Defining "Works"

[NotreDame]

Doesn't Herman nudists require you to consider the near context first? (after considering the verse itself) ???

BTW the aforementioned doesn't give anyone a place to be heard. You are not being singled out. Look for Agree ratings by them. Nonexistent? (very telling)

I have a simple request. If you want to personally throw me under the bus, whether by explicitly doing so by use of my name, or implied by the tracing back of the posts, could you be so kind to do it by private message?

To be clear, I do not possess the power or ability to not “give anyone a place to be heard.”

 

[Butterball1]

Nope.
Paul is saying not by works.
James is saying by works.
They are in contradiction.
The only agreement is that works are an outflow of faith.

In the CONTEXT, the work Paul is speaking about is the flawless, perfect law keeping required by the OT law. Paul is not eliminating all works for that would contradict what he says in Romans 6:16-18 where he requires obedience to be saved. They both AGREE justification is by obedience to God;

James 2:24---------------works>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>justifies
Romans 6:17-18--------obey from heart>>>>>>>>>justifies

If they contradict each other, then the Bible is not inspired but flawed, invalid and useless and everyone is wasting their time on "Christianity", wasting time reading the Bible and wasting time on this forum.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the CONTEXT, the work Paul is speaking about is the flawless, perfect law keeping required by the OT law. Paul is not eliminating all works for that would contradict what he says in Romans 6:16-18 where he requires obedience to be saved. They both AGREE justification is by obedience to God;

James 2:24---------------works>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>justifies
Romans 6:17-18--------obey from heart>>>>>>>>>justifies

If they contradict each other, then the Bible is not inspired but flawed, invalid and useless and everyone is wasting their time on "Christianity", wasting time reading the Bible and wasting time on this forum.

Here's another contradiction then.
This says: No one who relies on the law is justified before God. - verse 11
But what do you say? Obedience to what?

Galatians 3:10-12
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.

 

[Saint Steven]

If they contradict each other, then the Bible is not inspired but flawed, invalid and useless and everyone is wasting their time on "Christianity", wasting time reading the Bible and wasting time on this forum.

Yes, this is one of the biggest taboos in Christianity, or at least in Evangelicalism. The Bible is allowed no contradictions. So, we build explanatory doctrines that are a house of cards. With everyone arguing about the construction.

Why would James even need to point out that works are necessary if it wasn't to contradict the common understanding? (salvation by grace. through faith. not by works)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait. Are you telling me a scholar is needed to backup the logic behind the idea where the plain text provides a meaning then that’s the meaning? Really?

Let’s test that idea, again, with some examples. Due Process Clause says no state shall deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A plain text meaning is the state can take anyone or all three away so long as they give due process. Now, are you taking the point of view that despite that logical plain text meaning of those words, it is to be set aside for some other meaning? Really? That’s logical? That’s rational?

“Do not park my car in the driveway. Pull my car up into the bay and park it in the bay.” This has a plain text meaning, of not parking the car in the driver but parked in a building that is a compartment where the car is to be parked. Despite that logical plain text meaning, a scholar is needed to say that plain text meaning makes sense and it is logical to follow that meaning? Really?

The evidence of what Paul is talking about is in the plain text of the verses in Romans 4:1-6. Paul says “works.” He doesn’t say “the Law” or “works of the law.” Paul used the Greek word ergon/ergois, which isn’t translated “works of the Law.” There’s no use of the Greek word ergon/ergois in Scripture as “works of the law.”

Now, in verse 13 Paul uses the phrase “the Law.” That’s interesting. So, prior to this point he says “works” but in 13 the phrase “the Law” is used.

What can we deduce? Paul is perfectly capable of saying “the Law” and perfectly capable of saying “works of the Law.” After all, in verse 13 the phrase “the Law” appears. But Paul didn’t say “works of the Law” but only said ergon/egois, “works.” Paul isn’t just referencing “works of the Law” with the Greek word ergon/ergois. Paul is referencing works and works isn’t not=works of the Law.

