faith.)

Nor is it some scientific meaning of "work". It's not something that takes physical effort.

Paul actually explains what he means at Romans 4:1-5. The righteousness that brings salvation is not a work for wages. it is not "quid pro quo". You're not granted salvation in return (or even reward) for the good works you do. You're granted salvation as a gift, through your relying on God. That reliance, it's something you do, absolutely. But it is not work for wages. Faith is a catalyst, a conduit, an instrument -- not an energy that drags salvation to it. It is not a work per se when it comes to salvation. That'd be like treating a wrench as the work of a mechanic. It isn't. It's the instrument of a mechanic. The wrench is a work of a drop-forge.

If a work is defined as anything that anyone does, it must include the ACT of accepting Jesus or HAVING faith. If not, then Paul couldn't have been talking about EVERYTHING, right? There are exceptions, like faith and keeping commandments.

It's the "work for wages" principle that Paul excludes. Working because you have faith, that's clearly included (Eph 2:10). So work is included -- but as an effect, not as some kind of wage agreement with an employer. Work is a result of your Father pouring His very Life into yours.

If you disagree, explain how the act of the will called "having faith" is salvific, yet the act of the will called "NOT coveting" or "NOT stealing" is not.

Faith -- relying on God -- doesn't carry with it the expectation of "work for wages". Relying on a boat to support you above the waters, no one will pay me for simply laying around on deck.

On the contrary, "not coveting" and "not stealing" were misunderstood to be the basis for salvation of sinners. Romans 4:13-15, and Romans 2:13. As Paul explained in Romans 3:9ff, it only results in condemnation. But relying on Christ does save.

The result is that people who are adherents to the Law, as well as those Gentiles who are not of the Law, both are saved on the basis of faith. It's not to defy the Law, obviously, which is just and good. It's simply that the Law operates in a different way than as a cause for salvation.

 

[smaller]

You're right. The only example I can think of at the moment of anyone being in Hell is the rich man in the Lazarus parable. He may not have even been in Hell, but in a place of torment, but that is another thread.

Yeah, we'd probably vary on that view. The account is a parable. To understand all parables the basis of Mark 4:15 has to be brought to the table to provide understanding in His Light of all parables.

There is, however, Romans 2:

"For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;"

Obviously Paul is speaking about people of faith because we can't have eternal life without it. The next sentence:

"but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

My understanding with these matters revolves around a more accurate view of believers that Paul himself showed us of himself.

Paul's own statement was this about being a sinner:

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.

This was a 'post salvation' statement. And he said "I am" not "was."

That is a most brutal light there that Paul shed on himself. He sheds the same view again in Romans 7:21 stating that evil was present with him.

The crux of all these matters of judgement/sowing-reaping wrath revolves around the fact that Paul showed for himself. That any believer can be taken down in their battles with the adversary, the devil. That places that operator within the mind and heart via temptation.

Few can understand that every damnation Word of God does apply to that working and worker that does tempt us and causes us to fall. Most believers tend to isolate themselves from those texts, but they do certainly apply. If the tempter leads any believer into sin, sin being of the devil (1 John 3:8) there will be consequences in this present life.

None of this means that God in Christ has abandoned ship in our behalf.
Only that He also works 'actively' against that other worker and working.

This is an obvious reference to Hell. It is possible for people with faith to lose it and turn to "wickedness". There is also this:

""Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' (Matt. 7 21-23)

I fully expect to hear those Words. Why? See above. If the tempter operates in my mind and heart I fully expect those Words of Jesus to be spoken to MY FACE, yet apply to the tempter.

Do you understand that principle? I do not fear Gods Words. Any of them. And that is because I understand 'whom' they are meant for.

Here we have people calling Jesus "Lord" and prophesying "in [His] name", yet being rejected from "the Kingdom of Heaven". Sounds like people with faith to me.

Most believers just have really poor eyesight upon themselves.

Paul stated outright for example that he had a messenger of Satan, that is, a DEVIL, in his own flesh. (2 Cor. 12:7) It was not just a matter of Paul alone. If we are honest 'within' about the facts of temptation, then we should also see 'where' the tempter is active and that is within.

The RCC is pretty void on these matters of fact.

Christ doesn't forsake us, we forsake Him. He gives us a will that's free, so we can choose Heaven or Hell.

That is only the construct that you've been sold. Nothing more. You are taught that in your mind you and you alone make all the decisions. That is not the scriptural case or fact. Jesus told us clearly that where the Word is sown, Satan himself STEALS Word from our hearts. That again places that worker THEREIN to do so.

It may be strange to you because of what your sect is teaching you, but it's not strange to the early Church.

Nah, your sect completely overlooks vast amounts of scripture regarding these matters in favor of blaming only the man.

Paul again tells us that the condition of the believer is that their minds are blinded by the 'god of this world.' That again places that operator IN such minds to blind them. This is quite a clear principle that is shown in many places. Unfortunately many sects teach to blame only man and completely overlook the other entity OR they blame only man for the workings of an entity in them that is not them. And they almost always deny that operator influences them within as well. I call it typical blindness.

