The nonsense of "faith produces works"

[Kris Jordan]

I will ask you AGAIN, since you ignored my last post to you.

If Jesus SUFFERED and PAID for the sins of everyone ever born,
then WHY did He say that some men were NEVER MEANT to be saved?
Why did Jesus say some men were NEVER MEANT to have their sins
forgiven?

Don't you have to harmonize your theories about the Gospel
with ALL RELATED VERSES?

Or can you just IGNORE the verses you don't like?


---------- from the previous post -----------


The Gospel of the Bible says that NO MAN can "seek God"
or believe in Christ unless they were "elected" before the foundation
of the world to be "His sheep" and God "draws" them to Christ...
and ALL MEN God draws "shall come" to Christ and He will lose
NONE of them.


So where do you get the idea that MEN can save themselves
by making a DECISION (a mental work) to "believe" or "trust"
or "have faith", when the Bible says those acts of repentance
are the RESULT of regeneration and not the CAUSE?


Second question:
Jesus taught that some men were NEVER MEANT to be saved.
They were not allowed to "perceive" or to "understand" the Word
LEST AT ANY TIME they would "be converted" and their sins
would "be forgiven".


Does YOUR GOSPEL include the Words of Christ that some men
were NEVER MEANT to be saved?


You claim Jesus PAID for the sins of everyone ever born...
when JESUS says that some men were NEVER MEANT to be
forgiven... how do you harmonize that contradiction?
Do you just IGNORE passages you do not like?


BTW.... we see this reality confirmed in HISTORY as most men
in history were NEVER MEANT to be saved. They were never
"chosen" or "elected" to be part of "His sheep", therefore God
did not "draw" them to Christ. Again, this is the vast majority
of mankind... BILLIONS of people NEVER MEANT to be saved.


BILLIONS of people were NEVER MEANT to "be forgiven"...
and yet you claim Jesus PAID for those sins. How do you
harmonize that theory? Do you suppose Jesus SUFFERED
and PAID for those sins... only for them to be PAID again
by the sinner?


Was Jesus' Atonement just a "contingency payment" or some
kind of "promissory note"? He paid, but He did not REALLY
pay?


Jim

Please quote actual verse references.

 

[GDL]

Hmmm. That is an interesting assessment or conclusion

Cute, but you've not addressed the Scriptures that speak of obeying the gospel and Jesus Christ for Salvation. They're just as clear as the ones that speak of believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Initially, I was in no denomination, ended up in free grace dispensationalism, attended seminary within that camp & learned to exegete Scripture, mainly Greek, taught for a few years, moved away literally to an island and exegeted & taught for many more years, which studies led me to come out of that system. No denomination now. No camp. Let the Text say what it says in the original language sitting at His feet with His Spirit.

 

[GDL]

Faith and obedience are distinct from each other.

Agree. Clearly 2 different words, but so vitally interconnected as to be used interchangeably at times in the Text. No reason to give you more Scripture at this point until you deal with what's already been given.

One's salvation occurs instantaneously without God requiring any "works of repentance or obedience" to prove a person’s faith is genuine.

Just like Faith & Obedience are 2 different words, so are obedience & works.

When you learn & acknowledge that Faith & Obedience are so vitally interconnected, you'll see the obedience in Salvation whether you've known you're obeying in believing or not.

When you understand this you'll stop being concerned about obedience being a work, just like faith is not a work.

When you understand the full scope of Salvation & speak as the Text speaks about it, verses like Phil2:12 will no longer seem contradictory.

Proving Faith to be genuine by obedience (obedience only being acknowledged in this sense) is just indicative of the theology you've been taught and how you do not understand what I've just said in the previous few remarks.

The thief on the cross was surrounded by discussion re: Jesus being the Christ (the only foundation of Paul's Gospel & "Christ" a title of highest authority - YHWH's Christ per Ps2, which Paul pointed to when proclaiming his more comprehensive Gospel as seen in Acts13); he spoke of the fear of God (at the end of the analysis a phrase having to do with belief in God & obedience to Him); Jesus' innocence; he called Jesus "Lord" (likely, in the context of the discussion taking place about Christ, a recognition of who Jesus is and a submission to His authority) and spoke of Jesus coming into His Kingdom (resurrection or at least after-life and recognition of Kingship, which is again a submission to authority).

There is Faith & obedient submission written all over this event. I think this man being crucified had exposure to a lot of necessary information.

As I said before, your narrative is not proof of anything. Nor is mine in response to you. So, enough for this one.