To reach your equation requires one to ignore the Greek word Paul used, ergon/ergois and its meaning, a meaning not used in Scripture to mean “works of the Law.” Furthermore, it creates a paradox since Paul has no reservation about using the phrase “the Law,” he does so several times in the NT, including Romans, but refused to marry the phrase “the Law” with the word “works,” which is a very strong, if not nearly ineluctable point that Paul isn’t equating “works” with “works of the Law” as you imply.

Not that it matters but William Lane Craig and Licona are supporters of the idea where the plain text provides a meaning, that’s the meaning. Same In the legal field, Scalia held this view, as had the Supreme Court for centuries, more prominently in what is now known as Textualism/Original Meaning, advocated by Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, law professors Randy Barnett, Josh Blackmun, Bjork, many if not all lawyers/law professors, with the Federalist Society.

But really, the above doesn’t matter, because it is logical to take the plain text meaning as the meaning.

You never did answer my question from earlier, and being that any full effort on your part to be transparent about the exegetical and hermeneutical sources (other than those in Law) you use in your "logical" development of thought are seemingly still forthcoming, I have naught but to assume (logically) that you're attempted refutation is little more than smoke and mirrors.

As for plain readings of the Bible in all cases, even William Lane Craig and Licona, for instance, don't believe in a literal reading of everything. The book of Genesis being an example.

You say you need "Evidence" that Craig and Licona don't necessarily rely upon an ultra-literal, plain reading of all things in Scripture?

Licona appeals to J.I. Packer's view - Baptist Press

Genetics and the Historical Adam: A Response to William Lane Craig - Articles

Moreover, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE should be reading the Bible and assuming that in all cases whatever they 'think' a verse says on a prima facie level is what it indeed means.

Regardless, there is no argument being made on my part that interprets Paul as saying we are justified OR saved by subscribing to "Works of the Law." I've never said as much, let alone implied as much.

So, I'd appreciate it if folks would get off of my back about it!

 

[Butterball1]

Here's another contradiction then.
This says: No one who relies on the law is justified before God. - verse 11
But what do you say? Obedience to what?

Galatians 3:10-12
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.

The theme of Galatians is that some Judaizing teachers led some Christians at Galatia away from the NT back to the OT law of Moses. Paul is condemning those Galatians for leaving the NT (justification by grace and faith) back to the OT law that required strict flawless, perfect law keeping to be justified. Paul points out under the OT law "that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" and
one is a debtor to the WHOLE law. Paul points out if one can be made righteous by the OT law then Christ died in vain Galatians 2:21. If one could keep the OT law perfectly, sinlessly then he would have no need for the blood of Christ to wash away sins when he has no sins to wash away being perfectly sinless. But the Jew could not keep the OT law perfectly hard as he tried he still end up sinning therefore in need of Christ.

And in the verse you cite Galatians 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

"the law" here refers to the OT law of Moses some of those Galatians went back to. Again that lw required strict, perect flawless law keeping to the whole law to be justified. Other than Christ, no Jew could keep it perfectly, sinlessly flawless. Since they could not keep that law perfectly they could not be justified by that law, hence Paul says "no man is justified by the law" for no Jew could keep it perfectly. So if justification does not come by strict perfect flawless law keeping then how does justification come? By faith. Paul did not here nor elsewhere say "faith only". As I posted earlier how "faith" and "faith only" are NOT the same thing....faith INCLUDES obedience faith obly EXCLUDES obedience.

Back to Romans 4, how were Abraham and David justified? Not by the OT law for it required perfect flawless law keeping yet Abraham and David both sinned. hence they could not be justified by the law of Moses (Abraham did not even live under the Law of Moses Romans 4:10). Since Abraham and David were NOT justified by the works the OT law of Moses required in perfect flawless law keeping how then were thy justified? Paul says they were justified "by faith" and NOT be works of the OT law Romans 3:28. Again, Paul said by "faith" he did NOT say by "faith alone".

Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Paul is making a contrast between an obedient faith versus works of the OT law.

IMPORTANT POINT TO NOTE: Paul is not excluding obedience from salvation here but is excluding perfect flawless works required by the law of Moses from salvation.

Faith onlyists try and have Paul exclude ALL works including obedience from salvation but we can easily see from Romans 3:28 Paul INCLUDES faithful obedience and is only excluding the flawless deeds required of the OT law.