We 'all' as believers have our internal adversaries to deal with and to oppose.

Even Pope JP2 is said to have whipped himself privately. Make of that effort what you will.

"You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." (Rom. 11:19-22)

"Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,
22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

Here, the author seems to be making your point. He is talking to and about himself and others who have an "assurance of faith", but still need to "hold fast" because it can be lost. He continues...

As stated prior, anyone of us can fall in blindness to the adversary and we are warned abundantly in the scriptures that can and does happen. It does not mean God in Christ has abandoned ANY such. That person is overcome by the enemies. So, apply those dire Words to that working and you may see them in a much different and far better, accurate LIGHT.

s

 

[rrowell]

You're right. The only example I can think of at the moment of anyone being in Hell is the rich man in the Lazarus parable. He may not have even been in Hell, but in a place of torment, but that is another thread. There is, however, Romans 2:

Yeah, we'd probably vary on that view. The account is a parable. To understand all parables the basis of Mark 4:15 has to be brought to the table to provide understanding in His Light of all parables.

The difficulties lay in several Greek and Hebrew words translated to the English word "Hell", and I believe in several cases it is not well translated, it would be a good thread and I would be wiling to start it?

 

[Webb]

It may or may not be a parable, it can't be proven eitherway. However, whether one wants it be be a parable or not a parable the intended teaching by the Lord remains the same. Hell is real!

 

[dadof10]

That's not the case. Romans 2 describes these works of law, and they're not circumcision. Paul says so.

Works of the law OR circumcision. The first real doctrinal challenge within the early Church was the question of Gentile circumcision (Acts 15). This is what Paul is specifically addressing with the "works vs. faith" sections of his letters.

You're right. That's not true, either. It can be proved semantically pretty easily, too. "Don't work" is actually a work -- something you do.

(BTW, I'm a "faith-alone" adherent: it's also a semantic problem, "faith" is more than simple assent to facts. But I accept your statement, it's hard to label the "easy-believism" people separately from other understandings of faith.)

Nor is it some scientific meaning of "work". It's not something that takes physical effort.

I think when Paul speaks of "works" he means "the law", however, I also think in certain sections he is condemning a certain mindset or attitude; that God will save based upon the obligation of the law. That if a person performed certain works, God was OBLIGATED to save.

Paul actually explains what he means at Romans 4:1-5. The righteousness that brings salvation is not a work for wages. it is not "quid pro quo". You're not granted salvation in return (or even reward) for the good works you do. You're granted salvation as a gift, through your relying on God. That reliance, it's something you do, absolutely. But it is not work for wages.

I agree. So why do we stop with faith alone? Couldn't the same be said of baptism, for example? If a person MUST HAVE faith, and it's "something you do" to achieve salvation and it's a "gift from God", why couldn't the same be said for baptism? In fact, that is the Catholic teaching on baptism. What's the difference?

Faith is a catalyst, a conduit, an instrument -- not an energy that drags salvation to it. It is not a work per se when it comes to salvation. That'd be like treating a wrench as the work of a mechanic. It isn't. It's the instrument of a mechanic. The wrench is a work of a drop-forge.

Again, the same as baptism, a person MUST do it to be saved.

It's the "work for wages" principle that Paul excludes.

Agreed.

Working because you have faith, that's clearly included (Eph 2:10). So work is included -- but as an effect, not as some kind of wage agreement with an employer. Work is a result of your Father pouring His very Life into yours.

Yes, it is. But if we refuse to DO the "works" will it effect our salvation? If we refuse to cooperate with God's Grace can we still be saved? I think this is where we part ways. I believe we can't be saved if we don't cooperate, whether we have faith or not.

Faith -- relying on God -- doesn't carry with it the expectation of "work for wages". Relying on a boat to support you above the waters, no one will pay me for simply laying around on deck.

On the contrary, "not coveting" and "not stealing" were misunderstood to be the basis for salvation of sinners. Romans 4:13-15, and Romans 2:13. As Paul explained in Romans 3:9ff, it only results in condemnation. But relying on Christ does save.

I don't see how Rom 3:9ff says that keeping the commandments "only results in condemnation". Anyhow, I only used not stealing or coveting as examples of passive activities. The argument was that faith is not something a person physically DOES, so it's not a "work". If that's the case, then not coveting or stealing (two of the Ten), are not "works" either. I wrote it to point out inconsistency.

The result is that people who are adherents to the Law, as well as those Gentiles who are not of the Law, both are saved on the basis of faith. It's not to defy the Law, obviously, which is just and good. It's simply that the Law operates in a different way than as a cause for salvation.

Again, I agree, and that's what Paul is talking about when he says "faith, not works", nothing else. He does not mean baptism, keeping the commandments, charity, etc. ONLY works of the Law, sometimes, more specifically circumcision, because it was the first real doctrinal test.

 

[dadof10]

My understanding with these matters revolves around a more accurate view of believers that Paul himself showed us of himself.