 

[fhansen]

If faith doesn't bear fruit and produce works such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10 or Matt 25, speaking of those things done "for the least of these", then faith hasn't led to love, and so hasn't been of any value. As we all know, the only place that the term "faith alone" is used in Scripture is by James where he instructs us that we're not saved by faith alone, lest we make the mistake of believing that.

We're judged on what we do with what we're given and not all have the same opportunity to "exercise" their faith as would be possible for others. The Parable of the Talents also sheds light on this. The "good thief" on the cross did the right thing with what he had ability to do, believing in and loving the Lord, while the bad thief did not. That's all we can know about why one person chooses rightly and the other doesn't; anything else is second guessing and putting the cart ahead of the horse. Either way, salvation is worked out together with He who works in us, with more expected/demanded from those given more in terms of time, opportunity, grace, knowledge/revelation, maturity, background, etc; only God can know all the parameters -and judges the person accordingly, knowing their heart to begin with.

Talk is cheap and many who profess faith aren't or won't necessarily be saved, or will persevere; we can believe we're numbered among the elect but only God knows with 100% certainty. And He knows that what we choose to do during whatever walk we have with Him...counts.

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:"12-13

 

[GDL]

We're judged on what we do with what we're given

So important. Much talk about the gift. Too much misdirected accusation that those who speak of what we're to do with it is just works-salvation.

 

[timothyu]

People like the pre and post cross doctrine for a reason. It's just for the most part what they have been taught by a religion that not only wished to separate itself from the Jews and ignore the other ten gentile tribes/nations of Israel, but the religion also wants to draw attention away from the Kingdom because it broadsided it and Jesus' Gospel 1700 years ago when it rejoined the enemy to work as partners in the world man has made in our own image rather than in the image of God. People today delude themselves into thinking they represent God while partaking daily in the will of man.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Saying that faith must produce works makes it sound like faith is not enough. Especially to someone who is not a Christian.

In a weird way, I think you've hit on, pretty clearly, a point of contention and even contradiction for may Christians in trying to figure out what Sola Fide means, how salvation works, and how faith and works interact within the life of a Christian.

Many, many, models have been put forward. I think John Wesley was the first to emphasize a "born again experience", and to go into detail about how genuine saving faith, typically brought about by a crisis conversion, naturally yields good works or fruits, or holiness. Many have agreed with him, but some have not.

I have watched Christians who struggle with sin agonize over whether or not they save truly saved, and Christians who have not had dramatic, then vs. now conversions worry a lot about where they are headed, if they are actually Christians, etc.

My final conclusion on this matter, which has lead me away from Protestant theology, is that our salvation is a journey of Christ saving us through our faith in Him, and our faithfulness to His words, and our love for others, basically, faith plus works. No, the two are not identical. No, faith does not naturally produce works and no, Holy Scripture does not make a distinction between dead vs. living faith. People do, but Scripture doesn't.

I have seen this bug and muddle up so many Christians. Some of us do have turning points in our lives, where we can point and say "before this I was not living for Christ, but now I am!" Others, like Saint Polycarp say "80 and 6 years I have served Him..." and they just kind of grow and keep growing and keep believing and keep following, and they don't ever have a dramatic conversion, but they are still Christians.

 

[timothyu]

No, faith does not naturally produce works

Would that not depend on whether faith was either in God or more rightly, the will of God?

 

[anna ~ grace]

Would that not depend on whether faith was either in God or more rightly, the will of God?

Faith is faith. Some folks have faith to move mountains. They also commit pretty heinous sins and then defend them.

 

[timothyu]

Faith is faith. Some folks have faith to move mountains. They also commit pretty heinous sins and then defend them.

What good is faith in God if one doesn't follow His will? He has been telling us to do so since Adam and Eve in the Garden.

 

[Guojing]

Please quote actual verse references.

what are your views towards mark 10:17 onwards, in my last post to you?

 

[fhansen]

In a weird way, I think you've hit on, pretty clearly, a point of contention and even contradiction for may Christians in trying to figure out what Sola Fide means, how salvation works, and how faith and works interact within the life of a Christian.

Many, many, models have been put forward. I think John Wesley was the first to emphasize a "born again experience", and to go into detail about how genuine saving faith, typically brought about by a crisis conversion, naturally yields good works or fruits, or holiness. Many have agreed with him, but some have not.

I have watched Christians who struggle with sin agonize over whether or not they save truly saved, and Christians who have not had dramatic, then vs. now conversions worry a lot about where they are headed, if they are actually Christians, etc.

