Faith plus Works...how do you know if your doing enough works?

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"What does penal substitution mean to you?"

That God was so offended he couldn't forgive sins without Jesus dying for the believer, imputing to the believer his righteousness.

Penal substitution does not include God being offended. Nor does it involve imputation of righteousness to the believer.

Penal substitution refers to the fact that Jesus Christ became sin for us:
2 Cor 5:21 - He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Pet 2:24 - and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

These 2 verses tell us that Jesus Christ took the penalty for our sins. Thus, He went to the cross as a substitute for our sins, by taking on its penalty in our place.

I believe Christ died for our sins, but he doesn't impute to us his deeds.

What does He impute to us?

I also believe God can forgive sins any way he so chooses.

The Bible tells us on what basis He forgives sins.
Acts 10:43 - “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

He is not satisfied by bloodshed, that was not the motivation for Jesus Passion.

1 Jn 2:2 - and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Propitiation: hilasmos

1) an appeasing, propitiating
2) the means of appeasing, a propitiation

To appease:
1. To placate or attempt to placate (a threatening nation, for example) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle.
2. To calm, soothe, or quiet (someone).
appeased the baby with a pacifier.
3. To satisfy, relieve, or assuage.

I believe that God was satisified, appeased, propitiated for the sacrifice of His Son on behalf of the whole world.

 

[FireDragon76]

I said this:
"What does penal substitution mean to you?"

Penal substitution does not include God being offended. Nor does it involve imputation of righteousness to the believer.

In the sense Calvinist and Lutheran scholastic theologians understood it, it does, it absolutely involves imputation of the active righteousness of Christ to the believer, so that God no longer sees a person's misdeeds but only Christ's merits. You cannot just make up your own definitions for theological terms and expect to be understood.

I do not accept penal substitution as a good interpretation of Christ's death. This is not how the earliest Christians understood this.

 

[Albion]

While it's instructive to discern what the earliest Christians thought about many issues we care about today, they were 'working through' a lot of these matters. There were many confused, incomplete, and speculative ideas held by them which the church and the people of God themselves ultimately modified. That's why hardly any denominations make "what the earliest Christians thought" their watchword.

 

[FreeGrace2]

In the sense Calvinist and Lutheran scholastic theologians understood it, it does, it absolutely involves imputation of the active righteousness of Christ to the believer, so that God no longer sees a person's misdeeds but only Christ's merits. You cannot just make up your own definitions for theological terms and expect to be understood.

I didn't make up anything. My view comes directly from the Bible.

Rom 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference.

Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down),

Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Phil 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

I do not accept penal substitution as a good interpretation of Christ's death. This is not how the earliest Christians understood this.

The word 'penal' is the key. It has to do with punishment.

adj. adjective
1. Of, relating to, or prescribing punishment, as for breaking the law.
2. Subject to punishment; legally punishable.
a penal offense.
3. Serving as or constituting a means or place of punishment.

Our righteousness is not part of the punishment that Jesus took for our sins. Our righteousness is imputed on the basis of our faith in Christ, as all these verses very plainly state.

Penal substitution about Jesus being substituted in our place on the cross. 1 Pet 2:24 is about Jesus bearing our sin. That's exactly what "penal substitution" means.

Imputed righteousness is not involved in any way in penal substitution. Which I've demonstrated from Scripture.

 

[Brother Chris]

I don't understand Jesus using the term "brother" to be so narrow. I believe he was talking about all people, but especially those that were outsiders or oppressed. After all, he mostly called himself the Son of Man, which is a Semitic expression which means "everyman" or "human one". Throughout his ministry he delt with outsiders and those not in his inner circle, and he praised their faith. This doesn't seem like someone bent on exclusivism.



That God was so offended he couldn't forgive sins without Jesus dying for the believer, imputing to the believer his righteousness. I believe Christ died for our sins, but he doesn't impute to us his deeds. I also believe God can forgive sins any way he so chooses. He is not satisfied by bloodshed, that was not the motivation for Jesus Passion.

