"Works" Salvation?

[sandusky]

Pax:

That is why the path to perdition is said to be wide and that many find it. That is the easily found path which provides the least amount of difficulty in life. Those that follow that easy path live in the flesh following their passions and the whims of the flesh, rather than following the upward call of Christ.

They call Him ***”Lord, Lord.”

In His Name*** they spoke forth [about Him].

***In His Name *** they cast out demons.

In His Name they performed many works of power.

They are not fleshly people, following the passions of their flesh; they call Him, “Lord,” and they do things in His Name.

 

[Robert902]

Acts 2:38, Mark 16:15

But these things are not required for salvation. I am talking about the gift of salvation. Even baptism isn’t needed for salvation. Paul the apostle said, “I have not come to preach baptism.” 1 Cor 1:17.

God Bless,
Robert

---

God commands us to “test all things.”​

 

[Pax]

They call Him ***”Lord, Lord.”

In His Name*** they spoke forth [about Him].

***In His Name *** they cast out demons.

In His Name they performed many works of power.

They are not fleshly people, following the passions of their flesh; they call Him, “Lord,” and they do things in His Name.

Try examining everything about Judas Iscariot. He called Jesus Lord. He called on the Lord. He cast out demons and he performed works of power. He also did other things that were wrong and had his mind on many things of this world.

 

[sandusky]

Pax:

Try examining everything about Judas Iscariot. He called Jesus Lord. He called on the Lord. He cast out demons and he performed works of power. He also did other things that were wrong and had his mind on many things of this world.

Judas knew what he was doing; he understood what he did; he comprehended
what he had done.

These people are crying out, ”Lord…Lord…”

They thought they knew Him; they thought they were known by Him; they thought that what they had done in their lives was the will of the Father.

He calls them lawless.

 

[Bishopite]

[guanophore;2014522]I don’t think he is denying works of any kind. He affirms that works are important, just that they are not part of salvation.

If they aren’t part of salvation which Mt 25:34-41 clearly affirms then why do them??

What would happen if you were willing to separate the concept of justification (as a legal act) from sanctification?

As one is being sanctified one is also being justified. Abraham was justified in chapter 12, 15 and then in 22; it’s a process.

I agree with you that the only scriptural model is not a declarative forensic. However, I disagree that this is a Luther/Calvin fallacy. This is an Apolstolic teaching. Granted, the reformers took that teaching in isolation from others, thereby resulting in distortion, but the fact remains, we are declared righteous from a forensic point of view:

"God … having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14) "

If the legal forensic justification only was an Apostolic teaching, can you show me where the early Church fathers (being the disciples of the Apostles) taught this? Surely it would have been passed down, 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6.

There was a warrant for us (bond) with a death penalty. Jesus paid our debt on the cross. So, the warrant is “set aside”. That is a gift, and unmerited favor gving by God out of love for us. Now…since we no longer have the death penalty against us, and we have been cleansed by baptism, what now? Go, and sin no more, says the Christ.

Sure Jesus died for us to appease the Father, a perfect oblation, however Jesus died in order to “REDEEM” us NOT to take away ALL sin, if He did then that would first of all require God to save everyone since no one would be sinning. And two after Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, people keep on sinning; even the “saved” keep sinning, so your assertion can’t be correct. Jesus redeemed us, He allowed heaven to again be opened so that we could be with the Father, He appeased the Father from wrath.

I think this is the hangup point for Apophasis. Your assertion that the gift is conditional is not consistent with the Teaching. The death warrant was nailed to the cross for all. Even the Jews who "rejected the purpose of God for themselves’ had their warrant paid. However, they did not show up to claim their bail! Likewise, the free gift is given, but those that choose not to partake will not benefit from it.

A gift can require responsiblity. If it didn’t require responsiblity then we would be free to sin as we wished.
And the Jews didn’t show up, why? They had the choice didn’t they? According to you they could “show up to claim their bail”
but didn’t, but they had the choice. Again, the logic isn’t consistant here. A gift that is so great requires responsibility even Apophasis agreed on that point with the car analogy. Why does the Bible say “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” Phil 2:12? Why would it say in Romans 2:6 that we will be judged “according to our deeds” if they aren’t part of our salvation? 1 Peter 1:17 where God judges imprtially according to one’s works. Rev 20:12-13, Col 3:24-25 and you can’t accept that works are part of our salvation? And in Mt 25:34-46 why would the just be praised by Jesus for what they “did” and had “done” if they weren’t important for salvation?