Again, if you get nothing else from my post here, at least see the difference Paul is making in Romans 3:28 between obedient faith that can save versus works of the OT law that do not save.

Therefore Paul NEVER excluded obedience from salvation but excluded works/deeds of the OT law in Romans 4:5 and excluded works of merit in Ephesians 2:9 but NEVER excluded obedience. In Romans 6:16-18 Paul makes obedience NECESSARY to being saved.

 

[Butterball1]

Yes, this is one of the biggest taboos in Christianity, or at least in Evangelicalism. The Bible is allowed no contradictions. So, we build explanatory doctrines that are a house of cards. With everyone arguing about the construction.

Why would James even need to point out that works are necessary if it wasn't to contradict the common understanding? (salvation by grace. through faith. not by works)

There are no contradictions in the BIble. James and Paul do not contradict each other. The problem here is Luther's faith only which the BIble does NOT teach and it is the false teaching of faith only that makes it appear James and Paul contradcit each other.

See my above post again, the ONLY work Paul is excluding in the context of Romans chapters 3 and 4 are the flawless works required by the OT law of Moses. Faith onlyists are confusing people by wrongly claiming Paul excluded ALL works including obedience when he only exluded works of the OT law Romans 3:28.

 

[Saint Steven]

Again, if you get nothing else from my post here, at least see the difference Paul is making in Romans 3:28 between obedient faith that can save versus works of the OT law that do not save.

In either case we CANNOT save ourselves. There is no salvation in works of any kind. Works are the fruit of our salvation working itself out. And only the works that are initiated by God. (we are a conduit) Our self-initiated works (religious works) are the wood, hay and stubble that burn up when we all (all people) reach our final judgment/correction.

 

[Saint Steven]

See my above post again, the ONLY work Paul is excluding in the context of Romans chapters 3 and 4 are the flawless works required by the OT law of Moses. Faith onlyists are confusing people by wrongly claiming Paul excluded ALL works including obedience when he only exluded works of the OT law Romans 3:28.

I think you have some misunderstandings about the law. Or we simply disagree on what that means.

 

[GDL]

To me, when Paul said "worketh not" in Romans 4:5 and "not of works" in Ephsians 2:9 the issue is what TYPE of work was Paul speaking about in these verses. I showed in an earlier post the Bible speaks of many different types of works, that all works are not the same.

You've obviously thought through these matters. I like what you pointed out earlier about the various types or kinds of work(s). I essentially said something similar in an earlier post. We have "work" & "works" which I see as basically the set (the general topic), and the various types of works as the subsets/subcategories, so to speak.

I'm not YET (I'm still reading your posts) sure I agree with you on justification. I earlier stated that I think creating such a hard view of justification being only our initial justification creates problems in interpreting other uses of the word. Also, I don't see our Text using "justfication" so strictly, unless we take a single writer in a single context. I at this time don't see James and Paul as both speaking about the same justification - Paul's initial Faith > Justification from ungodliness/unbelief - James' Faith + Works > justification in testing an already justified Abraham, justification simply meaning to determine righteous.

I'd like to ask for your thoughts on a few things, starting here:

- Salvation is God's Plan from before time began (2Tim1:8-9, et.al.)
- God is our Savior (1Tim1:1, et.al.)
- Salvation by God's Grace through Faith is His gift to humanity (Eph2:8)
- God sent His Son (many verses)
- God's Son did the work to save us and is our Savior (many verses)
- The Good News message is God's (Rom1:1)
- God commands people to believe in His Son (1John3:23, et.al.)
- God's Spirit is convicting (John16:8)
- God is drawing people to His Son by teaching them (John6:45)
- God is granting people to His Son (John6:65)
- God is crediting righteousness to faith (several verses)

Question: Where do we see that we have any merit or that God owes us anything for all HE has done to Save us?

BTW: I don't think we do NOTHING in this. Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift He gives (John6:27). This verse alone should create some thought and is just the opposite of what I've heard from so many pulpits ("we don't work to receive a gift!!"). But Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive His gift! IMO Jesus, Paul & James are not in conflict.

Question: How do you interpret this statement from Jesus (I'm going to translate it most literally, but still simply, and will explain the main point of my question):

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you (plural) believe into that [man] whom He sent.

