Can you really get to heaven without works????

[elsbeth]

If not, then you don't know if you will be "saved" or not.

I KNOW that I am saved from myself, my self-obsession. I know I'm saved from what I would have been if I had never met Jesus. I know (because He has told me so) that I am saved from the penalties due the awful things I've done. Are you talking about saved from Hell? For me that is a non-issue. I am perfectly content to be, when I die, wherever God intends me to be (but no, I don't think it will be Hell- whatever exactly that is).

 

[Albion]

Count me as one of those who cannot answer to any of the choices offered.

Simply put, you cannot be saved if you do not do good (works), but those works do not contribute to your chances of salvation.

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't know what tomorrow brings, but I know what Jesus brings, and I know he is already in the tomorrow. My salvation isn't like a rash that comes one day and disappears the next. It's not a state of mind, it's not something I do, it's not even my faith. It's my identity. I have been born again.

And if you were to fall into heresy tomorrow? Or apostate? Or sin and refuse to repent?

To deny these possibilities (and more) is a part of another sin: ego. Now I'm not suggesting you are egotistical, but I am reminding you that the road is never sure when we ourselves do not know our futures.

Thus, salvation comes with plenty of fear and trembling.

(But to avoid any confusion, let me say that I do believe I could choose to reject God's salvation. I just don't see why I should).

That's about it, and I understand that it is silly to reject it, but we do so each time we apostate, fall into heresy, or sin and refuse to be contrite, repent, confess, and do penance.

I believe something similar, but instead of going AGAINST what I REALLY want to do, I'm now free to do what I ACTUALLY want to do - which is good.

Then what use for the Holy Spirit?

While I agree that no one deep down wants to sin and that we are a spiritual race that yerns for God, we must never convince ourselves that we can do it on our own.

Our nature is corrupt and our souls injured. Because of this fallen state, we often do want to sin, and we even take pleasure in it unfortunately. That is just a part of being human: deep down we want to do good, but our broken souls and corrupt nature make us what we also are: sinful and even happily sinful. That is why I am weary of saying "It is what I want to do" since it sort of negates the power, influence, and necessity of the Holy Spirit and it ignores the fact that we really do want to sin sometimes.

Of course, when theosis is complete and we have a purified nature and a whole soul again, forever one in the energies (but not the Substance) of God, then perhaps we can say "It is what I want to do."

I hate sin, I only desire to do good. I've been born again, transformed, I have a new heart. The very core of my being longs to do the right thing. Sin still lives in the flesh though, but that's not my true identity.

True, you are being transfigured little by little, but we must also remember that just one slip begins a degeneratory process in which we will eventually return to the state in which we were originally born in. The way out of that state is by always recognizing our sinful state and by always admitting to, in sorrow, our sins and changing our minds, confessing to God that we willfully or even accidentally screwed up and want to right the wrong and/or do it the right way next time in full cooperation with Him. And because our wonderful God is so merciful, He will, each time, give us another chance. Even after we've screwed up the 100 trillionth time!

We become more like Christ by looking at him. He doesn't tell me what to do - he lives IN me. And I in him. He doesn't show me the way, he IS the way.

Exactly! Theosis makes us to be like Christ: true Icons of God. Never exactly like Him because we will never become One with the Substance, but beyond the pre-fallen state of Adam and Eve: as one in the energies of God. Fully transfigured; as white as snow in purity and will and nature.

Heh, I can see why. But seriously, I don't know what those words mean. I know that calvinism has something to do with a theology from a person named Calvin, that's about it.

I suggest looking up them on wikipedia. It actually has good entries for each.

I KNOW that I am saved from myself, my self-obsession. I know I'm saved from what I would have been if I had never met Jesus. I know (because He has told me so) that I am saved from the penalties due the awful things I've done. Are you talking about saved from Hell? For me that is a non-issue. I am perfectly content to be, when I die, wherever God intends me to be (but no, I don't think it will be Hell- whatever exactly that is).

If you do not know your future, with all due respect, you are not being honest with yourself.

No one knows if they are saved. We love to play the Judge, but we must resist that temptation!

