"Works" Salvation? Part 2

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

You are completely missing my point and the point of the parable.

I’m missing the point? You’re amusing.

The debt that the one who is unforgiving must pay, is forgiveness—he must learn to forgive.

mikeledes:

The word “save” is used here as a verb and refers to only one kind of salvation, salvation from eternal damnation.

Going back to the 1 Timothy, I don’t see how the word save (noun or verb) can mean anything other than salvation from eternal damnation. Can you please point out other Bible passages in which the Greek verb for “save” is used in reference to saving oneself from falling into ungodliness.

I see; so, according to you, men have the power to save other men.

I see no point in responding to that. :nope:

mikeledes:

God gives us many gifts that we must utilize for His greater glory. However, failure to utilize these gifts will result in damnation when Jesus comes back to judge us according to our works (v. 19). Please note the context of this parable, the second coming and judgement day.

Similarly, we freely receive the gift of righteousness, but God expects us to live in righteousness (i.e. forgive those who offend you, keep the commandments, do good to others). Failure to do so (i.e. sin) will ultimately result in loss of that gift and enjoyment of eternal life in the world to come. That’s why Jesus said:

The love of God and neighbor is a fruit of the freely given Holy Spirit. But love is a word of action. No love, no happy after life.

 

[sandusky]

apophasis:

Now as much as I like the NASB translation, I think it is found wanting in 1 Tim. 4:16. If I am not mistaken (Sandusky?), based on the Greek it should be translated similar to the KJV:
“Take heed unto yourself, and unto the doctrine; continue (Gr. “epimene,” remain, persevere) in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
Now the word “save” here is not the noun form (Gr. soteria), but the verb form (Gr. “soseis”). So Paul is not at all saying to Timothy that by continuing in sound doctrine and paying close attention to his own behavior he will ensure “salvation” (noun, “soteria”) for himself and others, but he will “save” (“soseis,” meant in a temporal sense) both himself and those under his care from falling away from godly behavior and falling into ungodly behavior. Which is the CONTEXT in which this verse is stated.

I agree with you, and so do others. Because they are easily accessible online, I’ll link three: A.T. Robertson, John Gill, and John Calvin; some contemporaries who agree would be,
J. MacArthur, D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, et al.

Only one can save: God (cf All of Scripture).

This is a pastoral epistle, but I think it OK to make a general application for all who proclaim God’s truth: you better get right, and you better stick to what’s right, and live by it.

 

[mikeledes]

I’m missing the point? You’re amusing.

The debt that the one who is unforgiving must pay, is forgiveness—he must learn to forgive.

Yes, by being tortured for all eternity? Who are the torturers Sandunsky? The debt he has to pay, Sandunsky, is the debt he had been forgiven. That is the clear, logical meaning of the text. Refusal to accept that is a different story

I see; so, according to you, men have the power to save other men.

I see no point in responding to that. :nope:

**When you bring the Gospel to someone, God is using you as an instrument to bring salvation to that person. That is how thwe word is being used in that verse. But the salvation that Paul has in view is salvation from sin and eternal damnation. Before drawing conclusions on what I believe, please read carefully. **



Rudeness is not a Christian virtue. :nope:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The debt that the one who is unforgiving must pay, is forgiveness—he must learn to forgive

BTW, sandunsky, this explanation absolutely makes no sense when you go back to the original text. I just wanted to add that.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

BTW, sandunsky, this explanation absolutely makes no sense when you go back to the original text.

Because you don’t understand what a parable is, Mike.

 

[Pax]

Oh he knows what a parable is alright. The problem and difference is in understanding the meaning and intent of the parable. Please be advised that in fairness you must argue and explain your view of what the parable means and why your understanding makes more sense than ours. Claiming that someone else doesn’t know what a parable is, simply isn’t true and does not lend support to your position.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

When you bring the Gospel to someone, God is using you as an instrument to bring salvation to that person.

I see; so then, you must be responsible for the loss of any person who rejects the Gospel, as well, and your many failures to persuade will be punished accordingly, correct?

 

[Truthstalker]

I see; so then, you must be responsible for the loss of any person who rejects the Gospel, as well, and your many failures to persuade will be punished accordingly, correct?