The phrase "the work of God" is being translated as simply as it can. In actuality, when a translator/interpreter sees this grammatical construction, the work to determine its precise meaning begins in one Greek Grammar with looking at a list of 33 choices for translating precisely.

Beginning most simply: Is Jesus, who in context is answering questions indirectly here, saying:

- our belief is God's work - our belief is the work of God?
- our work (doing the work of God) is to believe?
- both the above?
- back to the 33 list for something else?​

 

[Saint Steven]

There are no contradictions in the BIble.

There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. My personal favorite is concerning the final judgment. There is biblical support for all three doctrinal views of the final judgment:
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Universal Restorationism

Damnationism says that the vast majority were predestined to eternal conscious torment in hell.
Annihilationism says the vast majority will be incinerated rather than suffer eternal conscious torment in hell.
Universal Restorationism says that all of creation will be restored to its original state.

All three have biblical support, all three are in contradiction.

 

[Saint Steven]

Therefore Paul NEVER excluded obedience from salvation but excluded works/deeds of the OT law in Romans 4:5 and excluded works of merit in Ephesians 2:9 but NEVER excluded obedience. In Romans 6:16-18 Paul makes obedience NECESSARY to being saved.

This turns the Christian life into a high-wire act. One false move and you are toast. This is not from God. You are imposing your doctrine on the Bible. (as do I) I just happen to disagree with you.

 

[GDL]

In either case we CANNOT save ourselves. There is no salvation in works of any kind. Works are the fruit of our salvation working itself out. And only the works that are initiated by God. (we are a conduit) Our self-initiated works (religious works) are the wood, hay and stubble that burn up when we all (all people) reach our final judgment/correction.

It's clear you're ignoring me for whatever your reasons, but here you are and for anyone else who cares to read. You're misstating what the Text says:

NKJ Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out (katergazomai) your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

The command is to us to "work to accomplish our own salvation," not for "our salvation working itself out." I'm looking at 9 English translations plus my own and all interpret this verb as saying we do the action (in collaboration with God "energizing" in us) and this action has results that have effects on us.

Your choice of definitions, or bring in some legitimate ones from elsewhere, or prove from the Text what the definition is, but FWIW:

[BDAG] κατεργάζομαι (katergazomai)
• κατεργάζομαι mid. dep., Att. fut. 2 sg. κατεργᾷ Dt 28:39; 1 aor. κατειργασάμην; perf. κατείργασμαι. Pass.: fut. 2 pl. κατεργασθήσεσθε Ezk 36:9; aor. κατειργάσθην (on κατηργασάμην and κατηργάσθην s. B-D-F §67, 3; W-S. §12, 1; Mlt-H. 189) (Soph., Hdt.+).

1. to bring about a result by doing someth., achieve, accomplish, do τὶ someth. (Hdt. 5, 24 πρήγματα μεγάλα; X., Mem. 3, 5, 11; Jos., Vi. 289) Ro 7:15, 17f, 20; 1 Cor 5:3; 1 Cl 32:3f. τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι committing shameless acts Ro 1:27. τὸ κακόν do what is wrong 2:9; 13:10 v.l. τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν do what the gentiles (i.e. polytheists) like to do 1 Pt 4:3. δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ does what is right in the sight of God or (s. ἐργάζεσθαι 2c) achieves the uprightness that counts before God Js 1:20 v.l. ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι after you have done or accomplished everything (in this case the reference would be to the individual pieces of armor mentioned in what follows, which the reader is to employ as is prescribed; but s. 4 below) Eph 6:13. ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι᾽ ἐμοῦ of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me Ro 15:18. Pass. τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου κατειργάσθη ἐν ὑμῖν the signs by which an apostle demonstrates his authority have been done among you 2 Cor 12:12.

