What is works salvation and why will it send people to hell?

[Pax]

David,

Thank you.

 

[heisenburg]

Which is a more beautiful example of Love…

The Man who choices to follow Christ of his own free will?
Or
The Man who Follows Christ because he has no free will…

A God that loves us so much, he lets us Choose to follow him or not
or
A God who has to force via lack of free will man to love him…

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son because he had faith in the Lords words?
Or
Abraham put his son on the choping block because he had no choice…

In Christ

 

[Pax]

Except for salvation which you can oppose; correct?

Mankind is not free to love, or hate; men are commanded to love God, not hate Him; men are commanded to love their neighbors, not hate them.

If they were free to hate, then there would be no consequence, there would be no punishment for hating God and neighbor; however, men who hate God, and neighbor will be punished, though God forbears the punishment.

How do you know that?

If choosing good is natural to man, then why does man need God’s grace to “empower him to make choices in favor of God’s goodness and truth?”

Sandusky,

You are a bright person, but I have to wonder if you read and absorbed what was said in my post. Please read it over again and you will be able to appreciate what has been said. Moreover, read David’s response to your comments as well.

Man is created in the image and likeness of God…that is why it is natural for man to choose what is good. It is man’s fallen nature that prevents him from doing so. Man, therefore, needs grace. It is really that simple.

Simply understand “total depravity” as “total inability” on man’s part to do God’s will without grace and faith which are God’s gifts to us.

Salvation is a gift per scripture. A gift is not a forceable act that takes away freedom. Man can turn away from God’s gift of salvation. Our human experience clearly confirms this.

 

[Pax]

Which is a more beautiful example of Love…

The Man who choices to follow Christ of his own free will?
Or
The Man who Follows Christ because he has no free will…

A God that loves us so much, he lets us Choose to follow him or not
or
A God who has to force via lack of free will man to love him…

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son because he had faith in the Lords words?
Or
Abraham put his son on the choping block because he had no choice…

In Christ

Yes, and the question could then be posed this way. Was Abraham a robot?

 

[sandusky]

davidv:

Not so. A command does not imply no choice. You are free to disobey. Everyday many choose to disobey God.

There is some confusion on your part, ISTM.

What I responded to was the assertion of man’s freedom.

The fact that God has given commands, or laws, indicates that man is not free, de facto.

Man is a volitional creature; what he does, he does freely, without external coercion; however, men are not free to do whatever they will, but are bound to obey the law of God. The fact punishment is promised to those who disobey God’s law proves that they are not free to do whatever they will.

davidv:

Because in our fallen state, we sometimes choose was is not in accord with our true nature.

Then you disagree with the statement to which I responded—”doing good is natural to man?” because man is in a fallen state; I agree.

Pax:

Man is created in the image and likeness of God…that is why it is natural for man to choose what is good. It is man’s fallen nature that prevents him from doing so. Man, therefore, needs grace. It is really that simple.

Pax, you originally said that “choosing good is natural for man,” now you are saying that “man’s fallen nature prevents him from choosing good.”

I don’t think you are intentionally contradicting yourself, nevertheless, I’m puzzled.

What is man’s current state; is it that of pre-fall Adam, or post-fall Adam?

heisenburg:

Which is a more beautiful example of Love…

The Man who choices to follow Christ of his own free will?
Or
The Man who Follows Christ because he has no free will…

A God that loves us so much, he lets us Choose to follow him or not
or
A God who has to force via lack of free will man to love him…

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son because he had faith in the Lords words?
Or
Abraham put his son on the choping block because he had no choice.

Heisenburg, that is an “appeal to emotion” fallacy which is valid, and relevant only if it’s not manipulative which, in this case, I think it is.

God forces no one to love him; those that love him do so freely; those who don’t do likewise.

 

[guanophore]

Wrong answer.

The English word ‘follow’ in Matt 4:19 is from the Greek word
deute --dyoo’-teh

It is the imperative form of eimi (to go).

