Free Grace Salvation

[Cavaradossi]

Your discussion of Purgatory is really far removed from the discussion, and I will not say much about it for that reason, but I will comment since I quoted Dositheus. First, my point in quoting was not to prove Purgatory, but to show that repentance was an act. As you pointed out, the actions given are probably meant as “the fruits of repentance,” especially since it identifies “fruit” with “satisfaction,” in which case it wasn’t a great prooftext on my part, though it does not deny an act of repentance. Second, with regards to Purgatory, your disagreement is not with Purgatory itself (which Dositheus is clearly teaching), but the nature of temporal punishment, which you say is purely medicinal. Is this a valid objection? St. Thomas more than once quotes Aristotle (Ethics II.3) saying, “punishment is a kind of medicine.” He multiple reasons why a debt of temporal punishment should remain after the sin has been removed. One is satisfaction.

The virtuous man does not deserve punishment simply, but he may deserve it as satisfactory: because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man. (I-II, 87, 6, ad. 2)

Another is medicinal.

When the stain is removed, the wound of sin is healed as regards the will. But punishment is still requisite in order that the other powers of the soul be healed, since they were so disordered by the sin committed, so that, to wit, the disorder may be remedied by the contrary of that which caused it. (I-II 87, 6, ad. 3)

Also, to avoid scandal.

Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice, and to remove the scandal given to others, so that those who were scandalized at the sin many be edified by the punishment, as may be seen in the example of David quoted above. (Ibid.)

It would be a mistake to reject the idea of satisfaction because there is a medicinal element. Why did Christ institute the mass? Not because it is absolutely necessary for God to communicate the merits of Christ to humanity because God is omnipotent. But God gave us the mass because man is obligated to worship God with sacrifice, and God gave man the most perfect sacrifice to offer to Him, his Only-Begotten Son. To say that the mass has a medicinal purpose would be correct, but that does not do away with man’s obligation to worship his creator. In the same way, man is obliged by justice to make reparations for his crimes as far as he able.

Your objection that our suffering does not “accomplish” our release from Purgatory is confused. Our works do not “accomplish” our salvation, but that does not mean that our works are not necessary.

I have already laid out the grounds for my objection to the idea that Dositheus teaches purgatory. Dositheus is following the tradition of the Orthodox East, which according to St. Mark of Ephesus, does not recognize the idea that God must punish sins which have been forgiven with temporal punishment. What suffering the dead might experience, according to St. Mark, is a foretaste of the eternal punishment. The dead then are not released by receiving a temporal punishment which is due for them, but rather by the prayers of the faithful, by the commemorations during the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the Goodness of God. I provided for proof a short quotation from a letter from the Ecumenical Patriarch read at the synod of Iassy, which in response to Cyril Lukaris’ 18th article in his confession, criticizes him for warring against the custom of memorial services, under the pretext of overthrowing the notion of purgatorial fire, indicating that the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the time did not subscribe to the idea of purgatory as it was taught in the Latin West. It is also in line with St. Mark of Ephesus’ understanding of the fate of the departed, as well as the 1583 condemnation issued against the doctrine of purgatory by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Orthodox do not believe in the Latin system of purgatory (namely, the idea that one who dies without having completed his penance has a certain amount of temporal punishment due for his sins committed), though we do believe that prayers for the dead are efficacious, and that those who died without having produced the fruits of repentance descend into Hades for a time, in order to be healed, and are in need of the prayers of the faithful, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the supreme Goodness of God in order to secure their purification and release from there. But as St. Mark of Ephesus teaches, this purification and release is not accomplished either by a purgatorial fire or by a definite punishment (as it would be with a system where the departed must undergo temporal punishment due for their sins), something which Dositheus also does not teach in the 18th article of his confession.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Well, it appears I messed up one of my earlier posts, which appears to be a duplicate of another, but is not. My post made me look like I was quoting St. Thomas, but I in fact was quoting St. Gregory of Nyssa. The following is from a sermon where he is recounting a conversation with Basil’s sister.

