Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano)

Hi Truthlover.No worries about misspelling my name. I've been called worse.One of the things I reckon many including myself suffer from here is a tendency to:- argue as opposed to debate
- haul the topic all over the place by using supporting arguments about which there is as little agreement as there is for the central issue under discussion
- go too quick.I don't suggest that all these can be resolved just by mentioning them, but taking things at a gentler pace might help. I'm in no hurry. What do you reckon?I'll print off your posts and have a read. You've outlined above something which I wouldn't have gathered as easily from the many posts between us thus far. 2 types of salvation. Past and future. Hmmm. I may need to ask a question or two to clarify the more precisely what you mean so that I can head along the track I feel best refutes this view. This not with a view to entrapment but simply to avoid making assumptions based on not knowing your viewpoint at the outset

I'm not sure how to deal with this thread TL. One of the problems seems to be something we all suffer from and that is biblical quote-mining in order to support our respective positions. By selective use of scripture I could make the case for salvation by faith alone - period. I too, would make statements to the effect that the early church taught this. I could also say the whole of scripture supports that view.One of the problems with a particular verse plucked out is that the context is lost and the only route is to delve into that aspect of it. Take: 'Much more then'. As he does when he says things like "therefore" and "But now..." Paul is coming to some conclusion based on something he has said already. So we must go back and look at what he has said before in order to shine light on this. And from before we would probably get redirected to before that too.Where does one start. Romans is probably the best book for explaining in toto, the mechanism of how this plan of salvation works. In order to start somewhere in Romans, say chap 5, we would need to agree with what chap 1-4 were saying. And that is unlikely. Do we start at Romans 1:1?I would argue that Chap 5 is purely about assurance of salvation by faith. I would argue that Chap 4 is about salvation by faith. I would argue that the gospel is begun at Romans 3:21. I would argue the Romans 1:16 to Romans 3:20 is about showing the need of the gospel both to the irreligious and the religious. To the Jew and to the Gentile. You see the problem?Other than how to figure a way to discuss, I had some questions based on what you wrote in order to clarify your position in my own head. If your view on how getting to heaven is true then there will be a mechanism available which we can follow. I understand view of past and present salvation but if possible I'd like to hear how the mechanism works a bit further. No biblical references necessary just how you think it works. Some clarification on the following would help Why specifically would that be unfair? Is there some level of sin below which God thinks everything is okay and above which his wrath is made manifest? If we have to form a view on how God looks upon sin then the garden of Eden should demonstrate it to us. Look what happened as a result of eating one apple. Was that unfair? We know that anyone who follows all the law but stumbles over even a tiny piece of it is guilty of breaking it all. And sin is lawbreaking. Could you comment on how this is got around. Is our level of trying the key factor? Lived as Christ lived. But Christ lived a perfectly sinnless life. Total obedience to his father. Total obedience to the law. You on the other hand cannot. You accept that you do and will sin. Could you explain to me how it is that your sin is dealt with. What happens to it technically Patently patient continuence in well-doing is a progressive sounding statement. There is no line drawn for us to know if we are on the right or wrong side of the salvation track. Someone may think they are patiently continuing but if they are being pragmatic and honest they also are aware of the sin within. Can I presume that you cannot be sure whether you will be a sheep or a goat until the day when God makes his judgement known. If you are sure then how do you know this (your own subjective measurement suffices?) and if not, is that the sign of a loving father that he would have you stew in uncertainty fearing damnation all the way until the moment of your judgement?This message has been edited by iano, 06-Dec-2005 04:47 PM