 

[Macarius]

Calvinism: The most consistent application of the "faith alone" principle, Calvinism insists that human free will plays no part whatsoever in salvation, for that would make faith a "work." It therefore emphasizes God's sovreignty, and has dogmatized the "penal substitutionary" model of what Christ accomplished on the cross (think "courtroom where God hands judgment and then takes the punishment Himself in the form of Christ").

Arminianism stems from Arminius, a reformed theologian (so from the calvinist vein) who accepted the roll of free will in salvation. Lutherans, Anglicans, most evangelicals and anabaptist Protestants are arminians in some form or another (though most evangelicals accept limited forms of Calvinism; most specifically an adapted version of the "preservation of the saints" - the idea that the elect cannot lose their salvation because that is the definition of being elect - one who will be saved).

Soteriology is the field of theology dealing with the work of Christ on the cross and how it relates to our salvation here and the judgment to come.

Theosis, meaning "deification," sometimes called "sanctification" in protestant circles, is the process of becoming the likeness and image of God. It is a synergistic process (that is, it accepts the involvement of human free will, but sees it as far outweighed by the work of God in saving us) - so calvinists often lump RCC and EO Christians into the arminian camp, but we predate arminius, and don't believe in sola fide (faith alone) as he did, so we cannot truly be lumped together.

Hope that helps!

 

[Jipsah]

I don't think you can. I think faith alone can not save you.

Nothing you can, or more importantly, will do can save you. Good grief, we talk about salvation as though it's something that happens as a result of certain things that we do or forbear from doing and not as a gift bestowed by God. We've turned it into something that we do rather than something that God does. That's hubris of the nastiest sort, but just what you'd expect from depraved sinners.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We're apparently still trying to figure out the formula that we are to use to get ourselves saved. "What must I do and/or not do to be saved?" Sorry, Buford, but it's a thing beyond our grasp, we can't do it. Salvation comes only as a gift from God. You can't earn it, you can't work for it, you can't deserve it. Ain't no magic here. It isn't a matter of manipulating God into saving you by performing steps A, B, and C, and not doing D, E, and F, although that's how we make it sound.

 

[Macarius]

Nothing you can, or more importantly, will do can save you. Good grief, we talk about salvation as though it's something that happens as a result of certain things that we do or forbear from doing and not as a gift bestowed by God. We've turned it into something that we do rather than something that God does. That's hubris of the nastiest sort, but just what you'd expect from depraved sinners.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We're apparently still trying to figure out the formula that we are to use to get ourselves saved. "What must I do and/or not do to be saved?" Sorry, Buford, but it's a thing beyond our grasp, we can't do it. Salvation comes only as a gift from God. You can't earn it, you can't work for it, you can't deserve it. Ain't no magic here. It isn't a matter of manipulating God into saving you by performing steps A, B, and C, and not doing D, E, and F, although that's how we make it sound.

It is evident that we have different definitions of salvation - different starting points entirely.

If you view salvation as a one time event - as some way of being viewed by God (righteous as opposed to unrighteous) - then what you say makes sense. How could my actions in any way alter the way God views me? That would, as you would probably assert, invalidate the need for the cross, which paid that penalty for us - which changed the way God viewed us without us doing anything.

That's certainly an internally consistent view.

If, however, one views salvation not as a change in the way God views us (for God always views us with love), but rather in the way we are then there can be no such thing as sola fide. We would have to be different to be saved from our slavery to sin and death.

The difference is one of metaphors: the former view uses the metaphor of a courtroom scene. The issue in question is how the judge views the defendant. What he actually did or did not do is irrelevant if the judge clears his name.

The second option uses the metaphor of a hospital. It doesn't matter how the doctor views the patient. What matters is is the patient actually well. We certainly agree, within that metaphor, that the patient doesn't cure himself. What is required, though, is that the patient doesn't interfere with the doctor, refuse to take the prescribed treatments, or go out and get himself sick again. That's synergy.

I don't mean to make any judgment between the two views within this particular post (though I also don't make any attempt to hide my bias for the synergistic view). I simply wanted to point out that we are being asked for simplistic answers and because of this, we are missing that we are using the same word - salvation - in two very very different ways and will, therefore, never see eye to eye unless we talk about those base level differences.