2. to cause a state or condition, bring about, produce, create (Hdt. 7, 102 ἀρετὴ ἀπὸ σοφίης κατεργασμένη; Philo, Plant. 50; TestJos 10:1) τὶ someth. νόμος ὀργήν Ro 4:15. θλῖψις ὑπομονήν 5:3 (TestJos 10:1 πόσα κατεργάζεται ἡ ὑπομονή); cp. Js 1:3. λύπη μετάνοιαν 2 Cor 7:10a v.l. (for ἐργάζεται). λύπη θάνατον vs. 10b; cp. vs. 11 (where a dat. of advantage is added). φθόνος ἀδελφοκτονίαν 1 Cl 4:7. μνησικακία θάνατον Hv 2, 3, 1. ἡ ἁμαρτία κ. ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν sin called forth every desire within me Ro 7:8. τινί τι bring about someth. for someone (Eur., Her. 1046 πόλει σωτηρίαν) μοι θάνατον 7:13. αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης ἡμῖν 2 Cor 4:17. εὐχαριστίαν τῷ θεῷ bring about thankfulness to God 9:11; θάνατον ἑαυτῷ κ. bring death upon oneself Hm 4, 1, 2; cp. s 8, 8, 5 ἐργάζεσθαι.—Work out τὶ someth. (Pla., Gorg. 473d ὁ κατειργασμένος τὴν τυραννίδα ἀδίκως) τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε Phil 2:12 (JMichael, Phil 2:12: Exp. 9th ser., 2, 1924, 439-50).

3. to cause to be well prepared, prepare someone κ. τινα εἴς τι prepare someone for someth. (cp. Hdt. 7, 6, 1; X., Mem. 2, 3, 11) ἡμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο for this very purpose 2 Cor 5:5.

4. to be successful in the face of obstacles, overpower, subdue, conquer (Hdt. 6, 2 νῆσον; Thu. 6, 11, 1 al. τινά; 1 Esdr 4:4; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 62; Jos., Ant. 2, 44) ἅπαντα κατεργασάμενοι στῆναι after proving victorious over everything, to stand your ground Eph 6:13 (but s. 1 above).—M-M. TW.

 

[GDL]

Why would James even need to point out that works are necessary if it wasn't to contradict the common understanding? (salvation by grace. through faith. not by works)

I think you've got the cart before the horse. James first, then Paul later clarifying. Both are correct & not in conflict.

 

[GDL]

All three have biblical support, all three are in contradiction.

Based upon varied interpretations, but actual Biblical support? You're stating an opinion as absolute fact.

 

[GDL]

This turns the Christian life into a high-wire act.

To some degree it is: Phil2:12-13 commands us to work to accomplish our salvation with fear and trembling while God is working in us to get us to both will & do what pleases Him.

So, work with fear & trembling & don't get at cross purposes with what He's doing in us. He discipline all His children for us to share His holiness (Heb12:10), He's both kind & severe (Rom11:22) and that severity can lead to being cut off/done away with.

The lack of fear & trembling some soteriology concepts proclaim is a tragic problem.

One false move and you are toast.

Drama & exaggeration, but not the Biblical teaching.

This is not from God. You are imposing your doctrine on the Bible. (as do I)

Nice to see the admission. Shouldn't these threads be used to help one another stop the eisegesis?

 

[Butterball1]

This turns the Christian life into a high-wire act. One false move and you are toast. This is not from God. You are imposing your doctrine on the Bible. (as do I) I just happen to disagree with you.

The OT law required perfect sinless law keeping to be justified, therefore one sinned and it condemned. But Christ replaced the OT law with His NT gospel that requires a simple faithful obedience not perfect flawlessness. Therefore one sin does not make one toast.

I showed more than once that James and Paul did not contradict but show they are speaking about different types of works. When James says works justify he was talking about obedient works in doing God's will. When Paul says works do not justifiy he was talking about the flawless perfect works required by the OT law. You never proved otherwise from the Bible but simply say you "disagree" yet provided no proof that I was wrong or that you are right. I see you disagree for no other reason than you, for whatever reasons, wish there to be contradictions in the Bible when none exist.

 

[Butterball1]

There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. My personal favorite is concerning the final judgment. There is biblical support for all three doctrinal views of the final judgment:
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Universal Restorationism

Damnationism says that the vast majority were predestined to eternal conscious torment in hell.
Annihilationism says the vast majority will be incinerated rather than suffer eternal conscious torment in hell.
Universal Restorationism says that all of creation will be restored to its original state.

All three have biblical support, all three are in contradiction.