“If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

Notice Jesus said “if you continue in my word” NOT “since you will continue in my word.”
Romans 13:11
"And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed."

**Paul taught salvation was a process. 1 Cor 9:27"**I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified"

Paul taught that salvation wasn’t a punctiliar one-time only event but a process and that one has to endure to the end to be saved.

 

[guanophore]

But these things are not required for salvation. I am talking about the gift of salvation. Even baptism isn’t needed for salvation. Paul the apostle said, “I have not come to preach baptism.” 1 Cor 1:17.

God Bless,
Robert

You are taking this verse out of context, Robert. Let’s look at the WHOLE passage:

1 Cor 1:10-17

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo’e’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga’ius; 15 lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16(I did baptize also the household of Steph’anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Paul is not saying that baptism is not essential, or that he does not support it. He is arguing that people are becoming factious because of WHO baptized them. If baptism was not essential, why would people be bragging about who performed theirs?! Paul is emphasizing that his gift is preaching. Others baptized his converts. He did baptize a few (why would he do this?) but fortunately for his arguement, others did the baptizing while he did the preaching.

---

God commands us to “test all things.”​

 

[guanophore]

But these things are not required for salvation. I am talking about the gift of salvation. Even baptism isn’t needed for salvation. Paul the apostle said, “I have not come to preach baptism.” 1 Cor 1:17. God Bless, Robert

I think maybe there is more to the role of baptism in God’s plan than you are giving credit:

1 Peter 3:18-21
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience

John 1:32 - Jesus was baptized
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the
disciples went into Judea where the disciples baptized.
John 4:1 - another reference to baptism which naturally flows
from Jesus’ baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.
Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of baptism.
Acts 10:47 - Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these
people…?” Baptism is Jesus’commandment for believers.
Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.”
Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water.
Heb. 10:22 – “Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and
our bodies washed with pure water.”
Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.
Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required.
John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.
Acts 8:12-13; 36; 10:47 - if belief is all one needs to be saved, why is everyone instantly baptized after believing in Jesus?
Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - people believe in Jesus, and then immediately are baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?
Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This text demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.
Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.
Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias’ phrase “wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.
Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life.
1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.
Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.
Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

 

[Milliardo]

I actually said it with great grief in my heart. I have yet to find, nor have shown on this thread, any official RC document that teaches the positional aspect of sanctification that Paul teaches in his Epistles, and was commanded to him to reveal to the Gentiles by Christ Himself in the Apostolic ministry He assigned to them. Shouldn’t every church teach Pauline theology?

Shouldn’t Paul agree with what Jesus taught, and not the other way around? As David Currie noted, and I would think rightly so based on what you posted here, Protestants start out with Paul, and put everything, including the Gospels, as somehow lower than what Paul wrote. This is, he realized, in contrast to how Catholics read the Bible: Catholics start out with the Gospels, and put everything else in the Bible to follow what the Gospels say. The contrasts in how we read the Bible have very large impacts on how we view justification and salvation. The differences can be seen in this thread itself–the Catholic has no qualm at all and can fully defend the Olivette Discourse; the Protestant would have a very difficult time with it, as well as the passages regarding Judgment. How many times has it been seen in this forum that Protestants would start out and go into Romans (and that’s only from Romans 3-5) and skip out on the rest of the Bible including the Gospels?

 

[jimmy]

They call Him ”Lord, Lord.”

In His Name they spoke forth [about Him].

***In His Name ***they cast out demons.

In His Name they performed many works of power.

They are not fleshly people, following the passions of their flesh; they call Him, “Lord,” and they do things in His Name.

How do you get that interpretation? That does not come from the text. ‘In His name’ does not mean ‘not fleshly’. What it means is tha they trusted in Him. They believed His name to hold power and they had faith. That is all it means. To say that it means they were not following the passions of their flesh is eisegesis, not exegesis.

Judas knew what he was doing; he understood what he did; he comprehended
what he had done.

These people are crying out, ”Lord…Lord…”

They thought they knew Him; they thought they were known by Him; they thought that what they had done in their lives was the will of the Father.

He calls them lawless.

You are reading into the text. It is also translated as ‘depart from me you who work iniquity.’ It means what it says; they did evil. These people comprehend what they have done just as Judas comprehended what he had done, otherwise they wouldn’t be condemned. Jesus says this in his last speach in John. If He had not have come they would have an excuse, but since He has come they have not excuse.

 

[Odell]

They call Him ***”Lord, Lord.”

In His Name*** they spoke forth [about Him].

***In His Name *** they cast out demons.

In His Name they performed many works of power.