I can't see how one can avoid this in this kind of debate. You put up a verse and then assert a view as to what it means. The verse starts out with the phrase "much more then..." Much more than what? What is Paul connecting this statment to? What has been his argument up to that point from which we can best see the context in which he now makes this statement?We don't know. And all the other verses you use are placed to support the your own analysis of what Paul meant in the initial verse. But all of these suffer from the same problem. What is the context in which they are made. I accept that you were necessarily surface skimming for the purposes of brevity, but all discussions so far have included such isolated verses cast in (by all parties) to make whatever the point was at the time. But nothing in the way of detailed, methodical study as to context and purpose of the passage in which the verse was nested.I'm not criticizing you for this. The nature of such debates makes it difficult to land on a particular doctrine and work it out in the time available. That's why I felt we could only approach this with a more detailed study of the context of a particular verse. Not hopping from verse to verse and assertion to assertion. But even that brings up the problem with the passage in which the verse is nested being a consequence of passages before. Hence my question: do we have to start at Romans 1?You contend 2 levels of salvation pre and final it seems. You could either go on to support that contention doing the study off Romans to show that the argument the verse appears to make is indeed that argument - in context. The verse can't be just left there in isolation or added to any number of similarily isolated versesOr we could look at me rebutting your stance by examining the basis on which those 'warning' verses in the epistles (for example) you point to, are made. It would move along the following lines.The epistles are letters written to churches. Real, actual churchs back then. Then as now, there are people in these physical, visible churches who were not Christians. They attended the church but that didn't necessarily make them Christian. A warning is given within the letters intended for those who read them make sure they are not mistaken in thinking they are Christians when they are not. "If you love him you will obey his commands -are you doing so? This is how you know. This is how you test. Check and make sure that you are not under a false assumption". A Christian WILL see the spirits action on them unto fruit and they CAN be assured they are Christians because of that. They can be sure to that all that applies to Christians (including assured salvation) is true of them. The people who only think they are Christians will read and may realise that they are in fact not Christians. They have been warned. Warning verses.Assurance for Christians / Warning for those who just think they are.I would imagine given that you have started the thread and made the outline assertion that you be the one to demonstrate that these passages make that case, for example, showing that these warning passages refer to people who have been justified or are in Christ or have been declared righteous (the first salvation as you contend) and may not make it to the second salvation.You put up Romans as an example. Romans is as good a book describing mechanics of salvation as any. We can't study contexts of lots of verses. So why not work that one out. I say Romans 5 is only about assurance of salvation for those in Christ. You say it two salvations is contained within. So, go show it. Provide explaination for the verses that conflict with that idea. As well as dealing with the problem of on what basis do we proceed (talks about talks) I asked a background question that has interested me for a while now. You mentioned in this thread the thinking behind your stance in a way that made it far clearer than anytime previously. Salvation 1 by faith, salvation 2 (final) by works.All I was asking was a clarification to some basic questions that would be asked of such a stance:- if 2nd salvation is related to level of obedience then is there any way for a person of your position to be sure that they will be saved.- what is the cut off point for salvation/damnation for a person who is travelling the path you travel.- if not a question of quantitive degree of obedience is it to do with the effort and intent behind the attempts at obedience. It not so much what you do but how hard you try to do- How is the sin you commit at the times you don't obey dealt with. Is it just forgotten?I'm not looking for any backup for your position. I just wanted to know what it was. You could spend as many sentences outlining it as you did in describing 2 levels of salvation. I found that clarified things wellThis message has been edited by iano, 07-Dec-2005 06:29 PM

Verse 5:8 begins "But God commendeth his love toward us..."What situation was Paul describing prior to verse 5:8 that is being countered by the 'But...'.Go to verse 7: "For...." For, means because, Because what?Go to verse 6: "For...." Because what?Go to verse 5: "And..." Additional. Additional to whatGo to verse 4: "And..." Additional to what?Go to verse 3: "And...." Additional to what?Go to verse 2: "By whom..." continution of verse 1Go to verse 1: Therefore..." Therefore means, as a result of what I have said before.."Go to Chap 4.Go to 4:1 "What shall we say then....?" Link to arguement in 3Go to 3:1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? Link back to 2Go to 2:1 "Therefore....." *sigh*Go back to chap 1There is a continuous link from verse 5:9 back to verse 5:1. And from chapter 5 we link back to chapter 4,3,2,1. You've attempted to hop in mid stream of the apostles argument and form a doctrine from a verse. But if you won't see his whole argument, how can you decide how one verse can mean what you take it to mean? That is why context is important. We could similarily go forward to the end of chapter 5 and beyond. We might end up at 8:1"There is therefore ("as a result of the argument I have been making prior to this") now NO CONDEMNATION for those that are in Christ. In Christ is the criteria for no condemnation. And the link can be easily drawn out in Romans to show a person who has been justified by faith is in Christ. I was asking you how you would like this to proceed, that's all. Do you want to make the case for your doctrine - I don't mean by random out of context verse plucking or asserting that "the verse means what I say it means". But actually forming a grounded biblical argument where the context in which the verse sits is included. Like I say, anyone can make any doctrine by using out of context and randomly chosed versesOr would you like to show that the verses which clearly talk of damnation by not obeying are referring to real Christians?

