Works, Faith, & Salvation (for Iano)

I discussed getting into this topic with Iano in another thread.Proposed:1.) Paul talks about salvation from two perspectives, past and future. A Christian, using Paul's letters, both has been saved and will be saved, and he discusses both perspectives very differently.2.) Past tense salvation is based on faith apart from works, and it is a salvation from the power, influence, and effects of sin. It has nothing whatsoever to do with going to heaven, except to equip a disciple with the power (grace) to do the things associated with future tense salvation.3.) Future tense salvation is based on works and has nothing to do with faith, except insofar that faith supplied the means to do the works that future tense salvation is based on. It is a salvation from condemnation, and it's goal is entering eternal life and heaven.4.) While the other NT writers don't discuss salvation in such specific terms, their comments on salvation, which always mix works and faith, line up completely with Paul's more specific description.

Sorry, iano. Spelling's not my problem. 44, and already I can't read. I sure thought that was a j.adminnwr asked for references.My favorite is in Rom 5:9,10:

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.

---

Note the consistent contrast. The two past tense sections mention his blood and his death, while the two future tense sections mention Y'shua himself and his life. The past tense refers to justification and reconciliation, while future tense is salvation from wrath.Here's the concept behind it that I believe is very consistent elsewhere in Paul's writings, too. There is a judgment coming that everyone will face. (The Protestant idea that believers will be at a different judgment than unbelievers has no justification in Scripture and is contradicted by Matthew 25.) Since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," then everyone (just about) needs help to be judged with favorable results. By his death, Y'shua justifies the sinner and reconciles him to God. This justification is not just a proclamation of righteousness. It really creates righteousness, as described in Romans 6:

quote:

---

v. 6: 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.

---

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.However, as Rom 5:10 has told us, if we "have been" justified by his death, we are much more to be saved by his life. There's several verses saying this, but the best is actually in Galatians 2:20:

quote:

---

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

---

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.The person who lives by the life of Christ lives as Christ lived, subject to God. The result, of course, is good works, because that is how Christ lived. These good works are essential if one is to be saved from wrath at the judgment.

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.

​

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.

​

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.

​

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

​

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

​

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.

​

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.

​

Rev 20:12 - Protestants generally teach, with no scriptural backing, that this is a different judgment than the ones Christians will be at. That is silly, of course, and all the dead are said here to rise to judgment. They are judged according to their works, and it is those whose names are not in the Book of Life who are cast into the lake of fire. (Note, of course, the relationship to Rev 3:5 here, and how this relates to Jn 5:27-29 and Matt 25. Everyone is there together; not two judgments.)

---

The idea is really pretty simple, and it's very consistent both in Scripture as well as being what everyone in the church believed for the first few centuries the church existed. Christ died to deliver us from sin. We receive that deliverance by faith apart from works. That deliverance comes in the form of mercy, the forgiveness of past sins, and grace, the power to overcome sin. If we are diligent to add to our faith the virtues described in 2 Pet 1, then we shall also be saved in the future, at the judgment, because we will have patiently continued to do good (Rom 2:7), and we shall receive eternal life and an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of Y'shua the King. For it is only those who endure to the end who shall be saved, whether or not they have been saved by faith.Well, there it is outlined for you, iano. The discussion I have avoided until this point.I will deal with one objection at this point, because I know iano has had it, and I know it's a common one. Protestants claim that God judges sinners for even one sin. Anything less than perfection will send a person to hell. This is ridiculous, and it makes God obscenely unfair. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that God is anything like this. God is full of mercy and ready to pardon. However, he will not clear the guilty, and therefore there is a judgment. It is a judgment you and I cannot make, but Y'shua can make, between the righteous and unrighteous, the sheep and the goats. It is the difference between those who sow to the spirit and reap eternal life and those who sow to the flesh and reap corruption. It is not the distinction between the perfect and imperfect, but between those who patiently continued in well-doing and those who persisted in disobedience to God.

My OP is wordy and rambling? Gosh, post #2 must have been indecipherable.There doesn't appear to be anything to answer in your post, so I won't try. My many words in post #2 were meant to try to cinch down what I was saying and make it tighter, not ramble and make it wider. Hopefully, you can pick out the relatively narrow point I was trying to make. The rest is just clarification.

