|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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. Well, since vv. 9,10 of Rom 5 pretty much just say what I said they say, there's not much for me to discuss about the context. I don't think the context of "much more then" goes any further back than v. 8, where Paul says that Y'shua died for us while we were still sinners. Since this is perfectly in line with what I said and with what vv. 9 & 10 say, I'm not sure what to add. Since you seem to think the context somehow invalidates my point, and since I have no idea how a context of "the assurance of salvation" is even relevant to the discussion, maybe you can discuss the context instead of just saying there is one. It still just looks like you're shuffling and dancing, not answering.
Assurance for Christians / Warning for those who just think they are. I don't see how this is relevant or in any way invalidates my point.
You mentioned in this thread the thinking behind your stance in a way that made it far clearer than anytime previously. That's because it's not been the topic of discussion anytime previously.
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. 1 Jn 3:18,19: "Let us not love in word nor tongue, but in deed and and truth. And in this way we will know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him."
what is the cut off point for salvation/damnation for a person who is travelling the path you travel. For the umpteenth time, that's for God to determine, not me. My job, and yours, by commandment of the apostles, is to fear.
It not so much what you do but how hard you try to do I think you're saying one more time that this is what I believe. I most definitely do not believe this. It is what you do. Your trying is insignificant except insofar as it produces success. If you're trying and failing, then there's a power problem. Fix the problem at the source. If you're trying and failing, then you're somehow not attached to the grace of God; at least not like you ought to be. (Note: it's very hard to be attached to the grace of God when you're not in the Church, being exhorted daily and joined to others with the same intent, mind, and heart; closer than an earthly family and taking care of one another in every need. That's the only context Christians were meant to live in, unless they were out creating that context elsewhere.)
How is the sin you commit at the times you don't obey dealt with. Is it just forgotten? If you repent and practice righteousness it is. "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of King Y'shua cleanses us from every sin" (1 Jn 1:7).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
tl writes: Well, since vv. 9,10 of Rom 5 pretty much just say what I said they say, there's not much for me to discuss about the context. I don't think the context of "much more then" goes any further back than v. 8, where Paul says that Y'shua died for us while we were still sinners. Since this is perfectly in line with what I said and with what vv. 9 & 10 say, I'm not sure what to add. 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 what Go to verse 4: "And..." Additional to what? Go to verse 3: "And...." Additional to what? Go to verse 2: "By whom..." continution of verse 1 Go 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 3 Go to 3:1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? Link back to 2 Go to 2:1 "Therefore....." *sigh* Go back to chap 1 There 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.
It still just looks like you're shuffling and dancing, not answering. 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 verses Or would you like to show that the verses which clearly talk of damnation by not obeying are referring to real Christians?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: Assurance for Christians / Warning for those who just think they are. 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: 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: "Will obey my commands". Automatic
quote: "Will obey my commands" Automatic
quote: No talk of condemnation according to works. So not relevant to salvation threads. All will be judged, I agree.
quote: 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: 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: 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 this Can 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 condition This message has been edited by iano, 08-Dec-2005 04:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Truthlover has made his case. You, unfortuantely, have not made your case or clearly shown his case to be wrong, insufficient, or even mildly incorrect. You've said he is wrong, but you have not explained how the text says something different than what Truthlover has said that it says. You have not shown us how his explanation uses the verses out of context. You haven't provided any coherent alternative to discuss. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Or would you like to show that the verses which clearly talk of damnation by not obeying are referring to real Christians? Once again, you hop off to conclusions and ends that you think might be present in a discussion, and you don't look at the discussion, because you object to where it might lead. This statement of yours has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having, and it might explain your bizarre craze with context. I haven't noticed you saying about your own verses, "Well, I'm not going to bring this verse out, because I'd have to cover 672 other verses for you to understand it." No, you quote the verse, because you think it says something. Now you've put up a post basically saying, "I don't have to look at Rom 5:9,10, because it has a context going back to Romans 1:1, so until you explain the previous 125 verses, I don't have to pay attention to it." You're dodging