If the verses you use to back up your second/final salvation by works cannot be shown to be directed at those who have been justified by faith then on what basis can they fail to be saved

quote:

---

Matt 25 - This is the passage of the sheep and the goats. As can be seen, the only difference between the sheep and the goats is their works; what they did and didn't do.

---

No surprise. Jesus said that the people who love him WILL obey his commands. Works is a automatic consequence of love. It is going to happen. Jesus said it would. So it will.

quote:

---

John 5:27-29 - Here Y'shua says he has authority to execute judgment and that he will call both those who have done good and those who have done evil out of the grave to receive either life or condemnation.

---

"Will obey my commands". Automatic

quote:

---

Rom 2:6 - The judgment is said here to be according to works, with those doing good works reaping eternal life and those who disobey reaping condemnation.

---

"Will obey my commands" Automatic

quote:

---

2 Cor 5:10 - This passage doesn't give the repayment, but it does say that both good and bad works will be judged.

---

No talk of condemnation according to works. So not relevant to salvation threads. All will be judged, I agree.

quote:

---

1 Pet 1:17 - This says that God judges everyone without partiality (and this includes without partiality to believers) according to their works.

---

Judging can be a trial leading to execution or it can be a bake-a-nice-cake competition. God can judge all impartially. Question is: are you on trial or are you in a beauty contest. There is insufficient here to tell (Beware of DVD - Doctrine from a Verse Danger)

quote:

---

2 Pet 1:5-11 - While this doesn't directly mention the judgment, it does say to "give diligence to make your calling and election sure" by "doing these things." This diligence in "doing these things" will (future tense) provide an entrance into Y'shua's everlasting kingdom.

---

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.It would take another study in this to find out whether these relate to a final salvation: calling/election. What are these precisely?

quote:

---

Rev 3:4,5 - Again, judgment is not mentioned, but this does say that only the worthy will walk with Christ in white and the rest will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life.

---

Another bible study necessary. Who are the worthy? How are they made so? What is defiled their garments? There is more to be said about thisCan you see your problem. There are specific words used and these need to be shown to be linked and mean the same thing before they can be used as interchangeably as you use them."If you love me you will obey my commands" A promise not a conditionThis message has been edited by iano, 08-Dec-2005 04:11 PM

We haven't even got to the point of figuring out on what basis do we discuss. Something I have been asking for. It seems to me that the core of TL's argument is that there is such thing as a first and second salvation; the first by faith, the second by works. An area of discussion could be investigating whether there is such separation, that a person can be justified but not get to the second for want of works. If that is what TL wants to discuss then lets.In making a case I would imagine that verses which can shown to refer to justified people being told they need to work to get the second salvation would be required. That if they don't they will be lost.Putting up a verse and saying that is what it means (without providing some evidence that it is so) is not making a case. It is asserting something and placing the onus on me to make a case against the assertion. Is this what TL wants.Like I said. What is the basis for discussion. Should I tackle warning passages to show that it is not those who have been justified who are being warned? Should we examine Romans to see if the 5:10 statement is a 2 salvation one in fact? Which way should we go?

quote:

---

Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

---

I don't see anything referring to works here. I see another if/then statement. If we have been reconciled we shall be saved. If we have been justified, we shall be saved. "If you love me you will obey my commands". If condition A then result B. The thing which is referred to as saving us is "by" and "through" him. Nothing to do with us here. Nothing to do with works.

quote:

---

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we should no longer serve sin.

