Eternal Security, false doctrine or not?

[sculleywr]

Well, let's see about that, you say, "if we never use it (the "gift" of salvation), then we never benefit from it and will find ourselves without it in the end."

So your claim is use it or lose it. If person doesn't do "works of salvation" as you say, then they lose salvation. So their retaining of their salvation status is contingent upon their works. Which is salvation by works. So you claiming that you don't support a works soteriology is simply a contradiction. You're lying to yourself, making yourself out to be the liar.

So you can just put your salvation on the shelf and benefit from it. Try that with your Bowflex and see how much weight you lose.

Scripture says very plainly both that salvation is free and that we must use it. You pretend it has to be either or. So you have NEVER received a Christmas present, birthday present, or any other present that was truly free. Why? Because you had to use it to benefit from it! You had to go to the Olive Garden to use the gift card. you had to open the box and run the setup to benefit from the computer.

Name one gift that you don't have to do something to receive. You can't. Why? because RECEIVING IS DOING!

But apparently Christ, James, and Paul were all lying. Apparently Christ SHOULD HAVE SAID "do nothing" when the man asked him how to obtain eternal life. Apparently we aren't REALLY judged according to our works as Paul says in Romans 2. Apparently man IS NOT justified by works as James says.

You love to be an extremist. The answer is that your faith is 100% dead and useless without works. It is never going to save you alone. Even the thief on the cross did a work, defending Christ on the cross.

But what matters is a personal fire insurance policy. We don't want REAL salvation. The relationship with God means nothing. The only thing that matters is the destination.

For me, salvation means the relationship with Christ. And there is no such thing as loving a person without works.

 

[bcbsr]

Apparently Christ SHOULD HAVE SAID "do nothing" when the man asked him how to obtain eternal life. Apparently we aren't REALLY judged according to our works as Paul says in Romans 2. Apparently man IS NOT justified by works as James says.

You mean like saying, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5

Or like saying, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

As for what Jesus said in Luke 18, he answered the man, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good— except God alone." The man, kind of like yourself, though that he was a good enough person such that salvation was contingent upon his works. And so Jesus challenged him with the law.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:10

And so as Paul says in Romans that the Law is not a means of salvation by simply a diagnostic tool to reveal our lost condition. Rom 3:20-24 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

As for Rom 2:7, well look at where it is in Romans. Paul is still talking about justification by the law. He concludes that such is futility and thus Rom 3:20-24. Noted in Rom 2:7 is the word "persistence", which is to say as I note above ""Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:10 If one doesn't persist in doing everything in the Law continually, never failing, then they cannot be justified by the Law.

As for James, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's the guy that attempted to tinker with the gospel in Acts 15, making salvation contingent upon such things as not eating the meat of strangled animals. For more on James see Intro to James

 

[sculleywr]

You mean like saying, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5

Or like saying, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24

As for what Jesus said in Luke 18, he answered the man, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good— except God alone." The man, kind of like yourself, though that he was a good enough person such that salvation was contingent upon his works. And so Jesus challenged him with the law.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:10

And so as Paul says in Romans that the Law is not a means of salvation by simply a diagnostic tool to reveal our lost condition. Rom 3:20-24 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

As for Rom 2:7, well look at where it is in Romans. Paul is still talking about justification by the law. He concludes that such is futility and thus Rom 3:20-24. Noted in Rom 2:7 is the word "persistence", which is to say as I note above ""Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Gal 3:10 If one doesn't persist in doing everything in the Law continually, never failing, then they cannot be justified by the Law.

As for James, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's the guy that attempted to tinker with the gospel in Acts 15, making salvation contingent upon such things as not eating the meat of strangled animals. For more on James see Intro to James

So we should ignore part of Scripture instead of seeing the whole.

and Intro to James BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT JAMES IS NOT TALKING ABOUT SALVATION. This despite the fact that James asks, point blank, if faith without works can save a man.

Jesus said works. James said works. Paul said works. But even if God Himself were to tell you that your faith without works is dead, you would argue it with Him.