Sorry, but only those who are born again Christians who belong to God, can call themselves the brothers of Jesus and Jesus calls them His brothers and sisters. Unsaved people are not His brothers or sisters, they are still in rebellion against Him and are His enemies. When Jesus refers to the "least of these" He is talking about Christians, not just any person. The mark of a true Christian is love for other Christians.

 

[FireDragon76]

What makes anyone think we are supposed to know that we have done enough works (BTW, how much works do Protestants have to do to demonstrate they have true faith)? Wouldn't that make us self-centered people, only out for mercenary motives? That is not the sort of sons and daughters that God wants.

If anybody thinks that Catholicism teaches salvation by works, they have not read he words of St. Therese in her prayer:

"At the close of life's evening I shall appear before Thee with empty hands, for I ask not, Lord, that Thou wouldst count my works...All our justice is tarnished in Thy sight. It is therefore my desire to be clothed with Thine own Justice and to receive from Thy Love the eternal possession of Thyself. I crave no other Throne nor other Crown but Thee, O my Beloved!"

Keep in mind she is considered a Doctor of the Church, meaning her life gives an example that is a very clear expression of the faith and shows a profound knowledge of God. Very few other people are considered Doctors of the Church.

Sorry, but only those who are born again Christians who belong to God, can call themselves the brothers of Jesus and Jesus calls them His brothers and sisters. Unsaved people are not His brothers or sisters, they are still in rebellion against Him and are His enemies. When Jesus refers to the "least of these" He is talking about Christians, not just any person. The mark of a true Christian is love for other Christians.

God expects us to love everyone, even if they do not share our beliefs. Go read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus intentionally used this story to shock the sensibilities of the listeners, because they thought you only had to love people like them.

Jesus loves his enemies and died for them. In his iincarnation he became the brother to all human beings so that God would be our Father. If it were not so, we could not be saved.

 

[FireDragon76]

While it's instructive to discern what the earliest Christians thought about many issues we care about today, they were 'working through' a lot of these matters. There were many confused, incomplete, and speculative ideas held by them which the church and the people of God themselves ultimately modified. That's why hardly any denominations make "what the earliest Christians thought" their watchword.

OK, if doctrinal development is just the way things have been done, how are we to know which church got it right, given that the Bible is so ambiguous in many places?

 

[FireDragon76]

I suppose do they balance the good works against the bad works in a scale and whatever side wins out is your eternal destiny? With Jesus sitting at the fulcrum point I suppose.

No, that's not what Roman Catholics believe. Your good works cannot outweigh your sins. Catholics still believe that they are dependent on God's grace and mercy in the end.

The Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, back around 1999, reached agreement on the basics of justification and how we are saved. They only differ on the emphasis. Catholics emphasize what Protestants would call "sanctification".

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, that's not what Roman Catholics believe. Your good works cannot outweigh your sins. Catholics still believe that they are dependent on God's grace and mercy in the end.

Do Catholics believe in eternal security or conditional security?

The Lutheran World Federation and Roman Catholic Church, back around 1999, reached agreement on the basics of justification and how we are saved. They only differ on the emphasis. Catholics emphasize what Protestants would call "sanctification".

Sanctification involves the believer's life. That would indicate that Catholics believe they are saved based on their works then. How is that so different than the Pharisees of Jesus' day? Recall that Jesus very clearly refuted their belief about how to get saved in Jn 5:39-40:
29 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

Also,
John 5:46-47:
46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

 

[FireDragon76]

Do Catholics believe in eternal security or conditional security?

Many Protestants, such as Methodists, Lutherans, many Anglicans, do not believe in "eternal security" either. People can choose to walk away from faith.

Sanctification involves the believer's life. That would indicate that Catholics believe they are saved based on their works then.

Catholics believe they are saved by God's unmerited grace, the same as Protestants. They believe that after they have faith, God gives them the grace to merit (deserve) salvation, meaning that their entrance into heaven is in accordance with God's justice, and not contrary to it. But it's still dependent on faith and grace, no different from Protestants.

Also,
John 5:46-47:
46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach you are saved without faith in Jesus.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Many Protestants, such as Methodists, Lutherans, many Anglicans, do not believe in "eternal security" either. People can choose to walk away from faith.