The Bible does not teach any of these 3.
I see you are wishing for and trying to create contradictions when none exist.

 

[Butterball1]

You've obviously thought through these matters. I like what you pointed out earlier about the various types or kinds of work(s). I essentially said something similar in an earlier post. We have "work" & "works" which I see as basically the set (the general topic), and the various types of works as the subsets/subcategories, so to speak.

I'm not YET (I'm still reading your posts) sure I agree with you on justification. I earlier stated that I think creating such a hard view of justification being only our initial justification creates problems in interpreting other uses of the word. Also, I don't see our Text using "justfication" so strictly, unless we take a single writer in a single context. I at this time don't see James and Paul as both speaking about the same justification - Paul's initial Faith > Justification from ungodliness/unbelief - James' Faith + Works > justification in testing an already justified Abraham, justification simply meaning to determine righteous.

I'd like to ask for your thoughts on a few things, starting here:

- Salvation is God's Plan from before time began (2Tim1:8-9, et.al.)
- God is our Savior (1Tim1:1, et.al.)
- Salvation by God's Grace through Faith is His gift to humanity (Eph2:8)
- God sent His Son (many verses)
- God's Son did the work to save us and is our Savior (many verses)
- The Good News message is God's (Rom1:1)
- God commands people to believe in His Son (1John3:23, et.al.)
- God's Spirit is convicting (John16:8)
- God is drawing people to His Son by teaching them (John6:45)
- God is granting people to His Son (John6:65)
- God is crediting righteousness to faith (several verses)

Question: Where do we see that we have any merit or that God owes us anything for all HE has done to Save us?

BTW: I don't think we do NOTHING in this. Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive the gift He gives (John6:27). This verse alone should create some thought and is just the opposite of what I've heard from so many pulpits ("we don't work to receive a gift!!"). But Jesus commanded unbelievers to work to receive His gift! IMO Jesus, Paul & James are not in conflict.

Question: How do you interpret this statement from Jesus (I'm going to translate it most literally, but still simply, and will explain the main point of my question):

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you (plural) believe into that [man] whom He sent.

The phrase "the work of God" is being translated as simply as it can. In actuality, when a translator/interpreter sees this grammatical construction, the work to determine its precise meaning begins in one Greek Grammar with looking at a list of 33 choices for translating precisely.

Beginning most simply: Is Jesus, who in context is answering questions indirectly here, saying:

- our belief is God's work - our belief is the work of God?
- our work (doing the work of God) is to believe?
- both the above?
- back to the 33 list for something else?​

God owes man nothing but because of His love for man (John 3:16) He sent Christ to die for man that man might have a way to be saved through Christ. God sending Christ is God showing grace towards man. GOd's grace has appeared to all men, Titus 2:11 but all men will not be saved for all men will not obey Christ, Hebrews 5:9.

Even though God's gift of salvation is free we can see it is not unconditional for if it were unconditional then all men would be saved. Free gifts oftentimes come with preconditions and meeting the precondition on a free gift does not earn the free gift. In Hebrews 11:7 God saving Noah's house from the flood was by grace, a free gift for God did not owe it to Noah. Yet God put a precondition on Noah receiving this free gift that being doing the obedient work in building the ark. Building the ark was a great work but it earned Noah nothing. No obedience = no salvation for Noah and his household.

When Noah built the ark he was doing the work of God, he was doing the work God commanded him to do. God did not build the ark for him while Noah sat doing nothing. In John 6:27 the people came to Jesus looking for more food to eat but Jesus told them to work for everlasting life. Jesus settles the 'work' issue...no work = no everlasting life. Same for Noah..no work = no salvation for his household.

As God gave the work of building the ark to Noah, Jesus gave those in John 6 the work of believing to do. God does not do the work of believing no more than God did the work in building the ark.

John 6:27 Jesus tells the people to work for the meat that endures unto everlasting life.
John 6:28 the people ask "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"
John 6:29 Jesus tells them what work to do....believe.

Nowhere here does Jesus tell the peple do nothing for God does the work for you. Jesus already told them in v27 to work for everlasting life and the work He gave to do so they may have everlasting life is to believe. Those that believe are doing the work of God, they are doing the work God gave them as Noah did the work of God in building the ark. Paul said to work out your salvation and believing is part of that work man is to do. Paul did not say God will work out your salvation for you while you do nothing.