What, were all 1400 years of Christians before the Reformation DISCOVERED your Sola Grazie doctrine too stupid to understand Scripture? Why do I ask this? Because the Reformation discovered this doctrine. And apparently 1900 years of Christians were too stupid to understand the doctrine of Eternal Security, right?

Here's the facts: Scripture says both works and Faith are part and parcel of each other. You cannot have one without the other. So why does it have to be an extreme of one or the other UNLESS you want to be divested of all responsibility?

You can keep your Christ-less heaven. What good is heaven without a relationship with Christ? None.

 

[bcbsr]

So we should ignore part of Scripture instead of seeing the whole.

and Intro to James BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT JAMES IS NOT TALKING ABOUT SALVATION. This despite the fact that James asks, point blank, if faith without works can save a man.

As I see it, the epistle of James isn't scripture. And yes he's talking about salvation, contrary to your viewpoint.

Jam 2:14 "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"

Jesus said works. James said works. Paul said works.

And this is what Paul says about works, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5 and "David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:6

Neo-Circumcisions sects, such as Catholicism and Orthodox started with James in his precedent of tinkering with the gospel in Acts 15, just as the Neo-Circumcision sects have tinkered with the gospel for two millenia.

 

[bcbsr]

Since you label my belief as salvation by works theology, can you point out anywhere in the entire OT or NT where works of obedience to God is ever condemned?

The issue is whether it is as you indicate that salvation is contingent upon one's works. Paul writes, "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:4,5 and "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9

Would you accuse Paul of teaching salvation not by works? Because that's what he's saying. You have a problem with that?

I disagree with your claim that the nature of regeneration does not allow a believer to practice sin. Being regenerated does not exclude the possibility of practicing sin.

And yet you admit of 1John 3:9

What this verse simply states is that Christian cannot persist in habitual, continual sin because he is born of God.

Seems you disagree with yourself. As for 1John 2:19, apparently you need some lessons in basic reading comprehension. Let me help you there.

1John 2:19 contains the phrase "if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us"
"had" is imperfect tense in the Greek text indicating a past condition.
"would have" is in the pluperfect in the Greek text. The tense of which the Greek lexicon says, "indicates an event viewed as having been once and for all accomplished in past time.", which is consistent with the way John phrases it.

So it's saying, "if, in the past, they were genuine believers, they would have remained genuine believers for all time". And thus Once Saved, Always Saved.

Paul says essentially the same thing in 1Cor 15:2, though phrasing it the other way around.

1Co 15:2 "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."​

Note the grammar. He doesn't say, "By this gospel you will be saved". The issue is whether or not they are presently saved. The Present tense is used. He's saying the same as 1John 2:19. He's saying if you don't hold firmly to the end, then that indicates that you are not saved right now, in the present.

As I said, Paul can't say with absolute certainty that those he's speaking to are presently saved. (Which I mentioned to you previously concerning your other questions) If they fall away, Paul is saying he would conclude that they had never been saved to begin with and that their "faith" was a vain faith, not the kind that saves.

The reason why this principle holds, namely the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, is due to the nature of regeneration as John specifies in 1John 3:9 "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Now it seems that what you're suggesting is that a person who has been born of God (and we know that being born of God is not of human decision John 1:13) that such a person can become unborn of God.

First of all the term "born" indicates something you can't undo. How can a person become unborn after they are born? The only time we use the word "unborn" is to refer to someone who is not yet born. Secondly, how are you suggesting a person becomes "unborn" of God from a state of being born of God? "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin" 1John 5:18 So how does one become unborn of God without sinning? (Good Luck with that!)

which is why I cited persons who are twice dead and Paul's acknowledgment that he is subject to adokimos. There are other scriptural examples I can cite to support my view but no sense in doing so if you don't engage with the examples I have already cited.

As for "twice dead" of Jude 1:12, you need to learn to read things IN CONTEXT. For if you look at the beginning of that whole passage he characterizes those people in this way, "certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you." Their entry into the Christian community was not only not genuine, but in fact they intentionally tried to deceive Christians into believing they were genuine Christians, which they themselves knew was not true, in order to introduce their false doctrines.

Paul uses the same rhetoric of some of the members at the Church of Jerusalem saying, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

So, try again. Feel free to share the next passage you misconstrued.