---

Our old man crucified. Why? In order that the body of sin might be destroyed. Why? So that we should no longer serve sin. Period. This has nothing to say about second salvation or that that should it exist be works based

quote:

---

Notice that this verse is tied to his death as well. The body of sin is destroyed, so that we who were once slaves to sin might live in newness of life.

---

I agree with the words even though we could end up disagreeing about what slave to sin/newness of life might mean. This verse is in chapter 6. Paul is dealing with a mistaken understanding about what the gospel means. Verse 1: "What shall we say then, should we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid...." He is going to explain why the reaction "I am saved by faith thus I can sin as I please?" is the incorrect one.This could be that he has second salvation in mind and is going to warn them that works are necessary. But there is nothing in the verse to indicate second salvation No reference to second salvation or works based salvation. Christ in Paul and Paul living now by faith in Christ. I'd like to see what you imply here: justification = redemption from the power of sin worked out. I agree it is by his life that we will be saved from wrath but as I've pointed out before, if/then means if will happen. There is no condition for the 'shall' in the verses you put upYou go on to use a number of verses which seem to support salvation by us working. I responded to them in my last post. I've argued that works are a guarenteed consequence on the basis of "If you love me you will obey my commands" or argued that the verses don't link to second salvation or salvation based on works for a person who has been justified.I've responded with a counter possibility for each (I think) verse you've put up in your OP references. It's not that I have to form an rounded alternative doctrine from them - you picked the verses to support your doctrine, they can't be expected to form a rounded alternative as well.Do you want to proceed on the basis that you make a case for second salvation /that this second salvation is by works? Rebuttal of my counter to the verses you've used perhaps

See post above. I've taken every (I think) verse that TL has put up and looked at it in the light of itself (by and large). TL poses second salvation by works. I suggest none of these verses says anything about second salvation or salvation (of any kind) by our works.If I hold to a general viewpoint it will be that we are recognised by works. Not saved by them. That will be the general basis of my approach. Works is an end not a means in other words

quote:

---

Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

---

Whatever about the overall theme (two salvations), can we agree that Paul said "shall be saved" rather than "need to be saved"?It seems to me that Paul is making a comparison here as to certainty of salvation. When we were enemies God took action to reconcile us to himself. If God did that for his enemies, how much more could we expect him to place us in heaven when we die - seeing as we are reconciled to him, are not enemies nay more are actually at peace with him?Is not "shall be saved by his life" something that can be taken as certain to happen? "Shall we" reap whatever the consequences of 'by his life' means? I agree. Salvations past element. The curret element is that "I am being comformed to the image of his son". But "He that began a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Jesus Christ. The future element "shall be saved by his life" implies a given too. There is a past current and future element to the one salvation. Of necessity. A person cannot be saved from wrath before the time when wrath occurs. But when that time comes they shall be. It is sure.There are no more two different salvations than the past, current future elements of a persons life mean they have two separate lives. Your premise is that decisions on our part are effectual in attaining 'final' salvation. This would make 'final' salvation from wrath an uncertain entity. If it was guaranteed to happen then that which effects it was that heralded in by the 'first' salvation in which we played no part. First salvation would have set in train an irreversible process which would only lead to one destination. This is quite a difference.1 train journey I say. You hold to two....and for the second we have at least some influence on the steering wheel. Some independence from God. Some influence in our salvation. There is effort and pain - but not in the sense that it affects 'final' salvation. No risk of failure? Awesome is a good word for it. An awesome gift"But the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus" One thing puzzles me about people who hold to works. This whole idea of gift. We know the bible uses words which we can relate to to understand spiritual principles. Whenever does anyone work for a gift? Like:"The wages of sin is death" - wages: something earned. Our fault is we get death."The gift of God is eternal life...." - gift: something earned? It doesn't quite gel in my mind this. Any view?Right, time to go. Tell you what TL. I'll go an do a bit of thinking about the verses you've put up in the second half of this post and will come back to it.