My final conclusion on this matter, which has lead me away from Protestant theology, is that our salvation is a journey of Christ saving us through our faith in Him, and our faithfulness to His words, and our love for others, basically, faith plus works. No, the two are not identical. No, faith does not naturally produce works and no, Holy Scripture does not make a distinction between dead vs. living faith. People do, but Scripture doesn't.

I have seen this bug and muddle up so many Christians. Some of us do have turning points in our lives, where we can point and say "before this I was not living for Christ, but now I am!" Others, like Saint Polycarp say "80 and 6 years I have served Him..." and they just kind of grow and keep growing and keep believing and keep following, and they don't ever have a dramatic conversion, but they are still Christians.

I really like this. Thank you. I also appreciate a quote from Augustine as it applies here.
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

One would have to heavily qualify the concept of "faith alone" in order to make it possibly workable-and, as you say, not all definitions or understandings of the actual outworkings of this concept are the same. Paul was battling legalism, the idea that the removal of a small piece of flesh could make one worthy, or that mere external slavish obedience to the law could do so. That would mean to be "under the law". But to be "under grace" finally gives us the only real and authentic means to righteousness, to overcome sin, to fulfill the law, to produce works: all by the fruit of the love that God pours into us as we're justified, even if only in a seedling form at first that needs to be nurtured, exercised, challenged, tested, confirmed and grown.

This all begins with faith, as a response to grace, to God's initiative, and that faith constitutes a connection, a relationship or communion with God which man was made for and which, itself, constitutes right order or justice/righteousness for man, and which then naturally produces right behavior to the extent that we remain in Him and He in us, He placing His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jer 31:33). It's all about who we hang out with, so to speak . Adam didn't want to hang out with God, or recognize Him as God. We're here to learn how wrong-and unfaithful-Adam was in his disobedience, so that we will turn back to God when he calls. Another quote I love, by Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century believer, this time:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

 

[anna ~ grace]

I really like this. Thank you. I also appreciate a quote from Augustine as it applies here.
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

One would have to heavily qualify the concept of "faith alone" in order to make it possibly workable-and, as you say, not all definitions or understandings of the actual outworkings of this concept are the same. Paul was battling legalism, the idea that the removal of a small piece of flesh could make one worthy, or that mere external slavish obedience to the law could do so. That would mean to be "under the law". But to be "under grace" finally gives us the only real and authentic means to righteousness, to overcome sin, to fulfill the law, to produce works: all by the fruit of the love that God pours into us as we're justified, even if only in a seedling form at first that needs to be nurtured, exercised, challenged, tested, confirmed and grown.

This all begins with faith, as a response to grace, to God's initiative, and that faith constitutes a connection, a relationship or communion with God which man was made for and which, itself, constitutes right order or justice/righteousness for man, and which then naturally produces right behavior to the extent that we remain in Him and He in us, He placing His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jer 31:33). It's all about who we hang out with, so to speak . Adam didn't want to hang out with God, or recognize Him as God. We're here to learn how wrong-and unfaithful-Adam was in his disobedience, so that we will turn back to God when he calls. Another quote I love, by Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century believer, this time:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

Yes, exactly! And the context of Paul’s writings was attempting to keep the Law of Moses. Many folks don’t understand that.

Even Saint Paul writes that faith to move mountains minus love is worthless. And love acts.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I really like this. Thank you. I also appreciate a quote from Augustine as it applies here.
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

One would have to heavily qualify the concept of "faith alone" in order to make it possibly workable-and, as you say, not all definitions or understandings of the actual outworkings of this concept are the same. Paul was battling legalism, the idea that the removal of a small piece of flesh could make one worthy, or that mere external slavish obedience to the law could do so. That would mean to be "under the law". But to be "under grace" finally gives us the only real and authentic means to righteousness, to overcome sin, to fulfill the law, to produce works: all by the fruit of the love that God pours into us as we're justified, even if only in a seedling form at first that needs to be nurtured, exercised, challenged, tested, confirmed and grown.

This all begins with faith, as a response to grace, to God's initiative, and that faith constitutes a connection, a relationship or communion with God which man was made for and which, itself, constitutes right order or justice/righteousness for man, and which then naturally produces right behavior to the extent that we remain in Him and He in us, He placing His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jer 31:33). It's all about who we hang out with, so to speak . Adam didn't want to hang out with God, or recognize Him as God. We're here to learn how wrong-and unfaithful-Adam was in his disobedience, so that we will turn back to God when he calls. Another quote I love, by Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century believer, this time:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

The tragedy is that many Christians angrily assert that faith plus works somehow complicates things.

When, in fact, sorting through dozens of definitions of Sola Fide, trying to unravel debates about perseverance and works in light of faith, trying to figure out if one is truly saved or has truly been born again because of God’s sovereignty and not one’s own choice complicates things. A lot. I have watched Christians have near mental and spiritual breakdowns over these things.