You totally neglect free will. But that is to be expected.

 

[apophasis]

mikeledes:

First, let me compliment you on your posts. They are always well-written.

Why thank you Mike! That’s very kind of you to say. Now an even greater compliment would be that you appreciated their content. Think that would ever happen? I can hear “guanophore” saying right now, “do I detect conversion attempts?”

The word “save” is used here as a verb and refers to only one kind of salvation, salvation from eternal damnation.

I don’t think so, Mike. One must always look to its contextual usage to determine its definition. It’s no different in the English language, whether written or spoken.

Going back to the 1 Timothy, I don’t see how the word save (noun or verb) can mean anything other than salvation from eternal damnation. Can you please point out other Bible passages in which the Greek verb for “save” is used in reference to saving oneself from falling into ungodliness.

Well, the issue isn’t whether “save” is used in that same context, but if the word is ever used in its temporal sense elsewhere in Scripture, rather than its eternal sense. The answer, of course, is yes:Matt 8:24-25 "And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep. And they came to {Him} and woke Him, saying, “Save {us,} Lord; we are perishing!”

John 12:27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour."Of course the word can be used in its eternal sense, as you demonstrated by the verses you provided. But, as you can see, it is not always restricted to that sense.

So, regarding my original question. You would say that persevering means persevering in godliness, even if the perservering has nothing to do with salvation.

But of course. For a true believer to pursue ungodly ways is to deny his new identity in Christ - it’s not even normal. Such a pursuit would be against all divine logic: “How shall we who died to sin (with Christ) still live in it?” And for this reason Paul exhorts Timothy, as a shepherd caring for his sheep, to pay close attention to his own behavior (i.e., to be a good example of godly living before them) and to persevere in sound doctrine regarding their salvation in Christ. And in doing so he will save not only himself but his flock from falling into ungodly ways.

I’ve read a lot of posts on this forum and I have yet to find a “Protestants.” propagating the notion that the Biblically backed doctrine of salvation by GRACE through faith, apart from works, encourages “freedom” to pursue a life of ungodliness (wrongfully accused by others, yes - but then so was Paul). In fact, so far every Protestants*.* post that I’ve encountered, the writer clearly seems to understand that, in Christ, he/she has been “delivered” from such “enslavement” and has no desire to return. For what reason would he? Who really enjoys misery?

It’s not the danger of losing one’s salvation that motivates one to godly living (we’ve all seen that such a threat has absolutely no power to prevent fleshly indulgences), but the pure joy of walking in the Spirit and experiencing fellowship with God his Father - sometimes under the hardest of times. Learning, as Paul did, that even under those times God will sustain him.

Scripture doesn’t teach perseverance unto salvation, but because of it.

 

[apophasis]

I agree with you, and so do others. Because they are easily accessible online, I’ll link three: A.T. Robertson, John Gill, and John Calvin; some contemporaries who agree would be,
J. MacArthur, D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, et al.

Only one can save: God (cf All of Scripture).

Absolutely! I like that, “cf. All of Scripture.” Thanks for the references, gotta go but I’ll return and look at the urls you posted.

This is a pastoral epistle, but I think it OK to make a general application for all who proclaim God’s truth: you better get right, and you better stick to what’s right, and live by it.

Yes. One must understand 1st. & 2nd. Tim. in the light of being pastoral epistles. Their encouragement on holding to sound doctrine and godly living.

 

[guanophore]

I’m missing the point? Y

The debt that the one who is unforgiving must pay, is forgiveness—he must learn to forgive.

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

But, before you fall off your chair…

Matt 6:14-15

14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Since Jesus promises us that this is a condition for salvation how can we fail to take this into account? How much will our faith in HIs saving grace take us if we fail to follow the command to forgive our brother from our heart?

I see; so, according to you, men have the power to save other men.