Again in John 6:28 the people asked what shall WE DO to work the works of God.
--they did not ask what work will God do for us.
--Jesus gave them a work to do in response to their question "what shall we do" He gave them the work of believing.
--why in various places in the Bible are men commanded to believe if God is going to do that work for them? Why command men to believe if believing is an impossible work for man to do?


Those who have allowed themselves to accept Luther's faith only do not want believing to be a work for that goes against the tenet of faith only. Faith onlyists refuse to acknowledge the common everyday fact and reality that free gifts often times come with preconditions and meeting the preconditions do not earn the free gift. Many examples in the Bible, OT and NT, of men obeying God's will in order to receive a free gift and not one time is their obedience said to have earned God's free gift. They simply met a precondition God placed upon His free gift. Therefore the work of believing, repenting of sins, confessing with the mouth, submitting to baptism are meeting preconditions God placed upon His free gift of salvation and earn nothing.

Hence faith onlyists try to get God to do the work of believing for man in John 6:27-29 for they erroneously think if man does that work then man is trying to earn salvation. They try and get man saved first THEN AFTER man is saved he can do obedient works.....which is the exact opposite of the Bible. This is why some try and change "for" in Acts 2:38 to "because" for they are trying to get one the free gift of salvation BEFORE one does the work in meeting the necessary precondition of obediently repenting and submitting to baptism. To have one get the free gift BEFORE meeting the necessary preconditions creates illogical absurdities.

 

[Butterball1]

To have one get the free gift BEFORE meeting the necessary preconditions creates illogical absurdities.

To expand on the above statement.

A local buisness on Saturday was giving away free hot dogs to customers who came to their store. They did not owe anyone a free hot dog so we can say they were giving them away out of their good grace. Since they were giving them away for free then there is nothing we can do to earn a hot dog. Yet that does NOT mean there is nothing at all we can do. We can at least decide if we want a free hot dog or not. It we do not want one then we can simply do nothing and we will not get one. But if we desire one we must meet the necessary preconditon in doing the work in going to the store. Even though going to the store is a work we do it does not in anyway earn us the hot dog for it was still free, they gave it to for free, charged nothing. Even though we did a work that work did not take away from the freeness of the hot dogs.


Though God's gift of salvation is free and we cannot earn it that does not mean there is nothing we can do at all. Men must decide if they would like to receive that free gift or not. Those who do nothing will not get it. But those who meet the necessary preconditions in doing the obedient work of believing, repenting, confessing and submitting to baptism do receive the free gift and their work did not earn anything. As the work in going to the store did not earn the hot dog.


work in going to store-----------------------in order to receive>>>>>>>>>free gift of hot dog
Noah work building ark---------------------in order to receive>>>>>>>>>free gift of salvation of house
Israel did work of gathering manna-------in order to receive>>>>>>>>free gift of food/nutrition
Naaman dipped 7 times--------------------in order to receive>>>>>>>>free gift healing his disease
Israel marched around walls of Jericho>--in order to receive>>>>>>>>free gift of city
repent and be baptized---------------------in order to receive>>>>>>>>free gift of salvation


On the left is the NECESSARY precondition that FIRST MUST be met IN ORDER to receive the free gift.

Faith onlyists claim you receive the free gift of salvation BEFORE doing the necessary precondition of repenting and being baptized. But if we apply that idea to the other examples above it creates illogical aburdities. That is, if one receives the free gift of salvation BEFORE repenting and being baptized then that means one somehow received a free hot dog BEFORE he even went to the store....Noah's house was saved from the flood BEFORE he even built the ark......Israel was eating the manna BEFORE they even gathered it...... Naaman was healed BEFORE he even did the work of dipping....Israel possessed the city BEFORE they marched around it, before the walls fell.

One is not baptized BECAUSE he already has salvation no more than one goes to the store BECAUSE he already has a free hot dog. Noah did not build the ark BECAUSE he was already saved from the flood but built it IN ORDER to be saved, IN ORDER to receive the free gift of salvation of his house.