Works Relation to Salvation

[rturner76]

Hebrews 11 tells the circumcised what by faith means, likewise James 2:24, which is written to the 12 tribes (James 1:1).

In both passages, a corresponding work is required, as you have clearly stated.

Paul is an apostle to the gentiles (Romans 11:13), the uncircumcised, and tells us what through faith means, in passages like Romans 4:5, and Ephesians 2:8-9.

In both passages, salvation is clearly not of works.

Still confused after I present like that?

I only get confused when I think about it like is faith a work/deed? James also says that our works are evidence of our faith so does that apply to Jews only since you say it was written for the Jews? I didn't see any mention of faith in any context in Romans 11:13. Just that Paul was sent to the Gentiles. Are you saying that there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in the matter of works being the evidence of one's faith?

 

[Guojing]

I only get confused when I think about it like is faith a work/deed? James also says that our works are evidence of our faith so does that apply to Jews only since you say it was written for the Jews? I didn't see any mention of faith in any context in Romans 11:13. Just that Paul was sent to the Gentiles. Are you saying that there is a difference between Jews and Gentiles in the matter of works being the evidence of one's faith?

By Romans 3:30, yes

 

[HIM]

By Romans 3:30, yes

Out of faith and through the faith. What is the difference? Either way they establish the Law.

And what does this verse mean and how does it connect?
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is through faith of Jesus Christ into all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

 

[Studyman]

As I said, Hebrews 11 confirmed what "by faith" means to the circumcision, it requires corresponding action.

So I agree with you. The obvious cross reference verse to Hebrews 11 is James 2:24.

What I am saying is that "through faith" is distinct from "by faith". If there is no distinction, then Paul's statement in Romans 3:30 is redundant.

So yes, the Circumcised, that is those who have the Oracles of God, those who have heard Moses and the Prophets are justified by belief in those things they hear but have not seen. (FAITH, according to Hebrews) Whereas those who have yet to hear Moses and the Prophets, can be justified "Through" Belief of things they are to hear, but cannot see. (FAITH, according to Hebrews)

In the end, "Faith" means the same for both Jew and Gentile. At least this is what the Hebrews Author teaches. "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter" and again; "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace."

Same faith, but different DNA.

And the Apostles seem to be saying the same in Acts 15.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

This seems confirmed in the Words of the Lord's Christ Himself.

Towards the Jew: Matt. 9: 22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Towards the Gentile. Matt. 15: 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

There is a lot of Evidence which contradicts the religious philosophy you are promoting, that God treats men differently according to the DNA they were born with.

Although popular, it seems the Scriptures do not support this religious doctrine of men.

So if you look at Hebrews 11 that you referenced, it uses both the terms "Through Faith" and "By faith" for both Jew and Non-Jew. While there may be some difference in the definition of "Through" and "By", it is clear that "Faith" is defined the same for both.

It seems prudent that these Scriptures should be believed, or at least studied, even if they don't support a popular religious philosophy of this world.

 

[Guojing]

There is a lot of Evidence which contradicts the religious philosophy you are promoting, that God treats men differently according to the DNA they were born with.

I have already given you Romans 3:30.

 

[Guojing]

Out of faith and through the faith. What is the difference? Either way they establish the Law.

And what does this verse mean and how does it connect?
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is through faith of Jesus Christ into all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Romans 3:22 refers to the Body of Christ, where there is neither Jew nor gentile.

The previous verse 21, has the important term But now, which connects the 2 verses together.

So in time past, everyone has to be circumcised in order to be saved by faith.

But now, Jews and gentiles are saved through faith of Jesus Christ

 

[Studyman]

I have already given you Romans 3:30.

Taking one verse out of the Bible and separating it from all the rest of the Bible, might be a handy way to circumvent scriptures which bring a popular religious philosophy you are trying to preserve and promote into question. The Pharisees were good at doing this. But it doesn't, in my view, promote the truth of Scriptures. It only serves to justify a doctrine that can't stand if "Every word" of God is considered.

 

[Guojing]

Taking one verse out of the Bible and separating it from all the rest of the Bible, might be a handy way to circumvent scriptures which bring a popular religious philosophy you are trying to preserve and promote into question. The Pharisees were good at doing this. But it doesn't, in my view, promote the truth of Scriptures. It only serves to justify a doctrine that can't stand if "Every word" of God is considered.