Where does the Bible teach that walking away from faith equates to walking away from salvation? There is no connection.

In fact, Paul described eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23, and the next time he used the word for 'gift' was in 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. It could not be any more clear; eternal life is irrevocable. God does not take it back, and there is nothing in Scripture about giving it away, losing it, etc.

Catholics believe they are saved by God's unmerited grace, the same as Protestants. They believe that after they have faith, God gives them the grace to merit (deserve) salvation, meaning that their entrance into heaven is in accordance with God's justice, and not contrary to it. But it's still dependent on faith and grace, no different from Protestants.

The problem here is that when they "have faith", they ARE saved. There is nothing left to "merit" or deserve salvation. Jesus taught in Jn 5:24 that one HAS eternal life WHEN one believes. That's when one is saved.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't teach you are saved without faith in Jesus.

And they add a whole list of other things: keep the sacraments, etc. None of which is required by God for salvation.

 

[FireDragon76]

You should read the epistle to the Hebrews. It acknowledges apostasy as a real danger. People that abandon the faith are not saved, though God is still seeking them out. It is also possible to abandon the faith by saying you believe in Jesus but not living like you believe.

I don't think the Catholics believe the sacraments are absolutely necessary for everyone, after all the thief on the cross even is recognized as a great saint, and he died without the sacraments. But sacraments are the ordinary means we encounter God's grace in the Christian life. Many Christians, not just Roman Catholics, believe this.

I hate to say it but your ideas of what being a Christian should be are rather impoverished. There seems no need for community with shared rituals, even rituals ordained by the Lord. I really wonder how you can criticize us. Do you not see a love of the Lord in our desire to follow the things he has ordained for our good?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where does the Bible teach that walking away from faith equates to walking away from salvation? There is no connection.

In fact, Paul described eternal life as a gift of God in Rom 6:23, and the next time he used the word for 'gift' was in 11:29 where he said that God's gifts are irrevocable. It could not be any more clear; eternal life is irrevocable. God does not take it back, and there is nothing in Scripture about giving it away, losing it, etc.

It's not that clear. Jesus tells the parable of the two men, one had faith from the day he was born, but lost it near to his death, and he was not saved, but then there's the other man who lived a dissolute life but days before he was to die, he repented. He was saved. Also the parable of the Prodigal Son shows a man who was saved, and then turned away from it. He later repented and returned to his father's house, but his soul was in mortal danger.

The problem here is that when they "have faith", they ARE saved. There is nothing left to "merit" or deserve salvation. Jesus taught in Jn 5:24 that one HAS eternal life WHEN one believes. That's when one is saved.

It's true that we cannot merit our salvation. But people do lose faith when some tragedy strikes.

And they add a whole list of other things: keep the sacraments, etc. None of which is required by God for salvation.

You know that every Sacrament involves and invokes the Holy Spirit? So if you don't keep the Sacraments, you're moving away from the Holy Spirit, which is required for Salvation...

 

[FreeGrace2]

You should read the epistle to the Hebrews.

I have and enjoy it very much when I read it.

It acknowledges apostasy as a real danger.

Because it is a real danger. But no where in the Bible are we warned of loss of salvation. We are promised that eternal life, being a gift of God, is irrevocable.

People that abandon the faith are not saved

This opinion has not been supported from Scripture.

I don't think the Catholics believe the sacraments are absolutely necessary for everyone, after all the thief on the cross even is recognized as a great saint, and he died without the sacraments. But sacraments are the ordinary means we encounter God's grace in the Christian life. Many Christians, not just Roman Catholics, believe this.

I believe what the Bible teaches. And I don't find any teaching on sacraments as part of the salvation process.

I hate to say it but your ideas of what being a Christian should be are rather impoverished.

My ideas of what the Christian life "should be"? I haven't even started yet on that subject. So you have no idea.

There seems no need for community with shared rituals, even rituals ordained by the Lord. I really wonder how you can criticize us. Do you not see a love of the Lord in our desire to follow the things he has ordained for our good?

