The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[EdenBorn]

And by that, you reach the conclusion that it is not necessary to have faith in Christ to be saved? You seem to leave the possibility open.

Satisfaction is required for sacrifice, not belief. Belief simply affords more security to the person. God does not send people into an eternal Hellfire because they never chose to believe something that only can be afforded by faith.

I think a lot of Christians forget what faith is. There is no faith in undeniable facts, only a certainty. Why do you say that anyone can believe? Because you have? You believe because your brain allows you to. Some people prefer to think that you simply don't have enough proof, and the sore fact of the matter is that you simply don't. You are arrogant enough to believe that others can simply believe as you do- it's disappointing to see such arrogance undermine logical truths such as: you can't force yourself to believe something.

 

[EdenBorn]

Lol, there is no universalism in my post, you just outright refuse to see the meaning of what I state and go on with a false accusation because you can't simmer a better argument. I am Roman Catholic, and the Church says the same. I know I'm not supposed to talk about Catholic doctrine in contrast to Protestantism, but geez, if someone is going to accuse me of universalism, tell it to the 1.1 billion Christians behind me as well.

I'd pick universalism over the twisted concept that a fruitless Christian is saved over a good atheist any day of the week, but thankfully, there is an actual truth to be had that includes neither.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Nowhere is it stated that if you do not have faith in Christ by name and power, you will not inherit Heaven. It only states that in doing so, you are secured.

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.†(John 3:36 NIV1984)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Satisfaction is required for sacrifice, not belief. Belief simply affords more security to the person. God does not send people into an eternal Hellfire because they never chose to believe something that only can be afforded by faith.

Okay, so you acknowledge that the truth of the gospel can only be afforded by faith. Good, because that is exactly true. And, hopefully now, because of my last post, you will agree the Bible does indeed say that those who don't have that faith will be condemned.

Why do you say that anyone can believe? Because you have? You believe because your brain allows you to.

Actually what I've discovered in this matter is when you investigate it further you find the person that 'can't believe' is still engaged in the great debate with God about either what constitutes sin, or God's justice in judging sin, or both. It is impossible to believe in Christ and be saved while still negotiating your own terms of peace with God. IOW, they have not come to the point of total surrender that justification/ salvation requires.

Some people prefer to think that you simply don't have enough proof, and the sore fact of the matter is that you simply don't.

Then by definition that person simply doesn't have faith. Because faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1 NIV1984). The voice of God giving us the power to know something is certain and true without seeing it is by definition 'faith'. That IS the evidence that the gospel is real.

People who don't have this ability have either never truly been spoken to, or they are rejecting, or have already rejected, what God has shown them to be a certainty. I think you can tell which is the case by how they respond to the gospel. Angry resistance seems to signify the latter, while calm, passive interest, or no interest at all seems to signify the former. Over the years I've met waaaay more of the angry resister. God seems to still be very much active in calling people to the gospel these days despite what the corruption of our world seems to suggest.

You are arrogant enough to believe that others can simply believe as you do-

I'm not sure who you are addressing (I know it's not me) because I don't remember anyone saying this in this thread.

...it's disappointing to see such arrogance undermine logical truths such as: you can't force yourself to believe something.

Right, you can't force someone to believe something they have neither been shown by God to be true (through the power of faith enabling a person to know it's true) or are resisting that revelation altogether and, therefore, can not have faith in it. But neither reason is going to somehow spare that person in the judgment. Only belief in Christ will do that. But, judging by the number of angry resisters, all signs indicate God has been, and will continue to be, very faithful in sending the power of faith and his delegation of peace makers ahead of him to negotiate his peace with them before he arrives. It's just that so many have rejected that offer, and there's nothing left for them but to wait for the King and his kingdom to get here and administer justice.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'd pick universalism over the twisted concept that a fruitless Christian is saved over a good atheist any day of the week, but thankfully, there is an actual truth to be had that includes neither.

Okay, so it's clear you're not espousing universalism, so there should be no reason I can't comment here.

While James makes it clear that the fruitless Christian has a faith that can not save him it is important to know why a person has no fruit before we decide they are in fact going to destruction. Fruit is the mature growth of a plant. It's no different for the plantings of God. Saved people grow up into the maturity of the fruit of the Spirit. The Bible speaks of ending up with no fruit. IOW, it is what you have or don't have in the end that ultimately determines your final destiny.

"7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned." (Hebrews 6:7-8 NIV1984)

Let's no be so quick to judge others as to the certainty of their destruction.

"5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts." (1 Corinthians 4:5 NIV1984)


But anyway, the main point you're making is that somehow a person who does not believe in Christ can be saved on the merit of their good works and enter the kingdom in this different, alternate way. That's not what the Christian Bible teaches:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6 NIV1984)

1 “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber."

"9 I (Jesus) am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved."
(John 10:1, 9 NIV1984)

Atheists and unbelievers are deceived if they think they can bully their way into the kingdom and God's favor through the merit of their own good doings. That is just the plain and simple truth.