Cheers,
Macarius

 

[elsbeth]

If you do not know your future, with all due respect, you are not being honest with yourself.

No one knows if they are saved. We love to play the Judge, but we must resist that temptation!

I'm not playing judge. I KNOW that I will be wherever God intends for me to be, and since I trust Him completly I don't worry about it.

 

[Macarius]

I'm not playing judge. I KNOW that I will be wherever God intends for me to be, and since I trust Him completly I don't worry about it.

I agree with that completely.

Part of faith is simply letting go of the need to judge, including the need to judge ourselves.

Well put.

 

[Albion]

The second option uses the metaphor of a hospital. It doesn't matter how the doctor views the patient. What matters is is the patient actually well. We certainly agree, within that metaphor, that the patient doesn't cure himself. What is required, though, is that the patient doesn't interfere with the doctor, refuse to take the prescribed treatments, or go out and get himself sick again. That's synergy.

I honestly think you're reading too much into Jipsah's post which makes the straighforward Biblical claim that nothing we do can save us, or even partially account for our salvation. It doesn't change depending upon when God made his decision, or whether we accept the "one time" idea of a day of salvation or not. And nothing in that concept obviates the absolute necessity of the Cross.

 

[Macarius]

I honestly think you're reading too much into Jipsah's post which makes the straighforward Biblical claim that nothing we do can save us, or even partially account for our salvation. It doesn't change depending upon when God made his decision, or whether we accept the "one time" idea of a day of salvation or not. And nothing in that concept obviates the absolute necessity of the Cross.

Well, I was taking his post, and his support for Calvin and Luther (under his name) as signs that he supports a view which is in the reformed camp - which is to say the "penal substitutionary" soteriology. If that is reading to much in (which it very well might be) then, ok, I'll back track and seek to address whatever disagreement there may be.

But your assertion that the "straightforward biblical teaching" is, essentially, sola fide, precludes any opportunity for discussion and any possibility of someone having a different perspective.

I was attempting to say that there are differences in the root metaphor which lead one party to assert that "nothing we do can can save us," and the other to assert that "works play an indispensable part in our salvation," when both are reading, more or less, the same scriptures.

Hope that clarifies!
-Macarius

 

[QuantaCura]

If your conversion happens on your death bed or when you do not have the opportunity to do any works, then you will enter Heaven without them. But, if you have the opportunity and the grace and you don't do them, woe to you--you have to bring back a return on what the Master has given you, you can't bury it or take a nap on the job.

 

[Albion]

Well, I was taking his post, and his support for Calvin and Luther (under his name) as signs that he supports a view which is in the reformed camp - which is to say the "penal substitutionary" soteriology. If that is reading to much in (which it very well might be) then, ok, I'll back track and seek to address whatever disagreement there may be.

OK, I agree that that's probably worth doing. And of course, I could have misunderstood you, too. As I said, I "think" that you were making too much out of Jipsah's message, but not necessarily.

But your assertion that the "straightforward biblical teaching" is, essentially, sola fide, precludes any opportunity for discussion and any possibility of someone having a different perspective.

I don't see why that would be. Surely you don't make agreeing with your theology a prerequisite for discussing ideas, do you? He did quote from the Bible, and it is not unclear.

I was attempting to say that there are differences in the root metaphor which lead one party to assert that "nothing we do can can save us," and the other to assert that "works play an indispensable part in our salvation," when both are reading, more or less, the same scriptures.

Hope that clarifies!
-Macarius

Well, I did appreciate that basic point which you made.

I believe that it was that you seemed to have to add into what Jipsah was saying in order to evaluate it that worried me. Also, of course, those metaphors which I am not sure at all do the job that was intended. Maybe without them it would have been better, but that's just my reaction passed on to you in case you want to come back at it from another angle.

 

[Albion]

But, if you have the opportunity and the grace and you don't do them, woe to you--you have to bring back a return on what the Master has given you, you can't bury it or take a nap on the job.

