We Are Saved By Works

[TaylorSexton]

Randomness would not have a basis.

Of course, you realize that asserting something is not an argument; I argued at length how this is not the case. You are going to have to do better than that.

The bible says God basis His choices upon obedience to His will, shows mercy unto them that obey Him.

Actually, Scripture in multiple places asserts the exact opposite:

"Though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand—not from works but from the one who calls—she was told, The older will serve the younger. As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau." — Romans 9:11-13

"It does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy." — Romans 9:16

"You are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast." —Ephesians 2:8-9

Why anyone would or would even want to argue with such clear statements is utterly beyond me.

If a basis is used to make the choice then it is not arbitrary.

So God has a "whim" to choose at random?
And a "whim" is a basis?
This is your argument. Really?

Yes, a whim is a basis. I have chosen many things on the basis on my own whim. Choice by definition cannot be random. In fact, fora theist, there is no such thing as randomness, anyway, so this point is moot.

All of this makes sense when you decide to be serious and careful about words. Otherwise...well, we see what happens to one's theology when this is not practiced.

Either a choice is made randomly or made on a basis, cannot be both at the same time.

Your argument is circular, because your argument for X (which, in this case, X = randomness is baseless) assumes a priori the truth of X.

 

[TheSeabass]

Of course, you realize that asserting something is not an argument; I argued at length how this is not the case. You are going to have to do better than that.



Actually, Scripture in multiple places asserts the exact opposite:

"Though her sons had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand—not from works but from the one who calls—she was told, The older will serve the younger. As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau." — Romans 9:11-13

"It does not depend on human will or effort but on God who shows mercy." — Romans 9:16

"You are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast." —Ephesians 2:8-9

Why anyone would or would even want to argue with such clear statements is utterly beyond me.



Yes, a whim is a basis. I have chosen many things on the basis on my own whim. Choice by definition cannot be random. In fact, fora theist, there is no such thing as randomness, anyway, so this point is moot.

All of this makes sense when you decide to be serious and careful about words. Otherwise...well, we see what happens to one's theology when this is not practiced.



Your argument is circular, because your argument for X (which, in this case, X = randomness is baseless) assumes a priori the truth of X.

You argument lacks logic for a choice either is purely ransom or made according to a basis. Cannot be both at the same time.

=====


Romans 9:11 does not say nor imply that God choice between Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) was random, unconditional, without basis. Paul's point to the Jews is that God does not have to base His promises/choices on one's physical descent. Nor was God's choice based on any works wither had done for neither had done any works good or evil, therefore the Jews could not argue God chose Jacob because Esau was a profane person selling his birthright.

Yet this does not mean God's choice was random. God's choice was based upon His foreknowledge that Jacob/Israel was a better choice than Esau/Edom for God foreknew Jacob/Israel would obey Him enough whereby He could accomplish His will through them, Genesis 25:23. God chose Abraham for God knew that Abraham and his children " shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment", Genesis 18:19.

Therefore God's choice of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel was not baseless and random leaving things to chance. But God's choice had a basis: obedience. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel were not perfectly obedient, but God foreknew they would be obdient enough that He would accomplish HIs will through them. Again Genesis 25:23 ends with "... that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." So the Lord foreknew He would be able to bring upon Abraham those promises for the Lord foreknew that Abraham and his descendants through Isaac would obey.

=====

Romans 9:16 "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

God showed His mercy and grace to mankind by sending Christ to die for the sins of man. No willing or running on the part of man merited anything nor caused God to send His Son to the cross. Yet for man to be saved by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross REQUIRES man's willing (John 7:17; Revelation 22:17) and running
(1 Corinthians 9:24-26; Hebrews 12:1)


=====

Ephesians 2:8,9 "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."

"that not of yourselves" means salvation is not form man, man can do nothing by himself to saved himself for salvation is a gift from God.

"not of works" means man cannot do anything to earn salvation that comes from God. If man could earn salvation, then he could boast.

God's free gift of salvation comes with the condition of "faith" (not faith only) and those men who of their own volition choose to meet the condition of having faith become part of the group Christian which God has predetermined to be saved.

If salvation had no condition, if it were totally baseless then all men would be saved (Titus 2:11).


There is no "Reformed Theology" to be found in any of these passages...at all.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You argument lacks logic for a choice either is purely ransom or made according to a basis.

False dichotomy fallacy.

Romans 9:11 does not say nor imply that God choice between Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) was random, unconditional, without basis.

Straw man fallacy.

Yet this does not mean God's choice was random.

Straw man fallacy.

God's choice was based upon His foreknowledge that Jacob/Israel was a better choice than Esau/Edom for God foreknew Jacob/Israel would obey Him enough whereby He could accomplish His will through them, Genesis 25:23.

If you could find Scripture to back this up, I would recant immediately. Until then, your theology is purely fabricated.

God chose Abraham for God knew that Abraham and his children " shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment", Genesis 18:19.

You have misused Scripture to support your error. Scripture says, "For I have chosen him so that he will command his children and his house after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just." It does not say that God chose Abraham because he would do these things.