I see no point in responding to that. :nope:

You did not respond to the content of this query, Sandusky. I think this indicates a resistance to the sacramental principle. Paul teaches that:

" If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?" 1 Cor 7:13-16

The sacramental principle is that Holy Grace flows through unholy vessels. In a sense, you are right to recognize that “men have the power to save other men” is far fetched. This would not be possible except for the Holy Grace of Christ. But Jesus taught that “the two become one” and that, as far as God is concerned, the unbelieving partner is saved by the believing partner. This principle, of God’s grace flowing through cracked pots, so to speak, is foreign to protestants. However, the Catholic church has always taught that God’s Grace flows with purity, even through flawed persons. An example of this would be of God’s High Priest:

John 11:49-53
49 But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; 50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. "

From the context, you can see that Caiaphas was a corrupt man, but by the Grace of God, he made an accurate prophetic pronouncement.

Grace flows where God has commanded it to flow. He has ordained that in marriage, “the two shall become one”. Therefore, when a believing partner is married to an unbeliever, both are seen in HIs eyes as “one” and the unbelieving partner is sanctified through the believing one. This is not the power of 'man" as you seem to state, but the Power of God, just as Caiaphas made the prophesy spoke not from his own selfishness, but prophetically.

 

[dcdurel]

Why thank you Mike! That’s very kind of you to say. Now an even greater compliment would be that you appreciated their content. Think that would ever happen? I can hear “guanophore” saying right now, "do I detect conversion attempts?"I don’t think so, Mike. One must always look to its contextual usage to determine its definition. It’s no different in the English language, whether written or spoken.Well, the issue isn’t whether “save” is used in that same context, but if the word is ever used in its temporal sense elsewhere in Scripture, rather than its eternal sense. The answer, of course, is yes:Matt 8:24-25 "And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being covered with the waves; but Jesus Himself was asleep. And they came to {Him} and woke Him, saying, “Save {us,} Lord; we are perishing!”

John 12:27 "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour."Of course the word can be used in its eternal sense, as you demonstrated by the verses you provided. But, as you can see, it is not always restricted to that sense.But of course. For a true believer to pursue ungodly ways is to deny his new identity in Christ - it’s not even normal. Such a pursuit would be against all divine logic: “How shall we who died to sin (with Christ) still live in it?” And for this reason Paul exhorts Timothy, as a shepherd caring for his sheep, to pay close attention to his own behavior (i.e., to be a good example of godly living before them) and to persevere in sound doctrine regarding their salvation in Christ. And in doing so he will save not only himself but his flock from falling into ungodly ways.

I’ve read a lot of posts on this forum and I have yet to find a “Prot.” propagating the notion that the Biblically backed doctrine of salvation by GRACE through faith, apart from works, encourages “freedom” to pursue a life of ungodliness (wrongfully accused by others, yes - but then so was Paul). In fact, so far every Prot. post that I’ve encountered, the writer clearly seems to understand that, in Christ, he/she has been “delivered” from such “enslavement” and has no desire to return. For what reason would he? Who really enjoys misery?

It’s not the danger of losing one’s salvation that motivates one to godly living (we’ve all seen that such a threat has absolutely no power to prevent fleshly indulgences), but the pure joy of walking in the Spirit and experiencing fellowship with God his Father - sometimes under the hardest of times. Learning, as Paul did, that even under those times God will sustain him.

Scripture doesn’t teach perseverance unto salvation, but because of it.

 

[dcdurel]

I’ve read a lot of posts on this forum and I have yet to find a “Protestants” propagating the notion that the Biblically backed doctrine of salvation by GRACE through faith, apart from works, encourages “freedom” to pursue a life of ungodliness (wrongfully accused by others, yes - but then so was Paul). In fact, so far every Protestants*.* post that I’ve encountered, the writer clearly seems to understand that, in Christ, he/she has been “delivered” from such “enslavement” and has no desire to return. For what reason would he? Who really enjoys misery?

It’s not the danger of losing one’s salvation that motivates one to godly living (we’ve all seen that such a threat has absolutely no power to prevent fleshly indulgences), but the pure joy of walking in the Spirit and experiencing fellowship with God his Father - sometimes under the hardest of times. Learning, as Paul did, that even under those times God will sustain him…

The danger of losing one’s salvation can motivate a person to avoid living in mortal sin. That was why Jesus spoke of hell so many times, with the clear, explicit teaching that we can lose our salvation if we don’t do good works. Jesus did not waste His time. He said everything for a reason. And He spoke of hell and judgement more than anyone else in the bible, for that exact reason. He wants us to at least believe Him when He spoke of hell and judgement and that we must do good to enter into heaven.