Paul's own statement was this about being a sinner:

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.

This was a 'post salvation' statement. And he said "I am" not "was."

That is a most brutal light there that Paul shed on himself. He sheds the same view again in Romans 7:21 stating that evil was present with him.

No, sorry. As you rightly point out, it says "I am", not "some operator within me is". You can try to blame "the tempter", while insulating yourself from sin if you want to, but Paul didn't do that.

The crux of all these matters of judgement/sowing-reaping wrath revolves around the fact that Paul showed for himself. That any believer can be taken down in their battles with the adversary, the devil. That places that operator within the mind and heart via temptation.

Few can understand that every damnation Word of God does apply to that working and worker that does tempt us and causes us to fall. Most believers tend to isolate themselves from those texts, but they do certainly apply. If the tempter leads any believer into sin, sin being of the devil (1 John 3:8) there will be consequences in this present life.

Again, sorry. The words are: "For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

This is an obvious reference the afterlife. He says by our works we will either receive "eternal life" or "wrath and fury". If he contrasted "joy and peace" with "wrath and fury", you might have a point. But the words are "eternal life".

None of this means that God in Christ has abandoned ship in our behalf.
Only that He also works 'actively' against that other worker and working.

Again, Christ doesn't abandon us, we abandon Him, your fabulous argument "that is only the construct that you've been sold. Nothing more" notwithstanding.

I fully expect to hear those Words. Why? See above. If the tempter operates in my mind and heart I fully expect those Words of Jesus to be spoken to MY FACE, yet apply to the tempter.

Do you understand that principle? I do not fear Gods Words. Any of them. And that is because I understand 'whom' they are meant for.

Where does Jesus speak to the "tempter" here? You are totally wrenching the words Of Jesus out of context. He is speaking to the same PEOPLE who say to HIM "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'" Are you seriously trying to make the case that the same ones who cast out demons IN JESUS NAME are "tempters" who are REALLY doing the casting? You must be joking...

Most believers just have really poor eyesight upon themselves.

In your view, Jesus must be the one with the poor eyesight. He looks at us and sees demons...

Paul stated outright for example that he had a messenger of Satan, that is, a DEVIL, in his own flesh. (2 Cor. 12:7) It was not just a matter of Paul alone. If we are honest 'within' about the facts of temptation, then we should also see 'where' the tempter is active and that is within.

The RCC is pretty void on these matters of fact.

Anyone with common sense is "void" on these matters. I have heard this argument from others on your side and it never ceases to amaze me that your whole "uniqueness" comes from ONE misinterpreted verse of Scripture. It's like the "thorn" in his flesh could ONLY be a tempter, and that all the wrath due to Paul's sin will go onto him instead of Paul. Quite a stretch.

That is only the construct that you've been sold. Nothing more. You are taught that in your mind you and you alone make all the decisions. That is not the scriptural case or fact. Jesus told us clearly that where the Word is sown, Satan himself STEALS Word from our hearts. That again places that worker THEREIN to do so.

I'm not denying that Satan influences our behavior. I am a HUGE C.S. Lewis fan. What is ridiculous is the contention that we are saved and the TEMPTER is punished. What's even more ridiculous, is the notion that we are not responsible for our own personal sin, the "tempter" is. This view has no basis in Scripture or reality.

Nah, your sect completely overlooks vast amounts of scripture regarding these matters in favor of blaming only the man.

What "vast amounts of Scripture"? You need to show where Scripture teaches ANYWHERE that we are not responsible for our behavior, some demon is. Can you find me ONE verse to support this ludicrous claim? It's not only Catholics that find this view repugnant, but every other Protestant denomination. This isn't a mainstream view.

Paul again tells us that the condition of the believer is that their minds are blinded by the 'god of this world.' That again places that operator IN such minds to blind them. This is quite a clear principle that is shown in many places. Unfortunately many sects teach to blame only man and completely overlook the other entity OR they blame only man for the workings of an entity in them that is not them. And they almost always deny that operator influences them within as well. I call it typical blindness.

No one is denying demonic INFLUENCE. it's just like any other influences from outside. Where you go off the deep end is that these "tempters" are the ones RESPONSIBLE for our personal sin and they are the ones who GET PUNISHED FOR OUR SINS. This is what you can't prove by Scripture.

We 'all' as believers have our internal adversaries to deal with and to oppose.

Agreed.

As stated prior, anyone of us can fall in blindness to the adversary and we are warned abundantly in the scriptures that can and does happen.

Agreed.

It does not mean God in Christ has abandoned ANY such.

Agreed. He would NEVER abandon us, but we, through our behavior (rejecting His love for the false promises of the tempter), abandon Him.

That person is overcome by the enemies. So, apply those dire Words to that working and you may see them in a much different and far better, accurate LIGHT.

Prove it!

 

[dadof10]

It may or may not be a parable, it can't be proven eitherway. However, whether one wants it be be a parable or not a parable the intended teaching by the Lord remains the same. Hell is real!