Such I think is the plight of the soul as well when the Divine force, for God’s very love of man, drags that which belongs to Him from the ruins of the irrational and material. Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence. But while He for a noble end is attracting the soul to Himself, the Fountain of all Blessedness, it is the occasion necessarily to the being so attracted of a state of torture. Just as those who refine gold from the dross which it contains not only get this base alloy to melt in the fire, but are obliged to melt the pure gold along with the alloy, and then while this last is being consumed the gold remains, so, while evil is being consumed in the purgatorial fire, the soul that is welded to this evil must inevitably be in the fire too, until the spurious material alloy is consumed and annihilated by this fire. If a clay of the more tenacious kind is deeply plastered round a rope, and then the end of the rope is put through a narrow hole, and then some one on the further side violently pulls it by that end, the result must be that, while the rope itself obeys the force exerted, the clay that has been plastered upon it is scraped off it with this violent pulling and is left outside the hole, and, moreover, is the cause why the rope does not run easily through the passage, but has to undergo a violent tension at the hands of the puller. In such a manner, I think, we may figure to ourselves the agonized struggle of that soul which has wrapped itself up in earthy material passions, when God is drawing it, His own one, to Himself, and the foreign matter, which has somehow grown into its substance, has to be scraped from it by main force, and so occasions it that keen intolerable anguish.

Then it seems, I said, that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.
newadvent.org/fathers/2915.htm

The first thing worth noting is the necessity of the purgatorial punishment for the soul’s union with God. Secondly, although she says that punishment is not “chiefly and principally” the reason for purgation, that is only to be understood as meaning that God does not inflict punishment on man because He delights in inflicting suffering when He has been harmed, which would be a serious misrepresentation of Latin teaching (but one that Orthodox polemicists use as if it were not), although, to be fair, Scripture does ascribe “vengeance” to God, but this must be understood figuratively. If you read the sermon, you will see that he supports the idea of punishment in an Aristotelian sense. Secondly, the idea of satisfaction isn’t even the dominant principle behind the Latin doctrine of Purgatory, which is why it is, in fact, called “Purgatory” and not “Satisfactory.”

Now, it is pretty clear to me from this sermon that Gregory believes in both purgatorial fire and a debt of punishment. I encourage you to read it and evaluate it for yourself. At any rate, I wouldn’t make St. Mark of Ephesus the sole rule of faith. He is not ifallible and it is possible for Mark to err. It also possible for something to be true even if Mark does not teach it.

I will get to your questions on Trent on a later day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But I could say the very same. St. Gregory of Nyssa is not the sole rule of faith, and several fathers and commentators made remarks on his seeming belief in apocatastasis, either rejecting such passages where he speaks of a restoration of souls after death, (like St. Mark of Ephesus and Photius), or attempting to interpret such passages in a particular manner to free them of Origenism (St. Maximus the Confessor takes this approach). St. Maximus, in particular, understands that St. Gregory, when he advocates for a doctrine of a restoration of souls, means to teach an eschatological, universal, and ontological restoration of the powers of the soul to their original state. We would agree that there must be such a restoration of the powers of the soul, and that such a restoration could be painful, but then this patristic interpretation does not work so well with the doctrine of purgatory, for in the eschatology of St. Maximus, such a restoration of souls to their original state will even be accomplished in the damned, whereas as far as I know, in the Latin doctrine of purgatory, the damned descend straight into hell after the particular judgment, without undergoing any kind of purgation.

 

[Lochias]

So you believe when He says, I’ll never leave nor forsake, that He didn’t mean that?

Where did He say that He would force Himself upon us, whether we want Him or not?

Wow. I guess I don’t see myself the same way. Compared to God I’m the dumbest beast there is.

But this also denies that we are stewards of God’s creation, not just another animal. The choices we make have relevance, and lasting consequences; that includes going back on our faithfulness to God in sin.