They are not fleshly people, following the passions of their flesh; they call Him, “Lord,” and they do things in His Name.

So they were saved they cast out demons in Jesus name.

Your thinking How can they actually do mighty works and cast out demons in His name, unless they genuinely connected to Jesus (saved) at the time?

And yet, ultimately Jesus rejects some of them because of evildoing.

So they are saved then Jesus cast them out. So you dont believe in salvation faith + works but you must believe in that you can lose your salvation after haveing salvation acording to your interpritation.

If this isnt what yiou believe than I must of misinterprited what you where trying to say and I apologise.

 

[guanophore]

Shouldn’t Paul agree with what Jesus taught, and not the other way around? As David Currie noted, and I would think rightly so based on what you posted here, Protestants start out with Paul, and put everything, including the Gospels, as somehow lower than what Paul wrote. This is, he realized, in contrast to how Catholics read the Bible: Catholics start out with the Gospels, and put everything else in the Bible to follow what the Gospels say. The contrasts in how we read the Bible have very large impacts on how we view justification and salvation. The differences can be seen in this thread itself–the Catholic has no qualm at all and can fully defend the Olivette Discourse; the Protestant would have a very difficult time with it, as well as the passages regarding Judgment. How many times has it been seen in this forum that Protestants would start out and go into Romans (and that’s only from Romans 3-5) and skip out on the rest of the Bible including the Gospels?

I don’t think it matter so much where one starts. I had many years of strict training in Pauline Theology. It is very good! It changed my life for the very much better. The problem is stopping there, and failing to integrate the remainder of the scripture and teaching of the church. Yes, this thread is a good example of the fruit of excluding part of the kerygma.

 

[sandusky]

Jimmy:

How do you get that interpretation? That does not come from the text. ‘In His name’ does not mean ‘not fleshly’. What it means is tha they trusted in Him. They believed His name to hold power and they had faith. That is all it means. To say that it means they were not following the passions of their flesh is eisegesis, not exegesis.

It is Pax who said that they are following the passions of their flesh (see post #611); your beef is with Pax, not me. And I agree with you, Pax continually engages in scriptural eisegesis.

Jimmy:

You are reading into the text. It is also translated as ‘depart from me you who work iniquity.’ It means what it says; they did evil. These people comprehend what they have done just as Judas comprehended what he had done, otherwise they wouldn’t be condemned.

I agree, the works these people did were evil; but the people thought that they were doing the will of the Father; these are religious people; why else would they call Jesus, Lord?

 

[sandusky]

Odell:

So they were saved they cast out demons in Jesus name.

Your thinking How can they actually do mighty works and cast out demons in His name, unless they genuinely connected to Jesus (saved) at the time?

I’m not thinking that at all; I’m sure that they were not saved; I’m equally sure that they thought that they were saved, and that they thought that the works they were doing were the will of the Father.

The point of the passage is that, on the day of judgment, there will be many who will be shocked to find out, that what they thought were good works that they were doing, that what they thought were religious works that they were doing, were in truth lawless works, and not the will of the Father; these are religious people; why else would they call Jesus Lord?

 

[guanophore]

They call Him ***”Lord, Lord.”

In His Name*** they spoke forth [about Him].

***In His Name *** they cast out demons.

In His Name they performed many works of power.

They are not fleshly people, following the passions of their flesh; they call Him, “Lord,” and they do things in His Name.

So they were saved they cast out demons in Jesus name.

Your thinking How can they actually do mighty works and cast out demons in His name, unless they genuinely connected to Jesus (saved) at the time?

And yet, ultimately Jesus rejects some of them because of evildoing.

So they are saved then Jesus cast them out. So you dont believe in salvation faith + works but you must believe in that you can lose your salvation after haveing salvation acording to your interpritation.

If this isnt what yiou believe than I must of misinterprited what you where trying to say and I apologise.

The reader cannot assume that these persons who are casting out demons are “saved”. The name of Jesus is so powerful, that the demons run, even when it is spoken from the mouth of the faithless. The Spirit of God can manifest truth through a donkey! Num 22:21-35

There are examples of unbelievers using the name of Jesus.
"Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.”
Acts 19:13

If it was not working, they would not have been encouraged to do it. Although, they did finally meet their match (see verses following these).

Jesus desires all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. He does not “throw” anyone away. If a person chooses to reject him, he has no choice but to separate them. If a person’s faith is that which springs from seeds not properly watered and protected (Luke 8:5-7 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it.)
Then the plants will either die or become choked. The initial seeds sprouted. Life began. Then it was lost.