In this case, the person won't be saved. That is something we all can agree on, right? If you don't care to live like a Christian, you aren't saved by faith despite that. So strictly speaking, you have to answer the question of the thread in the negative (Can you really get to heaven without works?).

Where people go wrong is in assuming that the contrary is a true statement, i.e. IF YOU DO HAVE WORKS...

...that they are the cause or at least a partial cause of your salvation.

They are not. They merely follow in the wake, or are the result, of saving grace appropriated by faith.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't think you can. I think faith alone can not save you.

Your faith alone in the work of Jesus.

 

[Jipsah]

Well, I was taking his post, and his support for Calvin and Luther (under his name) as signs that he supports a view which is in the reformed camp

In general, yeah, although I reckon if either of those gents ever condescended to talk to the likes of me we'd have a lot of things to haggle about. I love 'em, and I love the work they did, but I hardly think they were infallible.

which is to say the "penal substitutionary" soteriology.

I have serious problem with that idea, ya see. I think it's based on a view of God that isn't necessarily appropriate. I'll plead a lack of time for not saying more on that subject and just leave it as it sits.

But your assertion that the "straightforward biblical teaching" is, essentially, sola fide, precludes any opportunity for discussion and any possibility of someone having a different perspective.

Unless we're omniscient (I just miss it by that much) then there's always room for discussion, at least as long as we stay within the boundaries of the confessions of the faith. I happen to place more emphasis on sola gratia than I do on sola fide. I trust God's grace, but my faith is too slender a reed to lean on.

I was attempting to say that there are differences in the root metaphor which lead one party to assert that "nothing we do can can save us," and the other to assert that "works play an indispensable part in our salvation," when both are reading, more or less, the same scriptures.

I like to condense St. James into "if you're a Christian then it'll evidence itself in your behavior". Otherwise I find him at odds with St. Paul, and I don't think he was. I think St. Paul's message, the one that makes a lot of folks extremely uncomfortable, was that God does the saving, and that, to steal a line from another tentmaker, not all our piety or wit can contribute anything to it.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Nothing you can, or more importantly, will do can save you. Good grief, we talk about salvation as though it's something that happens as a result of certain things that we do or forbear from doing and not as a gift bestowed by God. We've turned it into something that we do rather than something that God does. That's hubris of the nastiest sort, but just what you'd expect from depraved sinners.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We're apparently still trying to figure out the formula that we are to use to get ourselves saved. "What must I do and/or not do to be saved?" Sorry, Buford, but it's a thing beyond our grasp, we can't do it. Salvation comes only as a gift from God. You can't earn it, you can't work for it, you can't deserve it. Ain't no magic here. It isn't a matter of manipulating God into saving you by performing steps A, B, and C, and not doing D, E, and F, although that's how we make it sound.

Good post.

When put next to a holy God, our works are as "filthy rags". If God is truly holy and good, then we are in open rebellion against Him because we sin; and for most of us I would go as far to say that we sin daily. We cannot even approach God because of our sin, His holiness would annihilate us.
The Bible says we are an enemy of God (If someone needs the verse I will go look it up). There is no reason why a holy God would accept sin when doing so would be agaisnt His very nature. The only way for Him to deal with it (at least by my very limited understanding) is to be banished from God (which means death since God is life). Because of His holy and just nature, that is the only way to deal with our sin.

Luckily for us, God is also loving and decided to form a plan to save us from our sins. But our sins must still be dealt with (Becuase God is just). So the plan was for someone that had no sin to stand in our place and take on our sin for us (Jesus of course). There is nothing we did or can do to deserve this gift. God gives us the gift of Christ taking our place and taking the punishment we deserve because God is also graceful, loving and merciful.

There is nothing we can do to deserve Christs atonement. We can receive this gift only becasue God is merciful. Trying to save ourselves from sin or trying to do things to get into heaven is placing faith in ourself and taking away from God's mercy and grace. I think the only thing we have to do is believe that Christ stood in our place and have faith that His doing so, is all that is needed to save us from our problem (sin).



Sorry if that seemed like rambling.

 

[mooduck1]

First, we must define faith here http://humanityquest.com/topic/Definitions/index.asp?theme1=faith is a good definition. lets start here.
Faith
Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of od. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit.
Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life
inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel."
The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart,
together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner,
conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith.