The exhortations are about being abandoned by God for sin, however.

…but that’s exactly the opposite of what you’ve been claiming the whole time. You say that God will never let us fall again, once we believe in Him. You can’t have it both ways.

I’m being extremely intellectually honest. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice is completely sufficient and necessary. I depend solely on Him for salvation.

But we have to choose to accept that salvation…or, we can choose to reject it. Sin is the path of rejection of God.

Utterly and completely I know for a fact that He keeps me, not the other way around.

…how can you have a relationship with God if you don’t choose Him in word AND in deed?

This is basic logic; A is A. Cat is Cat. Apostasy is apostasy. Sin is Sin. Not all sin is apostasy.

But apostasy cannot exist before it exists. Something must lead to it. That something is sin.

We disagree.

Sadly, yes.

 

[SteveVH]

That’s not what he said. He said that he is chief of sinners; I realize hyperbole, but he very much meant it. Keep reading what his answer is; we don’t save ourselves it’s all about grace through faith, and relying on Jesus to keep us, not ourselves, and not by works.

Kliska, no one is trying to make the argument that we save ourselves. What we are arguing is that a one-time moment of sincere faith in Christ does translate into diplomatic immunity from our future sins. That is what Paul argued as well, otherwise he would not have concluded that he must work out his salvation in fear and trembling and persevere to the end.

I think the greatest danger in the idea of OSAS is that it removes an essential ingredient in our salvation and that is repentance. The idea that, yes I sinned but it doesn’t affect my salvation, is an error that will have eternal consequences. And I have to agree with a former poster in that this is “cheap grace”. I don’t in any way mean this as a personal slam. We are to take up our cross daily and follow him. We are not to sit back in our easy chair confident that we’re in. We are in a spiritual battle and we must fight that battle every moment of our lives; we must persevere to the end.

Changing their mind is a particular type of sin; it’s apostasy.

I don’t know what your obsession with “Apostasy” is all about. It is a mortal sin just the same as all other mortal sins. It is all sin, Kliska, and sin separates us from God.

Lying isn’t changing their mind about Jesus; Who He is, what He did, how and why He died, and that He rose 3 days later.

Well, the demons certainly know who Jesus is, what he did, how and why he died and that he rose three days later, so that cannot be the determining factor. When we lie the truth is not in us, therefore Jesus is not in us. When we lie we reject truth in favor of falsehood. As I said before, Jesus is truth and when we reject truth, when we lie, we take the side of the father of lies and reject Jesus as well. All sin is a rejection of God’s grace to one degree or another.

The good news is that through Christ’s sacrifice we can be forgiven. But we must ask to be forgiven and have true contrition for our sins. We must repent. We must continually further distance ourselves from sin and the circumstances of sin. Christ made it all possible, but it requires action on our part as well. We must respond to this great gift.

The Greek idea of “peace” is cessation of against-ness.

The Christian idea of “peace”, however, is the presence of Christ, not the absence of conflict. That is why we can have peace even in times of great difficulty.

So, in effect, He says I suffered and died for you and sin and the law were nailed up with me, you’re covered, you’re free, there remains no condemnation, trust me."

Wow. I have never, ever, come to that conclusion from the words of Jesus.

Precisely and He says I will never leave nor forsake you. The members of the church are in a unique position, thank God.

Kliska, we call this the sin of presumption.

Wrong. The relationship doesn’t end until one side asks for a divorce, and it’s carried through.

You are not talking about the relationship, you are talking about civil laws. The relationship ends before the divorce, obviously, or their would be no divorce. When we choose sin over God we, in effect, have divorced ourselves from God and from his grace, even while he is still faithful and still loves us more then we can comprehend.

If the faithful spouse sticks with the other, and the cheating spouse doesn’t divorce the other, they are still married. As you say, God is the faithful spouse in the new covenant.