I think you're missing my point TL. God makes promises. He keeps his promises. What you or I think doesn't affect that one whit. The purpose of me including 'promise' passages was to demonstrate that people who were being addressed in the context of them being justified and declared righteous (your 'first' salvation) were promised that they would be saved also from wrath (your second salvation). But there is no separation. If you have been justified then you will be saved from wrath - when that time comes. It's a package deal. A gift can contain many componants: justification, declaration of righteousness, the right to be called a son of God, receipt of the holy spirit, freedom from the law of sin and death, God's residence within, sanctification, glorification, saved from wrath, a prepared mansion in heaven, peace which surpasses all understanding, intercession of the spirit on our behalf etc, etcOne gift. If you want to hold to second salvation as a separate, sure-to-happen componant of the same gift then fine. I agree. Began a good work, will complete. God at work. I have and do see it happen. Both in myself and in others. If you mean that you don't see it happen according to your doctrine of works then you'd be right. People who are not "works = salvation based" will probably not live as 'holy' a life as those who believe they will be damned if they don't obey. But the former would argue that works done for that reason are entirely worthless from a salvation from wrath point of view. But your premise (second post: which included the references admin requested so as to illustrate your premise) included a stack load of verses all pointing towards not doing a,b,c,d. Your holding that there is a second salvation used works as a central distinguishing factor. The very engine room of salvation from wrath. You also said this in your OP Works is what saves according to you. The decision to do works necessary is the persons own. If they decide to obey and do so then they will be saved. If they decide to ignore the work of the holy spirit in them then they will be lost. Their decision is effectual in their being second saved or not. As I stated above. What words was I placing in your mouth? I have dealt with quite a number of verses (all I think) you put up to support your opening premise. I'm not presuming that I did so adequately but I put a basic opposing view. One of the key ones was this one. The only thing it said was that those who have been justified/reconciled shall be saved by his life. An if/then statment - amplified and underlined by the expression "much more"Paul talked about final salvation (saved by his life you seem to concur) as something that was going to happen if a person was justified/reconciled. A promise. You have said nothing yet about any of the promise arguements I have posed. This remains to be seen As far as I can recall I've dealt with all verses put up in your OP references. Will do a scan back to collate the argument thus far And I told you I would come back on them. But I need you to deal with what I have said to the 8 or so verses you have already put up. There is little point in adding more material if what is already responded to is not worked out by usThis message has been edited by iano, 12-Dec-2005 12:36 PM

Here are the verses you posed in your opening posts. And my reponse to them. I'm not sure which of them you feel best forms a basis for the doctrine of a separate, works based salvation. I feel none of them speak at all about this. You seem to claim that in context they do. In which case it's the context in which they are made which might prove a route forward. We can all claim context supports us but without investigating context, whose to know?

quote:

---

Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

---

I don't see anything referring to works here. I see another if/then statement. If we have been reconciled we shall be saved. If we have been justified, we shall be saved. "If you love me you will obey my commands". If condition A then result B. The thing which is referred to as saving us is "by" and "through" him. Nothing to do with us here. Nothing to do with works.

quote:

---

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we should no longer serve sin.

---

Our old man crucified. Why? In order that the body of sin might be destroyed. Why? So that we should no longer serve sin. Period. This has nothing to say about second salvation or that that should it exist be works based.

quote:

---

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. Yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

---

No reference to second salvation or works based salvation. Christ in Paul and Paul living now by faith in Christ.

quote:

---

Matt 25 - This is the passage of the sheep and the goats. As can be seen, the only difference between the sheep and the goats is their works; what they did and didn't do.

---

No surprise. Jesus said that the people who love him WILL obey his commands. Works is a automatic consequence of love. It is going to happen. Jesus said it would. So it will.

quote:

---

John 5:27-29 - Here Y'shua says he has authority to execute judgment and that he will call both those who have done good and those who have done evil out of the grave to receive either life or condemnation.