As a soon to be father, if I say to my son ‘Go to your room!’, my son has no freewill to refuse my imperative command.

Besides that, in the very next verse . .
Matt 4:20 At once (Peter and Andrew) left their nets and followed him.

I see that you got yourself banned, tabcom. Must have been that remark about Catholicism being Pagan?

I don’t know if you will continue to read the threads if you can’t post. However if you do, I hope and pray that you will get over this control issue before your son becomes a toddler. Children, in fact, are born very willful, and the reason they need discipline is BECAUSE they exercise that will in contradiction to the will of the parent or society.

 

[heisenburg]

Sand…

If my statement came off as an attempt at manipulation, i do apologize as this was not my attempt, And while I can see it being an appeal to emotion, it is the point behind it that is important.

What I was trying to demonstrate was that predestination under certain lights create two very different Gods.

As I understand it, Some predestined will work, will love and will follow because, well, they have no choice. We are given some free will, but in the areas of importance, like work, love and obedience, we do not.

This is why it creates two distinctly different Gods…

One is a God that lets us choose him, and choose to love him. He allows us to shoot off our own foot, but he also gives us guidance to keep us from loading the gun too early. We choose him, or we refuse him. He desires that All be saved, but understands that few will make it. It is not a weakness of Him, it is his understanding and respecting the very intellect he gave us.

We choose him, or we don’t…

On the other hand

One is a God that (to me at least) seems some what insecure and must force his followers to, well, follow by making it not even in their nature to be disobedient. (so as someone else mentioned, it would be like saying i can choose to fly by flapping my arms… Not going to happen, not in my nature) Like wise, a person of this special, predestined nature cannot refuse the Lord because, well, it isn’t in their nature.

All That being said…

Perhaps (and it is possible) I do not fully understand the idea of Predestination as you understand it, And if I do not fully understand your view of it, the fault is no one but my own…

 

[davidv]

There is some confusion on your part, ISTM.

Actually you are absolutely correct on this. I am confused beyond belief, because your quote:

The fact that God has given commands, or laws, indicates that man is not free, de facto.

Seems to be diametrically opposite to this one:

Man is a volitional creature; what he does, he does freely, without external coercion; however, men are not free to do whatever they will, but are bound to obey the law of God. The fact punishment is promised to those who disobey God’s law proves that they are not free to do whatever they will.

Either I am free or I am not. Which is it? How does a potential punishment for wrongdoing take away my freedom to do wrong?

Then you disagree with the statement to which I responded—”doing good is natural to man?” because man is in a fallen state; I agree.

No I do not disagree with that phrase. Why? Because the “fall” only wounded my good nature. It did not destroy it.

By the way, what does “ISTM” stand for?

 

[guanophore]

The context of my example, is within the framework of what Jesus said and how Peter, Andrew, John, and James reacted, out of obedience, not by a freewill to choose.

Matt 4:20 -
At once (Peter and Andrew) left their nets and followed him.

Matt 4:22 -
Immediately (John and James) left the boat and their father, and followed Him.

This is an absurd statement. You don’t need to obey when you don’t have a choice! Puppets don’t require obedience.

 

[guanophore]

Except for salvation which you can oppose; correct?

Yes, but that is because it is the will of God only to have those with Him in eternity that choose to be there.

Mankind is not free to love, or hate; men are commanded to love God, not hate Him; men are commanded to love their neighbors, not hate them.

There is a logic problem here. If man were not free to disobey, man would not NEED a commandment! Commanding things does not necessarily result in compliance.

If they were free to hate, then there would be no consequence, there would be no punishment for hating God and neighbor; however, men who hate God, and neighbor will be punished, though God forbears the punishment.

This is a logic error. Freedom to act does not imply that there are no consequences. I work with parolees. They know what the conditions are. They have freedom to comply, or not. There are consequences both ways.