Therefore God's choice of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Israel was not baseless and random leaving things to chance.

Straw man fallacy and false dichotomy fallacy.

But God's choice had a basis: obedience.

If you could find Scripture for this, then I will believe it. Unfortunately, all of Paul (as just one example of all) directly contradicts you.

...obdient enough...

I am sorry, but I laughed out loud at this. Have you ever read Scripture before?

God showed His mercy and grace to mankind by sending Christ to die for the sins of man. No willing or running on the part of man merited anything nor caused God to send His Son to the cross. Yet for man to be saved by the sacrifice Christ made on the cross REQUIRES man's willing (John 7:17; Revelation 22:17) and running
(1 Corinthians 9:24-26; Hebrews 12:1)

It's amazing how far some people are willing to go to make Scripture say something other than what it plainly says. Where did you get this from the text?

If salvation had no condition, if it were totally baseless then all men would be saved (Titus 2:11).

False dichotomy fallacy.

—————

The moment you decide to stop engaging in fallacious arguments—which have been pointed out to you multiple times, each to no apparent avail—then this conversation can move forward. Otherwise, you will keep getting the replies you've been getting. I encourage you to try to take this seriously. The deliberately fallacious tactics you are using are contrary to your profession...and just plain obnoxious.

 

[twin1954]

We see that it is actually you that is taking verses/words out of context:

1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

Did Jesus say "whosoever believeth only...is born of God"? No, yet people take the word 'believeth"out of context and ADD the word "only' to it changing the meaning of the verse. It causes a contradiction among the words spoken by Christ when Christ equally required repentance confession and baptism to being saved. So does John get rid of the necessity of repentance confession and baptism thereby contradicting Christ?

If you look at the Greek for that passage you will find that the verse says whoever believes has been,past tense, born of God. I took nothing out of context. What I did do is give you what you asked for, a passage that says we are born from above before we believe.

 

[twin1954]

We see that it is actually you that is taking verses/words out of context:

1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

Did Jesus say "whosoever believeth only...is born of God"? No, yet people take the word 'believeth"out of context and ADD the word "only' to it changing the meaning of the verse. It causes a contradiction among the words spoken by Christ when Christ equally required repentance confession and baptism to being saved. So does John get rid of the necessity of repentance confession and baptism thereby contradicting Christ?

So according to you Paul left out an important part of the Gospel when he told the Philipian jailer to believe? Repentance and baptism are fruits of faith rather than prerequisites to salvation.

 

[TheSeabass]

So according to you Paul left out an important part of the Gospel when he told the Philipian jailer to believe? Repentance and baptism are fruits of faith rather than prerequisites to salvation.

Paul did not command nor did the jailer "believe only".

Acts 16:34 "And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God."

The participle phrase "having believed" sums up all that the jailer had done including his repentance as seen in washing their stripes and being baptized, v33.

Not a single verse of the bible says a man is saved THEN after he is saved he can repent and be baptized. Such an idea is a major, total rewrite of the bible.

 

[TheSeabass]

If you look at the Greek for that passage you will find that the verse says whoever believes has been,past tense, born of God. I took nothing out of context. What I did do is give you what you asked for, a passage that says we are born from above before we believe.

1 John 5:1

--the point still stands that John did not say "whosoever believeth only"


--the information I have has "believeth" in 1 John 5:1 in the present tense and "born" in the perfect tense.
The one that believes ( and continues to believe) has been born of God. I believe (present tense) and was born again 30+ years ago. This does not mean I was born again 30+ years ago and just now believe.

I believed 30 years again and thereby was born again 30+years ago and continue to believe today. John is putting belief before being born again and is not saying unbelieving reprobates are born again and then believe at some point in the future. No such thing in the bible exists as born again unbelieving reprobates.

 

[twin1954]

1 John 5:1

--the point still stands that John did not say "whosoever believeth only"


--the information I have has "believeth" in 1 John 5:1 in the present tense and "born" in the perfect tense.
The one that believes ( and continues to believe) has been born of God. I believe (present tense) and was born again 30+ years ago. This does not mean I was born again 30+ years ago and just now believe.

I believed 30 years again and thereby was born again 30+years ago and continue to believe today. John is putting belief before being born again and is not saying unbelieving reprobates are born again and then believe at some point in the future. No such thing in the bible exists as born again unbelieving reprobates.

Why would John not add to his statement that repentance and obedience was also part of the equation if it were so important? He didn't and neither did any of the Apostles nor did Christ Himself.

As to your information on the Greek it is in error. He word for believing is in the present tense and is a participle. The word for born is in the indicative perfect and is translated as has been born. The one now believing has been in the past born. Therefore your whole argument is based on a false assumption and is not valid.

The question now is will you bow to the Scriptures?

 

[twin1954]

Moreover the Greek verb has little to do with time but is intended to relate kind of action. Therefore in the context of the sentence it speaks clearly as to why one believes.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Moreover the Greek verb has little to do with time but is intended to relate kind of action. Therefore in the context of the sentence it speaks clearly as to why one believes.