God is not subject to the civil laws of man. When the relationship is broken and there is no effort to repair it we are estranged from God, who constantly waits for our return. If we do not return, we are left estranged.

The eternal consequences are what happens to us in our place in Heaven and/or on the new earth. We are not going to be stagnant in the next life, and still have our role to play. Everyone’s works will be judged, and we will all be aware of our failings, luckily they (our bad works) will be burnt away, but what is left is reward. To whom much is given much is expected; when we hear Jesus give parable about being faithful in little things shows we can be faithful in bigger things. If someone builds on the foundation of Christ with wood, hay, and stubble and it all burns away, they haven’t been very faithful, have they? So will be trusted with less. I also believe that we will keep our memories, from what I glean from scripture, and whatever I do here will have an impact on how I experience eternity.

Let me just ask a very simple question, Kliska. What does one have to do in order to be in hell for eternity?

 

[Kliska]

Books have been written and will be written on what we discuss here. There is no point to keep going back and forth back and forth. The one thing I will say is that a key difference here is how we see covenant; Covenants ARE legal contracts, they aren’t only legal contracts but are indeed legal. The metaphor of a husband/wife is a great one, because the marriage is valid as long as the covenant is in place. Jesus has made an everlasting covenant and does, in effect, say He will never leave nor forsake. Ever. He will not go to the judge and seek a divorce.

Apostasy is so important a matter because that is the other party in the contract going before the judge and getting out of the contract against the wishes of the faithful party.

Let me just ask a very simple question, Kliska. What does one have to do in order to be in hell for eternity?

Just as there was only one thing Adam was not supposed to do, there is now only one thing required for us; faith. If someone dies, after having been given full knowledge of Jesus, and they refuse to trust Him, they will die in their sin and they will go to Hell. All those who recognize that they are sinners and place their faith on Him, that trust Who He is, What He has done, His sacrifice, life, resurrection, etc… will be granted eternal life. That is the simplicity of the gospel. It is only offered to humans, not to angels or demons, and it is more than knowledge, it is faith, pistis in the Greek meaning to trust with great confidence. That is how we tap into grace (unmerited favor). Salvation is by grace through faith.

 

[SteveVH]

Is it your perfection that matters? I sure hope it isn’t mine, if it is, I’m doomed. Christ’s perfection is the lynchpin, and His sacrifice, for it is His blood that cleanses us, for He paid for it all; His sacrifice is necessary and sufficient to pay for what all of humanity has wrought. That is why it is so very important to trust Him and become a new creature in Christ, because salvation is by grace through faith.

We are called to be perfect. We are all called to holiness. We fail, each and every day in attaining this calling, thus the need for a Savior and thus the need for Reconciliation with that Savior. I was only responding to your comment that “we are called to love God and our neighbor, not to be perfect”. The fact that we fail does not remove our calling to perfection. It was Christ who said “Be perfect, therefore, even as your Father in heaven is perfect”, not me. And we are made perfect in Christ if we choose to respond to his grace and renew our relationship when we fail at perfection.

When I hurt my wife, I must reconcile with her in order to remain in relationship with her. I must confess my fault and as for her forgiveness. Our relationship with God is very much like a marriage. We can’t tell our spouse “Hey, I told you I loved you when we got married, why do I have to keep asking for your forgiveness when I offend you”. It is no different with God.

 

[SteveVH]

If you don’t divorce her and she doesn’t divorce you; you’re still married. If you say, “I will never divorce you,” then the proverbial ball is in her court. There are many couples exactly in that situation. It is not the best situation to be in, but there you go. In essence we ARE in fact dealing with legal-style terminology because covenants are contracts.