Faith is a gracious gift that delivers us from the burden and the deceit of thinking we can, or must work our way to heaven. But that grace does not go without consequence. We can tell who is abiding in that gracious gift by what they are growing up into. The person who 'does not work but trusts God' is the one who is saved, but that does not mean that person then does not work.

 

[EdenBorn]

Luke 12:47-48
"That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more"

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Luke 12:47-48
"That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more"

This seems to suggest a hierarchy of punishment in hell. I don't know. But it's compelling evidence for it.

I tend to think this is saying that the pain of being cast away from the kingdom is directly proportional to what the person knew in this age but had willfully rejected.

 

[heymikey80]

OK, let's try this. A person goes to church with a friend. This person feels the presence of Christ and heeds the altar call. He goes up and gives his life to Christ, accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior through faith. Is he saved? If the answer is "yes", then my definition of sola-fide stands. What "naturally RESULTS" doesn't do the saving, correct? Salvation is by faith alone and "what it naturally results in" doesn't save, does it?

Does Jesus do the saving or the man's works?

Further afield, there's not enough information to conclude whether the person has come to the faith that saves. Jesus instructs His Church that we're to accept him on grounds that there's nothing counter to the assertion that he is saved. But Jesus also warns that people within the church may not be saved.

Again, there was no "argument" until the 16th century and it wasn't "Roman Catholics" who went against the doctrine established by the apostles and believed for 1500 years.

That's simply not true. As I pointed out, Clement of Rome (100 AD, third Roman Father behind Peter & Paul) embraced faith as saving, rejecting works -- even good works.

Again, I agree with you. Paul is talking about works of the law and circumcision in his "faith vs. works" passages.

You said you agreed, and then disagreed. Paul is talking about works, and he defines them not as circumcision and law but as "work for wages". Two quite different definitions, to everyone who has ever read those two statements. So why would you agree and then disagree?

Judaism taught that "works of the law" put God in obligation (repayment) to man.

Not true. In fact Judaism of the time thought that works-of-law put someone in favor by God. That is, God favored ("graced") works done in faith. If that sounds familiar, it should. It's the medieval church's view, too. Paul reacted against such a view with strong denials.

It might be good at this time to pick up a book by Sanders and bring your theology into the second half of the 20th Century.

ANY ACTION, INCLUDING FAITH, that man does in an attempt to put God in obligation to him, doesn't work. So, as I have said many times in this thread, the ATTITUDE OF THE PERSON, is what Paul is talking about here and elsewhere. If a person gives WITHOUT EXPECTING REPAYMENT, this action is salvific. If the person performs the exact same action and EXPECTS REPAYMENT OR THINKS HE IS PUTTING GOD IN OBLIGATION TO HIM, it is not.

This is like saying, "You can't have a surprise birthday party because then you'd be expecting it." It's self-inconsistent. Someone who isn't expecting repayment can't do something and expect repayment with God's salvation! So what you're saying, because it's self-inconsistent, is impossible. God isn't trying to find works with no expectation in order to save people. God is using faith to develop righteousness in the whole man, and He has said the very existence of the faith which saves, means His plan shall save the one with saving faith.

You think that "giving without expecting repayment" (a wage) does NOT fall under Paul's definition, therefore the "actions which people naturally assume result in payment -- a wage" is not ALL ACTIONS. There is still logically exceptions, therefore sola-fide is not taught by Paul here. Again, this is common logic, as much as you want it NOT to be.

I'll guarantee it does not, because even Jesus performed His acts of righteousness to save us, expecting a reward.

Heb 12:2 "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

So either the Apostle is wrong to use Jesus as an example, or this whole idea is wrong about expectations. I prefer to embrace the Apostolic teaching, and reject the medieval one.

 

[heymikey80]

Paul calls the works of the Law works of righteousness.

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

We can see from Paul's own words that he considers deeds of righteousness deeds of the Law. Thus, Titus 3:5 also speaks of the Law.

Titus 3:5 doesn't even mention law. And "righteousness" appears many, many times neglecting "law". So this whole associative chain is bankrupt. You've only demonstrated that you don't have a case.

In fact Eph 2:8-9 has salvation excluding works; Romans 4:4-5 has righteousness excluding works.

Your argument is merely word association. So when we associate God with Law, we can't then associate God with faith?

Wouldn't that be a kicker. Fortunately, it's a poor argument in both cases.

Look at the context of the argument, it about the Mosaic Law.

Abraham is not about Mosaic Law. In fact Paul's argument is that works in general can't be the basis, because Abraham lived over 400 years before the Law. And he was declared righteous before circumcision. So no kind of works could be involved.

It does nothing of the sort as we've seen. Is it safe to assume that you don't consider baptism a work?

It's only safe to read what I've said about baptism. Nothing about baptism as a work, saves anyone.