He ordained the Lord's Table. What else can be shown from Scripture that He specifically ordained?

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's not that clear.

For that reason, there is no reason to believe that walking away from the faith is equated with loss of salvation.

Jesus tells the parable of the two men, one had faith from the day he was born, but lost it near to his death, and he was not saved, but then there's the other man who lived a dissolute life but days before he was to die, he repented. He was saved.

Please cite the passage. I'm not at all familiar with anyone who "had faith from the day he was born". That isn't even possible.

Also the parable of the Prodigal Son shows a man who was saved, and then turned away from it. He later repented and returned to his father's house, but his soul was in mortal danger.

Where did Jesus say anything about being in "mortal danger"? It's not there.

It's true that we cannot merit our salvation. But people do lose faith when some tragedy strikes.

And because we cannot merit or salvation, we cannot un-merit it. iow, we can't do anything to get saved, and we can't do anything to get un-saved.

You know that every Sacrament involves and invokes the Holy Spirit? So if you don't keep the Sacraments, you're moving away from the Holy Spirit, which is required for Salvation...

Where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit "is required for salvation"?? I know that Scripture says that we must believe in order to be saved. Acts 16:31 says so clearly.

 

[Root of Jesse]

For that reason, there is no reason to believe that walking away from the faith is equated with loss of salvation.


Please cite the passage. I'm not at all familiar with anyone who "had faith from the day he was born". That isn't even possible.


Where did Jesus say anything about being in "mortal danger"? It's not there.


And because we cannot merit or salvation, we cannot un-merit it. iow, we can't do anything to get saved, and we can't do anything to get un-saved.


Where does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit "is required for salvation"?? I know that Scripture says that we must believe in order to be saved. Acts 16:31 says so clearly.

So many questions, when it's right in front of your face, yet so little time. Let me turn them around a bit...
Regarding the Holy Spirit, are you saying that you don't have to believe everything God taught about himself to be saved? So you can take it or leave it, as long as you say you believe? Hint: Satan believes that God is Lord and master of the universe, yet he is not saved. In fact, Satan is a perfect example of a being that turned away from God, and will never be allowed back.

Regarding the Prodigal Son, if you don't see the wayward son as in danger of dying (physical in the parable, spiritual in its meaning), you need to revisit what it says.

Regarding the man who persevered, then faltered, vs the man who committed evil and then repented, do some legwork. Lots of people, by the way, have faith from the day they're born. They're brought up by their parents, who represent them until they're capable. None of this "Let them make up their own minds" stuff.

 

[St_Worm2]

Lots of people, by the way, have faith from the day they're born. They're brought up by their parents, who represent them until they're capable. None of this "Let them make up their own minds" stuff.

Hi RoJ, what happens to babies (born or pre-born) and young children who have no "parents who represent them"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hi RoJ, what happens to babies (born or pre-born) and young children who have no "parents who represent them"?

Well, a pre-born child has a parent, as does a born baby. Children whose parents abandon them, if they are being baptized, are always baptized at the behest of someone who presumes to represent the well-being of a child.

 

[St_Worm2]

Well, a pre-born child has a parent, as does a born baby. Children whose parents abandon them, if they are being baptized, are always baptized at the behest of someone who presumes to represent the well-being of a child.

What of those who are not "baptized", say the children of Muslim parents? Are their babies consigned to eternal damnation because they were not born to Christian parents? Or what of babies born to Baptist parents who hold to credobaptism rather than paedobaptism? Are their babies to be held accountable for the actions (or lack thereof) of their parents?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Root of Jesse]

What of those who are not "baptized", say the children of Muslim parents? Are their babies consigned to eternal damnation because they were not born to Christian parents? Or what of babies born to Baptist parents who hold to credobaptism rather than paedobaptism? Are their babies to be held accountable for the actions (or lack thereof) of their parents?

Thanks!

--David

As usual, managing to the exceptions. We believe that children under the age of reason are already in God's mercy. We also believe that there are many who are invincibly ignorant of God's mercy, who will not be held accountable for a lack of action. And before you jump on another word, ignorance is not an insult. We're all ignorant of things.