I don't believe that even the Law and History is trying to say that Noah, Abraham, and David were righteous no matter what they did. I think Psalm 51 by itself serves as an answer to that.Of course, I don't think you were trying to prove righteousness by faith with that comment. I'm thinking you were just taking a dig at the evil in those men. Am I wrong?

Ok, thank you for the clarification.While I think there's *some* truth to this, and while I agree this is important, I don't think the truth of this contradicts, refutes, or disagrees with my points in posts 1 & 2.God does care at some level about proper action. David, one of your examples, not only penned Psalm 51, but also wrote, "Yahweh rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of Yahweh, and I have not wickedly departed from my God" (Ps 18:20,21).When he sinned, he cried out, "Do not cast me away from you presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me" (Ps 51:11). He added, "Deliver me from bloodguiltiness...Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will be converted to you" (Ps 51:14,13).Clearly, he was worried about God's response to his wickedness. His son was taken over his sin, and when he conducted a census against the warnings of God's prophets, he lost 70,000 citizens of his kingdom to the judgment of God. The only reason he was not cast from God's presence is because he had "a broken spirit and a broken and contrite heart," and God did not despise that.God is very merciful. To everyone, he says, "If the wicked will turn from all the sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live...All his transgressions...shall not be mentioned" (Ezk 18:21,22), but the opposite is true as well: "When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity...all his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned...in his sin that he has sinned he will die" (Ezk 18:24).Even Abraham, Noah, and David were men who feared God, and that is the command and teaching of the apostles.

quote:

---

Paul: "You stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear...for he may not spare you" (Rom 11:20,21).

​

Peter: "If you address as Father him who impartially judges according to each one's work, then conduct yourself throughout the time of your journey here in fear" (1 Pet 1:17).

---

brennakimi: "people screw up. he knows that. but those who cling to their hope will prevail."People do screw up, and mercy is at the heart of the message of King Y'shua. I would only add, those who cling to their hope and repent will prevail. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and contrite heart.

In very general terms, because the idea of repentance, as you're speaking of it here, is not part of the state religion.Martin Luther is known as the leader of a religious reformation, but really his was a political, tax-driven reformation. The state just happened to be a religious state. Luther's religion was the "faith only" religion he invented. America is a descendant of Protestantism, and Luther's views are far more influential on Protestants than the Bible is. The Bible is simply reinterpreted or explained away, and the measure of truth, by which even the Bible is judged, is Martin Luther's message.

I don't believe I do this, nor do I believe that I have a motive for doing this. I don't have a position to defend, except the one I got from the Bible and the early church. If I find that I am wrong, I can change my position to a more Scriptural one without fear of reprisal. You could, and Martin Luther did. However, without selective use of Scripture and without quote mining, you could not make such a case.I gave a general description of the position I'm putting forth. For brevity's sake, I gave some Scriptures to back it. My hope would be that someone trying to decide whether my position is Scriptural would look at the Scriptures themselves and see whether the past tense and future tense use of salvation by Paul is really as I described. If they found that wasn't consistent, then I would expect them to show me the exceptions or the consistent pattern that doesn't agree.You're just saying, "Well, everyone's biased and no one knows." I don't believe that. I think that's a copout. Well, you could, but it wouldn't be true, and you wouldn't have any way of knowing whether it's true. I, however, have read the 2nd century writings of the church extensively, and I do know whether it is true. This has all been thoroughly discussed in other threads, and I specifically addressed it in a previous post as the objection I knew you would bring up. It is crazy that you would ask this. Again, this is specifically addressed above. In a previous post--in this thread--I said that iano would bring up one objection, so I'd go ahead and specifically address it. You asked several questions, but they all boil down to this one objection that I answered earlier and that I've answered three or four times in other threads.As far as I can tell, iano, there was not one substantive response in your post.

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. I don't see how this is relevant or in any way invalidates my point. That's because it's not been the topic of discussion anytime previously. 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." For the umpteenth time, that's for God to determine, not me. My job, and yours, by commandment of the apostles, is to fear. 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.) 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).

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.

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.