Covenants are not the same as contracts. Contracts are agreements between people that involve an exchange of property in the form of goods and services and when broken the contract is ended with one or both parties suffering consequences for breach of that contract. A covenant, however, is a mutual exchange of persons resulting in a mutual bond between those persons. Even if one of the parties breaks the covenant, the other is still obligated to uphold it. But the fact that the other is obligated to still uphold the covenant does not mean that the covenant has not been broken. A broken covenant, then, is a broken bond between the two; a broken relationship, even if one of the parties still remains faithful to the covenant.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Books have been written and will be written on what we discuss here. There is no point to keep going back and forth back and forth. The one thing I will say is that a key difference here is how we see covenant; Covenants ARE legal contracts, they aren’t only legal contracts but are indeed legal. The metaphor of a husband/wife is a great one, because the marriage is valid as long as the covenant is in place. Jesus has made an everlasting covenant and does, in effect, say He will never leave nor forsake. Ever. He will not go to the judge and seek a divorce.

Apostasy is so important a matter because that is the other party in the contract going before the judge and getting out of the contract against the wishes of the faithful party.

Just as there was only one thing Adam was not supposed to do, there is now only one thing required for us; faith. If someone dies, after having been given full knowledge of Jesus, and they refuse to trust Him, they will die in their sin and they will go to Hell. All those who recognize that they are sinners and place their faith on Him, that trust Who He is, What He has done, His sacrifice, life, resurrection, etc… will be granted eternal life. That is the simplicity of the gospel. It is only offered to humans, not to angels or demons, and it is more than knowledge, it is faith, pistis in the Greek meaning to trust with great confidence. That is how we tap into grace (unmerited favor). Salvation is by grace through faith.

“You will surely not die”

Now, where did I hear that before? and Who said it?

 

[Kliska]

Covenants are not the same as contracts. Contracts are agreements between people that involve an exchange of property in the form of goods and services and when broken the contract is ended with one or both parties suffering consequences for breach of that contract. A covenant, however, is a mutual exchange of persons resulting in a mutual bond between those persons. Even if one of the parties breaks the covenant, the other is still obligated to uphold it. But the fact that the other is obligated to still uphold the covenant does not mean that the covenant has not been broken. A broken covenant, then, is a broken bond between the two; a broken relationship, even if one of the parties still remains faithful to the covenant.

One of the most fascinating things is to research an study the idea of the covenant in the near east tradition, as that is the cultural framework that the covenants in the Bible would be modeled on and understood to be.

“You will surely not die”

Now, where did I hear that before? and Who said it?

Seriously?

For sin comes death. Jesus died for the sin of the whole world. Was His death not enough to pay for your sin?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

One of the most fascinating things is to research an study the idea of the covenant in the near east tradition, as that is the cultural framework that the covenants in the Bible would be modeled on and understood to be.

Seriously?

For sin comes death. Jesus died for the sin of the whole world. Was His death not enough to pay for your sin?

Indeed, that’s what OSAS is - you can sin all you want after accepting Jesus into your heart and you will always be saved.

Never mind that Christ specifically said to remain in him, or that you must pick up your cross daily and follow Him, or that you obey His commandments. Never mind that Paul says to work you salvation in fear and trembling, or that salvation is now nearer than when we 1st believed, or that he has not attained this Salvation yet. Never mind that Hebrews clearly warns those who are believers to not stray and be lost - some lost forever. Never mind that John said that if you love Him - you must obey His commandments. Forget all of this and just take a big bite of the fruit of sin - you will be fine…

Now it’s my turn:

Seriously?

 

[Lochias]

For sin comes death. Jesus died for the sin of the whole world. Was His death not enough to pay for your sin?

He opened the pathway to Heaven for us, but he did not exonerate us completely from all the sin we would ever commit.

That takes repentance, at which time we can partake in salvation.

Choice, choice, choice. God loves us, He will not force us to do what we do not want to do.

 

[SteveVH]

One of the most fascinating things is to research an study the idea of the covenant in the near east tradition, as that is the cultural framework that the covenants in the Bible would be modeled on and understood to be.