 

[sculleywr]

As I see it, the epistle of James isn't scripture. And yes he's talking about salvation, contrary to your viewpoint.

Jam 2:14 "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"



And this is what Paul says about works, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5 and "David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:6

Neo-Circumcisions sects, such as Catholicism and Orthodox started with James in his precedent of tinkering with the gospel in Acts 15, just as the Neo-Circumcision sects have tinkered with the gospel for two millenia.

So because the Scripture contradicts your belief, say it isn't Scripture. Good job. That ends this conversation.

 

[Oldmantook]

The issue is whether it is as you indicate that salvation is contingent upon one's works. Paul writes, "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:4,5 and "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9

Would you accuse Paul of teaching salvation not by works? Because that's what he's saying. You have a problem with that?



And yet you admit of 1John 3:9



Seems you disagree with yourself. As for 1John 2:19, apparently you need some lessons in basic reading comprehension. Let me help you there.

1John 2:19 contains the phrase "if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us"
"had" is imperfect tense in the Greek text indicating a past condition.
"would have" is in the pluperfect in the Greek text. The tense of which the Greek lexicon says, "indicates an event viewed as having been once and for all accomplished in past time.", which is consistent with the way John phrases it.

So it's saying, "if, in the past, they were genuine believers, they would have remained genuine believers for all time". And thus Once Saved, Always Saved.

Paul says essentially the same thing in 1Cor 15:2, though phrasing it the other way around.

1Co 15:2 "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."​

Note the grammar. He doesn't say, "By this gospel you will be saved". The issue is whether or not they are presently saved. The Present tense is used. He's saying the same as 1John 2:19. He's saying if you don't hold firmly to the end, then that indicates that you are not saved right now, in the present.

As I said, Paul can't say with absolute certainty that those he's speaking to are presently saved. (Which I mentioned to you previously concerning your other questions) If they fall away, Paul is saying he would conclude that they had never been saved to begin with and that their "faith" was a vain faith, not the kind that saves.

The reason why this principle holds, namely the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, is due to the nature of regeneration as John specifies in 1John 3:9 "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Now it seems that what you're suggesting is that a person who has been born of God (and we know that being born of God is not of human decision John 1:13) that such a person can become unborn of God.

First of all the term "born" indicates something you can't undo. How can a person become unborn after they are born? The only time we use the word "unborn" is to refer to someone who is not yet born. Secondly, how are you suggesting a person becomes "unborn" of God from a state of being born of God? "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin" 1John 5:18 So how does one become unborn of God without sinning? (Good Luck with that!)



As for "twice dead" of Jude 1:12, you need to learn to read things IN CONTEXT. For if you look at the beginning of that whole passage he characterizes those people in this way, "certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you." Their entry into the Christian community was not only not genuine, but in fact they intentionally tried to deceive Christians into believing they were genuine Christians, which they themselves knew was not true, in order to introduce their false doctrines.

Paul uses the same rhetoric of some of the members at the Church of Jerusalem saying, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

So, try again. Feel free to share the next passage you misconstrued.

 

[Oldmantook]

The issue is whether it is as you indicate that salvation is contingent upon one's works. Paul writes, "to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works" Rom 4:4,5 and "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith— and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9

Would you accuse Paul of teaching salvation not by works? Because that's what he's saying. You have a problem with that?



And yet you admit of 1John 3:9



Seems you disagree with yourself. As for 1John 2:19, apparently you need some lessons in basic reading comprehension. Let me help you there.

1John 2:19 contains the phrase "if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us"
"had" is imperfect tense in the Greek text indicating a past condition.
"would have" is in the pluperfect in the Greek text. The tense of which the Greek lexicon says, "indicates an event viewed as having been once and for all accomplished in past time.", which is consistent with the way John phrases it.

So it's saying, "if, in the past, they were genuine believers, they would have remained genuine believers for all time". And thus Once Saved, Always Saved.

Paul says essentially the same thing in 1Cor 15:2, though phrasing it the other way around.

1Co 15:2 "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."​

Note the grammar. He doesn't say, "By this gospel you will be saved". The issue is whether or not they are presently saved. The Present tense is used. He's saying the same as 1John 2:19. He's saying if you don't hold firmly to the end, then that indicates that you are not saved right now, in the present.