How do you know that?

I don’t agree that it is natural for man to choose the good. I do think it is natural to want for it. Jesus said that, even though they were evil, they still wanted to give good gifts to their children.

If choosing good is natural to man, then why does man need God’s grace to “empower him to make choices in favor of God’s goodness and truth?”

I have to go with you on this one!

 

[sandusky]

davidv:

Either I am free or I am not. Which is it? How does a potential punishment for wrongdoing take away my freedom to do wrong?

It doesn’t; but exercising the freedom to do either wrong, or right, does not make you free:**Romans 6:12-16

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you
obey its lusts,

13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?**You think that your free choice makes you free; however, it doesn’t; if you freely break the law, then sin is your Master.

If you freely keep the law, then the law is your Master.

How is one who is obedient to a **“Master,” **be that Master Sin, or be that Master Law, "FREE?"

And the passage above speaks of the one who is “in Christ.” The one who is not in Christ, is referred to as “dead in Sin” (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13; cf Eph 2:5).

How is being dead in Sin being free?

davidv:

No I do not disagree with that phrase. Why? Because the “fall” only wounded my good nature. It did not destroy it.

Proof?

davidv:

By the way, what does “ISTM” stand for?

It Seems To Me.

 

[davidv]

It doesn’t; but exercising the freedom to do either wrong, or right, does not make you free:Romans 6:12-16

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you****obey its lusts,

**13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. **

14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

**15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! **

16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?You think that your free choice makes you free; however, it doesn’t; if you freely break the law, then sin is your Master.

If you freely keep the law, then the law is your Master.

How is one who is obedient to a “Master,” be that Master Sin, or be that Master Law, "FREE?"

And the passage above speaks of the one who is “in Christ.” The one who is not in Christ, is referred to as “dead in Sin” (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13; cf Eph 2:5).

How is being dead in Sin being free?

Proof?

It Seems To Me.

I am still extremely confused, because now I don’t even know what you mean when you use the word “freedom”. Please define it in the context of the above. I participated in a bible study of Exodus last fall. Obviously “freedom” was a key theme. One of my key learning’s was that there were two aspects of the Israel’s freedom. One was the their freedom from Pharoh’s slavery, the other was there freedom for worship.

“being dead in sin” is exercising our freedom to reject God grace of forgiveness and to wallow in the mire of our fallen nature.

 

[sandusky]

davidv:

I am still extremely confused, because now I don’t even know what you mean when you use the word “freedom”. Please define it in the context of the above. I participated in a bible study of Exodus last fall. Obviously “freedom” was a key theme. One of my key learning’s was that there were two aspects of the Israel’s freedom. One was the their freedom from Pharoh’s slavery, the other was there freedom ]for worship.

Israel was freed from serving Pharaoh so that they could serve the Living God (cf 1 Thess 1:9; Rom 1; Gal 1:10; Php 2:7; Col 1:7; 4:7; 2 Tim 2:24; Titus 1:1).

This started in response to Pax’s post concerning man’s “free-will,” or his freedom to choose to do good, or to do bad.

“being dead in sin” is exercising our freedom to reject God grace of forgiveness and to wallow in the mire of our fallen nature.

Being dead is being dead, thus the analogy employed by the Spirit (cf Jn 3:3; 1 Cor 15:45ff).

 

[CentralFLJames]

It doesn’t; but exercising the freedom to do either wrong, or right, does not make you free:

Romans 6:12-16

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you
obey its lusts,

I have some thoughts that came out of this I’d like to share:
An insecure “free” person should find no need to calm scrupulosity through frequent demonstration of choice just to reassure oneself that they are free. In fact it seems to me that an over emphasis on exercising freedom for “freedom’s sake” becomes indicative of somone enslaved to the principal of freedom more so than it is an exhibition of freedom. This is exactly what we see all over the USA. Americans seem to deify the notion of “freedom” and make it a false god unto itself. The principal of freedom becomes a thing to worship through frequent expressions of: “free speech”, choosing to “have it our way” or constructing and exercising artificial choices “just because was can” as a celebration of “freedom”.