Indeed. And if one does study what a covenant meant in the Jewish tradition it meant exactly what I described. It is a familial bond based upon swearing an oath to God, not a contract.

 

[Kliska]

Indeed, that’s what OSAS is - you can sin all you want after accepting Jesus into your heart and you will always be saved.

This is a position I cannot understand; does the Holy Spirit hold no power in your perspective? Is He so weak that you actually change yourself? Have you ever actually met anyone who sins because of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice? I haven’t.

“Why are you lying”
“Because Jesus died for my sins so I’m going to sin as much as I can.”

Not even the heresy that sprung up around Paul’s preaching was that way. They believed it was their moral duty to sin so that grace could abound and they could partake of more and more grace by sinning. It seems like those that reject the idea of OSAS see it as an automatic if/then situation: if you are free then you are going to abuse it. Paul taught we are free and not to abuse it.

The old covenant was like a fence, the new removes the fence and gives us a Shepherd. Those that are His are marked, and WILL heed His voice. However, there is the fact that sheep are hardheaded and will stray. They are not expected to come back on their own, for the Shepherd leaves the flock and comes to find the stray; the ball is in the Shepherd’s court. In your scenario the sheep is on it’s own. That isn’t what the Bible teaches.

Never mind that Christ specifically said to remain in him, or that you must pick up your cross daily and follow Him, or that you obey His commandments. Never mind that Paul says to work you salvation in fear and trembling, or that salvation is now nearer than when we 1st believed, or that he has not attained this Salvation yet. Never mind that Hebrews clearly warns those who are believers to not stray and be lost - some lost forever. Never mind that John said that if you love Him - you must obey His commandments. Forget all of this and just take a big bite of the fruit of sin - you will be fine…

John said you cannot sin. Paul said, present tense, I’m a sinner. Yet John said you cannot sin. There is only one answer; the new man is literally not under the law period, the old man, the flesh still sins and will have to be remade and glorified before it can be reunited to your soul before it is fit for eternity. They asked Jesus what to do to do the works of God; and His answer was to place you faith on Him.

The point is; you don’t HAVE to do good works, but rather you WILL do good works. Your way puts the emphasis on mankind working to maintain. Jesus is our Sabbath rest for a reason. John speaks of 2 commandments; love God and love your neighbor. Those are the 2 that Jesus underscores. Again you can’t be born again and again and again and again, it doesn’t work that way and that way brings no peace. Again; peace is cessation of agains-tness and that is what Jesus, His blood, and suffering brought for us in a better covenant. If not, there is zero reason to replace the old covenant with the new.

Once more sin itself was nailed to the cross as well as the law and Jesus was enough to pay for all of it.

Indeed. And if one does study what a covenant meant in the Jewish tradition it meant exactly what I described. It is a familial bond based upon swearing an oath to God, not a contract.

It actually doesn’t especially when one party is seen to be superior to the other party, and the superior party is seen to be the one making the covenant and standing behind it.

 

[Lochias]

Once more sin itself was nailed to the cross as well as the law and Jesus was enough to pay for all of it.

Nope. We’re humans, not animals, and the choices that we make matter. Apparently, God gives more credit to peoples’ choices than you do?

It actually doesn’t especially when one party is seen to be superior to the other party, and the superior party is seen to be the one making the covenant and standing behind it.

Then that defeats the purpose of a covenant entirely. No sense at all.

 

[Kliska]

Nope. We’re humans, not animals, and the choices that we make matter. Apparently, God gives more credit to peoples’ choices than you do?
Then that defeats the purpose of a covenant entirely. No sense at all.

It all depends on the terms of the covenant. Our choice is whether to enter into the covenant or not. No one is forced to sign on the dotted line.

 

[Lochias]

It all depends on the terms of the covenant. Our choice is whether to enter into the covenant or not. No one is forced to sign on the dotted line.