 

[DLC]

Yes, having the wrong idea concerning works does cancel out grace.
Rom 11:6
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
NASU

 

[Bishopite]

But these things are not required for salvation. I am talking about the gift of salvation. Even baptism isn’t needed for salvation. Paul the apostle said, “I have not come to preach baptism.” 1 Cor 1:17.

God Bless,
Robert

---

God commands us to “test all things.”​

Well, that’s not what the Bible says.

John 3:5 “must be born of water and the spirit”
1 Cor 6:11 “you were washed, sanctified, justified.”
Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. "
Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
1 Peter3:19-21 “In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

 

[DLC]

Here is my question to those who believe that works are needed for salvation. Have you done enough good works to merit God justifying you?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Judas knew what he was doing; he understood what he did; he comprehended
what he had done.

These people are crying out, ”Lord…Lord…”

They thought they knew Him; they thought they were known by Him; they thought that what they had done in their lives was the will of the Father.

He calls them lawless.

Back to the same old party line, I see. Trying in vain to prove that faith alone is biblical.

 

[DLC]

Remember that not every time water and baptism are used in the Bible do they refer to water baptism.

John 3:5
It is better to understand that the Lord intended Nicodemus to think in terms of Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the cleansing and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The Greek has only one preposition with both nouns, “water” and “Spirit” connected by “and” (kai). We can translate “of water, even the Spirit.”
We have two parallel phrases which are genitive constructions in the Greek text: (a) “washing of regeneration” and (b) “renewing by the Holy Spirit.” “Regeneration” and “Holy Spirit” are both in the genitive case. There are several uses of the genitive case in Greek, but with nouns of action like washing and renewing, the noun in the genitive points to the thing to which the action is referred, either as subject or object of the verbal idea. Are washing and renewing objective genitives or subjective genitives? If subjective, they produce the action as is evidenced by the translation of the NASB and the NIV, “renewing/renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Paul is writing of a renewing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and not vice versa, i.e., “a renewing which produces the Holy Spirit,” an obvious absurdity. Both of these clauses are preceded by only one preposition “by” (dia), and are connected by “and” (kai). This would suggest two things: (a) Because of the parallel arrangement, we would expect both genitives to be the same, either objective or subjective, and since the second phrase can only be a subjective genitive, “a renewal by the Holy Spirit,” so must the first, “a washing by regeneration.” (b) The “and” (kai) is ascensive or explicative meaning “even,” or “namely,” so that the second clause is a further explanation of the first. We could render it grammatically, “the washing produced by regeneration, even (or namely) the rebirth accomplished by the Holy Spirit.” Regeneration results in a spiritual cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and this is part of the rebirth work of the Holy Spirit.
This fits with Titus 3:5, “… by the washing produced by regeneration (rebirth), even the renewal by the Holy Spirit”

The passage in 1 Peter 3:9- tells us that water baptism does not remove the filth of the flesh. No one can be saved if this does not happen. Also, every one knows that water in Noah’s day was a picture of death. What saved Noah was his belief in what God said. He entered the ark, a picture of Christ, and was saved.

 

[apophasis]

No, every church should not teach Pauline theology only.

Did I say “only?”

The Catholic Church teaches what Jesus taught.

So how many eyes and hands do you have left on your body?

Yes, we recognize that Jesus revealed Himself to Paul, and gave Paul a special mission.

Yes, He revealed Himself physically to Paul, which was an Apostolic qualification. But more than that He revealed to Paul the meaning of the cross - the full meaining of His substitutionary, sacrificial death and bodily resurrection in respect to salvation this side of the cross, which was the content of Paul’s gospel he took to the Gentiles - he being the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Why would you assume that Paul had the “whole” teaching of God?

His letters contain the full meaning of the cross in respect to divine salvation - justification, redemption*,* propitiation*, sanctification*, etc. These great N.T. doctrines are fully revealed by Paul in the context of the cross.

Do you not think that Jesus said some unique things?

Yes, “unique” is a good word. He spoke to Jews who were yet bond to the Law of Moses. He spoke as their King in reference to the Davidic Kingdom He came to establish, but was postponed. Sometimes He spoke in anticipation of His death on the cross. Not so much in the Synoptic Gospel accounts but in the very unique Gospel account of John - which some theologians have rightly called the “Genesis” of the N.T.

You did not answer my question. If the prodigal never returned, would he have lost his inheritance?

Your question makes no sense. He squandered it all on reckless living.