The thing is Christians turn to these passages from Paul to argue that works play no role, yet this argument stands in direct contradiction to the words of Christ.

The thing is, I haven't asserted they play no role. I've asserted works have no causative role in salvation. Salvation comes not from works.

No, Philippians 3:9

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

Even if we grant your definition of works, it doesn't change the argument because no one is claiming anyone is saved by works. No one is saved by faith either.

"by grace you have been saved through faith" Ep 2:8

 

[dadof10]

Does Jesus do the saving or the man's works?

Does Jesus do the saving or man's faith? Isn't it your contention that we are saved by Grace THROUGH faith alone? It's my contention that we are saved by Grace through faith WORKING in love, thus faith and works together. Why do you limit God's Saving Grace to only faith?

Further afield, there's not enough information to conclude whether the person has come to the faith that saves. Jesus instructs His Church that we're to accept him on grounds that there's nothing counter to the assertion that he is saved. But Jesus also warns that people within the church may not be saved.

Then the person who is ostensibly "saved" when he turns his life over to Christ, doesn't know yet whether the faith he has displayed is "saving faith" yet? He won't know if it "stuck" until he "shows" his "true faith" by doing righteous works? Once he "shows" (however you want to define this) his faith, can he lose this "saving faith"?

That's simply not true. As I pointed out, Clement of Rome (100 AD, third Roman Father behind Peter & Paul) embraced faith as saving, rejecting works -- even good works.

Are you talking about this ONE quote from Clement?

"All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

He also said this, in the same letter:

"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words."

Does he contradict himself within the same letter? Uh-oh. I feel a "shown to be righteous" moment coming...

Let's AGAIN, suppose you are right. Suppose the second sentence wasn't even written or it really does mean "shown to be righteous", how does one quote from ONE Father constitute an "argument" or a "dispute" within the early Church? Do you have ANY quotes from other Fathers or ANYONE IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF CHRISTENDOM, who argue or dispute that good deeds are or are not NECESSARY for salvation?

You said you agreed, and then disagreed. Paul is talking about works, and he defines them not as circumcision and law but as "work for wages". Two quite different definitions, to everyone who has ever read those two statements. So why would you agree and then disagree?

I agreed with you that "works" means "works for wages" for the sake of argument, remember? Paul does contrast "works for wages" to faith in Romans, so we must consider what he means, but in the "faith vs works" sections of his letters, the context is OVERWHELMINGLY clear that he is talking about "works of the law" and circumcision.

Not true. In fact Judaism of the time thought that works-of-law put someone in favor by God. That is, God favored ("graced") works done in faith.

LOL...How is this different than putting God in obligation? If, by "working", the person was put "in favor by God", wouldn't that necessarily mean God PAYS the "favored" man for his "work"? Is it also Jewish theology that God might REFUSE to "favor" a man if he does the work, or is God OBLIGATED to favor the man for the work done? I think you are splitting hairs.

This is like saying, "You can't have a surprise birthday party because then you'd be expecting it." It's self-inconsistent. Someone who isn't expecting repayment can't do something and expect repayment with God's salvation! So what you're saying, because it's self-inconsistent, is impossible. God isn't trying to find works with no expectation in order to save people. God is using faith to develop righteousness in the whole man, and He has said the very existence of the faith which saves, means His plan shall save the one with saving faith.

WOW...No.

Person 1 goes to the homeless shelter and works with the poor EXPECTING NO REPAYMENT.

Person 2 goes to the Homeless shelter and works with the poor WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT GOD WILL REPAY HIM.

BOTH perform the same exact ACT, though Person 1 did it simply because he loves God and his fellow man, Person 2 did it to EARN something from God.

Person 1's act has salvific value, Person 2's act does not. Paul is speaking against the motives of the act, not the act itself. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Again, the main point here is that you believe Paul is NOT talking about doing charitable acts WITHOUT EXPECTING REPAYMENT, in his "faith vs. works" passages. Simple logic dictates, then that he is NOT talking about "faith alone" in AND ONLY IN, his "faith vs. works" passages. He CAN'T be talking about "all deeds", because ONE DEED is excluded. This is your quagmire...

I'll guarantee it does not, because even Jesus performed His acts of righteousness to save us, expecting a reward.

Heb 12:2 "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

So either the Apostle is wrong to use Jesus as an example, or this whole idea is wrong about expectations. I prefer to embrace the Apostolic teaching, and reject the medieval one.

OK, I'm confused. You seem to be contradicting every word you have written on this subject so far.

Are you saying that Paul is using Jesus as an example and TEACHING US that we are to perform "acts of righteousness...EXPECTING A REWARD"?

I must be misunderstanding you.

 

[heymikey80]

"Through" isn't "by". And it isn't I who conditions salvation on faith. As you've quoted-its an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

 

[christian_disable]

This thread is now closed it has a continuation thread [split]52581[/split]