 

[DeaconDean]

Why would John not add to his statement that repentance and obedience was also part of the equation if it were so important? He didn't and neither did any of the Apostles nor did Christ Himself.

As to your information on the Greek it is in error. He word for believing is in the present tense and is a participle. The word for born is in the indicative perfect and is translated as has been born. The one now believing has been in the past born. Therefore your whole argument is based on a false assumption and is not valid.

The question now is will you bow to the Scriptures?

Nope!

You, I, and anybody else who has participated in this discussion are wrong. If only because we are Calvinists, and Calvinists are notorious for twisting scripture.

Yea...right.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[EmSw]

Why would John not add to his statement that repentance and obedience was also part of the equation if it were so important? He didn't and neither did any of the Apostles nor did Christ Himself.

As to your information on the Greek it is in error. He word for believing is in the present tense and is a participle. The word for born is in the indicative perfect and is translated as has been born. The one now believing has been in the past born. Therefore your whole argument is based on a false assumption and is not valid.

The question now is will you bow to the Scriptures?

Jesus did add tell us that repentance is before belief.

Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Mark 1:15
And saying, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

 

[ubicaritas]

The average evangelical sees the New Covenant as a lowered the bar of the law of God. He sees the OT God as a stickler for the rules, but the nice, gentle Jesus of the NT lets sin slide because He's a lot less uptight. The reality is that God has not lowered the standard. Not one bit.

We are not saved in the manner that most people imagine. We are saved by works - the works of Christ.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Mathew 5:17

The only way that God can be true to both His justice and His mercy is that, in Christ, He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died. His justice was poured out on the Son in order for His mercy to be poured out upon us.

It's good to see a Presbyterian focusing more on the Gospel. In my experience now days they tend to be more focused on the culture wars and moralism, and the Gospel gets lost in the mix.

 

[twin1954]

Jesus did add tell us that repentance is before belief.

Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Mark 1:15
And saying, the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Your mistake is to assume that the command ensures the ability. It doesn't. God commands all men everywhere to repent but only give the ability, by the new birth, to some. We must be born again in order to even see the Kingdom of God much less desire it unto repentance.

 

[EmSw]

Your mistake is to assume that the command ensures the ability. It doesn't. God commands all men everywhere to repent but only give the ability, by the new birth, to some. We must be born again in order to even see the Kingdom of God much less desire it unto repentance.

Nope, Jesus said repent and then believe in the Gospel. He wasn't talking to those who were born again.

 

[twin1954]

Of course He wasn't, why would He say repent to those who already have? That is utter nonsense.

No, He was speaking to the Jews who should have known the Gospel. But because they approached the Scriptures the same way you do they missed it. They failed to see the spiritual nature of truth. Hence the Sermon on the Mount and so many other sayings of Christ Jesus the Lord. Jesus said this and Jesus said that is pointless. What did He actually mean is the question. When you can find that you are at the beginning of the road to truth. The Scriptures were not written for the masses but for those who have the Spirit and revelation to grasp the meaning. Paul said in 1Cor. 1 that the natural man cannot even perceive the things of the Spirit neither can he know them. The natural man can read the Scriptures and understand the words and sentences but the truth he cannot grasp.

The natural man can derive doctrine, build churches and go to all the world with lies that come from not grasping the spiritual nature of the Scriptures and win many followers. But the man called and equipped and sent of God will find few who follow and gather, by God's sovereign grace, a small group that will understand and believe the Gospel.

The true people of God were never the majority in history. He gathers whom He will wherever He will and they all repent and believe. They can do nothing else

Sorry for the long post. Once I got started I could' stop.

 

[Si_monfaith]

The average evangelical sees the New Covenant as a lowered the bar of the law of God. He sees the OT God as a stickler for the rules, but the nice, gentle Jesus of the NT lets sin slide because He's a lot less uptight. The reality is that God has not lowered the standard. Not one bit.

We are not saved in the manner that most people imagine. We are saved by works - the works of Christ.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Mathew 5:17

The only way that God can be true to both His justice and His mercy is that, in Christ, He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died. His justice was poured out on the Son in order for His mercy to be poured out upon us.

Jesus fulfilled the humanly unfulfillable law and gave us eternal life as a free gift.

Do not despise the works of Jesus.

Repent.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus fulfilled the humanly unfulfillable law and gave us eternal life as a free gift.

Do not despise the works of Jesus.

Repent.

In Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire Law, so there have been countless humans who have done that.

 

[Si_monfaith]

In Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire Law, so there have been countless humans who have done that.

To love the neighbour is a gift from God and not a payment to earn eternal life.

Read Galatians 2:15, 16.

Jesus's works alone earn eternal life.

 

[Soyeong]

To love the neighbour is a gift from God and not a payment to earn eternal life.

Read Galatians 2:15, 16.

Jesus's works alone earn eternal life.

Countless people have fulfilled the Law, so fulfilling the law is not about making a payment to earn eternal life. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires, so the same grace and faith by which we are saved also leads us to fulfill the Law.