As I said, Paul can't say with absolute certainty that those he's speaking to are presently saved. (Which I mentioned to you previously concerning your other questions) If they fall away, Paul is saying he would conclude that they had never been saved to begin with and that their "faith" was a vain faith, not the kind that saves.

The reason why this principle holds, namely the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, is due to the nature of regeneration as John specifies in 1John 3:9 "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

Now it seems that what you're suggesting is that a person who has been born of God (and we know that being born of God is not of human decision John 1:13) that such a person can become unborn of God.

First of all the term "born" indicates something you can't undo. How can a person become unborn after they are born? The only time we use the word "unborn" is to refer to someone who is not yet born. Secondly, how are you suggesting a person becomes "unborn" of God from a state of being born of God? "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin" 1John 5:18 So how does one become unborn of God without sinning? (Good Luck with that!)



As for "twice dead" of Jude 1:12, you need to learn to read things IN CONTEXT. For if you look at the beginning of that whole passage he characterizes those people in this way, "certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you." Their entry into the Christian community was not only not genuine, but in fact they intentionally tried to deceive Christians into believing they were genuine Christians, which they themselves knew was not true, in order to introduce their false doctrines.

Paul uses the same rhetoric of some of the members at the Church of Jerusalem saying, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

So, try again. Feel free to share the next passage you misconstrued.

Your failure to distinguish between different kinds of works in the Bible leads to your colossal error. In the book of Romans Paul constantly refers to works of the Law NOT works done out of obedience to God. Are you blinded to the difference? I ask you AGAIN - where in the entire Bible is works done out of obedience to the Spirit condemned. If you continue to avoid my direct question - don't even bother to reply. And as far as Eph 2:8-9 goes, are you unaware of or do you conveniently ignore the very next verse? If you bothered to read further in v.10 you would know that we are created to do GOOD WORKS. Do you condemn the good works that God prepared us to do?

If you read what I wrote, I acknowledged that there are those who were never believers in the first place, but that does not negate the other alternative that there are genuine believers that can fall away. Therefore, I have no problem with 1 Jn 2:19 identifying those individuals who were never believers - and if they were - they would certainly have persevered. SOME Christians persevere but NOT ALL do and thus lose their salvation. According to your view, since only those who persevere to the end are truly believers, no one can be assured with certainty that they will be saved since no one can predict the future. How do you know that you will eventually persevere? How's that for assurance?

You wrote: "Paul can't say with absolute certainty that those he's speaking to are presently saved. (Which I mentioned to you previously concerning your other questions) If they fall away, Paul is saying he would conclude that they had never been saved to begin with and that their "faith" was a vain faith, not the kind that saves."
If you bothered to read the verse that precedes it you would realize that Paul did know with absolute certainty that those he spoke to were indeed saved. 1 Cor 15:1 addresses them as BRETHREN who RECEIVED the gospel in which they STAND. Have unbelievers received the gospel? Sounds like believers to me. The context proves you wrong.

You wrote: "So how does one become unborn of God without sinning? (Good Luck with that!)"
Luck is not necessary. All you have to do is read and understand the scriptures. The simple answer is a person born of God will not continue to sin as 1 Jn 5:19 states; however converse logic dictates that the person born of God who continues to sin will become "unborn." That is why Paul warns the brethren in Rome in Rom 8:13 that IF they live according to the flesh they WILL DIE (unborn); but IF by the Spirit they put to death the deed of the body, they live. (Good Luck with that verse)

You still have not explained what it means to be twice dead. You attempted to explain away the meaning by conjecturing that these persons were only posing as Christians but were not in fact Christians. SO HOW DOES THAT MAKE THEM TWICE DEAD? If they were really unsaved as you claim, then that makes them only ONCE DEAD since they are still dead in their sins as unregenerated unbelievers. Please feel free to come up with another explanation if possible.

 

[bcbsr]

Any reasonable person can clearly see from the verses I quoted Rom 4:4,5 that Paul is talking generically about works - the idea of salvation being something you work for, as you propose, as opposed to salvation being freely given simply by trust God.