On the other hand unexercised freedom does not make one free either. So many choose passively through non-choice or acceptance of current status quo. Accepting status quo in a world suffering the progressive consequence of sin is also to accept defeat and let sin become our master.

James
​

​

 

[Pax]

Israel was freed from serving Pharaoh so that they could serve the Living God (cf 1 Thess 1:9; Rom 1; Gal 1:10; Php 2:7; Col 1:7; 4:7; 2 Tim 2:24; Titus 1:1).

This started in response to Pax’s post concerning man’s “free-will,” or his freedom to choose to do good, or to do bad.

Being dead is being dead, thus the analogy employed by the Spirit (cf Jn 3:3; 1 Cor 15:45ff).

Why confuse the issue? I agree that grace sets us free and that sin enslaves us. These facts do not infringe on our free will to make a choice to accept or reject God’s gifts. God’s grace does not force us. If you can show me passages in scripture that say that it does force us against our will, then please show them to me.

 

[sandusky]

CentralFlJames:

I have some thoughts that came out of this I’d like to share:
An insecure “free” person should find no need to calm scrupulosity through frequent demonstration of choice just to reassure oneself that they are free. In fact it seems to me that an over emphasis on exercising freedom for “freedom’s sake” becomes indicative of somone enslaved to the principal of freedom more so than it is an exhibition of freedom. This is exactly what we see all over the USA. Americans seem to deify the notion of “freedom” and make it a false god unto itself. The principal of freedom becomes a thing to worship through frequent expressions of: “free speech”, choosing to “have it our way” or constructing and exercising artificial choices “just because was can” as a celebration of “freedom”.

On the other hand unexercised freedom does not make one free either. So many choose passively through non-choice or acceptance of current status quo. Accepting status quo in a world suffering the progressive consequence of sin is also to accept defeat and let sin become our master.

James

I would describe what you are saying as a Biblical world-view; however, I do not view accepting status quo as an acceptance of defeat. Sin was defeated on the cross; however, sin will reign in this world until Christ returns.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Why confuse the issue? I agree that grace sets us free and that sin enslaves us. These facts do not infringe on our free will to make a choice to accept or reject God’s gifts.

I’m not trying to confuse the issue; however, grace and sin do impact the choices men make; those who are dead in sin can do nothing but sin; they cannot choose to accept the gospel because they are left in the power of one who keeps its truth from them (2 Cor 4:1-4); those who do accept the gospel do so because God removes them from that power (1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:3ff; Col 1:13-14; 1 Pet 1:3, etc).

Pax:

God’s grace does not force us. If you can show me passages in scripture that say that it does force us against our will, then please show them to me.

That’s a strawman, Pax; I’ve stated repeatedly that God does not force anyone to love Him, or to believe in Him; those who do so, although predestined to do so, do so freely.

 

[Pax]

Either I don’t understand your point and your difficulties or my argument is not a strawman. I must be missing something along the way here.

I’ll just read for awhile and see how this proceeds.

 

[sandusky]

Either I don’t understand your point and your difficulties or my argument is not a strawman.

You’re arguing against a position that I don’t hold as though I were holding the position—a strawman.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not trying to confuse the issue; however, grace and sin do impact the choices men make; those who are dead in sin can do nothing but sin; they cannot choose to accept the gospel because they are left in the power of one who keeps its truth from them (2 Cor 4:1-4); those who do accept the gospel do so because God removes them from that power (1 Cor 1:30; Eph 1:3ff; Col 1:13-14; 1 Pet 1:3, etc).

That’s a strawman, Pax; I’ve stated repeatedly that God does not force anyone to love Him, or to believe in Him; those who do so, although predestined to do so, do so freely.

This is a good Calvanist summary.