---

No verse put up but having read it this is how I would argue it. "Will obey my commands". Automatic

quote:

---

Rom 2:6 - The judgment is said here to be according to works, with those doing good works reaping eternal life and those who disobey reaping condemnation.

---

No verse put up but this is how I would argue it "Will obey my commands" Automatic

quote:

---

2 Cor 5:10 - This passage doesn't give the repayment, but it does say that both good and bad works will be judged.

---

No talk of condemnation according to works. So not relevant to salvation threads. All will be judged, I agree.

quote:

---

1 Pet 1:17 - This says that God judges everyone without partiality (and this includes without partiality to believers) according to their works.

---

Judging can be a trial leading to execution or it can be a bake-a-nice-cake competition. God can judge all impartially. Question is: are you on trial or are you in a beauty contest. There is insufficient here to tell

quote:

---

2 Pet 1:5-11 - While this doesn't directly mention the judgment, it does say to "give diligence to make your calling and election sure" by "doing these things." This diligence in "doing these things" will (future tense) provide an entrance into Y'shua's everlasting kingdom.

---

10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.It would take another study in this to find out whether these relate to a final salvation: calling/election. What are these precisely?

quote:

---

Rev 3:4,5 - Again, judgment is not mentioned, but this does say that only the worthy will walk with Christ in white and the rest will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life.

---

Another bible study necessary. Who are the worthy? How are they made so? What is it that has defiled their garments? There is more to be said about this.This message has been edited by iano, 12-Dec-2005 01:15 PM

quote:

---

Gal 6:7-9: "Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that is also what he will reap. He who sows to the flesh will reap corruption from the flesh. He who sows to the Spirit will reap everlasting life from the Spirit. Let's not get tired of doing good, because in due time we will reap, if we do not lose heart."

---

Your comment here is illustrative of the mis-use or ignoring of context. You've aligned two verses which you hold say the same thing. But if you look at the Romans verse in context you will see he is not addressing those who have been justified by faith and declared righteous.He has opened up in chapter 1 talking about the ungodly, the wicked and the unrighteous. They are Gentiles. They know about God: not through his laws (which were only given to the Jews) but "understood through the things that are made": nature without (evidence of God)/conscience within (evidence of God). I hold that further investigation would show that there can be no doubt in Romans 1 that he is talking not about people who have been justified by faith nor is he talking about the Jew. You may agree.Then in Romans 2 he turns on the Jew. How do we know it's a Jew? Well, the person is judging. A person can only judge if they have a standard against which to judge. Some standard by which they can say "that evil person - look at how they do wrong" And that is only possible if one knows the law. Gods law. There is no objective way to judge otherwise. And only the Jews had Gods law. But Paul is saying that they too do wrong. They do precisely the same things. They are like be like the law-knowing Pharisees "clean on the outside but inside full of dead mens bones". There are other references in Romans 2 which allow us to know it is to the Jew he speaks.And he pulls the rug right out from under their feetRomans 2

quote:

---

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." (Note that this is an OT or Old Covenant quote) 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

​

11For God does not show favoritism.

---

And we can deduce that the measure God will use when he " will render to every man according to his deeds" is the law. Paul is talking about law breaking here: And it doesn't matter whether you know about the law or don't - God will render ever man according to his obeying of the law.

quote:

---

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous/shall be justified.

---

"Glory and honor... to Jew or Gentile" - we are directed back to this by the "for" at the beginning of verse 13. Thus Glory and honour... not by hearing or knowing about the law but by doing the law, obeying the law, following the law. It's only the doers of the law who will be declared/shall be.....

quote:

---

"righteous/justified"

---

Truthlover, you have just linked the Galatians passage to a passage in Romans which tells us that a person is justified/declared righteous (according to the Old Convenant/Contract) if they are doers of the law. IOW, you are linking your argument of second (final) salvation by works to a verse which explains the way (by works) of attaining of that which you say is by faith (first salvation): justification/declared righteous.What is actually going on is that Paul is explaining to the Jew that the attaining of justification/righteousness according to the Old Covenant (pre-gospel) is not knowing about the law, having access to the law, or giving a nod in the direction of the law - but only by doing the law. There is no hint of trying here either. Just doing. And Paul is going to wind up his argument at Romans 3:20

quote:

---

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

---

To sum Pauls argument up:- The Old Covenant says that only by doing the law can a man be declared righteous/ be justified.- But no one is going to be declared righteous according the the demands of this Old Convenant. This is because no one can do the law. They can try, they may try very hard. Or they may not try at all. But nobody, Gentile and Jew will actually achieve itBut it seems that this righteousness/justification is very important. Paul has shown us (for that is his purpose up to this point) that the Old Covenant (obedience to the law) won't supply it. So how does one get it then? The very next verse Paul introduces the gospel.Romans 3:21 Paul starts the gospel

quote:

---

1But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

---

Righteousness comes not from the law but from faith in the one person who actually did follow every single morsel of the law. The only actual doer of the law who ever lived. Jesus Christ.I don't hold to your assertion that the Galatians passage says the exact same thing at all to this Romans 1 verse. If you hold they do then could you show how the context of Romans 1/2 works as you see it. Or maybe you will agree that despite the similar words Romans 1 in context doesn't mean at all what it may mean in Galatians. We may get to Galatians and what IT means in context but first we have quite a few of your verses to deal with as well as fitting some certainty verses regarding salvation into a possible second salvationEdited to clarifyThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Dec-2005 12:52 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Dec-2005 12:57 PM

If God makes a promise and there are no conditions put on him fulfilling it that then fulfilled it will whether I like it or not. If I have been justified then I shall be saved by his life. Unless you can explain why it could be otherwise. If he has begun a good work in me he will bring it to completion - unless you can describe otherwise. I didn't say anyone in the NT wasn't a true Christian based on their works. I was making the point that not every single bit of the NT is directed at those who have been justified/declared righteous. The second half of Romans 1 is patently not addressed as justifed people (Christians). Romans 2 I have argued is not addressed at Christians either.My background stance (I am hear to counter your arguement for second salvation by works) is that a person justifed by faith is saved full stop. No loss of salvation possible, no further salvation by works necessary. Thus I would be pointing to 'warning passages' being directed at those who have yet to be justifed - but who may attend the church in question (then as now). Like I said, I see it happening in me. I am aware of it. I do keep the commandments in some way. I argue that warning passages are there so that the individual can test and see for themselves that that which is promised ("will obey my commands") is indeed evident in them. I think it has far less to do with what other think. All that matters in the end is that a person know themselves they are saved.Works as evidence that they are saved. Not works effecting their salvation. If a person wants to know, then that is one way of knowing. The danger is that people start working it up in themselves and fooling themselves that it is God working in them causing them to obey. That's a sham. It is precisely that they look at themselves and see the changes wrought in them and in awe say "how did this happen - he has indeed changed me!" that convinces a person that "He that began a good work..." is going to complete it I wouldn't argue that anyone who was justified can lose their place in heaven. Someone who never was justified could cool off and leave it. They never were a Christian. Someone call fall away but if they have been justified then saved they are. Eternal life is theirs nonetheless. From the outside you may not tell the difference.If it is a sure-to-happen then it makes all the difference. How could anyone who is surely saved not be saved. If they aren't in the end then it wasn't sure was it? A warning passage aimed at letting a person test whether they are saved loses it's prime usefulness once the person knows that they are saved. They don't need to be thrown out. They are worthwhile reminders of the life that befits a Christian. But warnings unto damnation they are no more"Smoking causes cancer" is of no prime use to a non-smoker. It may remind them to tell their kids not to smoke but it has no direct bearing on the non-smoker. They are relevant to you because of your doctrine of works. How can sure fire salvation be irrelevant in a discussion about the need of second salvation. How can a person who is going to be saved finally and forever, irrespective of works, "need" this second salvation when they already have it. I am a lotto winner I need to win the lotto. It makes no sense The first point, that Paul talks of second salvation at all. You seem to think that because he talks of future tense that it is a different thing altogether. You have not addressed my contention that final salvation is but an element of the one salvation that is by faith. Past, present and future elements of that which happens by, is heralded by, is effected by and only by that which converts a person. God. A process whose outcome is sure. 1 process and a certain one at that.Your drifting into works is the only way you can separate the two. Thus the two are indivisable: "second salvation by works". Whilst Paul spends alot of time (Romans 2 and 3) showing us how a man is not justified by obeying the law and spends Chapter 4 showing how he is in fact justified (as he always has been): by faith, he neglects to form his doctrine of second salvation except by verses scattered about the epistles, none of which directly explain in anything like the painstaking way he does for justification, the case for "your works are what will effect your final salvation" Three promise passages (for now)Will obey my commands
Began a good work and will complete
If justified then shall saved by his lifeHow did you say these fitted into a possibly-saved-if-we-produce-the-goods separate and final salvation again?This message has been edited by iano, 12-Dec-2005 04:37 PM