Thank you. This post was much more substantial. 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. 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. 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 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. 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:

---

No immoral, unclean or greedy person, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of God and of Christ.

---

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:

---

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."

---

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. 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 :-).

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:

---

The Bible is very clear about it's expectations of inlessness in 1John 3:6- "Whoever abides in Him does not sin" and verse 8, "He who sins is of the devil," and then verse 9, "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin because he has been born of God."

​

That verse says the one born of God cannot sin! Most Christians I know say the opposite, they cannot NOT sin. I am amazed at Bible believing, Spirit filled, tongues speaking, signs and wonders embracing Christians who believe God can raise the dead and heal cancers, calm storms, etc, but they don't believe that one little phrase - "he cannot sin...." Seems to me if we don't believe it we won't get it, just like healings and miracles. It is time we started believing every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

​

John actually wrote his epistle with that purpose in mind. 1 Jn 2:1-
"...these things I write to you so that you may not sin." Of course there is the possibility that we might sin because we are still human so the next phrase begins with an "if" like it's a rarity. "And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." I actually believe the blood of Jesus is not for continually practised sin but only for repented-of and departed-from sin. Look at Hebrews 10:26. "For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a certain frearful expectation of udgement..."

​

While I am on the subject I have to mention Romans 6: such phrases as, "sin shall not have dominion over you," and "that we should no longer be slaves to sin," or, "how shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" and, "having been set free from sin." These verses all say the same thing: it's an odd thing for a hristian
to continue to sin. The key to how we might be able to live that
way is in verses 11 to 13. Briefly:
1. Reckon yourself to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
2. Do not let sin reign in your mortal body, and
3. do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin but
4. present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

​

Blessings on the Righteous in Christ Jesus,
~Lyall Scheib.

---

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:

---

Something happened to me when I was converted that I always assumed was "normal" - and still believe it should be. God gave me a true 'fear of the Lord' from the start, and a deep repentance where I literally went right through my life and repented of veerything I could find that was not godly. So I was "clean" and newly filled with the Spirit - filled with His love and power. And I found that I could literally WALK in this 'clean' state before God - without any "effort" or striving whatsoever. I just figured this was normal. It became my 'natural' state - walking with a clean conscience and clean heart before God.

​

Did I have to "strive" to maintain this constant "clean heart" state? No, not at all. I simply avoided sin and kept walking in this inner purity that God had given me. No effort at all, really. It just seemed "natural". The Scripture, "There is no condemnation to them in Christ Jesus" was very real to me. I could sense that indeed I walked under a new "law" - the 'Law of the Spirit of LIFE in Christ Jesus'which had made me free from the law of sin and death.

​

Whenever I discovered any 'darkness' in me that I had not seen before, I instantly would repent of it because God had given me a deep hatred of sin. This is one of the keys to this kind of walk. I could not stand for anything to come in between me and God. I simply walked before Him in this permanent state of communion and fellowship. If I inadvertently "tripped up" in such a way that I noticed a kind of "spot" on my white robe, so to speak, I was very quick to deal with it because I hated sin and loved walking in total transparency before God. -But it was not common for me to have
to do that. Sometimes weeks would go by without me having to seriously "repent" of anything. 'Clean' had become my natural state -a wonderful gift from God.

---

This message has been edited by truthlover, 12-09-2005 11:49 AM

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.