Even Saint Francis de Sales wound up in turmoil; if something is simple, why can it not agree with itself?

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

I have watched Christians who struggle with sin agonize over whether or not they save truly saved

That just means that those people have very little faith -- if even any faith at all. They don't believe that Jesus can save them. If you have a lot of faith in Jesus, then you don't need to worry about anything. God will take care of you if you just have faith in him.

 

[timothyu]

God will take care of you if you just have faith in him.

We don't really have a choice if we agree His will be done.

 

[Kris Jordan]

what are your views towards mark 10:17 onwards, in my last post to you?

Hi Guojing,

I have been off-the-grid (from this site) for a week or two, so can you state your question again (or direct me to the post you wish for me to answer? There are 17 pages on this one thread and trying to find it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack for me.

 

[Guojing]

Hi Guojing,

I have been off-the-grid (from this site) for a week or two, so can you state your question again (or direct me to the post you wish for me to answer? There are 17 pages on this one thread and trying to find it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack for me.

welcome back.

That post is found here The nonsense of "faith produces works"

 

[Kris Jordan]

This is the standard interpretation that many churches teach about this passage "Jesus was trying to test him only, he did not meant what he said that eternal life is conditioned upon one willing to surrender everything to him".

But what about the Mark 10 account of the same incident?

Hi Guojing,

My response to Mark 10 is the same as my response to Luke 18:

Jesus was not “testing him” nor teaching that if he surrendered all (despite being a sinner), he would receive eternal life (i.e., works = salvation). Jesus was speaking the truth to him that if this man wanted to enter heaven, he must be perfect and sinless, keeping the commandments of God 100% without fault or blemish.

Although that is certainly one way to enter heaven, the problem with that is Romans 3:23. As sinners, we all miss the mark of God’s sinless perfection. Even this seemingly “righteous” young man, who had kept some of the commandments since his youth, was still a sinner and disqualified from eternal life. The apostles were shocked by everything that transpired and asked among themselves who could be saved (Acts 10:26). Jesus answered them with another truth when He said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible” (Acts 10:27).

So, you would also say that Peter did not meant what he said in vs 28? That the 12 did not really left all to follow him?

And Jesus was also joking in verses 30 too? He did not meant what he said when he told Peter that those who are willing to leave all to follow him, will be rewarded with physical blessings in this life, and in the world to come, which is the future, eternal life?

If Jesus were teaching a works = salvation OR godly obedience = salvation model in these passages, He would be contradicting Himself and the Bible in multiple passages, which clearly state and teach that salvation (redemption, eternal life, justification, born-again, righteous, etc.) is God’s gift of grace imparted to undeserving sinners through faith in Jesus Christ.

Guojing, who or what are you trusting in for eternal life? Yourself? Your works of obedience to God? Jesus and His blood that was shed for you when He died in your place and paid your sin penalty in full? All of the above?

 

[Guojing]

Hi Guojing,

My response to Mark 10 is the same as my response to Luke 18:

Jesus was not “testing him” nor teaching that if he surrendered all (despite being a sinner), he would receive eternal life (i.e., works = salvation). Jesus was speaking the truth to him that if this man wanted to enter heaven, he must be perfect and sinless, keeping the commandments of God 100% without fault or blemish.

Although that is certainly one way to enter heaven, the problem with that is Romans 3:23. As sinners, we all miss the mark of God’s sinless perfection. Even this seemingly “righteous” young man, who had kept some of the commandments since his youth, was still a sinner and disqualified from eternal life. The apostles were shocked by everything that transpired and asked among themselves who could be saved (Acts 10:26). Jesus answered them with another truth when He said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible” (Acts 10:27).




If Jesus were teaching a works = salvation OR godly obedience = salvation model in these passages, He would be contradicting Himself and the Bible in multiple passages, which clearly state and teach that salvation (redemption, eternal life, justification, born-again, righteous, etc.) is God’s gift of grace imparted to undeserving sinners through faith in Jesus Christ.

Guojing, who or what are you trusting in for eternal life? Yourself? Your works of obedience to God? Jesus and His blood that was shed for you when He died in your place and paid your sin penalty in full? All of the above?

I see that you prefer to “anticipate revelation” and insert what was revealed to Paul by the ascended Christ, into what Christ told Israel before the cross.

This allow you to conclude that Jesus “must not have meant what he literally stated”, since he would then be contradicting the latter revelations.

Alright then, thanks for clarifying your doctrine.