And again to show you contradict yourself you claim "the person born of God who continues to sin will become "unborn."" But John says that no such people exist. (1John 3:9) And you agree with John on that point elsewhere. How can one carry on a discussion with such a person with such inconsistent viewpoints?

I am satisfied that any reasonable third party can see that you are being unreasonable, irrational, and simply not listening given the rest of your response. Any reasonable person can see that Eph 2:8,9 indicates that salvation is by faith apart from works, and the Eph 2:10 indicates that the believer does good works as one who has been saved, and not, as you claim, in order to be saved. It appears you add "in order to be saved" all over the place. You reject what Jude says explicitly in order to read into the phrase "Twice dead" a salvation by works soteriology. As show yourself incapable of a rational discussion, lacking basic reading comprehension skills, reading into the Bible your own views rather than reading out of it, I find no point in further discussion with you as Paul has commanded, "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." 2Tim 2:23

 

[bcbsr]

So because the Scripture contradicts your belief, say it isn't Scripture. Good job. That ends this conversation.

Nope. I don't reject James because he contradicts my beliefs. I reject James because he rejects Paul's gospel - evidenced both in Acts 15 in conjunction with Galatians 2, and chapter 2 of the epistle of James in light of Romans 4.

Ironically you misjudge me concerning the very thing you are guilty of, judging with prejudice and partiality. (Funny that you violate that which James himself teaches - and he himself violates in his own epistle)

Don't judge a book by its cover. Judge it by its ACTUAL content.

 

[Oldmantook]

Any reasonable person can clearly see from the verses I quoted Rom 4:4,5 that Paul is talking generically about works - the idea of salvation being something you work for, as you propose, as opposed to salvation being freely given simply by trust God.

And again to show you contradict yourself you claim "the person born of God who continues to sin will become "unborn."" But John says that no such people exist. (1John 3:9) And you agree with John on that point elsewhere. How can one carry on a discussion with such a person with such inconsistent viewpoints?

I am satisfied that any reasonable third party can see that you are being unreasonable, irrational, and simply not listening given the rest of your response. Any reasonable person can see that Eph 2:8,9 indicates that salvation is by faith apart from works, and the Eph 2:10 indicates that the believer does good works as one who has been saved, and not, as you claim, in order to be saved. It appears you add "in order to be saved" all over the place. You reject what Jude says explicitly in order to read into the phrase "Twice dead" a salvation by works soteriology. As show yourself incapable of a rational discussion, lacking basic reading comprehension skills, reading into the Bible your own views rather than reading out of it, I find no point in further discussion with you as Paul has commanded, "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." 2Tim 2:23

You originally wrote: The word "works" and "Law" are not found anywhere in Romans to be even in the same sentence, let alone the expression "works of the law" as you claim. Furthermore any reasonable person can clearly see from the verses I quoted Rom 4:4,5 that Paul is talking generically about works - the idea of salvation being something you work for, as you propose, as opposed to salvation being freely given simply by trust God.
Do you have the habit of making assumptions about the scriptures before even reading it? It appears so because Rom 3:20 definitely states "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." In this single verse Paul specifically identifies works of the law as having no basis toward our being justified - not "generic works" as you falsely claim. If Paul is talking about generic works why just a few verses prior to Rom 4:4-5 do we again see Paul write: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28). Any reasonable person would see that ignoring the context leads to your false assumptions but hopefully you learned something today.

You wrote: How can one carry on a discussion with such a person with such inconsistent viewpoints?
I am not forcing you to discuss as that is your prerogative. The Bible never uses the term "unborn" as that is a word you coin in order to somehow buttress your view. However for the sake of argument I already showed you that such Christians do you exist by citing Paul's warning in Rom 8:13 which you have avoided explaining. A Christian who dies spiritually in effect becomes "unborn." Deal with the text instead of avoiding it.

