I Obey, Therefore I Am Loved and Accepted.

[jimmyjimmy]

I am loved and accepted, therefore I obey.

I obey, therefore I am loved and accepted.

There are a few people here who are very active posting and starting threads that get the cart before the horse. In doing so, they proclaim another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

The order is the difference between life and death. Which is the correct statement?

Edited to add: I do NOT agree with the title of this thread. I was being provocative and stating what (essentially) others have said in so many words.

 

[EmSw]

I am loved and accepted, therefore I obey.

I obey, therefore I am loved and accepted.

There are a few people here who are very active posting and starting threads that get the cart before the horse. In doing so, they proclaim another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

The order is the difference between life and death. Which is the correct statement?

Acts 10:35
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Does fearing God and working righteousness (doing what is right) come before being accepted?

How about I am loved, therefore I obey and I am accepted.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Acts 10:35
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Does fearing God and working righteousness (doing what is right) come before being accepted?

How about I am loved, therefore I obey and I am accepted.

Not really because God loves us all. Even those who are not saved

 

[ToBeLoved]

I am loved and accepted, therefore I obey.

I obey, therefore I am loved and accepted.

There are a few people here who are very active posting and starting threads that get the cart before the horse. In doing so, they proclaim another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

The order is the difference between life and death. Which is the correct statement?

Yup.

 

[EmSw]

Not really because God loves us all. Even those who are not saved

Of course God loves us all. However, it is those who fear God and work righteousness who are accepted by Him.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Of course God loves us all. However, it is those who fear God and work righteousness who are accepted by Him.

No. I disagree.

It is not those who fear God and work righteousness, because none of us can be saved by either of those things or both of those things in combination.

Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and mankind. Only through faith are we saved through the blood of Jesus Christ and His death for the forgiveness of sin. No one who does not have the forgiveness of sin get's to heaven.

So you are presenting an EXTREMELY false concept. One that does not get anyone saved with eternal life.

 

[EmSw]

No. I disagree.

It is not those who fear God and work righteousness, because none of us can be saved by either of those things or both of those things in combination.

Jesus Christ is the one and only mediator between God and mankind. Only through faith are we saved through the blood of Jesus Christ and His death for the forgiveness of sin. No one who does not have the forgiveness of sin get's to heaven.

So you are presenting an EXTREMELY false concept. One that does not get anyone saved with eternal life.

I am not presenting this concept; Peter is.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Why would you not believe Peter? But as I have always said, man can freely choose to believe whatever he/she desires.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I am not presenting this concept; Peter is.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Why would you not believe Peter? But as I have always said, man can freely choose to believe whatever he/she desires.

God shows no partiality to people. He died for all people's sins.

But one is NOT SAVED by fear and works of righteousness.

SO I am not disagreeing with Peter, I am disagreeing with you saying people are saved because of fear and righteousness. Does that make sense? You add on to what Peter said with your own explanation.

 

[EmSw]

God shows no partiality to people. He died for all people's sins.

But one is NOT SAVED by fear and works of righteousness.

SO I am not disagreeing with Peter, I am disagreeing with you saying people are saved because of fear and righteousness. Does that make sense? You add on to what Peter said with your own explanation.

I said people are accepted by who fear Him and work righteousness. Please read carefully.

The passage does NOT say God shows no partiality to people by dying for everyone's sins. You are the one adding to the passage.

The passage does say God shows no partiality, 'but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him'.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Deut. 9:6 "Know then, it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people."

 

[EmSw]

Deut. 9:6 "Know then, it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people."

I find it strange when a clear, simple passage is given, some people go out of their way to disprove it.

Peter did not say those who fear God and work righteousness will be given land to possess; he says, 'will be accepted by God'.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I am not presenting this concept; Peter is.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.
35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Why would you not believe Peter? But as I have always said, man can freely choose to believe whatever he/she desires.

I think this translation explains it a little clearer.

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who y]">[y]fears Him and z]">[z]does what is right is welcome to Him.

With this translation we don't see anyone being saved, but rather I believe we see a crowd that Peter equates as people who had the disposition of someone who would be more willing to accept God and follow him. Although God saves sinners it is typical that those who in their hearts desire God would want to do right but often cannot without help. It is this disposition that Peter is talking about. I've come across people who want nothing to do with God and presenting the Gospel to them is most likely a waste of time because they don't fear God at all nor do they want anything to do with righteousness in their entire being. So the idea of those "welcome to him" is essentially those who would wish to become a believer.

 

[EmSw]

I think this translation explains it a little clearer.

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, 35 but in every nation the man who y]">[y]fears Him and z]">[z]does what is right is welcome to Him.

Would you mind telling us this particular translation? It looks familiar to the Amplified Version. If it is, you left some of the words.

34 Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“Most certainly I understand now that God is not one to show partiality [to people as though Gentiles were excluded from God’s blessing], 35 but in every nation the person who fears God and does what is right [by seeking Him] is acceptable and welcomed by Him.