I have provided many other verses to rturner.

If you want to jump in the middle of a discussion I am having with him, have the courtesy to at least read the rest of the discussion before you claimed that I took "one verse out of the Bible and separating it from all the rest of the Bible".

 

[HIM]

Romans 3:22 refers to the Body of Christ, where there is neither Jew nor gentile.

The previous verse 21, has the important term But now, which connects the 2 verses together.

So in time past, everyone has to be circumcised in order to be saved by faith.

But now, Jews and gentiles are saved through faith of Jesus Christ

THE faith of Jesus Christ not faith of Jesus Christ. The definite article is difinitely needed there.
For we are dead but live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live BY THE FAITH OF the Son of God who gave Himself for us.

 

[Guojing]

THE faith of Jesus Christ not faith of Jesus Christ. The definite article is difinitely needed there.
For we are dead but live. Yet not us but Christ lives in us and the life we now live in the flesh we live BY THE FAITH OF the Son of God who gave Himself for us.

Fair enough. Noah could not say that, but he had to build an ark to show he had faith in God, to be saved by faith, as what Hebrews 11 stated.

 

[Icyspark]

This is interesting to me, especially the "loss of salvation" part. I think I understand the correlation you are trying to make between what you do and your salvation. Your lack of love for Jesus is revealed when you break any of the 10 commandments physically or in your heart, and if you are saved at the time your lack of love is revealed, you immediately lose your salvation. Since according to Jesus, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matt 15:19)," you would have been better off to cut out your evil heart and go to heaven immediately, than to sin in your heart and be doomed to hell forever. That makes complete sense to me.

Hi B Griffin,

I'm not sure that you're quite understanding my position. However, it's possible that I may not be understanding yours either.

I don't believe sinning necessarily causes one to lose their salvation, but cherished sin is something which needs to be seriously examined. If one has cherished sin in their life then they should question whether they are truly "in the faith." We all certainly fall and need a Savior to pick us up and set us back o the straight and narrow path.

The question is whether we have Jesus Christ in us. How do you know if Jesus is in you? Paul says to test yourself to discover if He is in you and that it's possible to fail the test.

But what I don't understand is the path back to salvation once it is lost. Hebrews 10:26-27 says, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." Is salvation a one-shot deal? Lose it and you're done? If there is a path back what is the path back? I'm just curious because no matter how hard I try, and even though I'm very successful at resisting sin, I find that I still make bad decisions on occasion, stumble and sin. Hopefully you have just as solid an answer for the pathway to restoration as you do for the pathway to Hell.

As long as there is life, there is hope. People who reject Christ are certainly no longer "in the faith." That doesn't mean they are beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit. Many people who were once Christians have become former Christians. But though they reject Jesus as their Savior they can still be grafted back into the olive tree that is Jesus.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had a death in the family and have been preoccupied.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Guojing]

But what I don't understand is the path back to salvation once it is lost. Hebrews 10:26-27 says, "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." Is salvation a one-shot deal? Lose it and you're done? If there is a path back what is the path back? I'm just curious because no matter how hard I try, and even though I'm very successful at resisting sin, I find that I still make bad decisions on occasion, stumble and sin. Hopefully you have just as solid an answer for the pathway to restoration as you do for the pathway to Hell.

Think of that warning as valid during the Great Tribulation, where if you accept the mark of the beast then, there is no way back to salvation.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Think of that warning as valid during the Great Tribulation, where if you accept the mark of the beast then, there is no way back to salvation.

Are you saying the great tribulation is the only circumstance in which Hebrews 10:36-37 applies, or are you saying it is one of the many circumstances in which it applies?

 

[Guojing]

Are you saying the great tribulation is the only circumstance in which Hebrews 10:36-37 applies, or are you saying it is one of the many circumstances in which it applies?

Well, I am saying it does not apply to the Body of Christ for sure. There is a very good reason why that letter is titled "Hebrews".

 

[Studyman]

Think of that warning as valid during the Great Tribulation, where if you accept the mark of the beast then, there is no way back to salvation.