You wrote: "Eph 2:10 indicates that the believer does good works as one who has been saved, and not, as you claim, in order to be saved."
Can you point out to me anywhere where I wrote one does works in order to be saved? I wrote no such thing as that is another assumption which you have the habit of making. Works done out of obedience to God are the outward evidence of inward faith. That is why James wrote "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (Js 2:17). Apparently, you don't like James so you prefer to toss this book out of the Bible as you prefer to pick and choose what to believe in order to hold on to your view. If you are a believer, you don't have that option as the Bible clearly says "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living" (2 Tim 3:16). You would prefer this verse read: All Scripture except the Book of James is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living" That says it all about how you go about making your arguments. Instead of attempting to reconcile scripture with scripture you just ignore certain verses that plainly contradict your belief.

And BTW, you still haven't defined what twice dead means. Instead of explaining this term, you avoid it and skirt the issue by repeating your mantra. I have asked you to define it more than once so at this point don't even bother responding.

 

[sculleywr]

Nope. I don't reject James because he contradicts my beliefs. I reject James because he rejects Paul's gospel - evidenced both in Acts 15 in conjunction with Galatians 2, and chapter 2 of the epistle of James in light of Romans 4.

Ironically you misjudge me concerning the very thing you are guilty of, judging with prejudice and partiality. (Funny that you violate that which James himself teaches - and he himself violates in his own epistle)

Don't judge a book by its cover. Judge it by its ACTUAL content.

He doesn't reject Paul's gospel. It is Scripture. It is your interpretation of Scripture that contradicts James, because if you simply realize that Paul was writing against Judaizers and James was writing against Gnostics, then you can understand that what Paul means by works is completely different from what James means by works. The only logical reason to reject James is if you are a Gnostic that believes that it is saving knowledge and that the physical world doesn't matter...

Oh wait, that's pretty much EXACTLY what I was taught growing up in a church that believed in Eternal Security... I wonder why it is that such an extra-scriptural term is shared by Baptists and Gnostics...

 

[sculleywr]

Any reasonable person can clearly see from the verses I quoted Rom 4:4,5 that Paul is talking generically about works - the idea of salvation being something you work for, as you propose, as opposed to salvation being freely given simply by trust God.

And again to show you contradict yourself you claim "the person born of God who continues to sin will become "unborn."" But John says that no such people exist. (1John 3:9) And you agree with John on that point elsewhere. How can one carry on a discussion with such a person with such inconsistent viewpoints?

I am satisfied that any reasonable third party can see that you are being unreasonable, irrational, and simply not listening given the rest of your response. Any reasonable person can see that Eph 2:8,9 indicates that salvation is by faith apart from works, and the Eph 2:10 indicates that the believer does good works as one who has been saved, and not, as you claim, in order to be saved. It appears you add "in order to be saved" all over the place. You reject what Jude says explicitly in order to read into the phrase "Twice dead" a salvation by works soteriology. As show yourself incapable of a rational discussion, lacking basic reading comprehension skills, reading into the Bible your own views rather than reading out of it, I find no point in further discussion with you as Paul has commanded, "Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels." 2Tim 2:23

Any person can see? Then apparently Clement, who Paul called holy, and Ignatius, and Polycarp, were just too stupid to think Paul was speaking generically instead of talking against the Judaizers who he constantly wrote against, right?

 

[bcbsr]

He doesn't reject Paul's gospel. It is Scripture. It is your interpretation of Scripture that contradicts James, because if you simply realize that Paul was writing against Judaizers and James was writing against Gnostics, then you can understand that what Paul means by works is completely different from what James means by works. The only logical reason to reject James is if you are a Gnostic that believes that it is saving knowledge and that the physical world doesn't matter...

No, you're mistaken. Feel free to view my analysis of the matter at
Intro to James

 

[bcbsr]

Any person can see? Then apparently Clement, who Paul called holy, and Ignatius, and Polycarp, were just too stupid to think Paul was speaking generically instead of talking against the Judaizers who he constantly wrote against, right?

"As for those who seemed to be important (to you) — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance" Gal 2:6

Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were not authorized to write scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

"As for those who seemed to be important (to you) — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance" Gal 2:6

Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were not authorized to write scripture.

I never said write Scripture. I said understand. Those three people could ask Paul directly what he meant. Was Paul such a failure as a teacher that he couldn't make his closest students understand it? Or John such a failure? It took people 1900 years to properly understand Scripture? Or is your understanding wrong?