With this translation we don't see anyone being saved, but rather I believe we see a crowd that Peter equates as people who had the disposition of someone who would be more willing to accept God and follow him. Although God saves sinners it is typical that those who in their hearts desire God would want to do right but often cannot without help. It is this disposition that Peter is talking about. I've come across people who want nothing to do with God and presenting the Gospel to them is most likely a waste of time because they don't fear God at all nor do they want anything to do with righteousness in their entire being. So the idea of those "welcome to him" is essentially those who would wish to become a believer.

For the second time, I did not say anyone is saved. Please read my comments honestly.

You say, 'Peter equates as people who had the disposition of someone who would be more willing to accept God and follow him.' However, the text does not say people will be more willing to 'accept Him'. It does say say 'God accepts' those who fear Him and work righteousness. You have it backwards.

Strong's says this about 'acceptable' - it comes from dektos meaning approved, propitious, and acceptable.

Again, you say, 'So the idea of those "welcome to him" is essentially those who would wish to become a believer.' The text does not say 'who wish to become a believer'. It does say 'who fear Him and work righteous'. Wishing has nothing to do with actions, although it may be a precursor. Working righteousness is actually an action.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Would you mind telling us this particular translation? It looks familiar to the Amplified Version. If it is, you left some of the words.

It is the NASB and I quoted it directly from here
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+10:34-35&version=NASB

For the second time, I did not say anyone is saved. Please read my comments honestly.

You say, 'Peter equates as people who had the disposition of someone who would be more willing to accept God and follow him.' However, the text does not say people will be more willing to 'accept Him'. It does say say 'God accepts' those who fear Him and work righteousness. You have it backwards.

Strong's says this about 'acceptable' - it comes from dektos meaning approved, propitious, and acceptable.

Again, you say, 'So the idea of those "welcome to him" is essentially those who would wish to become a believer.' The text does not say 'who wish to become a believer'. It does say 'who fear Him and work righteous'. Wishing has nothing to do with actions, although it may be a precursor. Working righteousness is actually an action.

The argument made in the OP is that works is NEEDED for salvation (prior to it) or the cart before the horse. To not equate salvation in your argument is to not really reply to the OP to begin with.
Righteousness to me IS an integral part of salvation... without salvation righteousness is a wasted effort.

 

[EmSw]

It is the NASB and I quoted it directly from here
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+10:34-35&version=NASB

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+10:34-35&version=NASB

Thank you.

The argument made in the OP is that works is NEEDED for salvation (prior to it) or the cart before the horse. To not equate salvation in your argument is to not really reply to the OP to begin with.
Righteousness to me IS an integral part of salvation... without salvation righteousness is a wasted effort.

How does one come forth to the resurrection of life without doing good?

John 5
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Which resurrection indicates salvation - the resurrection of life, or the resurrection of damnation?

Who are those who come forth to each resurrection? Jesus gives us the answer above. No need to speculate or guess. Again, I ask, how can one come forth to the resurrection of life if he does not do good?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Thank you.



How does one come forth to the resurrection of life without doing good?

John 5
28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Which resurrection indicates salvation - the resurrection of life, or the resurrection of damnation?

Who are those who come forth to each resurrection? Jesus gives us the answer above. No need to speculate or guess. Again, I ask, how can one come forth to the resurrection of life if he does not do good?

How much "good" did the thief on the cross do? "doing" is nothing without faith, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God without it and if you are not pleasing God how can anything you do be considered righteous?

Using your thinking one must do a certain amount of Good in order to be saved.... which means God didn't do enough good or wasn't righteous enough on the cross to save us.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I said people are accepted by who fear Him and work righteousness. Please read carefully.

The passage does NOT say God shows no partiality to people by dying for everyone's sins. You are the one adding to the passage.

The passage does say God shows no partiality, 'but in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him'.

No I'm not adding to the passage. Not at all.

Under the New Covenant what one needs to fear is dying without a Savior from sin. We fear Him only when we are not in communion with Him. However, since we have all of God's Word in the New Testament we know that when He seals us with the Holy Spirit, we are sealed in Him until the Day of Redemption. We work righteousness to see His will being done and to become more like our Savior (sanctificaiton).

In the Old Testament there was much more fear in that they did not have Jesus Christ yet or the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide them in truth. We have that.

 

[fhansen]

I am loved and accepted, therefore I obey.

I obey, therefore I am loved and accepted.

There are a few people here who are very active posting and starting threads that get the cart before the horse. In doing so, they proclaim another gospel, which is no gospel at all.

The order is the difference between life and death. Which is the correct statement?

Neither are quite right.

I am loved and accepted. I love, too, therefore I obey.

It has to do with changes wrought by God-by His love-in us. Love is the only authentic, non-hypocritical or non-self-serving motivation for obedience. Love is the state or disposition of justice in us, where our hearts are right, while obedience is the resulting outworking of that love, that justice in action.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I love, too, therefore I obey

I don't see you saying anything different than the OP. To love God and neighbor IS obedience. Loving IS obeying.

 

[fhansen]

I don't see you saying anything different than the OP. To love God and neighbor IS obedience. Loving IS obeying.

Yes, the most basic command of our faith could be stated as "Thou shalt Love". But love cannot be forced, either by God or by ourselves. We can't just make ourselves love, even as we know it's the right thing to do. It's a work of grace in us, and, as it blossoms, we obey. We don't love in order to obey, rather we obey because we love.