But, some men spend their lives denying the clear explicit teachings of Jesus. I will never forget when I first heard the rationalization for not having to obey Jesus. It was that St. Paul says we are saved by faith apart from works. Then the preacher said, see good works can’t save you.

  Now it did not take a lot of study to see that St. Paul was not writing about good works, but he was condemning the idea that in addition to beleiving and obeying Jesus, Christians had to do more, they had to follow the ceremonial practices of the law of Moses.   Since this is not obeying Jesus, but believing in man made teaching,   it certainly was not good works.

The preacher knew good and well that in other places, St. Paul says we have to obey Jesus to enter heaven, he knew good and well that Jesus said we must obey the commandments to enter heaven, and he knows good and well that every mention of final judgement was based on doing or not doing good works.
** Yet he deliberately misled his flock to let them believe the “works” Paul was writing about were the same thing as obeying Jesus or doing good works**. Now since Jesus said we must do good to enter heaven, the preacher was essentially telling people that Jesus was wrong, or that you could not understand the plain and simple words of Jesus. I realize that if he taught the truth, then he was in danger of losing members to the Church Jesus founded and thus be out of a job, or even go into poverty. But, what is eternity for a temporal earthly gain?
I never thought about the idea at that time, that he may have even deceived himself into believing that as long has he has faith, he will be assured of going to heaven, thus why not mislead his flock? They hear what they want to hear and he keeps his well paying job. The alternative is misery and struggle.

 

[apophasis]

The danger of losing one’s salvation can motivate a person to avoid living in mortal sin.

So then it is a life on probation.

That was why Jesus spoke of hell so many times, with the clear, explicit teaching that we can lose our salvation if we don’t do good works. Jesus did not waste His time. He said everything for a reason. And He spoke of hell and judgement more than anyone else in the bible, for that exact reason. He wants us to at least believe Him when He spoke of hell and judgement and that we must do good to enter into heaven.

In other words - you’re saved by works.

But, some men spend their lives denying the clear explicit teachings of Jesus. I will never forget when I first heard the rationalization for not having to obey Jesus. It was that St. Paul says we are saved by faith apart from works. Then the preacher said, see good works can’t save you.

  Now it did not take a lot of study to see that St. Paul was not writing about good works,

So obeying the Law was not good?

but he was condemning the idea that in addition to beleiving and obeying Jesus, Christians had to do more, they had to follow the ceremonial practices of the law of Moses. Since this is not obeying Jesus, but believing in man made teaching, it certainly was not good works.

The ceremonial laws are man-made?

The preacher knew good and well that in other places, St. Paul says we have to obey Jesus to enter heaven, he knew good and well that Jesus said we must obey the commandments to enter heaven,

What “commandments,” exactly? Will you list them?

and he knows good and well that every mention of final judgement was based on doing or not doing good works.

Probation.

Yet he deliberately misled his flock to let them believe the “works” Paul was writing about were the same thing as obeying Jesus or doing good works.

So salvation is based on “obeying” and “doing.” Faith plays what kind of role in this formula?

Now since Jesus said we must do good to enter heaven, the preacher was essentially telling people that Jesus was wrong, or that you could not understand the plain and simple words of Jesus.

Or, maybe he believed Jesus when He said:“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, HAS eternal life, and DOES NOT come into judgment, but HAS passed out of death into life.” Did Jesus err? Did He deceive Paul and that pastor?

I realize that if he taught the truth, then he was in danger of losing members to the Church Jesus founded and thus be out of a job, or even go into poverty. But, what is eternity for a temporal earthly gain?

Ah, so the pastor’s true motivation was money. I knew it!!!

I never thought about the idea at that time, that he may have even deceived himself into believing that as long has he has faith, he will be assured of going to heaven, thus why not mislead his flock?

Yeah, why not? At least he’ll have a good paycheck.

They hear what they want to hear and he keeps his well paying job.

I say, to the gallows with him, and the horse he rode in on.