It served to illustrate the point that context is essential when deciding the relevance of a particular piece of scripture when utilising it to support whichever doctrine you happen to be promoting.I note that you don't do this. Standalone verses are placed up whose words seem to fit your case but seeing as there is no context in which to examine them placed alongside I am left with the idea that you rely simply on the verse. The Romans 1 verse was a case in point. Here we have something which aligns very closely ("the same thing" IIRC you said) with the Galatians passage. Yet contextually, we find out:a) it is not addressed to people who have been justified
b) it warns that work-or-else refers to the gaining of righteousness/justification according to the Old Covenent
c) gaining righteousness by obeying the law is not possibleI would have imagined that the person making their case would be keen to demonstrate the verses they use are contextually intended to mean what the case-maker says they mean. Are you as wildly off the mark with the Galatians passage as you were with the Romans one. If you think not, could you demonstrate it?.

The question we are dealing with in the overall sense is second/separate salvation by works. That my decision as to works are effectual in this salvation - as opposed to being indicators of a one and only salvation process at work. We seem to agree that a person can only be justified/declared righteous by faith. And we seem to have clear indications that if that has happened then a person will be finally saved. The verses that link justification with final salvation don't include conditions. They are simply if/then statements. The key element is patently the 'if'. Should that be fulfilled (if a person is justified) then final salvation will follow.You've put up a position and we have observations that seem to conflict with your position. The way out of these observations (if/then) is to find a some condition that can be shown to apply to a justified person. If such a condition exists then salvation is not automatic it relies on the condition. IOW fulfilling that condition is the effectual bit (either in final salvation or bringing a person to the next condition...and so on).Can you interrupt justification > final salvation with a condition? I think you'll find it's you that has this thing about being able to see works happening to a level that you consider satisfactory. I hold that certain passages about works are there so that the individual can examine THEMSELVES and confirm for themselves that "he has begun a good work". Take me for example. I'm am much more patient that I ever was. One of the fruits of the Spirit is patience. You might not see it. You might think that I am, in fact, impatient. But I know I am far more patient than I ever was. The world gets some of the benefit of it. But the world isn't going to see this as fruit of the Spirit - they just aren't going to get their car mirrors kicked off when they pull out in front of my motorcycle. The fruit of the spirit is primarily noticeable by the person themselves. The people to whom he is addressing his remarks in Romans 2 are people who think that they are justified by works. There could have been those types in Rome in amongst the people who were justified by faith, it could be someone reading it in Co. Cork 5 minutes ago. No one will be justified by observing the law. No one. I think this topic is acutally becoming impossible TL. Not for lack of want on either side but simply because of the lack of common ground on which to discuss. Take "True Christians". What is a true Christian? No doubt your view will differ from mine. And what is a believer? That too will no doubt differ from mine.I think a problem we are facing is that so much of the language we bandy about actually has different meanings for both of us. Christian/believer/in Christ/saved/unsaved/faith/works/sanctified. How can we discuss when we are talking different languages. How do we build a case if the very words used in building either case don't mean the same things to both of us?