So again I challenge you: did the Church die and completely cease to teach the Truth, thus allowing the gates of hell to prevail? Or is it more likely that the people who knew the Apostles personally had a more accurate understanding of the Scripture because they could ask Paul exactly what he meant? Scripture is useless if your interpretation is incorrect.

No, you're mistaken. Feel free to view my analysis of the matter at
Intro to James

I have. I still count your rejection as heretical. I will accept ALL Scripture and state that your eisegesis is to be rejected. See, Orthodox theology lines up with BOTH Paul and James. They aren't incompatible. It's modern crypto-gnostic thinking that makes them incompatible.

 

[sculleywr]

Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are Neo-Circumcision sects derived from James' attempt to tinker with the gospel in Acts 15. The "gates of hell" (Mt 16:18) passage is used by them to say that essentially whatever became popular must be true. In fact what the verse actually means is that those believers who die will not go to Hades but go straight to heaven. Simple as that. As for "popularity" both Jesus and Paul noted among other things that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump". That's what the Neo-Circumcision are, an infestation of leaven among the Christian community.

See also
Catholicism - The Apostate Church
Orthodox Christianity


As do I yours.

The only difference is that yours are neo Gnostic and reject scripture. Like I said, this conversation is over. I don't discuss scripture with people that reject scripture. Your views are false regarding James, and it's God Who will have to convince you. If the apostles and prophets won't convince you, then I certainly won't. You create false terms like neo circumcision. That's not even a thing that applies to orthodoxy or Catholicism and it's sourced in hatred of catholics.

Signing out and unsubscribing. Do not pursue this any further or I'll have to block you.

 

[Oldmantook]

So you can just put your salvation on the shelf and benefit from it. Try that with your Bowflex and see how much weight you lose.

Scripture says very plainly both that salvation is free and that we must use it. You pretend it has to be either or. So you have NEVER received a Christmas present, birthday present, or any other present that was truly free. Why? Because you had to use it to benefit from it! You had to go to the Olive Garden to use the gift card. you had to open the box and run the setup to benefit from the computer.

Name one gift that you don't have to do something to receive. You can't. Why? because RECEIVING IS DOING!

But apparently Christ, James, and Paul were all lying. Apparently Christ SHOULD HAVE SAID "do nothing" when the man asked him how to obtain eternal life. Apparently we aren't REALLY judged according to our works as Paul says in Romans 2. Apparently man IS NOT justified by works as James says.

You love to be an extremist. The answer is that your faith is 100% dead and useless without works. It is never going to save you alone. Even the thief on the cross did a work, defending Christ on the cross.

But what matters is a personal fire insurance policy. We don't want REAL salvation. The relationship with God means nothing. The only thing that matters is the destination.

For me, salvation means the relationship with Christ. And there is no such thing as loving a person without works.

You are correct. Salvation is free but there are requirements. Christians acknowledge that believing is necessary per Jn 3:16 but many do not acknowledge that obedience is also necessary per Heb 5:9. Both belief and obedience constitute true faith in Christ. If one believes in Jn 3:16 one must also follow the dictates of Heb 5:9. Works of obedience are always commended in both the OT and NT despite the opinion of misinformed Christians who label this as "works salvation." If we love God, we will indeed work to obey Him and practice righteousness as He is righteous (1 Jn 3:7). We know that we are in Him, IF we keep his word (1 Jn 2:5).
So yes salvation is a free gift but it is costly to us because it demands that we deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Him. Tragically, this message has been watered down in today's church. Keep spreading the Word.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Nm

 

[bcbsr]

Exactly what are you smoking with this statement??

How did you get to that conclusion??

And stop the anti-catholic talk or I will report you. That is a warning.

I don't get it. You ask me how did I get to that conclusion, but then forbid me to scrutinize Catholicism, which is a contradiction.

If you think you can "report" me for criticizing Catholicism, what makes you think I can't just as well "report" you for criticizing my Berean viewpoint?

Your remark "Exactly what are you smoking" can be construed as derogatory remark in violation of the forum rules. Would you like me to report you and see how that goes?