and shuffling, not looking at context. We both can read Romans 1 and forward. I assume we both have. I know I have way too many times to count. Obviously, I think what I'm saying is in context with that. If you can find any indication that it's not, say so. I made it very easy to do so. When Paul speaks of salvation in the past tense, he speaks of faith and the death of Christ. When he speaks of salvation in the future tense, he speaks of works and judgment. All you have to do is show that's not true. I gave several verses where it is true, and I could have given many more. Rom 5:9,10 happens to do both in the same place in a very straightforward and understandable manner. The problem is not context. The problem is that you don't like what those verses say, so you don't want to pay attention to them. And making comments about damnation and whether condemned people were really Christians is pointless. You can talk about that somewhere else if you'd like. It certainly has nothing to do with what I said. More dodging.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Can 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. No, I don't see my problem. I'm looking at a consistent pattern and drawing a conclusion that is much more reasonable, in my opinion, than the one drawn by Martin Luther and passed down to his descendants. This post of yours is just blowing smoke. You're not finding any inconsistencies in what I said. You're saying, "Well, maybe, what about, possibly." Meanwhile, what Purpledawn said is true. You've shown no alternative, and the one you did describe in other threads had all sorts of holes in it. You see, here I'm offering an interpretation that doesn't require the explaining away of a lot of verses. It explains very clearly, I think, why Paul could say that a man is justified by faith apart from works and why James could say that a man is not justified by faith only, but by works. It makes James and Paul consistent, something Martin Luther said couldn't be done, and it makes them obviously consistent. It's not shuffling and jiving like most Protestants have to do when they run across James 2:24. Meanwhile, Protestants are constantly having to call one verse clear and another verse difficult, so they can explain away the difficult verse and build a doctrine on just the "clear" verse. What I'm presenting pretty much eliminates difficult verses. It's also historical, and while it's a bit more precise and defined than what's found in the writings of the early church, a more general teaching, just like it, was the ONLY teaching around, probably until Augustine in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Now, why would I worry about your maybe's and your "does the context agree" when I believe something that shows the writings of the New Testament to be consistent and easy to understand and it's also the only teaching we can find taught in Paul's churches from the time of the apostles and forward another 300 years??? Personally, I think that unless someone can find a glaring problem with what I'm saying, then what I'm saying here is quite obviously the meaning Paul intended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
pd writes: You, unfortuantely, have not made your case or clearly shown his case to be wrong, insufficient, or even mildly incorrect. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The basis for discussion is the OP. Address the statements made by Truthlover. If you feel they are not supported by his references, then show how they are not supported. Don't just say they aren't supported. If you stay on topic, you can tackle it anyway you want. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 12-09-2005 06:45 AM There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
quote: 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: 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 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
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.
After "having been" justified, being redeemed from the power of sin, we are to live a new life in Christ that is by his life, not our own. This is the "will be saved from wrath" that Paul speaks of, and it is accomplished by his life. 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 up You 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Thank you. This post was much more substantial.
I don't see anything referring to works here. Referring to Rom 5:9,10. That's true. I was using that verse to show that Paul didn't have any problem saying that those who have been saved still need to be saved, and to show that he ties Y'shua's death to our having been saved and Y'shua's life to being saved in the future.
This has nothing to say about second salvation or that that should it exist be works based Referring to Rom 6:6. True again. I was using this verse to follow up to Rom 5:9,10, showing exactly what Paul thought Y'shua's death accomplished. Y'shua's death broke the power of sin so that we should no longer serve it.
No reference to second salvation or works based salvation. Referring to Gal 2:20. This was presented as the other side of Romm 5:9,10, what it means to be saved by his life. Paul refers to living by the life of Christ, not by his own life.
You 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. You say they're a guaranteed consequence, which I don't believe, but it really doesn't matter. My premise is that when Paul speaks of salvation in the future tense, he speaks of salvation from the judgment, and the wrath associated with it, by the life of Christ producing works in us. Whether it's a guaranteed consequence of having the life of Christ really doesn't affect the premise. Personally, I agree with an assessment I once read of Lutheran theology. It would be awesome if it were true. How great if there were no effort, no pain, no risk of failure! It's not true, though.