The alternative is misery and struggle.

That’s right - faith gets you nowhere! They won’t admit it, but inside where no one can see, those “faith alone” people are just plain miserable and they’re always struggling with their salvation.

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

But, before you fall off your chair…

Matt 6:14-15

14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Since Jesus promises us that this is a condition for salvation how can we fail to take this into account? How much will our faith in HIs saving grace take us if we fail to follow the command to forgive our brother from our heart?

Why should I fall off of my chair? It’s not me you are agreeing with, but God, and His word; I’m never surprised at that, but pleased.

But you continue to miss God’s point with your understanding of the Mt 6 passage you cite.

Where is salvific forgiveness found, guanophore? In forgiving others, or in the blood of the Christ?

Going back to the Mt 18 passage, neither is that passage teaching that a saved, but unforgiving person loses salvation.

Being turned over to the torturers until he should repay all is not eternal damnation; there is no opportunity to repay in hell.

God may make things uncomfortable for those of His who are being disobedient, by bringing their conscience to bear upon them, or turning them over to the adversary for a time, or bringing some other trial into their life, but He will never condemn His to hell for disobedience, because He has promised that they will never perish. You’re being kept from that truth.

guanophore:

You did not respond to the content of this query, Sandusky. I think this indicates a resistance to the sacramental principle. Paul teaches that.

I understand what is being taught in the 1 Cor 7 passage; that is not the point; the point for me is the ease with which some take extraordinary understanding of the word of God, with respect to things that are his purview. We bring the good news; He uses it to save, or not.

 

[sandusky]

Truthstalker:

You totally neglect free will.

Tell me about your free will, please.

 

[mikeledes]

Being turned over to the torturers until he should repay all is not eternal damnation; there is no opportunity to repay in
hell.

The wages of sin is death. The price to pay is eternal damnation. Since you know how to read parables, what do the torturers symbolize?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Sean_Boyle]

inside where no one can see, those “faith alone” people are just plain miserable and they’re always struggling with their salvation.

Oh, it can be seen.

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

The wages of sin is death. The price to pay is eternal damnation. Since you know how to read parables, what do the torturers symbolize?

Could be any one, or many, of a number of things.

God may bring your conscience to bear on you, causing you to realize that you must repay—forgive—the one you have not forgiven; or, he could bring the barbs of the adversary against you; or, he could bring some trial into your life that brings you the understanding that you must forgive the one you are refusing to forgive, such as, someone who is suddenly offended by you, and refuses to forgive you.

It could be any number of things, but one thing it is certainly not is eternal damnation.

All Christians stumble, and they are not abandoned for their human failings. The life of the Christian is about conformity to the image of Christ. The reason for Christian conformity to that image, is because the Christian is not yet conformed; nor will he ever be perfectly conformed to that image as long as he is breathing.

 

[mikeledes]

Could be any one, or many, of a number of things.

God may bring your conscience to bear on you, causing you to realize that you must repay—forgive—the one you have not forgiven; or, he could bring the barbs of the adversary against you; or, he could bring some trial into your life that brings you the understanding that you must forgive the one you are refusing to forgive, such as, someone who is suddenly offended by you, and refuses to forgive you.

It could be any number of things, but one thing it is certainly not is eternal damnation.

All Christians stumble, and they are not abandoned for their human failings. The life of the Christian is about conformity to the image of Christ. The reason for Christian conformity to that image, is because the Christian is not yet conformed; nor will he ever be perfectly conformed to that image as long as he is breathing.

**34"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. **

The “owes him” refers to the unforgiving servant’s lord (i.e. God), not his fellow servant. In other words, he has to repay the debt he originally owed his lord.

**25"But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him **

This earlier verse established the fact that the servant could not repay his debt owed to his lord. This image conveys the fact that we are unable to pay the debt of our sin and that we are completely dependant upon God’s mercy. Verse 34 (i.e. owe him) is a clear reference to this debt that he is unable to pay. Once a person is no longer covered by the blood of Christ, he is now responsible for paying the debt of his sin. The debt of sin is eternal damnation (i.e. wages of sin is death). Hence, the torture will last forever.

God Bless,
Michael