That is about the emptiest promise there is in almost any American church that might quote it. People get colder and more bored as time passes. It is a rare gem that gets more zealous and has the work of God being completed in him.We can't discuss this verse, because you've never seen it happen. I know what that verse means, because I experience it. I know what it's like inside the church of God, where disciples are gathered and not just a hodge podge of people varying from very interested to mildly interested to offended by Christ's commands.Inside the church of God, that gathering of disciples, this is a true and beautiful description of what happens. No one is unaffected by the grace of God when they enter into the household of God. It goes on, and it grows, and people change.Some people, however, can't bear the growing pains, and they flee. Paul experienced that, too, and therefore he warned his children in the faith not to grow weary in doing good. No, my premise is what I said it is. This habit of yours of putting words in my mouth and then addressing those words is pretty obnoxious.My premise is what I said it is, and by trying to change it, you dodge it.I most certainly do believe that our decisions affect whether we attain salvation in the end, because only those who endure to the end will be saved. However, when I want to propose that as true, I present verses that back up what I'm saying.I used Romans 5:9,10 to show the way Paul talked about salvation, because if a person is going to see consistency in Paul's letters, then in James' letters compared with Paul, and then in the writings of the church for the next two or three centuries, he or she needs to know how Paul spoke of salvation. Romans 5:9,10 illustrates it, but the proof of it is not Romans 5:9,10. The proof of it is all of Paul's letters which consistently speak of works and judgment in the future and faith and the death of Christ in the past.That's important all by itself.I did address how our decisions affect our judgment, because you asked. When you asked that, I gave you verses to back that up. You did not address those verses. You chose to act like I was using Romans 5:9,10 to say that our decisions affect our eternal judgment, and I was not.I am careful to pay attention to the whole context of Scripture, iano. You talk about it, but you don't do it. Here, you ignored four passages that I specifically listed for you, and then you misstated what I said about Romans 5:9,10.The things I'm saying are comfortable no matter what book of the Bible you are reading. I won't take credit for any brilliance or inspiration in that. Most of it was taught to me from the writings of those who heard the apostles or who were in their churches within a century of their death. I will take credit for pursuing honesty with a whole heart, and being willing to swallow hard, change my mind, and face the upbraiding and resentment of my friends when I found out that something I believe was contradicted by Scripture.The fact is, though, that you won't find difficult contradictions to my premise about the way Paul spoke about salvation. He believed that a person needed to be saved from sin, by faith apart from works, and he believed that there is a future judgment in which eternal life will be given to those that have done good. Read his writings. You will find they read wonderfully smoothly this way, and you'll have an extremely difficult time finding any exceptions, because I care whether what I say is true, so I look hard to see if it is. In this case, unless someone can show me I missed something, it is.Now, on the related but different topic of whether a person who is saved from sin can be turned away at the judgment because they didn't live by the grace they were given, I give different verses. I started with four, which I carefully listed at the end of my last post. I'll list them again:1 Cor 6:9,10
Gal 5:19-21
Eph 5:3-5
Gal 6:7-9

No, you don't. You don't see it happen as a promise. You said, "God makes promises. He keeps his promises." Just because you see a person here or there growing doesn't establish this as a promise. Most people like you fall away or get cold. Most.You can try to ignore that or write that off by saying, "Oh, well they weren't true Christians," but since there's nothing to distinguish you from them except whether they continued in your faith, such a statement is just a copout.The fact is, you should heed the warnings I've been quoting, because most people like you fall away or get cold. You've agreed that if you're a true Christian, then you should be keeping the commandments (in some way) and the work of God should be continuing in you. Should you go the way of the majority, then it won't matter much whether you were true and fell away or whether you were never true at all, will it? The end result will be the same. There's not really any difference if it's a separate, sure-to-happen component of the same gift, because you and I and everyone else knows that people fall away, no matter how good they look. So you can argue at the end that they "never were" or that they "lost it," but it makes no difference at all.The only reason this issue would matter to me is that people who believe like you generally throw out the warnings of Scripture.That "sure-to-happen" thing is your issue, not mine. I find that issue irrelevant; always have. My issue is works in the future, not certainty or uncertainty, because even if you don't know, everyone else already knows your future of following God is uncertain. Maybe you'll continue; maybe you won't, but most people like you won't. Iano. Listen.Go back and read my post. I was quite clear in what I was saying. I had two separate points, one from Rom 5:9,10 and another, that you asked about, from Gal 5:19-21 and others. You quoted Rom 5:9,10 and said I was trying to prove the second point. Meanwhile, you ignored the verses I gave for that second point, and you acted like the first point never existed.I am not denying, and did not deny, that I am most definitely talking about a judgment by works. However, for you to answer Rom 5:9,10 as though I was talking about judgment by works in that passage is blowing smoke over the issue, not addressing it. I have dealt with everything you've said, because you've said almost nothing. You have answered everything I said basically by saying "God began a good work and he'll continue it to the end," and then by saying "Rom 5:9,10 doesn't prove salvation by works."I addressed the first, and I addressed the second, which is not an answer.