The poitn of all this is that it is not an 'either' or question. Real faith shows works. If you do not have works ro the desire at least to to works then you do not have faith!

 

[holo]

And if you were to fall into heresy tomorrow? Or apostate?

Well, I guess anything could happen. I'll probably die under a falling piano before that stuff happens, but yeah, theoretically...

Or sin and refuse to repent?

That's not really an issue for me. I have repented, I have been made new. I didn't gain salvation by not sinning, and I won't lose it by sinning.

Thus, salvation comes with plenty of fear and trembling.

No, actually it comes with hope and assurance

That's about it, and I understand that it is silly to reject it, but we do so each time we apostate, fall into heresy, or sin and refuse to be contrite, repent, confess, and do penance.

Does this happen a lot to peopl around you?

Then what use for the Holy Spirit?

The Spirit is the power of God. Not by my work, not by might, not by power, but by His Spirit etc etc.

While I agree that no one deep down wants to sin and that we are a spiritual race that yerns for God, we must never convince ourselves that we can do it on our own.

A sinner wants to sin. A sinner is a sinner by nature, and is a slave to sin. We who have been born again have a new identity, a new nature. It's not our nature to sin.

Our nature is corrupt and our souls injured.

Was.

Of course, when theosis is complete and we have a purified nature and a whole soul again, forever one in the energies (but not the Substance) of God, then perhaps we can say "It is what I want to do."

Nah, you can say it right now. Just because this or that sin may bring you a short-term satisfaction doesn't mean you LIKE the sin or WANT to do it.

True, you are being transfigured little by little

Our MINDS are renewed daily, and we grow in knowledge. Our IDENTITY is children of God, born of Him, perfect, blameless, holy, righteous.

but we must also remember that just one slip begins a degeneratory process in which we will eventually return to the state in which we were originally born in.

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You can't change your born identity. Actually, I'm not sorry. I'm GLAD that it's not true!

The way out of that state is by always recognizing our sinful state and by always admitting to, in sorrow, our sins and changing our minds, confessing to God that we willfully or even accidentally screwed up and want to right the wrong and/or do it the right way next time in full cooperation with Him. And because our wonderful God is so merciful, He will, each time, give us another chance. Even after we've screwed up the 100 trillionth time!

Sounds good and religious, but it's not true. The way to become more like Jesus is to look on HIM. To feel guilty about stuff and repenting of sin and calling ourselves sinners etc is fishing in the sea of oblivion, it's to try and remind God of sins he has already dealt with, it's to disagree with him on who he says we are. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. You must realize that you are a branch on a GOOD tree. You are good, and your produce fruit because you're connected to the tree.

 

[Macarius]

OK, I agree that that's probably worth doing. And of course, I could have misunderstood you, too. As I said, I "think" that you were making too much out of Jipsah's message, but not necessarily.

Fair enough! I appreciate the due caution. I don't like burning strawmen, so to speak.

I don't see why that would be. Surely you don't make agreeing with your theology a prerequisite for discussing ideas, do you? He did quote from the Bible, and it is not unclear.

I wasn't so much objecting to the idea that you believe that, as the statement that it was "clear." That implies, in a sense, that one would be foolish or a poor reader not to see the thing in question. That, to me, damages a discussion. Merely quoting from the bible in proof text does not a doctrine make

Well, I did appreciate that basic point which you made.

Thankyou!

I believe that it was that you seemed to have to add into what Jipsah was saying in order to evaluate it that worried me.

That's a valid critique. In hindsight, I think I was more responding to a general perspective I assumed Jipsah was supporting. That's a semi-unbased assumption.

Also, of course, those metaphors which I am not sure at all do the job that was intended. Maybe without them it would have been better, but that's just my reaction passed on to you in case you want to come back at it from another angle.

If I may ask, what did those metaphors and their comparison communicate to you? I think I still a bit confused, and if I knew where I was miscommunicating I could take another shot at it.

Thanks!

 

[GodsChild07]

Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is your way to salvation. Good works will get you God's favor and blessings on your life.