One can still break a covenant, or else it’s not a covenant at all. That’s what sin does.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is a position I cannot understand; does the Holy Spirit hold no power in your perspective? Is He so weak that you actually change yourself?

Again your robot perspective surfaces. So we are just puppets that get moved around by the Holy Spirit? Is there any accountability in your view?

Are you a Universalist?

Will some go to hell? Does that mean that the Holy Spirit has no power? Will some say they believe but deep down in their hearts the belief is too weak, or they stop believing?

Have you ever actually met anyone who sins because of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice? I haven’t.

False premise. You seem to have trouble writing your thoughts.

“Why are you lying”
“Because Jesus died for my sins so I’m going to sin as much as I can.”

Another false premise - Doesn’t make sense…

Not even the heresy that sprung up around Paul’s preaching was that way. They believed it was their moral duty to sin so that grace could abound and they could partake of more and more grace by sinning. It seems like those that reject the idea of OSAS see it as an automatic if/then situation: if you are free then you are going to abuse it. Paul taught we are free and not to abuse it.

OSAS was absent until the reformation. It is for a reason…

The old covenant was like a fence, the new removes the fence and gives us a Shepherd. Those that are His are marked, and WILL heed His voice. However, there is the fact that sheep are hardheaded and will stray. They are not expected to come back on their own, for the Shepherd leaves the flock and comes to find the stray; the ball is in the Shepherd’s court. In your scenario the sheep is on it’s own. That isn’t what the Bible teaches.

Show exactly how the sheep are on their own in my scenario? Again, there is zero accountability in your perspective.

Do you hold to double predestination?

John said you cannot sin. Paul said, present tense, I’m a sinner. Yet John said you cannot sin. There is only one answer; the new man is literally not under the law period, the old man, the flesh still sins and will have to be remade and glorified before it can be reunited to your soul before it is fit for eternity. They asked Jesus what to do to do the works of God; and His answer was to place you faith on Him.

John said that if you say that you have no sin in you - you make Jesus a liar.

John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness[d] at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

We have to confess our sins - period. No confession - no forgiveness.

Also - If you don’t forgive others - the Father will not forgive you either.

Can you be saved without being forgiven by the Lord?

Absolutely not!

The point is; you don’t HAVE to do good works, but rather you WILL do good works.

iRobot again. You have been given the gifts to do good works. It because of Him that you can do good works - but you must do them nonetheless.

Your way puts the emphasis on mankind working to maintain.

No - I put emphasis in obedience.

Once more sin itself was nailed to the cross as well as the law and Jesus was enough to pay for all of it.

Confess your sins and forgive others. No ticket - no laundry.

PS - this message was written by an automated human.

 

[Kliska]

One can still break a covenant, or else it’s not a covenant at all. That’s what sin does.

The new covenant is a blood covenant too, and it does involve death for sin, but we are baptized into Jesus’ death, and His blood cleanses us and His sacrifice is totally necessary and sufficient. How we sign on the dotted line is by faithing on Him, His life, death, sacrifice, resurrection, more than belief, faith is trusting with great confidence.

 

[Lochias]

The new covenant is a blood covenant too, and it does involve death for sin, but we are baptized into Jesus’ death, and His blood cleanses us and His sacrifice is totally necessary and sufficient.

You’ve failed to prove that more than once already, in light of all the OT and NT tell us.

How we sign on the dotted line is by faithing on Him, His life, death, sacrifice, resurrection, more than belief, faith is trusting with great confidence.

I’m sorry, but your idea of a relationship with God sounds completely hollow, and one-sided for poor Jesus. “Jesus, I love you, so if I accidentally somehow watch porn and do all kinds of illegal drugs and not go to church for 20 years, I believe that you’ll overlook all of that because…uh, reasons. Bye!”

Also, “faith” is a noun, not a verb.

I reiterate: God loves us enough to let us come to Him of our own free will. Love from a puppet isn’t love at all. God has no want for puppets, or else we wouldn’t be having this conversation.