The religious teaching that the Beast and its mark only exists at the end of the world, though popular among this world's religious sects and franchises of this world, is certainly not Scriptural. The belief that Jesus didn't go through a great tribulation in His Life, such as had never happened before to Him, doesn't make any sense. Stephen most certainly went through the greatest tribulation of his life, and yet didn't receive the mark of the beast.

John 16: 31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe? 32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. 33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Imagine if Stephen was here in the USA today. What would he see? Images of some random handsome long-haired man "many" worship as God, on billboards and manmade shrines of worship in every city in this land. A Government who puts, "In God we trust" on its money, while promoting the protection of "minor attracted individuals". High days created by ancient sunworshippers who placed the Name of Jesus on them to increase their power over others. God's Sabbaths mocked and completely rejected by "many" who come in His Name, who preach that the Jesus of the Bible is the prophesied Christ.

Tribulation was certainly bad in Steven's time. God came to the mainstream preachers of his time, telling them the truth and they killed their own God. That's pretty bad, such as had never happened before. But I know Stephen would look at our world and declare it was a Great tribulation such as this world has never seen.

Rev. 7: 13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? 14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Rev. 20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

To preach that Stephen was not a man who came out of the great tribulation, and refused to worship the beast of his time, is foolishness.

Isn't the mark of the beast "deception"? And isn't it, according to the Jesus of the Bible, the "Truth" that sets us free?

Therefore it is written;

Rev. 18: 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

How angry and anguished will men be when God shows them that they rejected His teaching, and adopted the religions and Philosophies of this world, and waited for a Tribulation and the mark of a beast their whole lives, that was already there?


Luke 13: 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

First, let me say I'm sorry for your loss. My prayers are with you.

Hi B Griffin,

I'm not sure that you're quite understanding my position. However, it's possible that I may not be understanding yours either.

I was trying to repeat accurately your position, I wasn't stating my own position

I don't believe sinning necessarily causes one to lose their salvation, but cherished sin is something which needs to be seriously examined. If one has cherished sin in their life then they should question whether they are truly "in the faith." We all certainly fall and need a Savior to pick us up and set us back o the straight and narrow path.

This is a bit different than what's in the OP. Here, you are saying that saved people sin and need a Savior. The OP asks us to correlate our salvation with our works. My questions were meant to draw out whether you actually thought our salvation was dependent on our works or whether you thought our salvation was dependent on the Savior forgiving our sins. Here, it appears that you have thrown the OP's proposition out the window in favor of grace that covers all our sins. The OP was in opposition to my beliefs, but this new angle is in line with my beliefs.

The question is whether we have Jesus Christ in us. How do you know if Jesus is in you? Paul says to test yourself to discover if He is in you and that it's possible to fail the test.
As long as there is life, there is hope. People who reject Christ are certainly no longer "in the faith." That doesn't mean they are beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit. Many people who were once Christians have become former Christians. But though they reject Jesus as their Savior they can still be grafted back into the olive tree that is Jesus.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had a death in the family and have been preoccupied.

Again, I'm sorry for your loss, and my prayers are with you.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Well, I am saying it does not apply to the Body of Christ for sure. There is a very good reason why that letter is titled "Hebrews".

fair enough

 

[Guojing]

The religious teaching that the Beast and its mark only exists at the end of the world, though popular among this world's religious sects and franchises of this world, is certainly not Scriptural.

It is in Revelation

 

[Studyman]

It is in Revelation

No It’s not. It’s in your adopted religion. Not Scripture. That is why you can’t acknowledge or discuss what is actually written in any meaningful way.

It’s ok that you do. Religion has a history of powerful influence and it’s perfectly natural for religious men to defend their doctrines and traditions.

It just seems prudent to examine what is actually written in the search of Biblical truth given all the warnings of deceptions and doctrines of men.

 

[Guojing]

No It’s not. It’s in your adopted religion. Not Scripture. That is why you can’t acknowledge or discuss what is actually written in any meaningful way.

It’s ok that you do. Religion has a history of powerful influence and it’s perfectly natural for religious men to defend their doctrines and traditions.

It just seems prudent to examine what is actually written in the search of Biblical truth given all the warnings of deceptions and doctrines of men.

I am saying it is found in scripture, it is just not in-line with your particular understanding of scripture. =)