Do you want to proceed on the basis that you make a case for second salvation /that this second salvation is by works? I can address this. Everyone, I suppose, knows the passages about entering (not entering, actually) the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9,10; Gal 5:19-21; and Eph 5:3-5 all say basically the same thing. I'll just quote Eph 5:5 for brevity's sake:
quote: This is written to Christians, and it is written in three of Paul's letters. It must be pretty important to him. I realize you think he's telling people how to know that someone's not a real Christian. I don't believe that, but, fine, let's say it's true. The point is still the same. He is telling Christians that no one who practices these things (that's the wording in Gal 5:21) will inherit the kingdom of God. Another favorite passage to back this up is also in Galatians. It's amazing Martin Luther liked that book so much, because while he uses the first half of it thoroughly, the last half refutes him just as thoroughly. Let's look at this passage. Note especially the last verse:
quote: Now, what is Paul telling these Christians that they will reap if they do not get tired of doing good and lose heart? In context? In context, he is telling them they will reap eternal life if they continue to do good (hey, that's just what he said in Rom 2:6,7, too!) and don't lose heart. Now, I had better point out here Paul's idea of doing good. It is sowing to the Spirit. The good works I believe we are to do are the ones God has prepared beforehand for us to do (Eph 2:10), not just any ol' good works. The Sons of God are those who are led by the Spirit of God (Rom 8:14), not those that do whatever good they have in mind. Y'shua once said that he didn't do anything that he didn't see the Father doing, and I believe that we're supposed to walk as he walked, not walk under any other rule. I wanted to make it clear that I believe in living spiritually, not living out dry good works. God gives grace for the doing of good that he has called a person to do. Mother Theresa does not just labor out of a wonderful and good heart (though I believe she has a wonderful and good heart), but she works out of a constant supply of the grace of God. Paul did a different sort of good than Mother Theresa, and Amy Carmichael, who rescued children from temple prostitution in India, did a third kind of good. There is a way and plan for all of us to live who surrender ourselves to the Son of God, and it is a way that is not burdensome, because it is made for us, and we are supplied with grace to do it.
Do you want to proceed on the basis that you make a case for second salvation /that this second salvation is by works? Ball's in your court now. Let's start with those four passages (1 Cor 6:9,10; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-5; and Gal 6:7-9). I wish you'd especially address Gal 6:9, in context :-).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I got a newsletter today. It was very interesting, and it is somewhat on the topic for this thread. Since it's relatively short, and since it was put out for public consumption, I'm pasting it here. The writer is a man named Lyall Scheib. I know nothing about him.
quote: Let me add some excerpts from Andrew Strom's comments on the letter. He's the person who puts out the newsletter. He is a "missionary" from New Zealand (I think, might be Australia) to the U.S.:
quote: This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-09-2005 11:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Very interesting newsletter.
The excerpts from Strom's is what I envision a Christian Walk to be. I don't buy into the "cannot NOT sin" scenerio. Thank you for sharing. There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4088 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Thank you for sharing. You're welcome. None of this is a doctrinal matter to me. When I was 22, I read a book called Revolution: The Story of the Early Church. From that point on, all I wanted to do was to live the church life I read about in that book. Now I do live it. But it took me twelve years to find it happening anywhere. The "experiment" that Gene Edwards lived that prompted him to write Revolution ended, and nothing really happened to end it. It was mostly college kids, in Santa Barbara, I think, and as they graduated they just moved on to other places, leaving behind the most wonderful life a person can live. I met a man in the mid-80's who had been part of that wonderful experience. He missed it, but not enough to pursue it the way I was pursuing it. I was almost angry with him, because he had lived what was the goal of my heart--and I believe the goal of God's heart for his disciples--and he had just walked away. There's a tired leftover of it in Memphis that doesn't have the same zeal. It's sad. Why would any Christian want to live any other way than Strom describes? Like I said, it's not a doctrinal matter to me. It seems that any Christian who thinks sin can't be overcome the way Strom describes would do just about anything to experience what Strom is experiencing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
quote: tl writes: I was using that verse to show that Paul didn't have any problem saying that those who have been saved still need to be saved 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?
Y'shua's death broke the power of sin so that we should no longer serve it. 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.
My premise is that when Paul speaks of salvation in the future tense, he speaks of salvation from the judgment, and the wrath associated with it, by the life of Christ producing works in us. Whether it's a guaranteed consequence of having the life of Christ really doesn't affect the premise. 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.
It would be awesome if it were true. How great if there were no effort, no pain, no risk of failure! It's not true, though. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024